85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job (2013)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | July 12, 2013 | Scott Rasmussen

[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.

[massgopguy]

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.

[lepton]

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

[MNDude]

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.

[MNDude]

“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.

[Amendment10]

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.

[Safrguns]

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!

[usconservative]

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.

[skimbell]

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.

[usconservative]

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.

[Mathews]

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.

[usconservative]

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.

[Viennacon]

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

[Fiji Hill]

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?

[lesko]

Yep, you hit it. I agree.

[andyk]

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.

[Safrguns]

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.

[Pollster1]

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.

[woodbutcher1963]

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.

[Tallguy]

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

[lepton]

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.