Keep this handy. State thuggery continues in the name of "equality."
If it were me, my smart-alec nature would compel me to take the ugliest photos imaginable. The most hideous light. The worst angles. I would explore my creative side in making the worst possible photos imaginable.
Not very principled, but it would be fun.
4 comments:
If you think about it, if they rule this any other way it can start a pretty slippery slope. If wedding photographers can refuse a wedding based on orientation, can restaurants refuse to hold the reception. Then could hotels refuse to book rooms for the honeymoon? At that point you are violating a pretty old and clear law about providing discriminatory services.
The law first came up to protect African Americans who were widely prohibited from hotels and restaurants in the South. It was extended to include other services later, and later was extended over other groups including homosexuals.
There is a difference between a priest or church refusing to officiate a wedding, and a service provider such as a photographer. If a Church officiates a homosexual wedding, this would directly condone that union. This is against the church teaching and is a protected act. However, photographers do not provide legitimacy to a wedding, they provide photographs. There is no Christian teaching I am aware of that states, "refuse to take pictures of homosexuals" or, "do not provide any services to people who you think are in sin".
In all likelihood this couple will not use this photographer. They probably just want the rule on the books so larger organizations can not categorically refuse service to homosexuals on moral grounds. Honestly, treating anyone like a pariah also is not going to help teach them about Christ's love, so it really goes against your main purpose. You do not have to personally condone everyone's actions, but you should try very hard not to judge them for their sins.
JC #2
"If you think about it, if they rule this any other way it can start a pretty slippery slope. If wedding photographers can refuse a wedding based on orientation, can restaurants refuse to hold the reception. Then could hotels refuse to book rooms for the honeymoon?"
Yes to all. In principle a business should be able to refuse service. You can make an argument for utilities, as they provide services closer to the common good in terms of necessity.
"The law first came up to protect African Americans who were widely prohibited from hotels and restaurants in the South."
Whatever historical value such laws had is dwarfed by modern abuse. It is time to revisit such laws.
"There is no Christian teaching I am aware of that states, "refuse to take pictures of homosexuals" or, "do not provide any services to people who you think are in sin". "
I am very surprised as this falls under the concept of giving scandal. Not only would the Christian, by her presense, granting legitimacy but benefiting from what is an evil act.
"Honestly, treating anyone like a pariah also is not going to help teach them about Christ's love"
False comparision. The photographer is fighting for her right to choose her clients.
"You do not have to personally condone everyone's actions, but you should try very hard not to judge them for their sins."
She is judging the actions, not the person. ANd she does not want to participate as that would result in her participating in an evil act. A true Christian would rather die than participate in evil.
"In principle a business should be able to refuse service."
Yes they should, except on grounds of discrimination. If she refused to take pictures of an inter-racial wedding because it violated her morals it would be clear to you that she was wrong. Businesses can refuse everyone a service (for example she could refuse to cover any wedding held on the sabbath), but can not pick and choose groups of people to specifically deny service. This would legally allow widespread discrimination.
"Whatever historical value such laws had is dwarfed by modern abuse."
Perhaps you should re-examine this issue. Whatever modern abuse you claim (over the last decade or so) must be weighed against a century of oppression whose effects still haunt and divide this country. These laws were made for a reason.
"Not only would the Christian, by her presense, granting legitimacy but benefiting from what is an evil act."
She does not have to accept the wedding without protest. It would be reasonable for her to say "As a catholic, I do not believe in homosexual unions, so I might not be your best choice. However, if you still want my service I will try and do the best job photographing your event that I can." Furthermore, her presence as a photographer does not legitimize the union - it just documents the event occurred. Lastly, if she feels so compelled, she does not have to financially benefit from the event, she can instead choose to have her fee given to charity.
"She is judging the actions, not the person."
OK, I will agree with that argument and it does make it better, but still not acceptable. The bible is very clear in saying that none of us measure up to standard, and that all of our actions fall short. Should she refuse to take pictures of clients who plan to use birth control after marriage? Should she refuse to take pictures of weddings where one (or both) of the clients has been divorced? In both these examples she would be judging their actions and refusing service based on moral grounds, but in neither example will she be helping make those people better Christians.
"A true Christian would rather die than participate in evil."
This argument makes sense to me if we are arguing if the photographer should herself participate in a homosexual union (by marrying someone of the same sex). It does not make sense to me in the context of her documenting an event.
"I am very surprised as this falls under the concept of giving scandal."
You have me at a loss, what is the concept of giving scandal?
This is a very interesting discussion.
JC #2
"Yes they should, except on grounds of discrimination."
This is essentially the equivalent of a thought crime. I'm very uncomfortable with the state regulating peoples' heads. There is no compelling purpose beyond attempting to coerce those who hold different moral views. The "couple" is not deprived of the service per se. They can find another photographer.
"Whatever modern abuse you claim (over the last decade or so) must be weighed against a century of oppression whose effects still haunt and divide this country."
Yet the laws no longer affect the change that it supposedly is attempting to, and what is worse, is now being used as a club to enforce ideologies. A law that prohibits the free exercise of religion (which includes the public sphere) is an unjust law and a violation of the First.
"Furthermore, her presence as a photographer does not legitimize the union - it just documents the event occurred. Lastly, if she feels so compelled, she does not have to financially benefit from the event, she can instead choose to have her fee given to charity."
Your solution essentially forces her to be a servant to an event she holds to be an act of evil. This is a violation of her conscience. To put her in this situation dehumanizes her. She is now a slave to these people, either forced to provide a service that she makes a living off of or give up participating in the public sphere. A second class citizen. that is not freedom. It is a tyranny of the minority.
"OK, I will agree with that argument and it does make it better, but still not acceptable."
We all make moral judgments. Even this is a moral judgement. It is in effect a legislation of morality. And just because it is not "acceptable" does not entail it should be illegal.
"Should she refuse to take pictures of clients who plan to use birth control after marriage?"
False comparison. Gay "marriage" essentially means a public statement to live in sin. Contraception requires a knowledge on the part of the photographer that, unless she somehow had prior knowledge, would have no way of knowing.
"It does not make sense to me in the context of her documenting an event."
Her very presence bears a false testimony. She is a wedding photographer to my knowledge. But if she isn't by profession she is there in that capacity.
"You have me at a loss, what is the concept of giving scandal?"
As Christians we have the duty to avoid confusion whenever possible regarding the truth. This means that we, by our actions, do not (within reason) give the appearance of participating in sin. The photographer, by participating in the gay "wedding" in a capacity of photographing the wedding, would be giving scandal by presenting the idea that the gay "wedding" is not immoral.
Post a Comment