Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
I disagree with him, and I think he's bigoted. But I don't think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn't want to photograph. And it's not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It's the most common side hustle I see people try.
And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not "have the right to the labour" of those services?
I disagree with that framing entirely. But I'm curious to know how you would differentiate.
I'd say it's the business model.
Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.
If it's a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that's open to everyone equally.
If it's a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it's less "owner sells things" and more "clients contract owner for XYZ", and at that point, I'd tend to agree that it's a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party's decision to not enter that agreement doesn't mean they shouldn't have that option.
What if it was a photographer who didn't want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?
I don't think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don't feel like it's fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that's their business.
Again, I'm not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn't bigoted, just offering a distinction.
Gig worker versus someone providing a service to the general public. A wedding photographer is not on the job until you both accept the terms and sign a contract.
Besides, do you really want a wedding photographer that doesn't want to be there and has to be legally forced?
I'd say anything that could be considered as creative, and isn't necessary for life.
That said, I'd rather non-essential creatives be allowed to discriminate. Who wants a closeted homophobe photographing their wedding? I'd rather a non-professional friend do it with their cell phone.
I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the "create a website for same-sex weddings". I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it's a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn't be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don't know if I'm elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I'm coming from?
Not saying this is a perfect analogy, but consider housing. If you are renting or selling real estate, you can not discriminate based on protected classes. However, if you are renting a room with shared spaces, you can deny applicants for any reason.
One is and artistic and expressive occupation. Stitching up a gay person wouldn't be perceived as a form of statement. But being required to produce work in the traditional style of a wedding photographer could be perceived as issuing a statement in support of the event.
If you sold signs, you shouldn't be able to decline someone a blank sign just because they are LGBT. But you shouldn't be required to design one that carried a pro LGBT (or any other kind) of message.
Take something you strongly disagree with. Let's say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn't matter what, just one you disagree with.
You've decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let's say, event planning.
A political party approaches you to host their biggest rally yet. On enquiring, what it's about, you find out it's the one you disagree with.
Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue.. But you host events, you don't control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that's somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.
You can't make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn't want to be made to do things against your own. That's called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone's beliefs, but we don't strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.
Whether you see it or not, your opinion is carving out a way for legal bigotry when done by a christian. Of course an atheist refusing to serve this asshole bigot would open up the door for a religious discrimination case against the atheist because bigots want nothing more than to divide society. We have no obligation to defend a bigot's rights they are actively taking those same rights away from others.
To say that anyone can be a photographer belittles the skill associated with a professional photographer. That's akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there's a qualitative difference.
That aside, would there be any sign that the photographer could put on their door that would be illegal? No Blacks, No Jews, No Women, etc… If not, play that to the logical extreme; What if all photographers in town had the same sign? What services are appropriate to deny in entirety to a specific class of people.
That's akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there's a qualitative difference.
Yes anyone with a camera can be a photographer just like anyone with a paintbrush can be a painter. Just because it takes skill to be good at them doesn't mean the unskilled are just babies with fisherprice cameras pretending.
Oh boy, someone feels called out.
No. He gets to choose who to work for. He doesn't get to choose not to work for entire classes of people when those classes are protected.
It's the same as if he said he didn't want black clients.
I mean...now you're getting into the realm of words vs actions.
In the case of a freelance contract worker, there's a difference between saying "I don't do work for gays and blacks" and keeping your mouth shut (or providing some excuse like that you're already too booked) and no-quoting that work, in effect not working for these groups.
However in both cases, I believe it is (and should be) legal.
Rude and offensive, sure, but I feel it's a situation where you have to allow assholes to be assholes because the alternative is compulsory work which opens a whole new can of worms and is an even bigger restriction on freedoms.
So many people in these comments are trying to legislate morality, and it's just a non-starter in these circumstances.
This potentially opened the floodgates for discrimination. Unless this is specifically only for for “hired” or “contract” If not…. Coming soon to stores in the south near you
“NO F****TS ALLOWED”
“TRA***ES NOT WELCOME”
I don't think he has the right to make his business known publicly if it isn't available to the public-- all of it.
What a dumb take. There are plenty of businesses that advertise to the public but are not open to serving the public.
What if it's purely a subject matter question? Surely you wouldn't be OK with a wedding photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures if they didn't want to photograph adult activity...
They shouldn't be blocked from being a photographer just because they're unwilling to photograph ALL subjects. That's fucking stupid.
While I agree about a photographer not having to photograph things they don't want to, as someone else said, where do you put that line in the sand?
If the private business of a photographer can deny their services, can the private business of a hospital deny their services for those same reasons?
The problem is it's a hard discussion to have as on the one hand you want private businesses to be able to give bigoted folks the boot, but then private businesses of bigots can then throw you out all the same. Advocating for the first does mean unintentionally advocating for the latter.
Eh, if he want to leave money on the table, that is his business, I am sure there are plenty of people in a small town seeing the niche the guy just opened, the "Don't be an asshole" niche.
The discriminating photographer will find that more than just LGBT people don't want to support him. How many more is absolutely up for debate, but probably enough to support a new photographer
Why shouldn't he be forced to photograph things he doesn't want to photograph? If he just photographed things he wanted to, it would be a hobby. He's not hanging around weddings taking photos for fun. He's being paid to do a job, and the job is the same whether it is two men, two women, or one of each.
Apply the same logic to someone who didn't want to photograph Asian people. "Hey, I know you're in love, but I don't condone your marriage because my God says Asian people shouldn't get married. Sorry."
It's not that he should be forced to work for people he hates. It's that he should not be allowed to be in the business at all if he wants to discriminate against his clients.
Why are headlines about American Christians always the exact opposite of what the Bible wants them to be?
What happened to love thy neighbour and shit
As someone who grew up in a very religious household, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind, the worst people I ever met were the church crowd. Everyone was so nice to each other inside the building but as soon as the service was over, people showed their real colors in the parking lot.
You'd get parents screaming at their kids for "misbehaving" during the boring ass sermon, cars bolting out of their parking spaces with no disregard for other people walking, cars battling each other to try and get out of the lot before the other guy.. You know.. Cause football was starting soon.
What does america/americans have to do with it? Im pretty sure religious people being hypocrites riding on their high horse while doing awful things has been a thing since long before the US was founded.
That's not a protected class. 100% ok.
They have no class
nice
Tolerance is a social contract. If one party does not practice tolerance, they have voided their right to be a part of that contract. People that support someone like Trump have revoked their place the contract of tolerance.
Was it you.
Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?
I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?
It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won't serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?
I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?
I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.
The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.
Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn't protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).
You can take anything and make it horrifying if you want. It's either a slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum.
This is a photographer that wanted to decline a customer, nothing more or less.
A business should be able to decide the kind of services it provides. If I don't want to bake a gigantic 5' swastika cake I shouldn't have to.
At the end of the day capitalism protects everyone against excessive descrimination - business that reject people get less money, fewer reviews, will grow slower, etc. If that business rejects your business someone else will provide it. If nobody serves a community, there's a business opportunity waiting. Etc.
I don't know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.
I doubt it starts that way, probably more like a Google search for "wedding photographers near me", a few names pop up, you go there, start signing paperwork and getting signed up, and then when you put down your two names, they look at you with disgust and tell you to get out of their shop, interrupting your thoughts about normal stuff like marriage licenses.
So then you take your shaken fiancé from the store, and look for other wedding photographers, and probably learn that there are far more Christian photographers than you thought, and not many that would preside over a fairly mundane marriage, save for the fact its just two guys instead of a guy and a gal.
What about a pharmacist refusing to fill a legal, correct, and safe prescription that they disagree with?
Not covered, IMO. A pharmacist isn't writing the scrip and isn't administering the treatment. They're merely completing a retail transaction, albeit one with a lot of paperwork. If they have a moral position against doing their job as prescribed by law, they should find a new job.
A care provider, like a doctor or nurse, has personal involvement with the patient. I'm ok with refusing to perform a procedure they disagree with, as long as there is no negative impact for the patient.
Pharmacists are a strictly regulated profession. The whole job is filling prescriptions ordered by doctors and informing customers (patients) about the safe use of the substances. It's not a creative process and it's not their choice to prescribe or deny medication.
Last I checked bakers and photographers are barely regulated by comparison, and you could easily consider their work creative in nature.
So I agree with the content of your comment. I don't agree with all the implications. A cake maker should be able to refuse to make a dick cake, but they shouldn't be able to refuse to make a cake just because the couple is gay. If they would make an identical cake for a straight couple, they should make the same cake for a gay couple.
Similarly, a photographer should be allowed to refuse to take nudes photos, but they shouldn't be allowed to take identical photos that they would for a straight couple just because the couple is gay.
Is there any legal basis in this?
Not really. As far as I'm aware there's nothing in law that differentiates between selling a product and providing a service. However the whole problem here is that the law isn't actually that well fleshed out.
The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under law. This basically says the state can't treat any citizen different for any reason. Thus, a court can't refuse to hear your case because you're black, and a state can't refuse your marriage because you're gay. This only really applies to governments, however.
The Civil Rights Act has various Titles, most of them still relate to the state (eg voting). There are two exceptions where this goes beyond the public sector, though, Title VII on employment and Title II on inter-state commerce. Title II outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex nor sexual orientation, and it only applies to inter-state commerce. Title VII prohibits private employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but might not cover sexual orientation (I haven't found a definition on what "sex" covers, orientation might fall under this but it might not).
There is other legislation covering specific aspects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act which provides extensive protection to people with disabilities.
Beyond that, it is up to individual states to set their laws. However, they must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, which is what allows free speech challenges like the one in the Supreme Court ruling over 303 Creative v. Elenis, which set a clear precedent allowing private businesses to discriminate regardless of state law.
All in all, anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak.
IANAL, feel free to correct me if you know better.
In US law specifically no, the US judicial system is purposefully built to give more power to courts to decide things like that on case by case basis and to get this kind of rules of thumb based on previous rulings, but not bounded by them. That's why it's so hard to codify anything into law, compared to other countries.
Does this in return mean that LGBTQ+ couples win the right to discriminate against christian photographers?
It would also likely mean that LGBTQ+ photographers won the right to discriminate against christians.
I would refuse to work at a Trumper wedding, so I'm glad we have the right to say no to that. That's the whole point of this ruling.
If this was a photographer of color refusing to work a klan wedding no one would be arguing that they shouldn't have been allowed to say no.
Well, they can, by just not choosing to hire one.
I think you might actually have just gotten the point here without knowing it. It's perfectly reasonable to pick a photographer who's not a bigot, just like how I would choose not to shoot photos for bigots.
You get how this works now?
Yes. For example, by not hiring him
Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn't be able to sue unless you are harmed. That's the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.
You absolutely should have that right. What is the issue?
i am kind of torn on this.
on the one hand I think it's important that you can refuse to work with people you don't like for whatever reason.
On the other hand, this is an absolutely childish and stupid reason to not work with someone.
You can refuse for any reason - except those involving discrimination against a protected class. Sexual orientation is supposed to be a protected class. You can still discriminate, you just have to give another/no reason and make sure it doesn't look like you're doing it for a prohibited reason.
If I wanted to say that no people with glasses were allowed to shop in my store, that would be allowed. If I wanted to say that no pregnant women could shop in my store, that wouldn't be allowed. If it was a pregnant woman wearing glasses, I could claim the first reason, but then, if I was found to be allowing other people with glasses to shop, my reasoning would be challenged and I would have to demonstrate that I wasn't discriminating because of pregnancy.
At least, this is how discrimination laws are supposed to work.
It turns out that anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak and not fully defined, allowing bullshit like this to seep out of judge's mouths and through the cracks. The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment only grants equality under law, so it only really affects governments. The Civil Rights Act extends this out to private employment under Title VII, but not much further.
What the 303 Creative v. Elenis ruling (the Supreme Court ruling that led to the settlement here) does, in theory, is allow any private person the right to discriminate against any protected class (eg pregnancy, disability, and all the others) so long as the person they're discriminating against isn't an employee. This is clearly bullshit, and I'm sure if people started discriminating against Christians they'd be up in arms.
Thankfully, this settlement does not in any way strengthen this ruling, it only gives one asshole permission by one state - there is no ruling here, just an out of court settlement, thus it does not extend to anyone else. In particular, the state probably thought that because there was no injured party actually being discriminated against there wasn't much point wasting time and money litigating.
Obligatory IANAL.
What's there to be torn on?
You can't honor people's rights just when they suit your agenda. What would happen if you refused to work with someone and other people thought it was 'absolutely childish and stupid'?
It feels...weird to me. Like refusing to work with someone at your job because they like coffee. Or dislike tigers.
Or more accurately, they were born with blue eyes and you just hate people with blue eyes. And you can't stand them so much that you take your case against blue-eyed folk to the highest court of the land just to ensure you never have to work with them or take them as clients at your IT company. Sometimes it makes me wonder how we ever even got here, lol.
I'm pretty sure the photographer in question got all his court fees paid for by PACs or think tanks.
So you think I should be able to start job interviews by asking people if they've ever voted Republican? Because we absolutely employ LGBT people, so I have a legitimate interest in protecting them from bigots.
At this point? I think it's not unreasonable. Given the state of the Republican party right now, you don't vote for them for their economical policy or whatever they pretended to care about decades ago. They only concern about culture war bullshit, and by voting for them you agree with it, and that includes unwavering hate for LGBT people.
Not liking someone because they smoke isn't the same as not liking someone for who they are.
wanted to prove the law was unjust before it even affected him
Who was hiring him?
More work for the intelligent ones that don't discriminate.
"I don't want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings." -- like that? Or how about signs on businesses "No Gays" or "No Hispanics". Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don't want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?
Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.
The thing you're ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.
If you run a business, you don't have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.
Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.
That's not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.
That guy doesn't want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say "well he doesn't want to deal with that, so the law can't make him"? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
While I agree with you in theory, the problem is that this Christian photographer likely has screamed cAnCeL CuLtUrE at some point when someone denied them access to something, like during the pandemic when businesses required masks.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Waiting for the first Christian couple to be denied the photographers services, to lose their shit about it! It happened when that bakerdid it and it will happen here.
Sigh. US politics really wants me to become an anarchist.
How is his policy/service any different from a whites only lunch counter?
It isn't.
The line seems to be based around custom services or requiring artistic impression. Just selling tacos with choice of 5 toppings, can't discriminate. Selling tacos with custom designs on the tortillas, can discriminate.
Making burgers is the same regardless of who eats it.
Taking photos is different based on what you're taking pictures of.
It's a single independent contractor performing a service considered to be bespoke skilled labor. He has no obligation to enter a work contract the same way I can't force you to clean my gutters. A chow house on the other hand, serves the same food to everyone. There's no contact to enter, only goods to be purchased.
Can a dentist have a non-gay/non-black policy?
Why is society obligated to allow a discriminatory business like this to exist?
Why do we just take as a given that anyone is allowed to start a business?
I'm not sure I see how the product of his photography service(however bespoke) is any different from the product of the meal and a place to eat. Everyone at the chow house is arguably getting a bespoke experience as well since there's more than one seat and presumably you not every meal is going to be prepared in the exact same way and may in fact involve customization like the rarity of a steak or thes submission or removal of ingredients(eg 'no cheese').
My understanding is that a business is still allowed to deny service to any singular customer for no explicit reason. It's the matter of stating and enforcing a policy of discrimination against a protected class.
You can't force me to clean your gutters, but you also could sue me if I refused to clean your gutters by showing you my policy that I refuse to do business with anyone belonging to whatever protected class you fall under. Because the policy of discrimination is what's illegal and not the individual act of discrimination itself.
Also, I'm pretty sure purchasing a good still legally qualifies as a form of a contract in tort law. Ofc I am in no way a lawyer so please, anyone, correct me if ive misunderstood here.
Having looked at his photos, I'm gonna say this is no big loss for the LGBTQ+ community. They're marginally better than the stuff advertised on Nextdoor, but man really went all in on the vignettes, and he doesn't seem to have any eye for detail.
But also, fuck the Supreme Court for allowing this nonsense.
There was an article on Slate a few years ago that I wish I could find again. It was a fictional story about what it was like for a lesbian, with a kid and a wife, going through a day in which businesses were allowed to refuse her service. It's a slippery slope, guys.
Service isn't really being denied here though.
There is a difference between refusing to make a cake about a subject and refusing to make a cake because of someone's background.
We've always had bigots. We always will. In the past, bigoted business behavior has resulted in opportunity for those who are willing to serve the clients the bigots won't. Minorities understand this, and minority-friendly businesses prospered.
I can understand being upset that a business won't accept you as a customer. What I don't understand is why anyone would still insist on supporting that offensive business with their patronage. I'd be spreading the word about their practices, asking folks to boycott them.
Show me someone saying "This is fine", and I'll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they're going to be blocked out of society for the crime of...existing. This is only the first step to "All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals". Y'all are unhinged.
Obligatory:
It's not a step, they literally are allowed to discriminate, under US law.
First off, the only protection US law gives is towards "sex", not "sexual orientation". The right to gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation, rather the 14th amendment merely states that the law must treat all citizens equally. The state cannot refuse to hear a civil suit filed by a black man, and the state cannot refuse the marriage of gay people. It only applies to the government (as well as those contracted by the government per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).
Second, US law only considers sex a protected class in matters of employment. Title II of the Civil Rights Act governs inter-state commerce only, and only grants protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not cover sex/gender, and does not cover sexual orientation, and only applies when the business involves a significant number of customers from out of state or products whose supply chains involve other states.
The way it's supposed to work is that states can set their own laws on the matter. However, states must set their laws within the bounds of the Constitution. What happened with 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to free speech supercedes any law the state makes, thus, unless Federal law says discrimination is illegal then it is a-ok in law.
As it is, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination for sexual orientation specifically, and discrimination based on sex is only protected in matters involving employment.
US law is shiiiiiiiite. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Republican Congress, too busy fingering their own assholes, to actually make some proper legislation.
Should a Jewish photographer be required to work the klan themed wedding of Baron Trump to the reanimated corpse of Eva Braun? Just because they were asked to?
A single proprietor business should be allowed to deny any job that they aren't comfortable working, just like any employee of a company could refuse to work such a job.
I don't like bigots either, but requiring a photographer to work at whatever event wants to hire them is absurd. You don't lose all right to autonomy just because you offer a service, least of all a service that provides nothing that anyone actually needs.
wanted to prove the law was unjust before it even affected him
This is a "crime" without a victim. No one was hiring him for this task. If we had a sane court the whole thing would have been rejected due to lack of standing instead we have a higher court system that only recognizes offended observer for the religious right.
No one actually wanted to do business with the photographer here, he sued the state so that he wouldn't be subject to the law. Now, he can post that he doesn't do business with gay people on his website. However because it was settled out of court it only applies to him and him alone.
Hey homophobic waiter, can you please serve this gay couple some food? Please don't spit too much on it.
I think that discrimination, any discrimination, is bad and should over time be eradicated with education. But just trying to make the point here... You can't let businesses discriminate, but you also can't force individual persons to go against their beliefs -as retarded as those beliefs might be- and expect good results at the end. Did this couple really expect nice pictures?
In this case, the business IS the individual, and you can punish the business I guess, but this is something that in the practical real world ends with a homophobic waiter staying quiet and instead just spitting all over the food he's about to serve to you.
I guess I'd rather know someone's opinions before dealing with them.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Because that's not what the person who commented said.
If you are going to be an advocate / ally you are going to need more tools in your box that "hrr Christians bad lol". There are a ton of rational positions to take her they don't make the good guys look like morons.
Yeah, fair. That’s not the problem.
The problem comes when they think everyone else is required to do business with them.
“Rules for thee and not for me” and all that.
Would it work is the wedding couple is a MAGA fan?
No one should be forced to participate in something they disagree with. Whenever I'm trying to figure out if denial of service is reasonable, I imagine it with nazis. For example wedding cakes. If a gay couple goes to a bakery for a wedding cake, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to decorate in a specifically gay way (like a topper with a pair of men). If a gross couple wants to have a nazi wedding, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to pipe a swastika on it.
If it's reasonable for a photographer to feel uncomfortable working a nazi wedding, it's reasonable for one to feel uncomfortable working a gay wedding.
Obviously there's an enormous difference between being gay and being a nazi. I'm not equating those things. I'm equating the feeling of repulsion and discomfort of the one providing the service.
You're also equating the cause of the feeling of repulsion.
You're repulsed by Nazis because Nazis are evil.
Why are you repulsed by gay people? Hate. Yes, even if disguised behind "religious reasons."
Regardless, I'm not saying that we must force the photographer to "work while being repulsed" (and I wouldn't want anyone on my wedding day that I know is repulsed by it anyway, but I digress.) I'm saying that we must continue peeling off that core of a hateful onion that is religion and bigotry until nothing is left.
And having said that: don't want to deal with "the gays"? Don't start a business in a place where gay people are protected. I'd say this ruling is in the wrong.
Also, I believe the photographer should be able to reject a job due to its type of content. Hear me out. Gay wedding? Yes. Gay wedding with a dildo theme? Nah. Straight wedding? Yes. Straight wedding with a cat killing theme? Nah.
I'm not sure if you're using the general "you" or the specific "you" so I just want to clarify that I am bisexual and not at all repulsed by LGBT people.
You make a good argument in your last paragraph. Photography is a more difficult situation to judge than the cake thing, but I feel like the photographer is often such an integral part of the wedding, that it's more of a participatory service, and my argument is about not making people participate in something they find unsavory.
The ruling is absolutely not wrong.
You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. Full stop. Whether they don't want to do it for good, bad, racist, homophobic etc reasons, is irrelevant.
No matter how much you support peace, love and happiness, you can't start telling others what they can and can't do. You have the right to refuse service for whatever reason.
Lmaooooo you're comparing two dudes kissing to a genocidal, white supremacist disctatorship. Get real.
Rhetoric must not be one of your strengths.
He's comparing people that most of us wouldn't want to work with (Nazis) with people this photographer doesn't want to work with.
Stay in school.
I'm pretty sure you choose to be a hateful spiteful Nazi. You don't choose to be gay. There's a HUGE difference. It is a bad faith argument to equate holding hateful views and opinions to being born different. With that reasoning, the feeling of discomfort when an owner sees a black person or an Asian person is acceptable grounds to deny services to them.
I didnt equate hateful opinions to being born different. In my example, the business is not allowed to discriminate against gay people by denying them the same products and services that they provide to straight people, anymore than they could discriminate against people of color by denying them the same products and services they provide to white people. My scenario is about forcing businesses to actively participate in * behaviors* they find deplorable.
I would also say if the bakery won't put a gay topper on a cake, they can't put a specifically straight topper on either.
Those aren't the same situations. You're allowed to discriminate against Nazis or people who own a ficus, but not gays. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a legally well defined distinction.
In both cases you don't want to offer those people a service because of hatred. You're allowed to hate people and discriminate against them for a variety of reasons. As a society we've legally decided that it's not acceptable to hate (insofar as it leads to discrimination) for many reasons innate to a person (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...). That's the line.
I'm not talking about what the law allows. I'm talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.
As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.
Skydaddy is so proud today!
2017 called they want their 1st world problem back
Holy charged headline batman!
Is it inaccurate?
It could be more accurate. How is he discriminating against them? Oh, he's refusing service. Let me try the non-biased headline:
"Photographer wins right to refuse service to LGBTQ+ couples"
This way, instead of the vague term 'discrimination', we can focus on the specifics so people have a more accurate idea of what's going on.
Reading through your comment history really paints a picture of what a shitty person you are.
Amen brother lol. It's a trip for sure.
Cool. You can block me like I'm going to do to you.
Keep your insults to yourself.
I guarantee you that this guy has seen a few up close.
As one of the LGBT, I’m fine with this. I want the ability to refuse work to the Religious and Republicans—and I have done so for decades. The difference is, I don’t tell them why. I just say I’m busy. Because even though I want them to burn in a fiery hell, I’m not an asshole.
While religion is a protected class, political orientation is not protected. It is perfectly legal (and moral) to ask someone if they are conservative before agreeing to do work for them.
You can even cite a policy to really drive it home: "I do not conduct business with racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, fascists or any other type of conservatives."
Some asshole lawyer will eventually win the argument that religiosity and conservatism are commutative.
And tbh, they'll be right.
Religion should arguably not be a protected class either.
This is the way.
Cool but where do you draw the line? If a taxi driver refuses to drive you is it still fine? What if a teacher refuses to teach your children? Or if a doctor refuses to treat you?
I don't know what the person you're replying to does for work, but I feel like what their work is really makes a big difference. Teachers don't (or shouldn't) teach kids any differently based on orientation, political ideology, etc., other than perhaps excusing them from work that goes against their beliefs (for example celebrating a holiday they take objection to). The teacher isn't required to "go against their beliefs" and do something they disagree with, only to keep their mouth shut about any disagreements they may have with a student's lifestyle. A teacher should not be able to refuse to teach anyone because they are not being asked to do a special job catering to any particular student. If they disagree with the curriculum, I would guess they just shouldn't be a teacher then (as in, if you're a high school science teacher you may be required to teach evolution).
Similarly with a doctor, they should not be able to say "I refuse to treat you because you're gay/religious/political." Everyone gets the same medical care. The only exception I can think of is transgender medical care, but if they don't want to do that they can just not go into that field.
Anything that involves creating is a little different. A wedding photographer would be more actively participating in a gay wedding. Or a Christian wedding, etc. If they feel really uncomfortable with that, they shouldn't have to. That doesn't change my opinion that they're closed-minded and bigoted, and it doesn't mean people can't leave them bad reviews stating as much. Plus, these services are not basic rights, whereas healthcare and education are basic rights.
Taxi? I mean, I guess? If I was a taxi driver and a bunch of people from the Westboro Baptist Church tried to get into my cab, I’d speed off for sure.
Teacher? Hmm. Well, they can try. But, humorously, it’s just like a “conservative” to deny a child an education. It’s all about the kids right? Trash.
Doctor? No. They are governed by rules that prevent that.
I can tell you one thing: wedding photography is not where to draw the line.
Edit: come to think of it, you're right, though. Businesses should serve all people, especially protected classes. Don't want to deal with it? Don't start a business.
Probably the teacher. I'd support law brought in that public service jobs i.e. medicine, education, government etc must serve all but surely that's already law in the sense of discrimination?
But people offering a taxi ride, photography etc? They can tell you to fuck off for the simple reason of not liking your voice on the phone or the look of your face. Why does the world insist on this delusion of forced love and happiness? And it's ironic as they are upset they can't have access to X so want to upset the person providing X and force them to provide it to people they don't want to?
Insanity.
The world is a mean place, always has been, always will be.
I guess if it's contract work. In a teacher's case all the kids pay for his service combined and he workdls for the school not the kids directly, I guess. And a taxi driver can refuse to drive you, and some of them have to people who act racists towards them or act like karens in a few videos I've seen.
I don’t see a point in making people angry. I just don’t want to be around them or talk to them or help them make money 🤷♂️ I’m sorry my take on hating people who hate me disturbs you. Maybe stop hating lol