|
Author
|
Topic: New Mexico commission orders $6,000 fine for Christian beliefs
|
Isaiah
Advanced Member
Member # 6699
|
posted
I believe this judgment was quite in error and accomplished the opposite of its intent -promoting discrimination and conflict, and denying rights rather than protecting reasonable rights. I do not believe this was discrimination by the business owners at all, but persons not wanting to promote something in which they did not believe -which should be part of their freedom of religion -as this seems not a malicious act, but an act based on personal religious belief. This was not a refusal to provide goods or services or accomodation necessary for health or survival -which would certainly be wrong -but it was a luxury.
For instance... If one of the persons who were to be photographed were to apply for a job with the same company, that person's sexual orientation should not be a consideration for employment. I think this is law now -and I am -or would be -for it -as such would be discrimination. HOWEVER, that person should respect the company and the owner of the company should be able to request that views contrary to their own not be promoted during work hours or on their premises. This is quite fair. As far as I know, most consider it professional to keep any sort of sexual reference or displays of affection out of the workplace (I'm not even considering the so-called "adult" industry) -even in companies which deal in sex-related things. Such could also lead to real or perceived problems regarding sexual harassment laws.
Would those who were to be photographed -having their own shop of some sort -and having heard that these others disagreed with their lifestyle -have no feelings or reaction at all when they walked into their store? Perhaps -perhaps not -but something to think about. Should they have the right -or might some demand it -to refuse to photograph, say... an anti-gay protest for someone who would use the photographs
to promote disagreement with the gay lifestyle?
We're not going to agree -but we should respect others even if we absolutely detest their ways or beliefs -no matter which side of an issue we are on. This is not un-Christlike.
I can't count the times I've seen signs in stores which state that the owner reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. I do not know whether the law protects this right in any way, but I believe it should -within reason.
Still -if the company did not deal in photography, but sold things essential to health and survival, such as food, clothing, medicine, etc... I think it would be quite wrong to refuse service to anyone, unless they were a danger.
With what we call freedom inevitably comes disagreement (though true freedom will only come when God causes us all to agree). Our laws should reflect this. Christ did not teach us to deny people that which they need, but gays and lesbians should also respect the fact that people might disagree with their lifestyle and might not want to promote it -just as they rightfully demand respect and freedom of choice from those who disagree with them -and would not want to promote views contrary to their own.
Gays and lesbians can't make people agree who don't want to agree -nor can those opposed to homosexuality expect to eradicate it -and neither should try to do so by any sort of conflict or invasive methods. We have rights under law to express our views and allow others to choose, but sometimes even this freedom goes too far, violates other freedoms, and forces upon people that which they do not want to see or hear, etc...
The world won't be perfect until Christ rules -but meanwhile we should love our neighbors -even our enemies -certainly this includes those who simply disagree. I'm sure it was not pleasant to be refused service, but in this particular case -if the refusal of this luxury was indeed polite -they should have been understanding -perhaps started a polite conversation to promote understanding if not agreement -and simply found another photographer. If the tables were turned, they would probably expect and appreciate exactly the same.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
In one of the most stunning moves against me ever in my life, I was evicted from my apartment dwelling in 00. It was a move of desperation in which the manager found it necessary to shamelessly mischaracterize, and misrpresent me, which he succeeded at in a long term fashion.
It was a sting that was the result of my being in the midst of a hornets nest of homosexually orientated administrators, who didn't appreciate my views against this (though their distain for me was due to tension between me and gay children of the mother who lived upstairs above me. She was by the way a retired school teacher with communist views).
But it was a vindetta against me, which I didn't intentionally invite;, but more than that, it was to cover up a secret which the landlord had, which I threatened to expose, though not maliciously. Unfortunately I let the cat out of the box, and revealed that I knew something that almost no one outside of his immediate family knew, or could know. This was because I lived next to his sister-and-law, and was privy to some things that he no doubt was concerned about. The landlord considered this to be an overt threat, and did what he wanted for the longest, by removing and mischaracterizing the threat, which he considered me to be.(He tried to discourage me into moving through backdoor means, by way of manipulation prior to this becoming so urgent that he could not ignore, but was forced to move on this due to the revelation of my knowledge.) Anyway, this he did by accusing me of communicating a threat, and issuing me an official eviction notice, together with my next door neighbor, simultaneously! Not only, anyone thought to be associated with me also was removed very shortly thereafter.
He then represented me to a local judge very poorly. I remember the judge saying to me when I ended up in court because I didn't understand the mechanics of the eviction, something about the "trouble that I was in". Was he God? For he knew something that I didn't, and I was living my life, not him. Moreover, he didn't know a thing about me whatsoever, yet he passed judgment against me verbally, to my face, based on what some lunatic landlord, (considered to be a pillar of the community by police, no doubt) represented me to the judge to be!
That is not where it ends. I have been through the scrutiny of 'big brother' since that time, as though someone is trying desperately to lay something to my charge, and have experienced similar strange adversity since then repetively, such as I encountered with that judge, since that day of my removal. It persists, and seems to have compounded. Nevertheless! Since it is not against the law in North Carolina as of yet to tell it like it is with regard to this component of society, let me ask if you are prepared for the new Hollywood, and the release of rewrites of familiar movies such as we have all loved, but under new titles: For example, the remake of James Blond! How about the familiar childhood favorite Hucklefairyben! I do believe that occupation by this element is possibly worse than the potential for totalitarian suffication of all that we have stood for.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
.
This is totally disgusting!!!
![[mad2]](graemlins/mad2.gif)
The couple did the right thing and never should have been fined.
.
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
New Mexico commission orders $6,000 fine for Christian beliefs
Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs...
Click here to read the entire article...
.
--------------------
Video Tracts
Christian Media
LiveTracts
Friend Me On Facebook
Evangelism TackleBox
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
