Is anyone really surprised – Court rules it’s illegal for Christians to refuse to photograph same-sex ceremonies…

… It only follows to reason. This, of course, was the whole not-so-hidden agenda behind the driven attempts to legalize homosexual “marriage”. I still contend it was never about marriage but about forcing society – a society that has always voted against same-sex marriage every time it’s presented on the ballot, even in California – to view a disordered lifestyle as normal. You will come around to their way of thinking. And if you don’t…

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that it is illegal for a photography business owned by Christians to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony—even though New Mexico law does not permit same-sex marriage… The courts dismissed arguments that the statute violated the owners’ religious-freedom rights. [SOURCE]

Ruling: The case at bar is generally applicable and neutral; it does not selectively burden any religion or religious belief. The NMHRA applies generally to all citizens transacting commerce and business through public accommodations that deal with the public at large, and any burden on religion or some religious beliefs is incidental and uniformly applied to all citizens … As such, the government need not have a compelling interest to justify the burden it places on individuals who fall under its proscriptions. Because a rational basis exists to support the governmental interest in protecting specific classes of citizens from discrimination in public accommodations, the NMHRA does not violate the free exercise clause protections under the First Amendment.

The final court ruling was based on the whole argument that this was discrimination against a protected class – a protected class that isn’t even allowed to “marry” by New Mexico’s state laws. Interesting. And yes, you read that right, the government does not feel it even needs to justify the burden it places on individuals in incidental situations.

Updated June 10, 2012 to include this link; because I concur that homosexual “rights” are not a Civil Rights issue.

“Vanessa Willock emailed Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer, in 2006 to ask her if she would photograph Willock’s same-sex “commitment ceremony.” Huguenin replied that she only photographed “traditional” weddings. Willock’s partner then emailed Huguenin the next day, asking her if she could photograph her “wedding,” with no mention of what the ceremony actually would be. Huguenin replied, via mail, that she would and sent the partner a brochure of packages and their prices. Willock filed charges against Huguenin two months later in New Mexico’s Human Rights Division, claiming as her harm that she received an email from Huguenin stating, “we do not photograph same-sex weddings.”

What I can take from this case is two-fold: first, “insult” is the moral and legal equivalency of “harm.” Willock was not “harmed” in that she suffered a personal injury. Albuquerque is a good-sized city and it is reasonable to believe that there are a fair number of professional photographers who could have shot Willock’s ceremony. Is it discrimination? Well, yes – and so what? People discriminate all the time; the difference is what or who is recognized by law to be “protected.” So Willock’s sexual orientation is protected but Huguenin’s exercise of religion is not, although both statuses received strict scrutiny in violations thereof under the US Constitution.

Harm? Photography for a wedding ceremony, gay or straight, is hardly the denial of life’s necessities.” [SOURCE]

About Katrina Fernandez

Mackerel Snapping Papist

  • Christine~Soccer Mom

    This shows the lie behind the whole argument that no one will force the Church into anything should the courts force same sex “marriage” on us. They’re all about forcing us to accept things that are unacceptable.

  • Perry Robinson

    Resistance is not futile.

  • kenneth

    The court in this case did not do anything novel or anything aimed at Catholics in particular. It re-asserted legal principles which were laid down in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act and a mountain range of court decisions since then. That principle says that people’s right to enjoy public services, including those provided by private parties, is really , really important. 

    A big part of being American, it was decided, was never having to suffer the humiliation of being a second-class citizen in your own country, never having to hunt and beg for leftovers in housing, dining, education etc. or to have some clown tell you “we don’t serve your kind here.” It was thought that sort of situation was so vile and so un-American at heart that the freedom from discrimination was more important than the freedom of individuals, even private business owners, to engage in discrimination. It means that if you’re doing business in the public sphere, a state-regulated activity in every jurisdiction, you can’t incorporate bigotry in your business model. You can believe whatever you like, and express it, but you can’t make it the problem of your customers by telling them their money doesn’t spend there.

      You can’t do it even if the reasons for your discrimination are deeply held personal OR religious beliefs.  Freedom of religion is not an absolute right, and the right to be free from discrimination is clearly one of it’s fence lines, and has been for nigh on half a century. 

    Christians, and really not by far even all Christians, want to spin this as some unprecedented assault custom for them. They want people to believe that their freedom to discriminate should trump all, because, you see, their reasons for discrimination are REALLY REALLY sincere religious beliefs and so have some much nobler justification than the old meanies who barred black folk from their lunch counters. No one likes to remember that the Jim Crow guys also had sincere and religious reasons for their feelings and that they too cast themselves as the victims of PC thought police. 

    The courts and this country decided a long time ago that there is no justification good enough to offset the ugliness of discrimination in public service.  The prospect that gay people’s money can only spend in “gay friendly” businesses is just as disgusting as black entertainers having to stay at the “colored” hotel on town.  

    • Tim

      Were the photographers providing a “public service”?  The fact that it is a “Christian photography business” leads me to believe that they are a private entity.

      • Tim

        Reading the opinion, I see that the court of appeals had to finagle the definition of “public accommodation” in the New Mexico Human Rights Act.  

        You gotta love courts with an agenda.

    • Tim

      Freedom of religion is not an absolute right, and the right to be free from discrimination is clearly one of it’s fence lines, and has been for nigh on half a century. ”

      Is “freedom from discrimination” an absolute right?  If it is, then all laws are unconstitutional (violating the Freedom from Discrimination Amendment…?), since all laws discriminate between different forms of conduct.   And if people identify themselves with conduct, those laws discriminate against persons (laws against speeding can easily be interpreted as laws against “speeders”).   Even you seem to be fine with “discrimination” against businesses who don’t want to celebrate “same-sex commitment” ceremonies (as it is called in the opinion).  I’m sure the contours of the “freedom from discrimination” are plain to you, but they seem arbitrary to me and many others.

      I’m going to venture to guess that the “freedom from discrimination” has “fence lines,” one of those being the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and other amendments actually in the Constitution). 

      So now this business or its owners have to pay almost $7,000.00 in costs and attorneys fees just because someone didn’t feel like getting another photographer.  Winner: attorneys.

    • Edge

      Simply put – you are wrong. First, the disorder of same sex attraction is not a civil liberties issue, no matter how hard anyone tries to paint it as such. Second, in the same vein – the disorder of same sex attraction was NOT part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

      Lastly, the constitution has a little thing, put first for a reason. Not you, nor a court of law, nor any any evil force can make evil good, or good evil. Legal is a horse of another color. All that Hitler did was – in legalize – legal. 

      Final point – keep pushing this disorder as normal, and those suffering from it will not be able to get the help they need, the help they deserve. Do you really hate them that much???

      • kenneth

        You’re attempting to wrap a theological assertion “SSA is a disorder” in the language of medicine, apparently to bolster its credibility. It won’t work because the assertion has no basis in science whatsoever. No significant number of serious mainstream scientists in any relevant discipline of psychology or medicine considers SSA to be a disorder. Not because they all swore some secret oath to the “homosexual agenda” (whatever that is), but because the science doesn’t support it.

        There is simply no credible evidence that people with SSA are any less happy or functional than any others, when controlled for other factors. SSA as a mental disorder is in the same category as the once-prevalent medical assertion that women were subject to “hysteria” from uterine shifts and thus lacked the mental aptitude for things like science, or most work outside of the home.  Science, not theology, determines when something is defined and treated as a pathological condition, and in the absence of scientific evidence, “treating” SSA as a disorder would be grotesquely unethical.

        • Katrina Fernandez

          You write, “There is simply no credible evidence that people with SSA are any less happy or functional than any others”

          Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources. 

          • kenneth

            I stand by my point. NARTH is not considered a credible professional association by anyone of serious standing in the field. Much of the work produced by its members has been written off as pseudoscience. One of its leading lights, George Alan Rekers, used to be a professional paid witness for states trying to assert that homosexuality was a disorder. Even courts in conservative states considered him a hack. 

            Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman  had this to say of his work:”Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.” 

            Rekers, who was a board member of NARTH and probably as accomplished as any of its members, resigned a few years ago after it came to light that he was traveling in the company of a supple young lad hired from an outfit called “Rentboy.” 

            NARTH has as much credibility to speak for scientific psychology as Catholics for Choice has to speak authoritatively about Church doctrine….

          • Katrina Fernandez

            I have a feeling any source I cite you’ll deem “not credible”.  

          • kenneth

            If NARTH and it’s “scientists” are the best you’ve got, then you’re right. I would consider credible sources to be mainstream professional organizations with some long standing and depth in their fields, – APA, AMA, the various associations of pediatrics, family physicians, counselors etc. 

            These are organizations that have been around for many decades, sometimes centuries, who concern themselves with all areas of the science and practice of their professions, and were not just formed for the purpose of fighting one culture war issue. NARTH stretches the definition of a professional organization. Unless things have changed since last year, it’s no longer even qualified to provide continuing education to its members   Credible sources would also be those that are published in peer-reviewed real scientific journals, a process that subjects work to fairly rigorous critique and analysis. Outfits like NARTH self-create their own “journals” Credible sources are also those which produce original research by researchers in their primary field of expertise. What NARTH produces are not studies at all. They are opinion pieces written by skimming the results and conclusions of a handful of mostly old work by other researchers, some of which has since been discredited and retracted by the original authors. They cherry pick the findings, gloss over the huge methodological shortcomings, and then say “see, there’s a consensus that homosexuality causes mental problems.” That’s an accepted method for political debates and speechwriters. It’s considered pathetic by scientists.  So far as I have seen, they have not even done a real meta-analysis of the older studies which would at least offer some scientific weighing of past evidence. Another favorite tactic of hinky outfits like NARTH is to pretend that “phD” = “eminent expert in any field.”  The author at that link you provided, Neil E. Whitehead, carries himself  as though he were a psychologist or expert in human sexuality. His only creds in that area is a self-published book he put out 13 years ago. As a working scientist in past decades, he was essentially a uranium prospector for the New Zealand government. 

          • Katrina Fernandez

            Challenge accepted! You’re fun. I like it when you participate in the comments thread. Keeps me on my toes. Give me some time to do the research and I will get back you. Promise. 

          • kenneth

            I’ll be interested to see what turns up. I’m confident that the general consensus of the scientific community says SSA is not a disorder and not amenable to reparative therapy.

             I am also confident that you will be able to find some individual studies – some by reputable investigators – which show that gay people have higher rates of various mental and social pathologies – suicide etc. than their supposedly matched straight counterparts.  The methods that found those correlations are in some dispute, and none have shown convincingly that the problems were caused by the SSA itself, as opposed to the lifelong stigma of being beat up for a sissy, turned out by one’s parents etc.

          • Edge

            Kenneth – while Katrina takes your challenge below and is researching, let me try to approach this from another perspective. First, as with any discussion between two people (on the web, in person, or any other type of interaction) neither is aware completely the background of the other. For example, one or both of us could be suffering from this disorder, or perhaps neither of us are. One may have been cured, or in treatment for it. One may be trained to heal those suffering, or could be related to one whom is suffering – so here is some background from my end: I am not now or nor have I ever suffered from this disorder. I do not have any family members who suffer from this. I have known a handful of people who did suffer from this, and some who have been grateful to have received treatment and been helped.

            I am a Catholic, but try to approach the subject of this disorder from a more secular point of view. To yell, or even to quietly state that it is a mortal sin, is lost on those uneducated and intentionally ignorant of sin and its cost. Further, I believe that suffering can and is redemptive – the ole “take up your cross and follow me” thing. What I hate to my core is to see anyone suffering from a disorder, all disorders, and even more when they are lied to by being told their suffering is not from the disorder but is that their disorder is normal. If they are swayed from seeking help, they will continue to suffer. It is not a suffering like a stubbed toe, but one that spirals downward, increasing the longer it goes untreated. I have known alcoholics that have been lied to by so called friends that claimed they didn’t see any problem, and the lie told so they didn’t loose a drinking buddy prolonged the suffering of the alcoholic and kept them from the help they needed. This is tragic.

            Further, the fact that both the Mother of God and Jesus himself (in private revelation such as Fatima and with St. Faustina,) that both suffer most at the thought of those who will be lost. Therefore, every human whom God created is loved by God (and since he made them all, that means everyone) and God wants everyone to chose Him and heaven. (Not to be confused with the great lie that “God loves you just as you are” – He loves you, YES, but not the state of sin most of us find ourselves in way to often. He wants you to repent of your sins (i.e. Confession) and why he told EVERY sinner – your sins are forgiven, NOW GO AND SIN NO MORE. Yes, He loves us all, but if we choose to remain in sin, that is our own choice and is to our own peril, but also held accountable are those who stand by and do not help when they are able. 

            So what does any of this have to do with the current topic? Well, if you are still reading, first, thank you. The answer is simple, those who are suffering cannot receive help when a bunch of incorrect people say that it is normal. First, of the ones with the disorder that I have personally known, there were the ones who where ashamed to show it in public, but they were shy people anyway. There were others who loved to show their “gayness” – but they were outgoing anyway. In other words – their personalities were not dependent on their “gayness”. (This almost sounds like I am making your argument, doesn’t it? But really, I am not.) 

            See, I have known some of these people very well, and the greatest suffering they had (from their own point of view and in their own words) was not from how others perceived and treated them, but from their own internal acknowledgement that something inside was wrong. I also have known several alcoholics and the conversations are the same. Now mind you, when there were attacked or put on the spot – they would go into defense mode and could be harsh and cruel as part of their defense. But in the quiet conversations, the kind where hearts and complete unadulterated honesty are poured out – well that is where the truth is found. None of these people knew each other, so to hear the same cry for help across the board must give one pause. Many people with different disorders, all knew deep down when they were honest with themselves that they needed help. This does not address the plethora of those who have been treated and cured of this disorder. A simple search will find you many who would be happy to share and tell you the same thing I am but from the perspective of one who has actually suffered from these disorders and over came it. 

            Now, this is not clinical, nor scientific, but from a personal perspective, from one who stood by and just listened as a friend, and therefore subjective. But lets take the personal out of it, and look at this strictly from a logical point of view.

            A homosexual attraction serves no purpose – none. It cannot allow the procreation of another human being. So the logical argument FOR it is love – like “L” who commented to me above and said that they want “them to live their lives with a loving partner of the same gender”. This is a very dangerous path to make this argument for it – the very prime example of a slippery slope. If the only reason to call it normal (outside of the ones who feel the fact that it is disordered and want healed) is because they LOVE one another, and therefore should be allowed to marry, or at the very least be allowed to have the distorted attempt at sex, then what happens when the 65 year old man and the 6 year old child really and truly LOVE one another? How can you deny them their love?

            So, now I assume you are saying, “that is not fair, the 6 year old does not know what love is.” Is it at least fair to say we both agree the 65 year old’s attraction to the child is a disorder?

            So, then if not a 65 and 6 year old love, what about the brother and sister who are aged 20 and 22? They really LOVE each other, and ARE consenting adults, so is their love OK – or is it disordered?

            What about the 65 year old Mom and her 25 year old son – should their LOVE be given the green light – they are consenting adults and really LOVE one another, or is it disordered?

            Last one, the 22 year old boy and his 12 girlfriends ranging from 18 to 78 want a joint marriage – if marriage is NOT defined as one man and one woman, how can you say this LOVE is wrong? Is this group union OK with you or is it disordered? 

            Each case is based on the argument of LOVE between consenting adults, (except for the adult /child love) – and all are examples of disordered unions and mentalities. If one is OK, then ALL are OK, therefore the only one that is logical – a man and a woman who can grow a family are logical, and productive- and normal.

            You cannot claim it is fine for “same sex” couples to marry unless you are prepared to allow every other case IF the argument for it is LOVE between consenting adults. AND after, be prepared for the legalization of the adult/child union, because logic dictates it WILL follow.

            You like to claim that science does not find same sex attraction as a disorder, and as I pointed out – the disorder of same sex attraction HAS been removed from the books as a disorder (I also pointed out that the one responsible for having it removed now regrets it.) 

            But the point  is that the sexual attraction of an adult to a child has ALSO been removed from the books as a psychological disorder, just as the same sex attraction disorder has been – but both ARE still disorders. 

            So, from a logical point of view, LOVE as a reason fails flat. So the only other argument that could be classified in the LOGIC camp that I have ever heard is the false claim of discrimination. This is where those suffering from same sex attraction disorder want the same rights heterosexual couples have. This sounds fair, but makes me laugh because it is a false claim. Every male suffering from homosexual attraction disorder CAN marry a female, just as I can. Every female suffering from homosexual attraction disorder CAN marry a male. So they claim they want a right to do something that NO ONE  can – therefore it is NOT a right being denied, but a NEW and special right that they want – and to boot THAT is no right at all.

            BUT, but, but what about all of the financial benefits and tax breaks? REALLY?? – same thing – get help, get cured, get married and have a wonderful family – Husband, wife, and as many children as you can have. Or stay single, same choices we all have. Both of the examples have been tried and liked by many cured of this disorder.

            So, what about the photographer? I will save that for another post. Logically, same sex attraction IS a disorder, biologically, scientifically, clinically, it is a disorder, and to not help them with love and caring treatment is a cruel and mean thing to do to them. The only thing crueler is to let them think their disorder is normal. Those healed will tell you that. 

          • kenneth

            In your projectile-vomiting of some 1,661 words, you’ve established no real argument worth engaging. At the end of it all, you’ve still offered no substantive evidence that SSA is a disorder in any scientific or medical understanding of the word.

             If you truly can’t see any distinction between SSA and pedophilia (a predatory crime against someone without the ability to truly consent) and incest (which is virtually always the product of predatory abuse), you’ve got nothing but smoke and noise to contribute to the exchange. 

          • Edge

            Your reply is quite intriguing, and quite telling as well. No matter what proof is presented, your standard response is the same – “you are wrong”. However, you fail to provide any substance as proof in defense that this disorder is normal as you claim. 

            “He who forgets history is condemned to repeat it.” 

            EVERY civilization that has embraced the disorder of homosexuality as “normal” has come to ruin shortly after. No civilization prospered from the celebration of the disorder. Civilizations come and go, but history shows those that embraced the disorder fell faster and harder. 

            It is illogical, it is scientifically, psychologically, and biologically, a disorder. I have not even touched on the theological view. This disorder servers no rational purpose. “L” at least tries to argue the “LOVE” point, but that falls flat on its face as well, as I tried to explain in the earlier post. However, history argues the point flawlessly. 

            Of course I am sure that your reply will be – “that is wrong and your just a hater” without any real defense of your position. It is understandable though, because there is no defense or justification of the celebration of a disorder. You can only simply “claim” that all points that do not agree with your opinion are “wrong”.

          • kenneth

            The defense of my position (that SSA is not a disorder) is the position statements,  on the issue of every major medical and psychological professional group which has studied the matter.

             The consensus among scientist, a consensus which is reasonably close to being universal, is that SSA is not a medical or psychological disorder.

             I make no such assertion about what theology may have to say about it. That’s an entirely different matter, and one which for me has no bearing on public policy considerations. Where I’m concerned, theology is a legitimate matter among those who follow a certain faith. Arguing science from the authority of theology rather than evidence is an excellent way to embarrass the church that does so. You’d think they learned that lesson with Galileo.  What you appear to offer as scientific evidence that SSA is a disorder are two sweeping and totally unsupported assertions, one grounded in anthropology, the other apparently in evolutionary biology. If you want either one of those claims to stand as science, you’ve got a hell of a lot of work to do to demonstrate it.  What you’ve offered as conclusive scientific proof is nothing more than the first sentences of two research proposals. You then have to demonstrate why, in existing knowledge, both theses are even plausible, and THEN, do the work which actually proves homosexual acceptance as a primary or proximate cause of the fall of civilizations. You’d have to find some logical way to quantify acceptance of SSA, which was very complex across time and cultures, and then use some mathematically reasonable way to show how it lead to the downfall of the empire independently of things like military and economic decay, climate disasters etc. I think it would be an interesting doctoral thesis for someone. What you’re doing, however, is offering the proposal as proof itself, fobbing off the hundreds of pages of methods and evidence by saying that your thesis is self evident and something “everyone knows.”  If we’re doing this debate on science, that don’t feed the mouse, let alone the bulldog. 

          • Edge

            No, you still do not defend your position. You merely parrot the talking points of the homosexual activists. This is clear when you make over-reaching statements like “every major medical and psychological professional group” as the majority still classify same sex attraction as a disorder. This just further proves you are not even looking – but being a moth-piece for the homosexual lobby. That is like the ostrich who complains it is dark but refuses to pull his head from the sand. 

            The studies you say would be interesting HAVE been done, and consistently show that those who suffer from ssad (same sex attraction disorder) need help. Yes, you will not see it reported on the six o’clock news, as they tend to bow to the lobby masters too. Plus, I will agree that there ARE some major health organizations that fail to communicate the serious medical and psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality, and who continue to choose to ignore this research because of political correctness, not science, is their driver. But this is the case when ever a lobby pushes a specific agenda. There are always those who will take the 30 pieces of silver.

            A quick two second search on the net shows a ton of information like this:

            “For instance, a 1997 Canadian study done in Vancouver shows the life span of gay men to be similar to what it was in 1871. The study estimates that one-half of all gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday. 

            Two recent studies published in the American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirm the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems. Forty percent of people with same-sex attraction were sexually abused as children. Relationship violence is as high as 44 percent among gay men and 55 percent among lesbian couples.”

            Then you can see the biased lies when they talk about the “invisible gay gene. They talk about how those with ssad were born this way, even when science clearly shows otherwise. What changes their tune is not science, but when the confirsation moves to choice – because they choose to be this way. So which is it?

            Your failure is in accepting the false arguments that ssad is not a disorder, and blindly repeating the same old and tired propaganda the left screams the loudest. All of which contradicts itself at some point.

            I can dig up the medical journals, the countless papers that have been written, and interview the majority of doctors that will tell you it is called ssad for a reason. The Medical associations that side with your false theory are funded by the very lobbies that have a  stake in the outcome – hardly unbiased. 

            I could tell from the very beginning of our discussion that you would just  bring the same biased talking points, but I really hoped for more. 

            You stated your total belief in science as the proof, but then in the next breath cite how science is not reliable as you give the example of how science was wrong with “the once-prevalent medical assertion that women were subject to “hysteria” from uterine shifts.” 

            You assert that all of the studies that have proven same sex attraction IS a disorder are not credible and when when proof, scientific examples, and cases are cited, shown from a historical point of view, and logical and critical thinking points of view,  you simply say we are arguing from a theological stand point. Then you go on to explain how you don’t accept that point of view. 

            The disorder is real, denial of it does not change that fact. The very sources you claim back up that it is not are not credible, when they are funded by the homosexual lobby – conflict of interest and all. 

            Best of luck. I hope you find the time to do some serious searching for answers, the truth is out there, and I believe you can find it if you set your mind to it!!  God Bless!!

        • Edge

          Again, you are incorrect. Same sex attraction disorder IS a disorder that can be, has been, and continues to be treated - in the language of medicine. 

          You say – “No significant number of serious mainstream scientists in any relevant discipline of psychology or medicine considers SSA to be a disorder.”

          This is like saying all cops are crooked – another fallacy. Some are, no doubt, just as some serious mainstream scientists in ALL relevant disciplines of psychology have fallen for the lie that it is not a disorder. The ones who deny it it is ARE the minority, but are also the ones who are given the loudest voice through the lame-stream media. What the general public hear and see is the lie that is pushed in hollywood, in the media, and y those with an agenda – a very evil agenda.

          Why do you think the California passed a law that makes it illegal to help those who are suffering from this evil disorder? (A little common sense is needed here) Because if the doctors where not actively seeking to help those who suffered from this disorder, no law would be needed. See if no one from the medical and scientific world were trying to treat it, the ones trying to push this evil agenda would not need to pass bogus hurtful laws.  

          Then you go on to say “There is simply no credible evidence that people with SSA are any less happy or functional than any others, when controlled for other factors.”

          Again you are incorrect, because while some who suffer from this (and other disorders such as alcoholism) can still be happy and functional. But that is usually AFTER admitting that they have a problem and have sought and received help. 

          Finally, you state that “Science, not theology, determines when something is defined and treated as a pathological condition” You see, while the Catholic Church defines homosexuality as a disorder, I am referring not to the theological argument, but the scientific and medical understanding. You see, the “scientific world understands and have called it a disorder. The ones who deny this propagate the lie and prevent those suffering from it to be healed.

          You are relying on the false assumptions made by a few (who may suffer from the disorder themselves) but who get a loud voice in the media because they push the agenda! Your statement shows you do not understand science at all. Science is the “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” 

          In other words, it is the PURSUIT of knowledge, not knowledge itself. The discipline takes a set of assumptions (with many as educated guess mixed with facts) to make reasonable assumptions know as a  hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it, and not to be confused with a scientific theory. For a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

          So let me make your last line a TRUE statement:

          “NOT treating same sex disorder as a disorder would be grotesquely unethical.” – there fixed it for you. 

          God Bless!!

      • L.

        Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO hate them that much, that I want to curse them to live their lives with a loving partner of the same gender. 

  • Edge

    … and this is just another example and consequence of our own making. We fell asleep, and the enemy went to work. He attacked in a slow and methodical way. While we slept, he laid out the rules and we without thinking agreed to them – we use the language to fight this (and all current evil) using the words that the enemy gave us. We do not call these evils what they are – and for that WE are guilty.

    That round ended utensil – we have no problem calling it a spoon. That item on the shelf with paper bound between two hard surfaces and words printed on it – we take no issue calling it a book. But what do we call it when a human is shredded, limbs literally pulled from the body – INTENTIONALLY by another human being – oh that’s right, we use the terminology that the enemy has told us to use – we call it abortion, or worse – a choice. Which word makes you feel more anger at the injustice that cries out to God – abortion – or the correct word – MURDER. 

    Why do we call the disorder, a mental disorder that was on the books as such now normal? We rightly call and treat (helping those who suffer from them) the disorders of alcoholism, kleptomania, attention deficit disorder, and many more. But we allow the media and the enemy to call it homosexual, not homosexual disorder (which it is.) We allow it to be called normal and a right – which it is neither. It is an illness and to allow those who suffer from it to go untreated is the most cruel thing we can do to them. As I said it WAS on the books, and the person who was responsible for having it removed now thinks it was a mistake, just as the primary woman in Roe V. Wade regrets her role in allowing the “legal” murder of 53+ million human beings – children - babies. 

    The enemy is tireless, and smart – and he started this war long ago. Infiltration of the greatest positions of power – the schools, the entertainment from song, movies, and literature, the government, the priesthood, and every other position of power. From there his agents of evil set the stage. They dictate the words we can use, and they MAKE us use words of their choosing – instead of allowing us to call this evil what it really is. In the beginning, the attacks came quick and just hard enough to be known, but never hard enough to do real damage. Just hard enough so if anyone noticed, but saw their was no real damage, then the next time the attack could be harder, and no one would care – they saw before there was no damage. An attack on the family, and attack on marriage, and attack on the Church, an attack on modesty, an attack on moral values, an attack on everything connected, so that in the end, nothing that is good will be defendable, and nothing that is evil can be questioned. The enemy rotated the attacks so we never knew where the next attack would hit, and hit they did. The attacks were slow and soft in the beginning so that no one cared, like the boy who cried wolf, since there was no real threat in the beginning, the defenders stopped showing up. Soon, like a frog placed into a pot of cold water, the enemy slowly  - over decades – turned the heat up, and we just continued to ignore it – and now we, like the frog, are surprised that the water around us is boiling and we have no liberties.

    The enemy has attacked so long, changing from this to that target, that there has not been the ability to set up a defense in any place. When we did, like good folk, we used the soft words that the enemy told us to use. Every time we started to call things by their proper names – we were viciously attacked as mean, intolerant, and painted as the evil one. So back to using the soft language we were “allowed” to use. The attack has been going on for more than a generation, so the new generation is unaware that these are truly attacks on all that is good. The young are indoctrinated by the agents and only know the language that the enemy forces us to use – a language that IF used, can never identify or stop the true evil. 

    Abortion is murder and homosexual attraction is a disorder that needs treated, these statements are met by the agents of evil and they scream that the language is intolerant. They scream that this language is not helping (not helping who – the enemy???). They scream that this language (the truth) just turns people off. They scream that this language it stops the dialogue – that it is not helpful. For nearly 40 years the dialogue has been both sides using their language – the language they demand we use has not prevented 53+ million murders. It is time to call things what they are. 

    We must have the courage to face the enemy head on – we must be bold and truthful – we must not be afraid – we must scream the truth from every rooftop, from every blog and com box, from every newspaper editorial page, from every water cooler conversation – speak the truth, and for goodness sake – use the words that states what things are.

    Here is the good news – in midst of folks like this photographer getting attacked for doing the right thing, there are others waking up from their slumber. Those like myself who were fooled for a time, then started to wake (started as in began to fight), but fell into the trap of using their language. But NOW, finally, people are starting to fully wake and are calling these evil by their true terms – we are calling them evil – we are calling abortion what it is – calling it murder. We are attempting to help those suffering souls with same sex attraction disorder by telling the truth. We WILL NOT let them stay in their disillusioned world and think that their disorder is normal. We WILL cal it a disorder, and seek to get them treatment.

    There ARE heros in this battle. Those who have suffered greatly from the lies. The enemy has been attacking us for a long time, and is getting ready for the death blows. We are loosing our liberties daily, and are forced to acknowledge evil as good. I will not. You must not. We follow the example of heros like Katrina, and many countless more. When we see evil, we must LOUDLY call it evil, and not hide from it. We must take the insults and the fines, we must take the jail sentences – and very possibly the martyrdom. Think I am wrong – ask this photography owner? Ask Katrina who allowed us to know that she too was fooled in her youth, but strengthened through Christ, now battles the evil – calling evil what it is for all the world to see, regardless of what other may or do say against her. 

    You want to just get along, then continue to watch and laugh at the shows like Will and Grace (talk about a hidden attack – who’s “will” is it, and by what “grace”???), Modern Family (which is NOT a family), and shows like How I met your mother and Two and half men – any of these immoral shows that try to make immorality seem normal – IT IS NOT. The fact these are even on show how far we – that is WE – have fallen… and evil takes another victory.

    Tell the world the truth – Not abortion – it is Murder – the intentional taking of one human’s life by another human. 

    Tell the world the truth – Not NORMAL – homosexuality is a disorder, and we cannot, will not celebrate the disorder. The disorder needs to be treated. Poor Californians that are suffering though, as they have now passed a law that makes it illegal to attempt to treat this disorder. (Another battle win for the enemy.) 

    Stand strong – put on the armor of God, Pray, do battle, and do not back down when the agents of the enemy call you ” a big ole meanie head!!!” for it means that you are doing the work of our master, for they hated Him, and they also hated when he told the truth and called things what they are. 

  • Gina101

     Say what? I thought nooobody was hurt by same-sex “marriage”? Apparently
    with this new novel idea in social engineering you have to toss your faith in the
    trash heap. “Ja wohl Kommandant!” ~

  • Valekhai

    This is interesting to me, and I find myself a bit torn. I’m a big supporter of the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state (which goes both ways in my mind; I’m against things like the HHS mandate but I’m also against putting monuments to the Ten Commandments outside of court houses), so typically I’m all for allowing religious institutions to do things that I disagree with if it doesn’t harm anyone and if it is a part of their religious beliefs. But when it comes to individual businesses such as the photographer in this story, I’m not sure where to draw the line.
    Take this for example: back in December, a church in Kentucky voted that they wouldn’t allow interracial married couples to be members of their church or to participate in church functions (except for funerals). I thought that was awful, but I thought that the church had a right to do it. They were a church and that, according to the congregation members who initially voted on it, was their religious belief. But what if one of those members who had voted was a professional photographer? Should they be allowed to refuse to photograph interracial weddings since they have a religious objection to them? I’m not sure.
    What are your thoughts on that?

    • Katrina Fernandez

      A private photography has to the right to refuse clients for whatever reason whether we agree with them or not. They lose business & get a bad rep as repercussions. Those are my unwavering thoughts. 

      • kenneth

        From the standpoint of pure libertarianism, I get that argument. But would you be ok with having YOUR business refused because of your last name, or Catholic identity, or whatever? If it’s ok for a photographer to refuse your business, what about a mortgage company? A car rental place? In almost any case, one can make the argument that you have plenty of other choices, or at least some. In past centuries, blacks down south always found someplace to eat or sleep or go to school. The Irish found someone to hire them. Is that the kind of society we want to live in just to preserve the absolute freedoms of business owners? 

      • Valekhai

        I’d worry about the kind of precedent that would set and what kind of exceptions could be made. When we’re talking about something like a photographer, we’re talking about something relatively insignificant; unless they’re in a very small town, getting another photographer probably wouldn’t be difficult, and the worst case scenario is that they would have to rely on wedding guests to bring cameras and take pictures.

        What about other kinds of businesses where the stakes are higher? There’s been a lot of discussion about conscience rights of medical workers. What if it is against the religious beliefs of members of a hospital’s medical staff to perform certain types of life-saving procedures like organ transplants or blood transfusions, or where they refuse to treat certain conditions that are associated with immoral behavior (STD’s, obesity-related diseases, what have you)? Is there room for some sort of governmental oversight, or would that be a violation of 1st Amendment rights? Is this a situation where the “invisible hand of the market” would take care of the problem?

    • kenneth

      I would say the church was well within their free exercise rights to define the rules of their own doctrine and practice, even if most of us would find them deplorable.  Asserting a right to force such discrimination into the public sphere in one’s place of business is a fundamentally different matter. It is not as integral or critical to one’s practice of worship, and the courts and Congress have held that the freedom to discriminate in commerce is outweighed by the right to not suffer such discrimination. 

      • Katrina Fernandez

        Ugh. I hate it when you sound all rational and junk. It makes you sound quasi right. Damn you. 

        • kenneth

          This might surprise you, but I do hold the right to worship in high regard. I favor gay marriage, yes, but I would also favor clear and strong legislation barring any church from being forced to conduct such marriages. I do, however, draw a line at a point where activities shift from being primarily religious to primarily business in nature, and the courts also seem to draw a similar distinction. Freedom of religion is a broad right, but like all others, it cannot be absolute. All of our rights are like this, going back to the idea that one’s freedom to swing their fist ends at someone else’s nose. This photographer took the attitude that he has the right to swing away like Mike Tyson in his prime, and if some gay couple gets hurt, it’s their fault for not keeping out of his way. If I were a law clerk in this case, I’d label that the “Tyson Doctrine,” – it is kind of catching and visually disturbing! I’m betting no court will want to endorse it, however. 

          • Katrina Fernandez

            Then you feel this is an injustice too; churches being forced to “marry” homosexuals in Denmark… soon to be forced to do so here. 

            Again, it’s not about “marriage” it’s about forcing the normalization of homosexuality on people morally opposed to it. 


          • L.

             soon to be forced to do so here. ”

            I don’t think so, because even ardent gay rights supporters like me would oppose this one on First Amendment grounds.

          • kenneth

            Something else to remember is that for all of our problems, we are still (mostly) a government of laws and checks and balances. Over the long haul of all of these contentious issues, common sense rulings and interpretations do come into play. 

            We won’t all agree on where the balance is right or if it comes fast enough, but the scary “sky is falling” slippery slope fears have been raised on many, many issues. They have not come to pass. Emancipation of slaves and later civil rights were opposed on the grounds that the former slaves would “run amuck” and create a tyrannical regime aimed at payback and humiliation of the “White Race”, perhaps along the lines of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Opponents of the Americans With Disabilities Act said it was only a matter of time before guys won workplace accomodations by defining laziness as a disability. As we recognize the basic legal and civil rights of gay Americans, which is happening and will continue to happen, will some crafty militant gays and their lawyers try to push things to the nth absurd degree? You can bet the rent money on it. But judges are not, in the aggregate, complete fools. The will put the kibosh on the true loony antics, and the sun will come back up, and we’ll all be back to worrying about our retirements and kids college funds etc. 

          • kenneth

            I agree the Denmark decision is an injustice. However, we also have to remember that Denmark is not comparable to the U.S. in many ways. They don’t have a legal or cultural tradition of separation of church and state. They have an official national church to which almost everyone belongs, although few are actively religious. Churhes there, as in much of Europe, also exist on the public tax dole rather than personal contributions from active members.

            I suspect they’re therefore able to rationalize this on the theory that the national churches are a public amenity of sorts. This is one of the very reasons I support a very strong separation of church and state here, and I’m constantly perplexed that so many conservatives want to tear that wall down. Apparently they think the church would always have the upper hand in the partnership. Denmark proves that wrong. As I’ve said, I support the idea of legislation that safeguards religious organizations from interference in their practice. I will also note that there is also a very strong set of court precedents in this country in which courts have refused to intrude upon internal church matters, going so far as to grant them broad exemption even from such basic things as workplace non-discrimination laws. 

  • Edge

    I saw this over at: Today’s Toons 6/8/12 - it seems about right to me…

    • Edge
      • kenneth

        Some of them are funny, and spot-on, but what do cartoon rants against Obama have to do with anything? We’re talking about the decision of a state appellate court whose judges were not appointed by Obama or any federal official. 

        • Edge

          Yes, some are very funny, but there was one specifically I was trying to post – and then attach the link where it was from. “Epic fail” on my part. So, to your point, there is one that is relevant, and of all the others,  while some are funny, some are spot on, and others are pretty lame, those do NOT have anything in common with this subject.

           My apologies for the mistake, and I have emailed Katrina and asked her to add the one specific “cartoon”, otherwise, this makes no sense –  and misses the point completely.