Jefferson on photographer of gay marriage

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Love it!
Cracked me up too!


Jefferson's solution to a Christian photographer that did not want to photograph a gay marriage.

Here's the solution. The photographer should request to decline because of religious reasons. Then, when the faggots insist the Christians sin against God, the photographer should agree to shoot the wedding making sure every single picture is out of focus. There is no law against doing a bad job.

The result?

Christians 1
Faggots 0
 
That's still showing up to do it. No Christian should take photographs for a gay wedding, whether they are legally "forced" to do so or not. Obey God rather than men, and all that. Not that I feel bad for the thugs that would force someone to do something like this, but I don't think a Christian can even attend a gay "wedding" morally.

Also, THIS is the solution to crap like this.

Anything less is just "My statism is better than your statism" and not worth the time of any Christian who claims to support freedom in any fashion.

Christians who have a problem with this but support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are laughable hypocrites.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
That's still showing up to do it. No Christian should take photographs for a gay wedding, whether they are legally "forced" to do so or not. Obey God rather than men, and all that. Not that I feel bad for the thugs that would force someone to do something like this, but I don't think a Christian can even attend a gay "wedding" morally.

Also, THIS is the solution to crap like this.

Anything less is just "My statism is better than your statism" and not worth the time of any Christian who claims to support freedom in any fashion.

Christians who have a problem with this but support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are laughable hypocrites.
I think Jefferson was making a joke.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I actually think its a good idea, that would stop them from demanding that you violate your own ideals as if they have more of a right to theirs than you do.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I actually think its a good idea, that would stop them from demanding that you violate your own ideals as if they have more of a right to theirs than you do.

3 words:

Emotional distress lawsuit.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/g...ible-publishers-over-homosexual-verses-33219/

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Ex-Newtown-teacher-sues-board-principal-3845741.php

(This is a good one; gotta love UA employees with a good sense of humor)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...nes-harassment-lawsuit-sex-toy_n_1836996.html
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's still showing up to do it. No Christian should take photographs for a gay wedding, whether they are legally "forced" to do so or not. Obey God rather than men, and all that. Not that I feel bad for the thugs that would force someone to do something like this, but I don't think a Christian can even attend a gay "wedding" morally.

Also, THIS is the solution to crap like this.

Anything less is just "My statism is better than your statism" and not worth the time of any Christian who claims to support freedom in any fashion.

Christians who have a problem with this but support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are laughable hypocrites.

From your article:

The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/07/ron-paul/the-trouble-with-the-64-civil-rights-act/

What's Ron Paul's basis for such an asinine statement: the Bible, the US Constitution, the Loonatarian Party handbook? Show me where that's written other than in a Lew Rockwell article.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
As if she couldnt claim her own emotional distress caused her to do a poor job?

If I were her I'd take it one step further and file a hate crime report.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

Good luck with that though, as it's open season on Christians in our current sodomite loving society.
 
What's Ron Paul's basis for such an asinine statement: the Bible, the US Constitution, the Loonatarian Party handbook? Show me where that's written other than in a Lew Rockwell article.

Well, there is the whole Golden Rule argument. You want other people to respect your rights, so respect theirs. There is "Thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall not covet." If outright enslaving someone and forcing them to work for you isn't stealing I don't know what is. There's Proverbs 3:30 and 1 Peter 4:15.

And of course, there's a lot of good stuff on Rockwell, by a number of different authors, although I don't uncritically accept what they say. I think for myself.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior:

From your article:

The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/07/r...il-rights-act/

What's Ron Paul's basis for such an asinine statement: the Bible, the US Constitution, the Loonatarian Party handbook? Show me where that's written other than in a Lew Rockwell article.


Well, there is the whole Golden Rule argument. You want other people to respect your rights, so respect theirs.

Let's review what Daddy nutcase said again in his Lew Rockbottom article:

"The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

So in your twisted world the husband and wife that are raising a family in a nice quiet neighborhood should respect the guy next door who is running a whore house or a meth lab on his property because he has some kind of "right" to do so?
 
Top