Photographer sued for refusing service

[bentcountershaft]

I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry. It's no different from being on the wrong side of the segregation debate forty years ago. Ignorance is ugly in person and completely baffling when looked upon by history.

 

[gsgary]

I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry. It's no different from being on the wrong side of the segregation debate forty years ago. Ignorance is ugly in person and completely baffling when looked upon by history.

I don't think it will ever happen in the US too many ignorant bible bashers

 

[jwbryson1]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

Slavery was outlawed in 1863.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

Slavery was outlawed in 1863.

So discrimination doesn't exist anymore?

 

[sm4him]

I hear the Westboro Baptist Church is looking for new members, if you're interested.

For the record, I belong to a Baptist Church. A Southern Baptist Church. And I am a self-professed Evangelical, Fundamental, Right-Wing Christian. By the standards of the world, anyway. Mostly, I'm just a follower of Christ (sorry, Mods, if that breaks the whole "don't talk about religion" thing, I'm just saying, that's who I am).

I won't tell you my views on homosexuality. Because it doesn't matter what my views are. If I CHOOSE to run a restaurant, I'd better be prepared to serve whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, as well as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and whatever else there is. if I CHOOSE to run a photography business, I'd better be ready to suck it up and do photography for the same people. NO matter WHAT I think of their "lifestyle."

Because--even as a conservative Christian, narrow-minded as I am... :lmao:--I can see the immediate problem with that. The problem is:
I don't want someone to be able to refuse to do MY photo shoot, just because I'm a heterosexual. Or just because I'm a Christian and they're Muslims, or an Atheist.


That said, for the record: we ALL discriminate, to some degree, by the technical definition of discrimination: "to make a distinction in favor or against one person or thing as compared with others." For instance, some seem to think that EVERY Baptist is "close minded, brainwashed and ignorant."
Personally, I feel very discriminating against young people who wear their pants around their knees. And brown M&Ms--I always pick out every other color first, and only eat the brown ones grudgingly.

 

[NikonDude]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.

Not now, not ever.

 

[unpopular]

I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post

I don't take on black clients. I don't want them spoiling my portfolio. I am a white-only establishment.


----

If the law protects sexual orientation, thendexcriminating against a gay couple would be no different than discriminating against a black couple, regardless f you admit that you are refusing services for that reason. If sufficient evidence exists that I routinely refuse services to black customers, then I can be charged with a civil rights violation, so the blanket "I have a right to refuse service to anyone" is far from fool-proof. I also sincerely doubt that by being paid to photograph a gay couple would violate the photographers first amendment right to free speech, as it would in no way be an endorsement of gay marriage.

 

[tirediron]

Should it be legal for restaurants to refuse to serve gay couples? Taxi cabs to refuse to pick them up? Landlords to refuse to rent to them? Doctors to refuse them care? Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?

Why is this any more or less discrimantory than telling someone who has a persornal or moral object to <cir***stance> that they have to provide a service relating to that? Why is it more "right" to offend one group than another?

Edit: We have GOT to fix that word filter...

 

[jwbryson1]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

Slavery was outlawed in 1863.

So discrimination doesn't exist anymore?

No, I think discrimination is alive and well today as unfortunate as that may be. I'm just thinking that if the photographer didn't want to do the shots for whatever reason, good or bad, why make a fuss of it? The photographer can't be forced to take the photos, so instead of worrying about it and making it a legal issue, why didn't the plaintiffs here just find another photographer? Everybody's happy that way and there is no wasted court time, court fees, attorneys' fees, and hurt feelings. Why make an issue out of it is my point.

 

[unpopular]

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone? Homosexual activists argue that same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the &#8220;marriage&#8221; between two individuals of the same sex.

This is completely false, homosexual activity is well do***ented in nature at times when overpopulation is a threat, and in some cases spontaneously or even socially. Animals as close to us as canines engage in homosexual activities. While most would conclude that this is some sort of dominance ritual, it is nonetheless homosexual, and could just as easily be argued that this "dominance" hypothesis is anthropometric in interpretation.

 

[Mach0]

At the end of the day, this country is full of shipoopie. A country that claims freedom but was built on the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another. Much of the crap that goes on should be no surprise.

 

[480sparky]

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?

 

[Espike]

I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post

I don't take on black clients. I don't want them spoiling my portfolio. I am a white-only establishment.


----

If the law protects sexual orientation, thendexcriminating against a gay couple would be no different than discriminating against a black couple, regardless f you admit that you are refusing services for that reason. If sufficient evidence exists that I routinely refuse services to black customers, then I can be charged with a civil rights violation, so the blanket "I have a right to refuse service to anyone" is far from fool-proof. I also sincerely doubt that by being paid to photograph a gay couple would violate the photographers first amendment right to free speech, as it would in no way be an endorsement of gay marriage.

Right on, I get your point.

 

[yerlem]

For the record, I belong to a Baptist Church. A Southern Baptist Church. And I am a self-professed Evangelical, Fundamental, Right-Wing Christian. By the standards of the world, anyway. Mostly, I'm just a follower of Christ (sorry, Mods, if that breaks the whole "don't talk about religion" thing, I'm just saying, that's who I am).

I won't tell you my views on homosexuality. Because it doesn't matter what my views are. If I CHOOSE to run a restaurant, I'd better be prepared to serve whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, as well as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and whatever else there is. if I CHOOSE to run a photography business, I'd better be ready to suck it up and do photography for the same people. NO matter WHAT I think of their "lifestyle."

Because--even as a conservative Christian, narrow-minded as I am... :lmao:--I can see the immediate problem with that. The problem is:
I don't want someone to be able to refuse to do MY photo shoot, just because I'm a heterosexual. Or just because I'm a Christian and they're Muslims, or an Atheist.

That said, for the record: we ALL discriminate, to some degree, by the technical definition of discrimination: "to make a distinction in favor or against one person or thing as compared with others." For instance, some seem to think that EVERY Baptist is "close minded, brainwashed and ignorant."
Personally, I feel very discriminating against young people who wear their pants around their knees. And brown M&Ms--I always pick out every other color first, and only eat the brown ones grudgingly.

Well, westboro is particularly known for actively protesting against homosexuals.
I agree with your point of view though, it's not about religion...it's about being a homophobic *******, and those are everywhere.
And prejudging someone is not the same as discriminating. If someone tells me they are ultra religious, or conservative or into twilight I immediately form a concept of them in my head that might not be favorable, but I would never deny their rights, and I certainly wouldn't deny service to someone who wants to pay for them.

 

[unpopular]

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?

No. Because pedophiles are not a legally protected class. Simply because teh sexual activity is homosexual does not make it legal, no more so than if an adult man demanded a photographer take sexually explicit images of himself having sex with an little girl. Don't be absurd.