The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Religious Rights or Gay Rights?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    So true from both the left and the right. What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people? Wouldn't that be refreshing for a change! BTW, the photog has every right to turn down a gig he doesn't want. Forced association is unConstitutional.
    Freedom of Religion and Association are Bill of Rights pillars. This is happening in Spokane (I think... somewhere in Washington anyhow) involving a baker. It's got to go through the federal courts. All that is lacking is a pro-bono outfit to take it up.

  2. #12
    Senior Member GaryJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    What if instead people just decided they didn't know what was best for other people?
    I would like to know how that would work.
    Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

    What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Seriously. Did this photographer do anything to this couple except live and let live? Did the Boy Scouts do anything except be the same organization they'd been for a century? Are pastors in Canadian churches who are hauled in front of civil rights tribunals for preaching historic Christian doctrine doing anything to hurt gays? No. No. and No. You can take it to the bank. This is naked intimidation and coercion. That couple didn't want pictures. They wanted a Christian to submit to their whims.
    Last edited by 1tulip; 08-23-2013 at 10:47 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Pulled this off of Hotair.com

    Lawyer for New Mexico photographer: Forcing her to work at a gay wedding violates her right of free expression


    posted at 4:21 pm on August 23, 2013 by Allahpundit






    The comments to Jazzís post this morning have been raging all day so I figured thereíd be interest in hearing directly from her spokesman. Most people, me included, approach this issue from the standpoint of free exercise of religion. If she disapproves of gay marriage because of her faith and the state tells her to ignore her faith and work the wedding anyway, well, then, free exercise ainít as free as one would think. But thatís probably a nonstarter; read Dale Carpenterís post at the Volokh Conspiracy to see why. He, Eugene Volokh, and the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in this case siding with the photographer ó but free exercise was one of their minor arguments. Under Supreme Court precedent, as long as a law isnít deliberately targeted at religion, you canít plead free exercise if it happens to interfere with your religion. The New Mexico Supreme Court found that the stateís antidiscrimination law isnít targeted, so thatís that.

    But what about a free speech claim instead? Photography isnít just any olí profession, says Carpenter. Itís an art, and art necessarily involves expression, in which case we have a problem. Rod Dreher elaborates:


    There is simply no way not to see photography as an art. The New Mexico court disagreed. New Mexico does not have same-sex marriage; the ruling was not on marriage law, but anti-discrimination law. Still, the importance of this ruling is that itís another example of courts establishing in jurisprudence that homosexuality is exactly like race for purposes of non-discrimination ó that is, that the only reason to discriminate against homosexuals is irrational animus, as the US Supreme Court has been holding.

    I would have granted First Amendment protection to an artist wishing to discriminate on the basis of race, or any other protected category. To compel a writer, photographer, painter, composer, or what have you, to put her talent into the service of something that violates their conscience is a serious wrong. If a gay photographer believed in good conscience that he could not photograph the wedding of Christian fundamentalists, then I think he absolutely should have the right to refuse, on First Amendment grounds.

    When I worked as an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, from time to time I had to write editorials taking a position I didnít believe in, because that was the boardís decision. That was fine; it was part of the job. But I told my editor early on that I could not, in conscience, write an editorial supporting abortion rights, which the paper backs.

    Maybe thatís a potential compromise position for the U.S. Supreme Court. Mundane professions have no constitutional exemption from an antidiscrimination law, but a profession that involves a viewpoint ó literally, in the case of photography ó gets First Amendment protection. Thatís not a ruling thatíd satisfy everyone, but itíd at least vindicate the principle that you canít be compelled to adopt anotherís perspective, even if youíre being compensated for it.

    Iím honestly surprised that thereís no serious movement afoot to pass a constitutional amendment that would build a broader right of religious conscientious objection into the Free Exercise Clause. Thereís massive support for the photographerís position, per Rasmussenís poll last month. Social conservative leaders like Mike Huckabee occasionally mention the Federal Marriage Amendment, but thatís going nowhere given solid opposition on the left and federalist opposition among the libertarian right. Thereíd be opposition to this one too, of course ó gay-rights supporters would warn that a right of conscientious freedom would lead to people claiming exemption from all sorts of laws, and theyíd probably seize the opportunity to push for some sort of offsetting constitutional amendment for gay marriage. Still, though: 85 percent support for the photographer in the Ras poll. And the more people learn the specifics of this case, how the gay couple sued her even though theyíd found another photographer and then won attorneyís fees from her(!) on top of it, the more sympathetic theyíll be. This is where the political action will be come 2016 in pushing back against gay marriage, I expect.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,785

    Default

    Its OK to shove perversions down peoples throat[no pun intended} but its not OK to mention God unless your behind closed doors. Funny how it used to be the opposite.

    according to God ,,its pretty sick behavior,,,God didn't invent it ,,,perverted minds made it acceptable behavior. This world distorts good and glorifies the crap.

    Hate the sin but love the sinner. The results are very destructive to the family unit. And the family is the strength of a nation.

    oops ,,,sorry I said the word 'God" didn't mean to offend any one.

    Pete
    Last edited by Pete; 08-24-2013 at 04:17 PM.
    John 5 :30
    I can of my own self do nothing ,as I hear , I judge,,and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will,,but the will of the father which hath sent me
    John 7:16 -- Jesus answered them and said my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
    mark 16:9 -- So then after the lord had spoken unto them,he was received up in heaven, and sat on the right hand of God
    I Tim. 2:5 --For there is one God and one mediator between God and man ,, the man Christ Jesus

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,045

    Default


  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,785

    Default

    Ha ha he he
    Actually I don't understand ,,,can you explain.
    Ah yes the Vicar of Christ
    here is a neat little ditty,,how many ways can you define him.

    More than likely just an incredible amount of coincidences,,,probably doesn't mean any thing.

    Pete



    John 5 :30
    I can of my own self do nothing ,as I hear , I judge,,and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will,,but the will of the father which hath sent me
    John 7:16 -- Jesus answered them and said my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
    mark 16:9 -- So then after the lord had spoken unto them,he was received up in heaven, and sat on the right hand of God
    I Tim. 2:5 --For there is one God and one mediator between God and man ,, the man Christ Jesus

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Ha ha he he
    Actually I don't understand ,,,can you explain.
    Ah yes the Vicar of Christ
    here is a neat little ditty,,how many ways can you define him.

    More than likely just an incredible amount of coincidences,,,probably doesn't mean any thing.

    Pete
    If this comment was in regards to my post, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing your not Catholic.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,785

    Default

    If this comment was in regards to my post, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing your not Catholic.
    Born and raised actually. Unfortunately biblical research took me in a different direction. My whole family is and I love them and think only the best of them and any other catholic that keeps God in their heart and strive to do what is Godly.. God looks on the heart and not the denomination. Judas Iscariot was once a great man ,,then he fell and didn't get back up,,,,Paul was once a Son of a bitch that had christians murdered and then repented and became one of the most influential men in the bible

    Pete
    John 5 :30
    I can of my own self do nothing ,as I hear , I judge,,and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will,,but the will of the father which hath sent me
    John 7:16 -- Jesus answered them and said my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
    mark 16:9 -- So then after the lord had spoken unto them,he was received up in heaven, and sat on the right hand of God
    I Tim. 2:5 --For there is one God and one mediator between God and man ,, the man Christ Jesus

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Born and raised actually. Unfortunately biblical research took me in a different direction. My whole family is and I love them and think only the best of them and any other catholic that keeps God in their heart and strive to do what is Godly.. God looks on the heart and not the denomination. Judas Iscariot was once a great man ,,then he fell and didn't get back up,,,,Paul was once a Son of a bitch that had christians murdered and then repented and became one of the most influential men in the bible

    Pete
    Then you heard that Francis put the church in a tale spin on this issue very recently with a few simply words.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •