Christian Photographers Community

Court rules it's illegal to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony     
     
Christian Examiner staff report

     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled June 4 that it is illegal for a photography business to turn down photographing a same-sex ceremony even though it is contrary to the religious and personal beliefs of the business owners.

... The court ruling upholds the previous decision by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission against an Albuquerque photography company. The commission ruled that the company, run by a young Christian husband and wife, was guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony," even though New Mexico does not permit same-sex marriages.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jun12/Art_Jun12_14.html

All I can say is if asked to photo a same sex marriage........Sorry I am busy.

I'd sure find a way to get out of it, even if it meant going to jail.  Nothing turns my stomach faster than to see a news report of a same sex "marriage" showing the two parties hugging and kissing!   :ticked:

Hi Smokey.
Below is an outline of an article I am thinking of posting on my blog.It touches on this subject and others.
What rights do we have as Christian Photographers?

The way I see it we don't have any unless they are granted to us.

In the West we talk about freedom when we compare ourselves to people in oppressed countries.

In Australia we are restricted in some places from taking photographs commercially and as an amateur because some places are considered sacred to Aboriginal People and for other reasons also..

Aboriginal people are considered the original owners of this land ie on the basis of being first occupiers.

In the sense they were here before white settlers came this is true.

They don't own private housing blocks in cities which is an inconsistency in Government legislation.

Private housing areas in towns and cities  were once Aboriginal Territories.

However, as a Christian I consider God's natural  creation has no owners as such, and as I also worship a Creator, it is not an equal and fair treatment when my sense and belief of the sacred is different to someone else.

I would concede though that if the mountain range or scenery such as Ayer's Rock or Uluru was in lawful ownership of someone I would accept that they would have a right to stop me trespassing on private property.

I would accept that if a station owner(rancher)had a natural wonder on their property they could restrict my photographic and other activity.

(Lake Eyre,an iconic inland lake in South Australia's outback has now been given native title.

The new indigenous owners appear likely to change it's name to their traditional native name. )

If it was a Buddhist temple that the owners restricted me from photographing I would concede that is ok because God did not build the temple, the worshipers did.

In the same way ,sort of, if someone wanted me to photograph a ceremony aka a "wedding" for same sex couples I would refuse as my Christian belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I would not want to encourage the differing viewpoint.

I had been asked by phone some years ago to photograph such a "wedding" and after I had revealed that I was booked for that Saturday I was then told two males were involved.

I referred them to another Photographer who did not have such a problem as I did  from a belief point of view,  and they were happy with that.

They were also happy with their photographs.

Today in Australia and other parts of the world I might be in trouble if I was a professional wedding photographer if I refused such an assignment because of my beliefs.

It would be a discrimination against me if I was told I should photograph the "wedding" if they wanted me to do so .

There are other types of weddings between a man and a woman I would not photograph also.

(I don't intend to elaborate on that.)

This would be for the same reason ie. it would conflict with my religious beliefs and I would not want "my brother to stumble" if I accepted these assignments.

That is not an issue for me now as I am a retired worker and photographer and am a hobbyist.

I do not run a business.

So to answer my question we don't really have any rights to photograph just about anything.

I would hope that photographing a cloud formation would not offend anyone.

If you want to get passionate about things watch Ken Duncan's video on the erosion of photographic freedom.

Ken is regarded as Australia's leading Landsacape photographer and also internationally acclaimed.

http://vimeo.com/12963992

Hi to all.

Geoff T in Adelaide South Australia

That is unreal...and....very disturbing.... :idiot:

I believe we need to count our blessings and not get to excited about the ways of man, it would be good to rid ourselves of television (Lucifer's dumbing down machine) and come back to God. we have been given a great commission to spread the Gospel (good news) and should not put anything in the way of it. By bitching and complaining about the restrictions on photography (our comfort zone) we are playing straight into Lucifer's hand.
Patrick.