Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job (2013)
Rasmussen Reports ^ | July 12, 2013 | Scott Rasmussen

Posted on 02/28/2014 9:02:45 AM PST by Kazan

Americans draw a fine line when it comes to respecting each other’s rights. If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 7-8, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; poll; ssm; ssmagendapoll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
Anyone thinking the vast majority of the American people don't have protecting the religious conscience rights of citizens is disconnected from reality and mired in doom and gloom.

What happened in Arizona was a combination of the media distorting the intent to the legislation, inept politicians that couldn't articulately defend the legislation (and or craft it) and gutless politicians that caved into political correctness.

1 posted on 02/28/2014 9:02:45 AM PST by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kazan
It doesn't matter what most Americans believe.

Leftist and homosexual tyrants in black robes rule over us by decree.


2 posted on 02/28/2014 9:04:24 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

no shirts no shoes no service


3 posted on 02/28/2014 9:06:52 AM PST by lesko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

You don’t need religion. I have the right of association as we all do. Will I be forced to have a gay experience next?? Because that’s basically that’s what they’re feeding our kids.


4 posted on 02/28/2014 9:07:42 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

and many of those 85% voted for Willard, a guy who thinks that “Christian Photographer Have No Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job” (2014)


5 posted on 02/28/2014 9:07:56 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Pretty soon, the child molesters will be suing because you won’t hire them as a babysitter!


6 posted on 02/28/2014 9:08:49 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

How about a baker asked to make a cake with two dudes on it? Was that in the poll?


7 posted on 02/28/2014 9:09:47 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Communicate you have a non-refundable deposit of 50%.

Communicate you will legally be required to shoot pictures, but you do not personally believe or support same-sex weddings. You’ll try, but sometimes you get quite upset and lose your concentration.

Communicate that the last gay “wedding” you did had lots of great close-ups of the ceiling and floor and you get so emotional that you tend to forget the centering of the wedding party picuturs and that whole “focusing the picture thingy.”

Communicate those are your terms and disclosures, but you’ll give it your best try.

Communicate you guarantee you will have at least 5 good pictures or they do not have to complete payment.

Put it in writing as best efforts under these terms and disclosures.

Or get out of the wedding picture biz.

OR, only work by multiple referral and do not advertise or accept any business that does not come to you by direct referral from multiple existing clients.

Or get out of the wedding picture biz.


8 posted on 02/28/2014 9:10:44 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

A SMART Christian Photog would take the job instead of risking a lawsuit, then “arrange” to hurl chunks when the groom and groom kiss each other.

It would certainly leave an impression, that’s for sure.


9 posted on 02/28/2014 9:12:54 AM PST by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
Americans know slavery when they see it.

Forcing someone to do a job against their will or face extreme punishment is slavery, whether it is picking cotton in a field, baking a cake, or taking pictures at someone's wedding.

People should have the right to choose what they will or will not do. Nobody should have to power to walk into a stranger's business and demand that the person do a task for them or else lose their business and/or be personally bankrupted.

Nobody should be forced to live with the fear of wondering if today is the day that a total stranger will take my business away from me.

-PJ

10 posted on 02/28/2014 9:13:24 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Look, I looked at the legislation. It could be used to do ANY denial of service based on religion.

You could have Christians refusing to serve Muslims or vice versa or Muslims refusing to serve pork etc.

Furthermore, I agree a person contracted for a gay wedding should have right of refusal before serving.

But, at the same time, no more public place like a restaurant should have the right to refuse service for that reason unless there is something additional, like lewd behavior, being loud, etc. Otherwise, we have no legitimate reason to say they can’t deny service to Jews, blacks etc.

I support the intent of the law. But, the law went much further.


11 posted on 02/28/2014 9:13:51 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

I was thinking about this because I toyed with the idea of becoming either a wedding photographer or a DJ. Baking a cake is bad enough, but you bake the cake and you’re done with it. You don’t have to attend the ceremony. With being a photographer, you have to attend the whole kit and caboodle and take pictures of the whole disgusting event, and we know how queers act when they’re in “party” mode. Same thing with being a DJ. You have to be there when all the kissing (yuk!) and other perversions are being acted out.


12 posted on 02/28/2014 9:14:08 AM PST by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
I'm a photographer, but I don't do weddings. If I did, my response in a situation like this would be:

"My expertise is in shooting heterosexual weddings... which entails things like making the bride look beautiful, making the groom look handsome, making the couple look great together. A homosexual wedding has entirely different needs and special requirements. My expertise does not qualify me to properly portray the things a gay wedding photo shoot should portray, therefore it's best for all involved if you find a photographer who specializes in such events".

Mechanics are allowed to specialize in certain types of cars if they so choose, a programmer can specialize in certain programming languages, a chef can specialize in certain types of food, so a photographer should be able to specialize in certain types of weddings.

13 posted on 02/28/2014 9:17:37 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Must he prove his beliefs are “deeply held,” though? Anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Specifying “deeply held religious beliefs” is problematic, IMO.


14 posted on 02/28/2014 9:18:31 AM PST by Nea Wood (When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.-Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

If a gay friend invites me to his gay wedding will I be forced to attend and have a gay time?

What if my gift isn’t tasteful enough?


15 posted on 02/28/2014 9:18:56 AM PST by socal_parrot (I hate to say I told you so, but...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

While I agree with that, the issue is the anti-discrimination laws in all states would not allow you to do that.

Thus, the problem in states where sexual orientation is listed in that law.

The other states, you can still reject working for a gay wedding. The laws are an attempt to prevent that from being an issue in those states.

But, they are ultimately too broad so far and could lead to a lot more than just giving people the right to reject baking a cake for a wedding etc. Unfortunately, they are so broadly written from the KS one to AZ, that it could even come to hurt Christians at some point since basically any religious objection can result in denying service.


16 posted on 02/28/2014 9:21:23 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

If I can give senior citizen discounts why not a heterosexual discount? My standard price for a wedding is 100,000 but I give 95% discount when doing wedding for joining of opposite sex.


17 posted on 02/28/2014 9:23:41 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic

Donate!

18 posted on 02/28/2014 9:25:41 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

The same right to refuse would also apply to jews, blacks and muslims


19 posted on 02/28/2014 9:28:14 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

federal courts have no law making powers


20 posted on 02/28/2014 9:29:08 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Two highly intoxicated women were asked to leave Dillon’s in Boston a few weeks ago. It is a restaurant and Sports Bar. They put some Hip Hop on the Juke Box and proceeded to put on a show which they themselves described as “Grinding”. They were on the floor. People on Facebook started a smear campaign against Dillon’s saying the restaurant refuses entry to Gays.


21 posted on 02/28/2014 9:29:19 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Do you have a link to the text of the amendments?


22 posted on 02/28/2014 9:30:58 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

So now a pro-life bakery will have to provide cake for a Planned Parenthood event. Oh, and they’ll request that they have some interesting pictures on the top of the cake as well I’m sure.


23 posted on 02/28/2014 9:32:03 AM PST by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

“My expertise is in shooting heterosexual weddings... which entails things like making the bride look beautiful, making the groom look handsome, making the couple look great together. A homosexual wedding has entirely different needs and special requirements. My expertise does not qualify me to properly portray the things a gay wedding photo shoot should portray, therefore it’s best for all involved if you find a photographer who specializes in such events”.

That’s the exact same argument that EHarmony made—they argued that they were experts in lining up men with women and knew nothing about the preferences for the queers. They lost in court.

I think it’s safe to assume these “weddings” are not real weddings but exist for the purpose of causing problems for such organizations.

If they were real, they would want to make sure they had the best wedding cake and photographs they could get as possible. It would be too tempting to be a baker to add, just a little extra salt, or just a little less sugar to these purchased cakes to ensure the recipient doesn’t make recommendations to their friends.


24 posted on 02/28/2014 9:35:59 AM PST by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kazan; All

While what people think is important, let’s not overlook that this is a constitutional republic. And while the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect religious expression, evidenced by the 1st Amendment, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights.

So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues like same-sex marriage, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.

The reason that confusion concerning freedom of religious expression is dragging out is the following imo. Sadly, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught how 10th Amendment-protected state povers versus constitutionally enumerated rights work. Consequently, patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges wrongly legislate gay rights from the bench.


25 posted on 02/28/2014 9:36:28 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

The question which begs to be asked is this:

Why the HELL are these gay couples asking Christians to provide services for them in the first place???

What happens if we reverse the roles???...

Lets say I’m an anti-gay heterosexual who cant keep my mouth shut about how wrong gays are about their behavior...

Lets say I want to get married, and I ask a gay photographer to perform his services (photography!) for me... and he refuses...

WHY WOULD I THEN SUE HIM????????

Has he not discriminated against my heterosexual beliefs???

WHY DO WE FAIL TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE????!!!

It’s called legal harassment!...
They are abusing the legal system to persecute christians, and SOMEBODY NEEDS TO COUNTER SUE OVER IT!

DAMN!


26 posted on 02/28/2014 9:50:19 AM PST by Safrguns (PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lesko

No, its bigger than that. This is all about freedom of association. If the courts rule that we lose our freedom of association once we start up a business, there will be no end to the claims by some that they are entitled to, or have a RIGHT to the labors of others.

Should that happen, America is lost, AmeriKa will be born.


27 posted on 02/28/2014 9:54:22 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
I'd photograph the first wedding event that I was asked to do. After that, "word of mouth" referrals would almost certainly assure that I would never be asked to do another.
28 posted on 02/28/2014 9:54:28 AM PST by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Why the HELL are these gay couples asking Christians to provide services for them in the first place???

These are planned attacks designed to bring down not just the individual Christian's business -- these are the opening salvo's on the church and Christians as a whole. They're all about normalizing their behavior, and making Christian behavior illegal. I"ve been saying it for years, Rush touched on it yesterday.

29 posted on 02/28/2014 9:57:10 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

I didn’t have anything to do with denying service. It had everything to do with PROTECTING business owners from a lawsuit should the owner deny a job based on some criteria being asked of them by the customer which does not sit right with the religion/theology of the owner.


30 posted on 02/28/2014 9:57:16 AM PST by Mathews (Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV), Luke 22:36 (NIV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skimbell
Only after you were sued for damages, non-performance and emotional distress.

You'd be far better off telling any gay couple that you need to check your bookings first, then politely turn them down claiming you're booked solid.

31 posted on 02/28/2014 9:59:26 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Cataforically proves Brewer is a moron out of touch with the people, beholden to the media circus minority.


32 posted on 02/28/2014 9:59:28 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Look, I looked at the legislation. It could be used to do ANY denial of service based on religion.

Would this law allow a Muslim cabbie to refuse to pick up blind people with service dogs?

33 posted on 02/28/2014 10:01:18 AM PST by Fiji Hill (Io Triumphe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

Yep, you hit it. I agree.


34 posted on 02/28/2014 10:04:19 AM PST by lesko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
But, at the same time, no more public place like a restaurant should have the right to refuse service for that reason unless there is something additional, like lewd behavior, being loud, etc. Otherwise, we have no legitimate reason to say they can’t deny service to Jews, blacks etc.

They should absolutely have that right to refuse services for reasons of which you disapprove. That's the whole point. We either have the right to own and run our own businesses, or we don't. We can't (do but shouldn't) pick and choose in which ways an individual decides to discriminate against another.

Now we finally see the public accommodation crap used against us and decide it's a bad thing. Too bad, so sad.
35 posted on 02/28/2014 10:04:36 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

Yeah... time to fight back.

It’s OUR system they are abusing.

A system by the way which is based on GOD’s principles.

Shame on us for bending over and playing their shower-soap games.


36 posted on 02/28/2014 10:06:41 AM PST by Safrguns (PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Decent people have a God-given moral right to turn down demands that they endorse or support activities that they find morally repugnant. Whether we have a legal right to the free exercise of our religion has changed recently, and that legal right appears to be dead. Still, we are only commanded to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, which is not much in this world. We are commanded to render unto God the things that are God’s, and that must include our artistic expression in all aspects of life, and not just our activities during one hour every Sunday morning.


37 posted on 02/28/2014 10:07:35 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murron
What I do not understand is this. Do you really want to force someone to bake a cake for your wedding if they really do not like your life choice? They might just add something “special” to the mix. This is no different than pissing off the waiter or waitress prior to your food arriving at the table. I have worked in restaurants and know what waiters do to food when they are pissed off at a patron.
38 posted on 02/28/2014 10:11:25 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Oh, you meant thaaat Saturday?! Sorry, I had a previous engagement!


39 posted on 02/28/2014 10:12:07 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Rw...you’ve got to be kidding. In effect, the amendment simply adds that the ability of the government to force an action is not affected by whether the government is a party to the lawsuit, and the same argument in defense of religious belief can be made in court even if the government is not a direct party to the suit. Ummm. Wow.


40 posted on 02/28/2014 10:21:07 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

It would seem to apply to your examples of a Muslim-owned business refusing to serve pork...and so?


41 posted on 02/28/2014 10:22:44 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Personally I’d take the job. However if I didn’t want to do it I would just triple my price so they would look elsewhere.


42 posted on 02/28/2014 10:25:23 AM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

“Would this law allow a Muslim cabbie to refuse to pick up blind people with service dogs? “

The law might allow them to make the argument in court, in a private lawsuit rather than just in one where the government is suing.


43 posted on 02/28/2014 10:25:57 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

“Or get out of the wedding picture biz.”

Why should anyone allow the homosexualists to drive them out of the wedding photography business without a fight? Didn’t the poll just say something like 85% is on our side?


44 posted on 02/28/2014 10:26:30 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion: the only constitutional rights cherished by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“Why should anyone allow the homosexualists to drive them out of the wedding photography business without a fight? Didn’t the poll just say something like 85% is on our side?”

I take it you’ve never been personally sued?

Sometimes it is worth it. If the law ends up on the side of gaydom, it will not only be a losing fight, but it will be costly in terms of money, time, mental anguish, etc.

Every business owner should either come up with a strategy to act legally or get out of the biz. That is always true, gay or not.

The 85% don’t vote like they poll apparently...


45 posted on 02/28/2014 10:34:40 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963
Here's an example of how absurd it can become. And here . These incidents were dramatizations, though what's amazing is this clown managed to cruise around Watts with a klan uniform and live to tell about it. Had these been actual events, could the drycleaner and restaurant owners be sued for refusing to serve this idiot?
46 posted on 02/28/2014 10:42:27 AM PST by Impala64ssa (You call me an islamophobe like it's a bad thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
Lesbian to Baker: "My partner and I have decided to tie the knot! We'd like to order a special wedding cake.

Baker: "Bake a cake for your gay wedding? Oh, absolutely!!! We offer a special gay wedding cake celebrating the perversion of marriage.

Baker: "It's our Gay Marriage Cake!! It communicates that gay marriage is a perversion of what God created!"

Lesbian: "That is ugly! What about the cake picture in the window?"

Baker: "Oh, that cake is part of the Straight Wedding Cake Package we offer to our straight customers. We offer the Gay Wedding Cake Package to our lesbian and gay customers. How many people do you want it to serve?"

47 posted on 02/28/2014 10:50:03 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

You’re on the right track, but laws against discrimination create endless government regulation and litigation. Someone doesn’t get his order of fries, for example, and he’s suddenly suing the business for discrimination based on his skin color or sexual preference.

The free market better addresses the issue of businesses that refuse service on racial, religious, or other grounds. For example, businesses that are perceived to treat customers unfairly will have to pay a price for doing so.

None of this applies to government of course. That is the only entity that is constitutionally prohibited from discriminating based on skin color or sex (even though they do it all the time). Don’t ask me how I as a private citizen can’t refuse service based on skin color, but the government can hire someone or prefer them in a contract based on skin color.

Just to be clear, I have no problem doing business with homosexuals. I’m not a wedding photographer, and I haven’t even considered if I’d have a problem photographing a gay marriage. What I do know is I shouldn’t be forced to violate my faith as a price of doing business if I decide it’s morally wrong. I’d also extend the same liberty to others who may not want to do business with me.


48 posted on 02/28/2014 10:51:05 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion: the only constitutional rights cherished by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

How about a gay business will have to provide services at Westburo Baptist?


49 posted on 02/28/2014 10:52:32 AM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

I’m sorry, but we already lost the freedom of association during the civil rights era. Look. I think it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of skin color, and government certainly shouldn’t be showing preference or discriminating based on it (even though they do). Private citizens are different. We should have the liberty to associate with who we like. The injury done to the civil society by letting government decide what’s fair and equal is far worse than isolated incidents of discrimination by private citizens or businesses.


50 posted on 02/28/2014 11:02:57 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion: the only constitutional rights cherished by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson