Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

More Facts about Elane Photography

Timothy Kincaid

April 14th, 2008

UPDATE: Decision and Final Order [pdf]

canon.jpg
The Decision and Final Order of the Human Rights Commission lays out the facts leading to the determination.

Vanessa Willock sent to Elane Photography the following e-mail on September 21, 2006, a year in advance of her ceremony.

We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.

This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information.

Thanks

Elaine Huguenin responded

Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.
-Elaine-

Willock wrote again

Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
Vanessa

Huguenin in conclusion

Hello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine

In November 2006 Willock’s partner, Misty Collinsworth, contacted Huguenin and – without mentioning the sex of the partners – inquired about services. Huguenin responded enthusiastically and sought to follow up.

On December 20, 2006, Willock filed a charge of discrimination against Elane Photography.

The decision included two questions: did discrimination occur based on sexual orientation, and was Elane Photography a public accommodation. The commission found the answer to both questions to be in the affirmative.

Elane’s attorneys argued that Ms. Huguenin’s religious convictions provided exclusion to the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The commission found that questions of the constitutionality of the NMHRA was “not before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for determination in this proceeding and, accordingly, are not addressed here.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Ben in Oakland
April 14th, 2008 | LINK

In the original posting on this, I sided iwth the photographer because, as I said, this couple sounded like trouble. This relation of the events confirms that in my mind, even though I vehemently disagree with Elane Photo’s reasons. Discirmination on the basis of orientation or belief is still discrimination.

She nowhere in her response stated that it was due to her religious convictions. They had no further reason to pursue it, but they did. Instead of just saying fine and finding a suitable photographer, the plaintiffs chose to stir it up.

grantdale
April 14th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks Timothy for the background exchanges — I can take this off the list of things to follow up. God, what a week.

And agree with Ben: it’s been decided as discriminatory, but it seems at least two people should be glad that no judgement was also made regarding “Who was being the pain in the arse here?”

Still pondering what would occur if they’d refused to hire a “Christian photographer”, and said why…

David
April 14th, 2008 | LINK

If Elaine Huguenin has simply replied “I’m booked that day” to begin with, there would have been no complaint. However, she made a point of articulating her reason for refusing service to a potential customer – and it was a discriminatory reason.

She flaunted her prejudice, and was rewarded appropriately.

What some folks label troublemaking, others regard as taking a stand – whether it is refusing to move to the back of the bus, or expecting equal access to “public accomodations”.

If people who can take action by ‘stirring it up’ chose not to – what happens when the object of religious discrimination is someone who cannot take action, like a low income woman seeking bc from a “christian” pharmicist? Who gets to decide when discrimination by service providers is ok, and when it is not?

People who are not willing to treat all customers and potential customers equally should seek employment outside of the service industries.

JJ
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

BIO and G,

I think the decision is appropriate. What if you substituted Same Sex with Jewish or black marriage in her reply?

Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph Jewish weddings

Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph black weddings

Would we expect the plaintiffs to just “say fine and find a suitable photographer” or call them a “pain in the arse”?

Why should we expect anything less for gays & lesbians?

ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected » Blog Archive » Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

[...] to gay blogger Box Turtle Bulletin, the emails from the photographer which preceded the lawsuit went as follows: Hello Vanessa, As a [...]

Steve M.
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

JJ:

I take exactly the opposite view from you. I don’t think the photographer should be cited for any of those refusals, and the couple should instead look for a more suitable photographer–one who is in tune with how seriously the participants take their same-sex ceremony, one who has the knowledge and equipment to light black wedding participants well, one who knows the unique aspects of Jewish wedding ceremonies, so she will not neglect to shoot them.

Hiring a wedding photographer is not like ordering a burger at McDonald’s, and its expressive aspect makes the one-size-fits-all approach of these laws pernicious. And the way the complainants went out of their way to entrap Elane Photography in this law marks them as pains in the ass with chip on their shoulder rather than aggrieved parties standing up for themselves and others.

JJ
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

Steve M

Point taken. I would still argue that the response to this issue would be dramatically different if it were discrimination against race, religious affiliation or any other minority. The outrage would be palpable.

grantdale
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

JJ,

I’m sorry if it read that way: I meant to be referring to both parties involved; my fault for the confusion. (I haven’t been all that flattering about the photographer in previous posts, and I’m not even going to bother commenting on the pile of ordure that the ADF specialises in!) I’ll try and be clearer.

Now… none of us sat through the hearing (or prior alternate dispute resolution etc that the NM HRC offers), but even so…

If I was sitting in judgement, I would be looking at the “content” as well as the relationship with the “customer”. The NM Act refers to discrimination in “public accomodation” caused “directly or indirectly” and directed at a person. I’m not sure how far to take “indirectly”. (I have no problem finding she was offering a public accomodation).

But while the law holds you cannot discriminate against a person on specified grounds, it’s also a long-standing right that service providers not be required to create any content they did not wish to. It need not be objectionable content.

i.e. I’d assume a New Mexico restaurant owner is still not obliged to offer (truly) kosher meals on their menu but, also, could still not refuse to serve a person because they are Jewish.

Refusing to photograph same-sex ceremony versus refusing to do work for a lesbian? It would be much clearer a case if they had asked her to photograph a lesbian porn film, something no photographer is required to help create.

At the end of the day she should have just said no, that she was not available. But, no, she had to labour the point (which, IMO, made her a pain in the arse).

If we went looking, I suspect I’d find she doesn’t refuse to photograph Muslim or Hindu weddings, or refuse to photograph babies whos parents are unmarried etc: which makes a claim to be basing her decision on “religious beliefs” even more tenuous. (And trust the flatulant ADF to use that in every cause célèbre).

Also, I assume you were being a little facetious: if I was Jewish or black and getting married… I imagine I would nevertheless also want to “find a suitable photographer” for my big day.

By “suitable”, I’d take being a card-carrying neo-Nazi or being a member of the KKK as a good indicator they were not. That I would be permitted to do, under NM law. But I couldn’t refuse because they were white, or Christian.

And if I was lesbian and getting married… I wouldn’t want to be relying on an anti-gay bigot; Christian or otherwise. I think it’s a safe bet that they never had any intention of hiring her services after knowing her opinions (which, IMO, made them a pain in the arse).

Sorry for the length :)

David Anthony
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

(I will add my middle name from now on to better identify myself.)

In the previous thread on this matter I wrote: “forcing [Elaine] to photograph want she doesn’t wish to is a violation of the freedom of speech and of the press. The council was too interested in the PC requirement to stamp out homophobia to notice.”

Now I learn the council said such issues were “not before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for determination.”

Fair enough. But considering a photographer to be a public accomodation still impresses me as daft. Does the New Mexico law really read that way or is the Commission just innovative?

I also have to agree with Ben in Oakland. Vanessa Willock was a first-class. She asks Elaine Huguenin if she’s open to their event, and then sues when she isn’t!

Huguenin should pursue her first amendment rights all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. And then she can sue Willock for legal expenses when she wins.

David Anthony
April 15th, 2008 | LINK

In my above post the sentance should read “Vanessa Willock was a first-class jackass.

My fellow David wrote that “People who are not willing to treat all customers and potential customers equally should seek employment outside of the service industries.”

Wonderful. Now in order to have any freedom of conscience we have to curtail our career choices. Compassion fascism at its finest!

David Anthony
April 16th, 2008 | LINK

Jim Burroway,

In that previous thread I asked you,

“Remember your hypothetical involving the AFA? If freedom of association doesn’t apply to employers, then why should it apply to those offered a job?”

You answered back: “Because then you’re talking about involuntary servitude. David, you’re building up a very flimsy strawman there.”

Oh, come on! What strawman was I building?

You believe anyone is entitled to refuse employment from anyone for any reason whatsoever. That was clear from your hypothetical question. Yet you believe this entitlement goes only one way. I’m asking why this is.

To put it your way, when an employer is forced to hire people he doesn’t want to, why isn’t that a form of involuntary servitude?

Kindly answer the question.

Timothy Kincaid
April 16th, 2008 | LINK

Those interested in the argument behind whether Elane Photography is a public accomodation can now review the Final Order at the link above.

Jason D
April 17th, 2008 | LINK

Although I don’t agree with the case existing… I do understand why it turned out the way it did. Thanks for the decision and final order, BTB!

In the decision they state that Elaine Photography registered as an LLC, advertised in the yellow pages and online. They established that precedent says “public accomodation” means that “the public is invited” and that the activities and advertisements of Elane Photography stated that the public was invited.
That the US Supreme Court, when reviewing non-discrimination legislation said “Provisions like these are well within the States usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the first or fourteenth Amendments”
Makes sense, after all if we replace Elane with the KKK and our lesbian couple with an interracial couple, the same situation could happen, and would we be wringing our hands over that lawsuit?
I’ve noted that the media seems to suggest that Elane Photography was really just a hobby and not a bonafide business entity. Why register with the state of NM as an LLC, then? I don’t understand all the legalities of small business, but it would seem to me that had they not gone to the trouble of registering their business, they could’ve retained their ability to make a 1st amendment claim. Knowing a little bit about photographic services, they were definitely charging more than a hobbyist’s fee.
Part of the reason I’m wincing about this whole situation is because of the way this case will be propped up as a human rights violation brought on by the Homosexual Agenda — “see, they want to force their ‘lifestyle’ on us!”
However, I do agree that the NMHRA had to come to the decision it came to for nothing more than precedent sake. If you let one LLC off the hook, who’s next?

TJ McFisty
April 17th, 2008 | LINK

With you, Jason D. Reminds me that if I were ever running a design business, don’t give reasons for not taking on work I’d rather not do for personal reasons.

What actually bugs me most about this case is that Elane Photography has the balls to stipulate they hold the rights to the work for advertising purposes. I mean, sure, they’re welcome to put that out there, but man, talk about ballsy. And those rates! Yeessh! Not that they’re outrageous, but that’s a bit on the high end for a non-celebrity photographer.

If you have a stipulation of that sort in a contract, you’re definitely a business, not a hobby.

David Anthony
April 17th, 2008 | LINK

Uh, Jim,

Do you have an answer to my question?

Jim Burroway
April 17th, 2008 | LINK

I think Timothy answered your question perfectly. I have nothing more to add. It is most definitely not a two way street as you try to portray it. Frankly, I find your argument so ridiculous, I’d rather spend my time fighting the real fight than to explain what ought to be pretty obvious to you.

anair
April 21st, 2008 | LINK

Wait, isn’t the couple discriminating against the religion of the photographers?

BenYachov(Jim Scott)
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

What if you had a gay friend whose lover joined Exodus International & left him? What if your friend’s Ex later choose to marry a woman because he believed he was now “cured” of being gay.
Now let’s say you happen to be an activist gay or lesbian, who is also a photographer, who believes “Gay Conversion groups” are harmful to gays. Well thanks to the anti–civil libertarian actions of Vanessa Willock in theory you can be fined 6,000 if you refuse to photograph your friend’s ex-lover’s straight wedding on principle.
Do gays or any lovers of liberty REALLY want to create this type of fascist enviroment? Because I submit THEY should be the 1st to denounce this Willock woman.

Jason D
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

“Now let’s say you happen to be an activist gay or lesbian, who is also a photographer, who believes “Gay Conversion groups” are harmful to gays. Well thanks to the anti–civil libertarian actions of Vanessa Willock in theory you can be fined 6,000 if you refuse to photograph your friend’s ex-lover’s straight wedding on principle.”

(A)This wasn’t a freelance photographer, it was a business, a public accomodation, registered as an LLC with the state of NM.

(B) Most people who want to get out of doing business with a client, simply avoid the issue by stating they have a previous engagement, are not accepting new business at this time, or simply don’t answer the email or return phone calls. Generally, professionals avoid saying “we don’t do work with _____ people” to avoid this sort of situation in the first place.

“Do gays or any lovers of liberty REALLY want to create this type of fascist enviroment? Because I submit THEY should be the 1st to denounce this Willock woman.”

Very few gays were touching this story because of that very reason. It seemed superfluous and ridiculous. It seemed like a really bad idea. But if you read the decision, you’ll note that due to established precedent the NMHRA really had no choice but to come to that conclusion.

BenYachov(Jim Scott)
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

>(A)This wasn’t a freelance photographer, it was a business, a public accomodation, registered as an LLC with the state of NM.

I reply: According to whom, a “commission” which is not even a real court? So I guess a gay photographer CAN BE FORCED to attend & photograph an “ex-gay” man’s wedding even if it offends his principles.
This was a Mom & Pop operation and photography is an artistic expression. The first Amendment protects freedom of expression. This is not a diner or a public toilet. One can always find another photographer.

>(B) Most people who want to get out of doing business with a client, simply avoid the issue by stating they have a previous engagement, are not accepting new business at this time, or simply don’t answer the email or return phone calls. Generally, professionals avoid saying “we don’t do work with _____ people” to avoid this sort of situation in the first place.

I reply: You mistate the facts. This women did not say she wouldn’t photograph “gays”. She refused to photograph a “Gay Wedding”. Big difference!

I have a friend who is a Jews for Jesus Rabbi. If he went to a regular Jewish photographer & said “Could you take a picture of my Wife & I.” That would be one thing. But if he said “I want you to come to my Shuel where I proclaim Yeshua as the Messiah & photograph the service” according to a consistant application of the precedent set by the New Mexico Violate Our Civil Rights Commission then the Jewish photographer CAN’T say “It is wrong for Jews to believe in Jesus I refuse to take the Job.” or “I don’t photograph Jews for Jesus services”. Which is what a religious Jew not for Jesus would say then he “discriminates” again the J4J guy based on religion. That is the practical & consistant application of this non-civil liberty principle. It is also dangerous to freedom.

Also I resent a person must keep there convictions to themselves & obfuscate instead of freely letting others know what they believe. I thought this was America? This is not freakin Canada. This is suppose to be a free nation. But NOT if the Willcocks of the world & their apologists have their way.

>Very few gays were touching this story because of that very reason. It seemed superfluous and ridiculous. It seemed like a really bad idea. But if you read the decision, you’ll note that due to established precedent the NMHRA really had no choice but to come to that conclusion.

I reply: Since when do PC liberal types care about strick constuctionist interpretation of the Law? I don’t accept that. This decision was handed down after ONE DAY. REAL Courts take the time to weight the evidence. Like the corrupt falsely called “Civil Rights” commissions in Canada these commissions are merely clubs to beat people with whom you don’t agree with politically or morally. This Willock woman is nothing more than a lesbian version of the Rev Phelps accept Rev “God hate f***” Phelps never caused a gay photographer to be fined $6,000 for refusing to photograph one of his hate railies.

Like I said Gays & Lesbians if only for love of their own liberty should be the 1st to denounce this Willock woman & this phony un-American commission.

BenYachov(Jim Scott)
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

> you’ll note that due to established precedent the NMHRA really had no choice but to come to that conclusion.

I reply: I should also point out that in New Mexico gay marriage is not legal. Why is that legal reality not strictly enforced or taken into consideration BUT the New Mexico Violate Our Civil Rights Commission says this conclusion is really their only option?

Short answer is the NMHRA like their counterparts in the great white north HAVE no real legal standards it is purely arbitrary on their part. I say that is dangerous to the liberty of all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation, religion or politics.

I’m done for the night. Cheers.

brenton
June 16th, 2008 | LINK

You guys are right! If a negro couple or (God Forbid!) jewish couple called Elane Photography to take pictures at their wedding, they should be refused outright! Not to do so would be un-american.

BenYachov(Jim Scott)
June 17th, 2008 | LINK

Hey Brenton,
What if you are Black & a Klanmen called you & wanted you to take pictures at his wedding?

BTW in a civilized society that respected the 1st amendment YOU could always tell OTHER so & so photography won’t photograph “insert here” & others could choose to not give them any busness.

Marlene
September 3rd, 2008 | LINK

I believe this was a set up against the photographer. I’ve seen signs posted in business windows all my life which read, “We have the right to refuse business”.

According to this article, Ms. Willock even stated, “IF you are open to helping us celebrate our day”, as though the photographer had a choice whether or not to accommodate her request.

This crap will become the norm, as many homosexuals have an agenda to convince the world that those who don’t agree with their homosexuality are “bigots” & “hate mongers” and, therefore, should be punished.

Timothy Kincaid
September 3rd, 2008 | LINK

No, Marlene,

Not all of those who don’t agree with homosexuality are bigots or hatemongers. But those who feel the need to go to gay websites to make baseless accusations generally are.

shari
September 30th, 2008 | LINK

No Christian religion (excluding cults) forbids marriage between black and white or any other skin color. The Bible treats all races as one race: The human race.

However, the Bible recommends marrying someone of the same religion (and anyone who wants peace at home would be smart to follow that advice.)

Homosexuality, however, is not a race, it is a lifestyle that is abhorrent to 95% or more of the world’s population. Every major religion has a ban against it. Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle as statistics confirm. And homosexuals rarely maintain a monogamous relationship. The lifespan for homosexual is much shorter than for mentally healthy people, and it almost always include other aberrant sexual behaviors, and heavy use of drugs and/or alcohol.

It is sad that the next generation is being brainwashed to go against their natural feelings of disgust for homosexuals. They are told that they are defective and bigoted for not embracing homosexuality.

Ironic that normal humans must ignore their powerful feeling of disgust for homosexuality, just so homosexuals don’t have to ignore their powerful feelings of lust.

To the people who keep comparing a Christian who will not embrace homosexuality with racists, please do some research. It is the Christians right to obey their religion in this country, and the statutes and ordinances of the Judeo-Christian values have been a tremendous influence on all that is good in this country.

Christians are not hate-mongers, a true Christian will reach out to a hurting homosexual and offer help and peace through Jesus Christ (check out exodus-international.org)

Timothy Kincaid
September 30th, 2008 | LINK

shari,

You really amuse me.

Here you are so full of hatred of your neighbor that you have to tell yourself that 95% of people agree with you. Even though polls show that large majorities in North America and Europe believe that gay people are not abhorent or immoral.

Why? Why do you think that your personal feeling of “disgust” are “normal”? Why do you have to hide behind a bogus “Judeo-Christian value”?

Because you are ashamed of your own hatred. You know yourself to be bigoted and full of hate and you know it is wrong.

So you try to claim that you are not a hate-monger, that you would reach out to offer “help and peace” all while you are doing everything you can to make the lives of gay people more difficult.

Because you know, shari, that those feelings of abhorence and disgust and hate don’t come from God. You know that you are a tool of evil.

And it makes you frightened.

No wonder you have to come here and try to defend what you know deep inside when you try and sleep tonight is indefensable.

Tim Hanner
October 21st, 2008 | LINK

They shouldn’t have won the law suit.
The initial email even prods if Elane is “open” to it, immediately following the nature of the union.

Vanessa asked under those assumptions and she received her response under those assumptions.

Tough luck to Vanessa.

Oh, and Timothy Kincaid, isn’t this place about easing up on rhetoric?

Timothy Kincaid
October 21st, 2008 | LINK

Tim,

It was not a lawsuit. It was finding of a commission. The Hugeunins could sue claiming that NMHRA is a violation of their constitutional rights and I think it likely that they would have a good argument.

Stephen
February 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Jane Hitler, a white KKK member, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Joe Black, an African American,who owns the company replied:

“We do not photograph Ku Klux Kan weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”

Now how do you think that will play out?

Eric Keith Scott photography
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid, just wanted you to know I agree with Shari. Timothy Kincaid puts to many words in peoples mouths. I must question why Timothy Kincaid appears to have so much hate inside him.

Jen Ryder
January 20th, 2010 | LINK

It is amazing how much discrimination there is in the world. I hope this business goes under. I thought “Christians” were supposed to love everyone yet once again I see them turning it around and using their “god” as a pawn. IN my opinion they are just a bunch of hypocrits.

Neil
March 10th, 2010 | LINK

Reading the comments of ‘Jen Ryder’ above just makes me sad.
Do you realize what you just said?
Read it again. You HOPE they go under?? I thought you were ‘tolerant’ of everybody’s convictions?
Oh, that’s right. You’re tolerant of everyone EXCEPT people who have convictions.

Bob
April 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Shari is right on.
A wedding is a union of a man and woman, NOT a man and his daughter or a man and his pet or a man and another man.
What amazes me is that these people redefine what marriage is (and has been since the beginning of time) and then accuse those that say “no, you’re wrong” of ‘hatred’.
Jen; are ‘Christians’ to accept every perversion that comes along? What about a man who is in love with his sister? If he shouts loud enough will you fight for his ‘right’ to marry her???

Timothy Kincaid
April 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Neil/Bob,

The use of two different names in an effort to appear as though you are two persons with the same viewpoint does not lend credibility to your argument.

Priya Lynn
April 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Neil/Bob, when you oppose those who harm no one hatred is the only possible reason why. Justice demands that you accept every harmless “perversion” otherwise people can arbitrarily define your life as a perversion and deny you equal rights.

Robert (not Bob)
June 16th, 2010 | LINK

I disagree that there was actionable discrimination. By that I mean that private companies (should) have the right to serve, and the right to refuse service. If that is because of your sexual orientation or because you don’t support the local sports team, that is up to the company. If the policies are too crazy, that person is not going to be in business much longer.

Consider the opposite: I don’t want to photograph your commitment ceremony because you’re a same sex couple (regardless of my religious views). The government says I have to work because my basis for my discrimination is not a valid reason. Thus the government would be forcing me to work in a situation that I don’t want to. Isn’t that a violation of the 13th amendment? Isn’t that involuntary servitude?

Robert (not Bob)
June 16th, 2010 | LINK

Priya: “when you oppose those who harm no one hatred is the only possible reason why.” I hold a different opinion than you, and therefore oppose you. You have harmed no one with your opinions. Does that mean I hate you? Does that mean that you hate Neil and Bob? Of course not. Who are you to question someone’s motives?

Furthermore, who determines what is a harmless perversion worthy of mandatory acceptance? NAMBLA members think their actions are harmless, but the vast majority of people disagree. Is it what the majority of people think is harmless? Minority groups decry the “tyranny of the majority” so I doubt that this would be the accepted standard.

I agree that justice requires acceptance, but only from the governmental standpoint. It does not mandate it upon a free people who would otherwise disagree. That’s tyranny.

Robert (not Bob)
June 16th, 2010 | LINK

Jen said: “I thought “Christians” were supposed to love everyone…” This is not exactly true. The commandments state that we’re supposed to “love one another” (brethren in Christ) and to “love [our] enemies.” But love of a person and condoning/acceptance of actions are two completely different things. We’re supposed to love mass murderers. We’re supposed to love drunkards, prostitutes, slanderers, etc… But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus, or anyone else, say that we are supposed to accept everyone’s behavior. We’re supposed to love one another as Christ loves us. If a child steals a piece of candy, the mother does not condone it. The mother will even punish the child. But this does not mean that the mother does not love the child. Quite the opposite! It shows that she really does love the child and has the best interests for the child in mind.

Timothy Kincaid
June 16th, 2010 | LINK

Robert,

Some advice: Arguments in favor of freedom have merit. But the moment you dredge up NAMBLA you lose all credibility and are just written off as a hater. It’s pretty much the same as a gay person bringing up Fred Phelps.

You may want to keep that in mind for further consideration. Because once I got to your NAMBLA mention, I realized that you were not here to discuss issues of merit but just to declare your contempt for others.

Priya Lynn
June 16th, 2010 | LINK

Robert said “I hold a different opinion than you, and therefore oppose you. You have harmed no one with your opinions. Does that mean I hate you? Does that mean that you hate Neil and Bob? Of course not. Who are you to question someone’s motives?”.

Robert when you oppose a core feature of a person you hate the essence of that person. Yes I hate Neil/Bob just as I hate anyone who harms innocent people. I am a rational person and that qualifies me to question your motives.

Robert said “Furthermore, who determines what is a harmless perversion worthy of mandatory acceptance? NAMBLA members think their actions are harmless, but the vast majority of people disagree. Is it what the majority of people think is harmless? Minority groups decry the “tyranny of the majority” so I doubt that this would be the accepted standard.”.

We rely on mental health experts and the medical profession to determine what is a harmless “perversion”. All major mental and physical health organizations agree that gayness is harmless and that pedophelia is harmful. What qualifications do you have to require that your opinion supercede their’s?

Robert said “We’re supposed to love mass murderers.”.

Christians like you have bastardized the meaning of love. To love means to get deep pleasure out of someone’s pressence, to feel joy from their personality. Christians don’t in any true sense of the word love mass murderers, that’s just Christianist BS. What you refer to as “love” is not love, it is a desire to command and control.

Robert said “If a child steals a piece of candy, the mother does not condone it. The mother will even punish the child. But this does not mean that the mother does not love the child.”.

This idea that our actions are divorced from who we are as people is more christianist BS. Our actions reflect a part of who we are. If a mother does not condone a child’s action then she does not condone part of who that child is. There may be other aspects of the child that the mother love but make no mistake about it, she hates that aspect of the child that gave rise to the theft.

Chris Palmer
June 5th, 2012 | LINK

I guess now you know how it feels to have to follow the business protocols of dealing with the public which includes gay folk like me. It sounds like a hard fact for you to have to swallow. I’m glad

jessie
June 6th, 2012 | LINK

I think she was baited. traditional weddings, stated clearly.
several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios, as in non weddings stuff, like birthdays, soccer games… etc.

New Mexico’s Frightening Court Ruling That Demands Christian Photographers Must Shoot Gay Weddings » Gay USA Pages
June 21st, 2012 | LINK

[...] in being paid to photograph her commitment ceremony to Misty Pascottini. But Elane’s owners declined, pointing to their Christian beliefs that didn’t approve of homosexuality, let alone [...]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.