Artist hit for refusal on beliefs

[stephanie]

By Pete Vere
February 25, 2008
An evangelical Christian photographer was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M., declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the commission to be adjudicated.

Vanessa Willock sought an injunction to prohibit Mrs. Huguenin and her business, Elane Photography, from declining any future request to photograph a same-sex ceremony. The agency agreed to hear Miss Willock's complaint, the latest case brought before tribunals in the U.S. and Canada that free-speech advocates say threaten expression across North America.

read the rest..
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015

[Gaffer]

That's outrageous, she has every right to refuse to do the job. I would refuse too. And I'd tell the review board where they can put their recommendations. They don't like how I do business, come and get me. And bring a heavily armed force when you do.

:pee: faggots

[actsnoblemartin]

Look at these liberals faggots: they want to force christians and anyone who doesnt agree with them to violate their religious beliefs and personal convictions just to appease them again this is what i mean when i say the cultural left wants to intellectual rape people who dont agree with them


By Pete Vere
February 25, 2008
An evangelical Christian photographer was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M., declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the commission to be adjudicated.

Vanessa Willock sought an injunction to prohibit Mrs. Huguenin and her business, Elane Photography, from declining any future request to photograph a same-sex ceremony. The agency agreed to hear Miss Willock's complaint, the latest case brought before tribunals in the U.S. and Canada that free-speech advocates say threaten expression across North America.

read the rest..
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015

[manu1959]

hey if abu can refuse to sell bacon at his quickie mart or let people in his taxi with booze....then a christian can refuse to take pictures of sin...

[actsnoblemartin]

fine with me.


hey if abu can refuse to sell bacon at his quickie mart or let people in his taxi with booze....then a christian can refuse to take pictures of sin...

[actsnoblemartin]

fine with me.

You dont like how i run my cab, store, or company, get the fuck out :slap: and stop whining like a little bitch, cause i didnt kiss your carpet munching ass


hey if abu can refuse to sell bacon at his quickie mart or let people in his taxi with booze....then a christian can refuse to take pictures of sin...

[diuretic]

I think scalps can go back where they belong - it hasn't been decided yet has it? :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

I think scalps can go back where they belong - it hasn't been decided yet has it? :laugh2:

it shouldn't have to be. A person should be allowed to turn down business if they don't want it.

[DragonStryk72]

By Pete Vere
February 25, 2008
An evangelical Christian photographer was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M., declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the commission to be adjudicated.

Vanessa Willock sought an injunction to prohibit Mrs. Huguenin and her business, Elane Photography, from declining any future request to photograph a same-sex ceremony. The agency agreed to hear Miss Willock's complaint, the latest case brought before tribunals in the U.S. and Canada that free-speech advocates say threaten expression across North America.

read the rest..
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015

Okay, my view on gay marriage basically breaks down to somewhat of a joke: If you don't like, don't marry them.

However, that said, it is completely wrong to get the government involved in this. These people haven't disparaged them, they haven't tried to get the union stopped, they simply declined to be there for it, and that's fine in my book. There is no reason that it should involve anything more than the offended couple going to their friends and telling them about the business. An effective boycott would work so much better than this crap.

[diuretic]

it shouldn't have to be. A person should be allowed to turn down business if they don't want it.

That's fine as a normative statement. But since this case is before some sort of tribunal and it will be decided with reference to the law as it exists then the law will take its course. That was my point.

I agree a larger point is whether or not someone who offers goods and/or services to the general public should be permitted to refuse to supply goods and/or service to individuals based on a personal belief system. I understand the competing ideas contained in that situation and frankly I'm in two minds about it. I'd be interested to read the arguments.

[avatar4321]

That's fine as a normative statement. But since this case is before some sort of tribunal and it will be decided with reference to the law as it exists then the law will take its course. That was my point.

I agree a larger point is whether or not someone who offers goods and/or services to the general public should be permitted to refuse to supply goods and/or service to individuals based on a personal belief system. I understand the competing ideas contained in that situation and frankly I'm in two minds about it. I'd be interested to read the arguments.

and my point, and the point of others, is it is completely ridiculous to bring it before a tribunal. People have the freedom to not associate or do business with others if they so choose. And forcing them to is paramount to slavery.

This is also a clear illustration of why gay marriage, or even civil unions, should not be sanctioned. Because the purpose of sanctioning them isn't to be together. It's to have some basis of law to persecute those who don't agree with them. Mark my words, if gay marriage is ever passed, you will see every person who dares speak out against it persecuted.

[stephanie]

When our country has "tribunals" set up for speech, discrimination, hanging a friggin noose, or any other bullshit someone wants to accuse you of.....and halled before some kangaroo court for no justification...

Then we might as well be living like some countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc....Because we have totally given up our rights willingly and have become slaves to the state...

And from where I sit.....that looks exactly where we are headed...

Very sad....

[diuretic]

and my point, and the point of others, is it is completely ridiculous to bring it before a tribunal. People have the freedom to not associate or do business with others if they so choose. And forcing them to is paramount to slavery.

This is also a clear illustration of why gay marriage, or even civil unions, should not be sanctioned. Because the purpose of sanctioning them isn't to be together. It's to have some basis of law to persecute those who don't agree with them. Mark my words, if gay marriage is ever passed, you will see every person who dares speak out against it persecuted.

The problem with your point is that it's entirely possible that someone could be refused all goods and all services if that person happened to live in a community where all the goods and service providers disagreed with who/what they were. Would that be fair?

[diuretic]

When our country has "tribunals" set up for speech, discrimination, hanging a friggin noose, or any other bullshit someone wants to accuse you of.....and halled before some kangaroo court for no justification...

Then we might as well be living like some countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc....Because we have totally given up our rights willingly and have become slaves to the state...

And from where I sit.....that looks exactly where we are headed...

Very sad....

The tribunals at Guantanamo stephanie.

Welcome to your nightmare.

[stephanie]

The tribunals at Guantanamo Stephanie.

Welcome to your nightmare.


My dear........you know we are not talking about the military here...

and why you would want to interject this into this thread is beyond me...

You all have a military that fights right along our side, so I don't see your point, and am dissapointed...

[diuretic]

My dear........you know we are not talking about the military here...

and why you would want to interject this into this thread is beyond me...

You all have a military that fights right along our side, so I don't see your point, and am dissapointed...

The tribunals aren't just for the military stephanie, they're the kangaroo courts you mention. They're set up to deal with people snatched from various places around the world and brought not to the US but to Cuba for incarceration and presentation at the kangaroo courts. It's not fiction, it's happening.

And while that's going on, while people are being snatched and flown to Guantanamo some folks are in high dudgeon about a photographer who may be forced to take pictures of a same-sex wedding.

I suppose a photographer understands "perspective" at least.

[stephanie]

The tribunals aren't just for the military Stephanie, they're the kangaroo courts you mention. They're set up to deal with people snatched from various places around the world and brought not to the US but to Cuba for incarceration and presentation at the kangaroo courts. It's not fiction, it's happening.

And while that's going on, while people are being snatched and flown to Guantanamo some folks are in high dudgeon about a photographer who may be forced to take pictures of a same-sex wedding.

I suppose a photographer understands "perspective" at least.


Then I suppose if there is proof of all this, your government and evey other government who knows about it should expose it....

Why isn't that happening as we speak??

[diuretic]

Guantanamo is an open sore stephanie.

http://tinyurl.com/2o89o4

[stephanie]

Guantanamo is an open sore Stephanie.

http://tinyurl.com/2o89o4

Yes it can be my dear...but that is for another thread...

We are talking about bringing charges against a private company who refused to do a business with who they wished not to..

Just like a bar has the right not to serve someone if they feel they are too drunk, a private business has the right to not do a business for a person...but just because that person feels their special for some reason and demands it..... they bring charges up into a kangaroo court that really has no jurisdictions in our court system to begin with....get it??:cheers2::laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

The problem with your point is that it's entirely possible that someone could be refused all goods and all services if that person happened to live in a community where all the goods and service providers disagreed with who/what they were. Would that be fair?

I cannot think of a definition of religious persecution which would not include being required to go to court to defend yourself simply for practicing your religious beliefs.......

[diuretic]

Yes it can be my dear...but that is for another thread...

We are talking about bringing charges against a private company who refused to do a business with who they wished not to..

Just like a bar has the right not to serve someone if they feel they are too drunk, a private business has the right to not do a business for a person...but just because that person feels their special for some reason and demands it..... they bring charges up into a kangaroo court that really has no jurisdictions in our court system to begin with....get it??:cheers2::laugh2:

If I went to a Jewish business and they refused to do business with me because I was a gentile, should they be able to do that?

(On the issue of Guantanamo, trust me, your government after Bush/Cheney has a nightmare on its hands, but that's for another thread).

[trobinett]

How a simple refusal to take pictures, can escalate to a civil rights debate is completely ridiculous.

How diuretic can then use terrorist housed at Guantanamo to support those, that have brought these charges is not only ridiculous but :lame2:

Carry on..........:slap:

[Monkeybone]

wanna force me to take pics? then fine, they'll be the worst pictures that you ever seen. think that i was having seizures or drunk when i took them. of course, then probably get sued for that too.

this is sad. someone doesn't wanna do it, then get another photographer? or is it just better to drag this out and force someone against their will to do it? and i think that this goes along with the right to serve someone in your business. shouldn't be forcing someone to participate in something that they think is wrong.

[avatar4321]

If I went to a Jewish business and they refused to do business with me because I was a gentile, should they be able to do that?

(On the issue of Guantanamo, trust me, your government after Bush/Cheney has a nightmare on its hands, but that's for another thread).

Yeah of course. Why shouldnt they be allowed to?

[Little-Acorn]

This happened in New Mexico.

The photographer could have said, "Sorry, I only photograph weddings, and in this state that's not what your ceremony is".

With this Human "Rights" Commission's fear of the gay lobby, though, that probably woundn't have flown for long.

[diuretic]

Yeah of course. Why shouldnt they be allowed to?

You're okay with a business that refuses to deal with a potential customer on the basis of religious discrimination?

Not much I can say to that really.

[5stringJeff]

You're okay with a business that refuses to deal with a potential customer on the basis of religious discrimination?

Not much I can say to that really.

I'm OK with businesses refusing to do business with anyone for any reason. Of course, the business owner runs the risk of fewer profits or a bad reputation, but in the end, it ought to be his decision.

[avatar4321]

You're okay with a business that refuses to deal with a potential customer on the basis of religious discrimination?

Not much I can say to that really.

i believe in economic freedom. I dont think people should be forced to work for or with people they don't want to.

[diuretic]

But what if we all did it? What if we lived in a society where goods and services could be refused on the basis of the business owner's personal prejudicies (or you can use the more neutral "views" if you like).

I might walk into a bar owned by an Asian proprietor who tells me to leave because I'm white. Is that acceptable?

If I go to a pharmacist to get my medicines and the pharmacist tells me to go away because he won't serve gentiles?

What would it be like for all of us living in a society like that?

Is that an acceptable way to live?

[trobinett]

But what if we all did it? What if we lived in a society where goods and services could be refused on the basis of the business owner's personal prejudicies (or you can use the more neutral "views" if you like).

I might walk into a bar owned by an Asian proprietor who tells me to leave because I'm white. Is that acceptable?

If I go to a pharmacist to get my medicines and the pharmacist tells me to go away because he won't serve gentiles?

What would it be like for all of us living in a society like that?

Is that an acceptable way to live?

Oh, I think you can answer that lame ass question yourself diuretic.

Walk into any establishment you wish, ask something ridiculous, and they have every right to tell you to take a hike.

You push forward the most ridiculous arguments.:slap:

[stephanie]

But what if we all did it? What if we lived in a society where goods and services could be refused on the basis of the business owner's personal prejudices (or you can use the more neutral "views" if you like).

I might walk into a bar owned by an Asian proprietor who tells me to leave because I'm white. Is that acceptable?

If I go to a pharmacist to get my medicines and the pharmacist tells me to go away because he won't serve gentiles?

What would it be like for all of us living in a society like that?

Is that an acceptable way to live?

Dear....this was a Privately owned photography shop, not a grocery store, clothing store or any of that....

Now...supposed you owned the photography shop and some people wanted you to photograph humans and animals doing weird things together.....Would you do it because you wouldn't want to discriminate against them ?????:poke:

sheesh,all this couple had to do was find another photography shop, but no, they wanted to raise a big stink over it...

[diuretic]

Oh, I think you can answer that lame ass question yourself diuretic.

Walk into any establishment you wish, ask something ridiculous, and they have every right to tell you to take a hike.

You push forward the most ridiculous arguments.:slap:

Don't let the subtlety upset you so much t. Just glide on by old son.

[diuretic]

Dear....this was a Privately owned photography shop, not a grocery store, clothing store or any of that....

Now...supposed you owned the photography shop and some people wanted you to photograph humans and animals doing weird things together.....Would you do it because you wouldn't want to discriminate against them ?????:poke:

sheesh,all this couple had to do was find another photography shop, but no, they wanted to raise a big stink over it...

As opposed to a privately owned grocery store, a privately owned clothing store?

Fair point on the unlawful acts and even on the lawful acts. If a couple wanted a photographer to take photos of them having sex then (assuming the proposed acts are lawful and the parties of age) I'd agree, a photographer shouldn't be required to comply. No problem there.

Yeah, I know they only had to find another photographer but I can understand the couple being pretty upset by the refusal. I mean, it's a sort of slap in the face. I suppose photographers will have to advertise "Bigoted" and "Non-bigoted". :laugh2:

Anyway, no-one has yet addressed my question, come on, hop to it :coffee:

[Sitarro]

But what if we all did it? What if we lived in a society where goods and services could be refused on the basis of the business owner's personal prejudicies (or you can use the more neutral "views" if you like).

I might walk into a bar owned by an Asian proprietor who tells me to leave because I'm white. Is that acceptable?

If I go to a pharmacist to get my medicines and the pharmacist tells me to go away because he won't serve gentiles?

What would it be like for all of us living in a society like that?

Is that an acceptable way to live?

I am so very disappointed with the caliber of this post, i expect so very much more from you.

As for the job, I would have charged them so much that I would be disqualified or at least paid very well for shooting a bunch of dipshits. That wasn't their point though, they could have easily gone to the ''queer yellow pages''all major cities have them) and found the photographer that would have been best suited for the job. They wanted publicity and a test case, I wouldn't doubt that they looked for a Christian just for that reason. Many Christians will identify themselves in their ads in one way or another and I would bet that is what they looked for. They are jerks, screw them.

[diuretic]

What if a gay photography business refused a heterosexual wedding? Should be be allowed to send the couple away like that?

[stephanie]

What if a gay photography business refused a heterosexual wedding? Should be be allowed to send the couple away like that?

Yes they CAN...who cares.....find another one...

I give up...:slap:

[Kathianne]

and my point, and the point of others, is it is completely ridiculous to bring it before a tribunal. People have the freedom to not associate or do business with others if they so choose. And forcing them to is paramount to slavery.

This is also a clear illustration of why gay marriage, or even civil unions, should not be sanctioned. Because the purpose of sanctioning them isn't to be together. It's to have some basis of law to persecute those who don't agree with them. Mark my words, if gay marriage is ever passed, you will see every person who dares speak out against it persecuted.

I agree. It's one thing to refuse business on the basis of race. It's another to force a business to run their business in ways that the owner doesn't wish to:

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=18

It seems to me unconstitutional to say a bar or restaurant cannot allow smoking. How many states have now taken away that right?

[diuretic]

Bueller? Bueller?

Anyone?

But my questions........

Oh bugger it, I'll watch tv then :laugh2: