Comments on: Photographer Clashes with Weddings Unveiled Magazine Over Same-Sex Marriage Ad

By: Michael Wardell

Michael Wardell — Thu, 23 May 2013 00:52:00 +0000

Smart Center of Louisville
4156 SHELBYVILLE ROAD
LOUISVILLE, KY 40207
502.896.4411

Tongue Firmly in Cheek!

By: Jonathan Bean

Jonathan Bean — Sat, 11 May 2013 14:25:00 +0000

true!

By: tyrohne

tyrohne — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:54:00 +0000

You and I probably fundamentally agree that folks should have the right to link up forever with whomever they want… My issue is with the state regulating it )for hetero or homosexuals)..

You just want the state’s blessing (apparently)…

By: Joebbowers

Joebbowers — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:12:00 +0000

Your non-existent sky fairy did not invent marriage. People were getting married thousands of years before Christianity existed. You do not get to make rules that dictate other people’s lives.

By: Joebbowers

Joebbowers — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:09:00 +0000

You have the right to marry whom you wish. Gays do not. Therefore, they do not have equal rights. Also, the Church shouldn’t have any right to decide who can and who cannot marry. I am not religious, the Church should make no decisions regarding my rights.

By: Joebbowers

Joebbowers — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:05:00 +0000

The magazine isn’t called ‘Straight-Only weddings Unveiled’, it’s simply called ‘Weddings Unveiled’. How was she supposed to know they would be closed-minded?

By: Joebbowers

Joebbowers — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:02:00 +0000

The article clearly said the magazine is free to publish or not publish whatever they wish, however we are also free to call them out for making those choices. And I am free to reject your backwards ignorant attitude and insult you for it. People like you are holding back social progress and equality.

By: Andres Trujillo

Andres Trujillo — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:20:00 +0000

that’s fair, however, isn’t the ruling against “homosexuality” part of the old testament too? (Corithians, Romans and Timothy seem to refer more about pederasty or prostitution), therefore, why actively go against something that according to you is not relevant anymore?

Also, if you’re wrong, I won’t be able to have a laugh at your expense… not that I would, understand that I am not mocking your belief, nor do I want to push my lack of belief on you, I’m just discussing the rights of certain groups to be as miserable as anybody else :)

By: Eric Isaac

Eric Isaac — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 20:12:00 +0000

“1) Magazines reserve the right not publish any ad at any time. Kind of like being refused service at a restaurant because you aren’t wearing pants.”

Did you seriously just compare a picture of a lesbian couple kissing to being indecent in public?

By: Michelle Penna

Michelle Penna — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:46:00 +0000

Backtracking, perhaps. But backpeddling can be a good thing if a person (or entity) realizes they’ve made what they deem to be a mistake, and is owning up to it.

Regarding the issue at-hand, the public apology is in some ways perhaps even *more* ballsy than the ad itself . . . If they had just run the ad in the first place, there’s always the “the opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the magazine” bent, but – in the apology – they put it out there in black-and-white saying “this is what we believe” to that same demographic they were initially worried would be offended by the ad itself.

Whether you agree or disagree with their opinion, I say good on ‘em for putting it out there. It takes guts to so publicly take a stand for what you believe, and – I think – even more to say, “I was wrong. I acted falsely. I am sorry.” I think this is especially so in our culture where changing one’s mind is so often seen as weakness rather than the intelligence of continually re-evaluating not only the facts of a situation but one’s own personal beliefs.