by 
I’ve always wondered how Sodom and Gomorrah could possibly have gotten as bad as they did. Perhaps it’s because of the culture that I’ve been raised in, I cannot personally fathom the whole episode with the angels coming to Lot, the homosexual men outside wanting them to come out so they could sexually assault them, and then Lot offering his daughters to the men outside. It’s just morally repugnant.
As the homosexual movement in America continues to claim more rights, they are definitely far away from this account, but they are moving in that direction.
It’s one thing to practice something in your own home between two consenting adults and to ask society to stay out of your business. It’s still another thing to attempt to claim to be a minority or to force people to accept your deviant sexual behavior and give it preferential treatment.
The latter was on display as a couple of photographers were accused of “Discriminating” against a same sex couple.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that an evangelical Christian photographer discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing a job to photograph the couple’s same-sex commitment ceremony. Religious rights attorneys plan to appeal.
These wedding photographers have their name displayed with their images. It would be like me telling MusicGuy that he had to write an anti-homosexual post on his blog, and if he didn’t, I’d take him to court.
Writing, speech and photography are creative media, and there should be no law telling me that because I offer a service to one group of people, I must provide it to another– especially with one that I have a moral problem with.
First, I’d suggest reading some actual historical accounts of what went on in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. The fact of the matter is that the men were no more homosexual than you are, Min. Homosexual acts and homosexuality were two very different things: the former being a way for a man in authority to assert his dominance over a slave or other subordinate. I’m fully aware you’ll never grasp that though, since it’s not clearly stated in the book.
As for the photographer, I have to admit that I’m torn. On one hand, the woman has a right to be a bigot. But once that door is open, where do you stop:
-allow the KKK restaurant owner to not serve black patrons?
-all the misogynistic man to not hire women?
-allow the racist newspaper owner to not print anything related to blacks?
-Allow the bigot to not hire jews?
By the way– all of those can be justified (and have been justified in the past) with quotes from that same bible. “Creative license” doesn’t guarantee the right to discriminate.
Musicguys last blog post..Photo Friday
@Musicguy: It’s interesting, but Ezekiel actually states that there were bigger problems than homosexual acts going on in Sodom and Gomorrah. My problem with homosexuality is the act– and that homosexuals define themselves by their act.
I can totally understand a public service (like the government) having rules about allowing service to everyone, but when it comes to personal businesses I don’t have a problem letting anyone discriminate for any reason.
So, I support the KKK restaurant owner not serving black patrons. And I support the black and white people deciding not to patronize the place and running it into the dirt if they have a problem with it.
I support the misogynist man’s right not to hire women, and if people turn away because they’re not the obligatory “eye candy” of a receptionist or the company does worse because women choose to boycott more power to them.
Same thing with your other examples. Furthermore, to be more practical, I support a high school not allowing boys on the girl’s softball team, the New York times not to employ a Conservative Opinion writer, and church group to limit its membership to professing Christians.
It’s called the freedom of association, and it means that I have the right to choose to associate with whomever I want, and you can choose to associate with me or not.
Again, back to your blog. If the government came in and told you that from now on you must never mention homosexuality in a positive light again, what would you do? You’d probably choose, on principle, not to blog. However, you’d claim censorship, you’d claim that it was infringing on your rights. Your blog is a brand, it is who you are (whether you’re making money on it or not).
You need to look past who was “discriminated against” and put yourself in the place of the photographers. They are not a government service. They’re not the only photographers. Each and every day they decide whether or not to take jobs, and they have the right to do that based on whatever criteria they decide– no one should be able to force you to take a customer. And we certainly shouldn’t be judging the reasons a private company decides not to take a job.
“So, I support the KKK restaurant owner not serving black patrons. And I support the black and white people deciding not to patronize the place and running it into the dirt if they have a problem with it.
I support the misogynist man’s right not to hire women, and if people turn away because they’re not the obligatory “eye candy” of a receptionist or the company does worse because women choose to boycott more power to them.”
That’s just sad. You really are in a class all by yourself. Your comments don’t sound the least bit Christian to me.
I’ll make you a bumper sticker that reads, “I support discrimination based on race and sex”. Let me know what kind of looks you get.
Musicguys last blog post..Photo Friday
@Musicguy: I like it how you twist my words, Musicguy. I did not say “I support discrimination” I said, I support your right to do whatever you want in your private business. That means I would come to your defense if the government forced you to only post articles that were anti-homosexual. I may not agree with the things that you say, but I fully support your right to say them. I do not agree with the KKK, but I fully support their right to say their bigoted filth.
Again, I respect a person’s right with their blog, with their store, with their business, with their camera, to photograph, write, sing, speak, or type whatever they want, whatever is their opinion, etc. That’s what freedom is all about. I am not like you and seek to silence those whose opinion I detest, that seek to force people to take pictures of ceremonies that they have personal objections to, or force store owners to serve food to every single person that walks through their door, or to hire someone just because they show up.
I guess it boils down to: Do you want freedom or not? I guess your answer is “I want freedom unless someone doesn’t agree or have the same ideas that I have. Then I want them censored, silenced, or driven out of business.”
I don’t support discrimination of any kind, at any time. period. Go ahead and mask it as “personal freedom” but at the end of the day, it’s discrimination: evil, hateful, ugly discrimination.
Musicguys last blog post..Photo Friday
@Musicguy: So, what you’re saying is that you cannot refute the argument so you’re going to fall back on your stereotype of me or my position because it’s more comfortable than saying that you agree. I’m fine with that.
Restating my position: I support your freedom to discriminate however you want in your private affairs. I support a business owner’s right to decide how many clients they want to service. I support the Big and Tall Men’s shop when they only have clothes for big and tall men and don’t have anything in my size. I support the women’s clothing store (or even the Dress Barn) when they only carry dresses, women’s slacks, and women’s underthings and don’t carry a men’s button-down shirt or tie. I support the Chinese restaurant’s right to only serve Chinese food, or the Muslim mosque’s right to allow only Muslims to become members.
I support any business’ right to refuse service to whomever they choose based on whatever qualification they wish, and also support your right to protest it, to refuse to support it, etc. I draw the line with public service. When it comes to busing children to school, who can attend which school, who gets financial aid, etc. then there are legitimate claims based on the fact that it’s the public’s money and the government is supposed to be the public’s servant.
Other than that, I think that the government is in our face too much, and has no right telling me how I can do my business, who my clientel has to be, and how much to charge.
If you can’t say that, then obviously you’re not as much for personal freedom as much as you suggest. You’re actually more for control over people, telling them what to think and what to believe than this fundamental Christian you seem to have so many problems with. Talk about someone trying to use government to force their beliefs on other people!
@Musicguy: Well, I’m glad to hear it. I don’t know whether you have a choir or a band, but I assume that your choir has male sopranos and female bases, and that you rotate your soloists based on a number assigned at the beginning of class. I also assume that you allow even those that are tone deaf to participate, since it would unfair to discriminate against that class of people, and that if you have an all male competition you refuse to send a group since they discriminate against women competitors.
I also assume that at your school you have campaigned for men to be allowed to be on the women’s softball team (since softball is not equivalent to baseball), that women can be on the boys soccer and football teams– or that you’ve campaigned to remove sports in all together since they naturally leave out a group.
I’m not sure that you’ve gotten far with these endeavors, but any chance that you have to exterminate discrimination of a group you should definitely oppose.
Oh, and if you go to a unisex hair salon (dare I say “barber shop”) make sure you tell the barber that you’ll no longer be going because they’re not serving women. And make sure that you go into the Dress Barn looking for men’s slacks. I’m sure they’ll be in stock. And if not, you should write your congressman, and get them to impose it on this business.
Shall I continue?
It’s only evil, hateful and ugly because you choose to elevate it to the position of sin. Anyone can have their liberty and freedom as long as they agree with you, eh?
Stop trying to muddy the waters with your ridiculous examples. Racism and sexism cannot be compared with a unisex hair salon. That’s a terrible insult to those such as MLK jr, who gave their lives fighting for equality. Your rhetoric has taken a rather sickening turn, even for you.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Anniversary, Musicguy!
@Musicguy: You’re right. That last comment was written way too late at night and was a little too in your face. That’s not the tone that I should have, and for that I apologize.
The point of this discussion is personal liberty vs. government intervention. You fill your examples full of emotionally loaded rhetoric to try and make your point, and it really hasn’t addressed my point. Boiled down: The government has no place telling a private business who it can and cannot serve, who it can and cannot hire, and what the beliefs of the business owners must be simply because society or the culture or the individual believes something.
Now, there is a class of things where the government, I believe, is permitted to get involved. If the business owner is usurping the employee’s rights to life, liberty or property, they have the right to get involved. But, to me, telling a business person that they have to take pictures of a commitment ceremony of two homosexuals because they also take pictures of weddings crosses the line.
And my corollary point is this: there is a method for the culture to express its displeasure– it’s called not buying things at that store.
So, let’s apply this, shall we? I believe that pornography is sexist. I believe it objectifies people, tears apart marriages, etc. (You may agree, and that’s fine, but that’s not the point of the illustration.) We had a gas station in our town that started to put porn in the front rack of their magazine rack at children’s eye level right at front of the store.
In this illustration, I could say that because I believe porn to be a moral wrong, because it’s disgusting, because of what it does to the men that look at it and the women that perform in it, I could get behind the government going into that business and ripping those things out of there and burning them– or fine them, or take away their business.
However, I did none of these, but I did participate in a boycott (with my church) of the store. Eventually, they moved the porn, but I was more than happy to go get my gas elsewhere.
Same thing in the issue of the photographer, except unlike my porn example, discrimination is the new sin that everyone is supposed to immediately condemn where porn is a sin that people no longer feel is all that bad. The lesbian couple could have organized a boycott of their gay and straight friends. They could have sought to hurt their business or convince them to change their ways. Instead, they took them to court, and sought out the government to extract money to make a point (no, they didn’t take an award, just lawyer’s fees).
What I’m saying is that the market should be what corrects behavior the culture does not approve of– not the government. I should have the personal liberty to say things that people do not agree with, to serve the people I want to, to hire the people I want to, etc. based on whatever criteria I determine, knowing full well that if I do such that I may be on the receiving end of a boycott, bad press, etc. But the government should not be in the position of telling me what I can and cannot do in this area.
I know it sounds bad– but that’s only because (like I said) discrimination is the new sin, it’s practically the unpardonable sin in today’s secular society. And in your view it trumps personal liberty and freedom of property. And in my opinion it should not.