New Mexico Court says Christian Photogrophers MUST Compromise Beliefs

[Rlh04d]

However, you did hit on one reason: "But how would you ever enforce that legally?" An individual consumer can go out and "bully" a small business owner by targeting them, forcing them to do business with them or have the owner face legal consequences, even though the "consumer" may have had no real interest in dealing with the business except to make a statement.

Where's the individual business owner's right to do the same? He/she is an individual. A consumer does not have to do business with someone just because they're not gay. Yet, an individual business owner can have their religious principles trampled on by that same consumer. Perhaps the photographer does a lot of business with churches and Christian schools and could lose that business if they didn't make it clear that they were being forced to take the pictures by the government. As we know, fair is not always fair.

I agree with all of that. It's not always fair. And there probably should be more legal protection for the business owner in this situation.

However, most of the laws that have been made on this subject are due specifically to the blatant discrimination done by business owners against racial minorities. That problem was so widespread and so foundational the laws had to be designed to prevent it from happening. While not fair, the flip-side of it has been, to this point, relatively mild and not anything anywhere near the level of racial discrimination that would require a major change in legal protection. That's just one of the many unfairnesses in our legal system that isn't likely to change any time soon.

[Rlh04d]

While we're talking about sin and the choice of homosexuality, I've got a question for people with more expertise in religious studies than I have.

Generally, when I think of "sin," I think of temptation, and specifically then the rejection of that temptation/sin.

When I see something I really want, I'm tempted to just take it. And then I reject it. If anyone harmed my wife, I would be tempted to murder them. I'm tempted to drink myself unconscious sometimes, or eat an entire large pizza. Obviously I'm tempted to work on the Sabbath. I'm tempted with lust constantly, and I'm certainly tempted to cheat on my wife (and reject it! ;)). Apparently I'm tempted to take the Lord's name in vain a lot, because I do it far more than I should. I'm tempted to covet tons of things. I'm tempted with every single one of the seven deadly sins. There are SO many sins, and I'm sure I've been tempted to one degree or another by almost every last one.

But I've never been tempted to have sex with a man. Not once have I ever been sitting around the house thinking to myself "You know what would be nice right now? Penis. No! I can't do it!!!! I must reject this desire!!!!!"

So why is homosexuality one of the only "sins" that doesn't tempt me, and I'm assuming all of you? Where is the temptation here that is fundamental to my understanding of sin?

[ShockTalk]

I agree with all of that. It's not always fair. And there probably should be more legal protection for the business owner in this situation.

However, most of the laws that have been made on this subject are due specifically to the blatant discrimination done by business owners against racial minorities. That problem was so widespread and so foundational the laws had to be designed to prevent it from happening. While not fair, the flip-side of it has been, to this point, relatively mild and not anything anywhere near the level of racial discrimination that would require a major change in legal protection. That's just one of the many unfairnesses in our legal system that isn't likely to change any time soon.

So, for the photographers, where can they draw the line if whatever is being done is not unlawful? If they take pictures of parties, celebrations, and the such, I'm sure we can come up with some pretty edgy stuff that most anyone would not want to be anywhere near what's going on, yet it's not illegal. If asked, are photographers required to take pictures? I'll refrain from giving examples, but I'm sure you "get the picture". Keep in mind, that if they are required, but refuse, any legal action against them, regardless of what they are refusing to photograph for hire, should have consistent penalties as precedents are being set.

[pinstripers]

I suppose the main issue is that the photog CAN refuse to provide service to anyone, as long as the refusal is not based on certain criteria. For example, refusing to take their photo because they are "just too damn ugly," would be ok, as the ugly have no constitutional protection. Is that where we are?

[Dave Stalwart]

I suppose the main issue is that the photog CAN refuse to provide service to anyone, as long as the refusal is not based on certain criteria. For example, refusing to take their photo because they are "just too damn ugly," would be ok, as the ugly have no constitutional protection. Is that where we are?

Haha and how unfair is it that ugly people don't get laid as often as good looking people. That is discrimination and needs to be stopped.

I move that we make it illegal to avoid sex with ugly people. If you are only attracted to attractive people, you should be fined. You don't have the right to refuse being attracted to someone. You have to take them home if they are interested in you

[kcshocker11]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-constitution/ Heres one from California

[pinstripers]

Odd that this happened to me just now. Guy I know wants to hunt doves on my property. No prob, I give him a tour, show him spots, we are good to go. The he mentions that he usually goes huntin with a former Shocker centerfielder. I told him that is a dealbreaker. Do not want that S.O.B. huntin on me, fishin on me, of settin foot on my property. He is not black, not Hispanic, prolly not gay, and I dunno his religious beliefs. I don't want him on my stuff and God help us if I do not have that right.

[SB Shock]

While we're talking about sin and the choice of homosexuality, I've got a question for people with more expertise in religious studies than I have.

Generally, when I think of "sin," I think of temptation, and specifically then the rejection of that temptation/sin.

There is no way for any us to be able to explain to you why you sin certain ways while other don't and why other struggle with things you don't. It does seem that Satan knows our weakness and use them against us for full effect.

Definition of sin in the bible is based on two concepts "transgression" and "missing the mark". Sin can come from any willful violation of God's law whether it is commission, omission or thought. There are many in-depth discussion out there on this that you can search and read if you really are interested. But this scripture pretty much sums it up

1 John 5:17 "All unrighteousness is sin, ..."


Since the fall of man, we have all been born into sin. Each of us have been "born into it" in different ways. There are some who have no toleration for alcohol, and if they touch it leads to all type of sins in their lives. While others are disciplined and handle that freedom. Others are born into something like drug addiction (illegal or legal), tobacco addiction (smoking/chew), overeating, laziness, murdering, lust/adultery, homosexuality, stealing, cheating, lying etc.

Then there is always the most difficult sin of omission.

Jame 4:17 "Therefore, to one who know the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."

But if you look do some self reflection you will see that you have weakness that leads you to sin. What we have to realize is that:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23

Every one of us are sinner. And that sin leads to death.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

And it is through Christ that we can defeat the sin in our lives. First the acceptance that Jesus was God, and he died on the cross for our sins (he took our punishment) so that we could be forgiven.

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us"

Once a person realizes this should lead to a confession and repentance (to be changed) from our sin.

1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

But this process will be on-going because we will still sin - and when we do we need to confess and repent. But at the same time the Lord has promised to help us through the holy spirit.

Galatians 5:16 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh".

[Kung Wu]

I sort of invented a self study course on sin in college. Mainly I taught myself by demonstration. Those were seriously fun times, but ultimately those days were as empty as the National Championships column in K-State's team sports records books. Thank God I married well.

[kcshocker11]

I sort of invented a self study course on sin in college. Mainly I taught myself by demonstration. Those were seriously fun times, but ultimately those days were as empty as the National Championships column in K-State's team sports records books. Thank God I married well.

You must not have done it correctly

[WuDrWu]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-constitution/ Heres one from California

I must be missing something. What does this have to do with anything?

[kcshocker11]

I must be missing something. What does this have to do with anything?

Court forcing someone to do something against their religious beliefs

[WuDrWu]

Well, no. The courts didn't say that at all. He made a DEAL to get out of jail, then tried an end run. And besides, there's nothing in AA that says you have to believe in God. The higher power could be yourself. But regardless, he could have stayed in jail. He had choices.

Nice try.

[kcshocker11]

Well, no. The courts didn't say that at all. He made a DEAL to get out of jail, then tried an end run. And besides, there's nothing in AA that says you have to believe in God. The higher power could be yourself. But regardless, he could have stayed in jail. He had choices.

Nice try.

Sorry Doc your wrong as usual

[WuDrWu]

My wrong what?

Poor grammar aside, what do THINK I am wrong about?

Did he not make a deal to get paroled? He could have stayed in jail. No one made him do anything. And he didn't have to pray to any God or god.