You have to wonder about people who sue a photographer who doesn't want to do a same-sex ceremony. I mean, there are plenty of photographers out there, and why would you WANT an opponent of your same-sex wedding photographing it? Wouldn't it hurt the quality of their work?
If I were a gay couple, I would avoid photographers who had a Christian fish in their advertising, because they wouldn't be as good as a non-evangelical photographer.
If I were a photographer opposed to SSM, and someone asked me to do one, I would begin by unrecommending myself on just these grounds. But I think I would do it if they insisted.
6 comments:
"I mean, there are plenty of photographers out there, and why would you WANT an opponent of your same-sex wedding photographing it?"
I wouldn't. But if we allow people to practice this kind of discrimination, then maybe whatever choice there is would disappear.
Are you sure there are plenty of open-minded photographers available? Have you ever been to small-town Indiana?
I think it's important to note that this is not just an issue of wedding cakes and photographs. What happens when the neighborhood grocer refuses to sell produce to a gay couple, and the pharmacist won't serve them, and the electric utility co-op decides that their home is not a legitimate residence? If the Indiana and Arkansas laws work as intended, any business can refuse service to gay people or anyone else who isn't covered by the state's anti-discrimination laws. All they have to do is claim that serving them violates their religious belief.
For the record, I am not a fan of religious freedom laws, simply because they would be too easy to abuse. Anyone who wanted to do something could just say "It's my religion" and get away with just about anything.
I think a distinction has be drawn between refusing to participate in celebrating a same-sex wedding, which I think wedding photographers are really doing, and refusing to, say, sell lunch to someone at a lunch counter. But how you would get this worked into the law I have no idea.
I suspect that plenty of photographers will do it for the money, regardless of their religious convictions, or beliefs concerning homosexuality.
I cry Bullshit Victor.
All these laws do is give you a day in court to prove you are being compelled to violate your religion and that the State has to use the least restrictive means on your behalf.
Never in the last twenty years had the Federal Law been used to protect someone who didn't wish to sell something to a person of color based on their religion.
So you sell generic wedding cakes in the window of your bake shop? You have to sell them to gay man even thought he might use it in a gay wedding.
OTOH you CANNOT be compelled IMHO to bake a custom made cake from scratch that conveys a message if you disagree with the message. A custom made cake is Art & Art is speech and you cannot compel speech.
No and's, if's or but's. If you disagree you hate the first amendment.
> think a distinction has be drawn between refusing to participate in celebrating a same-sex wedding, which I think wedding photographers are really doing, and refusing to, say, sell lunch to someone at a lunch counter. But how you would get this worked into the law I have no idea.
Um pass a law saying you can't compel attendance to a ceremony if you object to the content on religious grounds.
In the Fascist America envisioned here I could be compelled as a photographer not only to attend a same sex wedding against my will but I can be forced to photograph a Satanic Wedding. Which I would not do even if it was heterosexual.
A gay man can be forced to photograph a wedding at the Westburro Baptist Church. An Orthodox Jew can be forced to photograph a Jews for Jesus event.
This is the type of tyranny you want to live under?
I refuse! Death first.
>If the Indiana and Arkansas laws work as intended, any business can refuse service to gay people or anyone else who isn't covered by the state's anti-discrimination laws. All they have to do is claim that serving them violates their religious belief.
This is the lie told by Secular Fascists. That Christians don't want to serve gays. I will serve them but I will not attend a profane ceremony or be forced to craft profane speech against my will.
I expect an Atheist to serve me in his Restaurant BUT I am not a Fascist so I would NEVER force him to cater my religious event if he doesn't want too because he is anti-Religious.
I believe in Freedom. The other side to this debate does not. It is that simple.
Nobody who opposes the Indiana law has ANY right to call himself a liberal anymore than Governor Wallace of Alabama could call himself a DE-SEGRIGATIONIST.
Ben may be supremely ungrammatical (and we will probably never be able to cure him of that), but he does speak the truth.
Good to see you back, Ben. I was afraid something awful had happened to you.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
Post a Comment