Judge Decides A Photographer Can Refuse To Work For Same-Sex Couples

Is the photographer Denny Scott?

So she loses work then. Nobody would want a homophobic wedding photographer anyway, she'd fuck up the pictures of your special day on purpose if she could.

R2, can you understand how this is a slippery slope? You can't just dismiss this as "Well, she loses business" because others can point to this and say they're now allowed to discriminate, too.

This is the same logic as the Christian bakery. It even spells it out in the referenced article - art is speech and the government can't compel speech.

Whatever you're still getting a bad Yelp review

[quote] This is the same logic as the Christian bakery. It even spells it out in the referenced article - art is speech and the government can't compel speech.

This isn't art, it's a cover for bigotry. Both a commercial photographer and bakery operating as businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of sex and SCOTUS set a precedent by ruling that it applies in matters of employment discrimination. It's only a matter of time.

If you're open for business you're beholden to the law.

My mistake, sex isn't included as a protected category with public accommodation. So I guess it's entirely lawful to remove women from gay bars

By that logic, a black photographer is legally required to document a Klan rally.

Christianity states slavery is okay. Can this photographer not do black or interracial weddings as a result too?

[Quote] By that logic, a black photographer is legally required to document a Klan rally.

Only if that photographer’s hires himself out for other rallies.

Also the black photographer can’t be forced to be ina. Dangerous, possibly life threatening, situation

Does my religious belief that I have to be served equally cancel out your religious conviction? If I were a Jew, a Buddhist, or a Wiccan you couldn't refuse to serve me. And those are all belief systems!

So and so walks into a bakery wearing a shirt that says Hail Satan! A Xtian baker refuses to serve him or her. That person has more legal recourse than gay people do. Sad!

[quote]Judge Decides A Photographer Can Refuse To Work For Same-Sex Couples

And the Republican court-packing has begun to bear fruit!

This is a troubling situation. As a musician, I would be uncomfortable performing for some "Christian" groups/ceremonies, much as the photographer feels about shooting a gay wedding. Would I refuse? Probably, in certain situations. But if they bought a CD of my music to play, could I (should I) stop them? On the other hand, R3 is absolutely correct that it is a slippery slope. Can a business that is open to the public be allowed to discriminate -even in violation of local ordinances? Where is the line between public and private? A church, like any club, should be free to pursue its own beliefs. Clearly, they shouldn't be forced to perform marriages or other ceremonies that conflict with them. But a business that offers its services to the public must serve everyone. And artists? I want the freedom of my conscience, so I guess that I must accept that freedom for others. Damnit.

Someone please tell why as a gay man would want to give my money to a homophobe. Why do we not buy Barilla products, because they are homophobic

r3, of course you are right. I didn't think my reply through, I was just thinking of the bigot photographer.

Yes,indeed slippery slope,especially if a shop does it and then another and another until you have a "gay free" zone.

Of course he should be able to refuse to photograph anyone he likes. It’s a free country.

As a business owner, I constantly and consistently serve people whose beliefs and practices I find abhorrent, particular among them Christians because they do not believe in the same rights and freedoms that I do. However, nothing I (or any business) sell or do is an endorsement of their beliefs. As a business, it is not my concern. You see, it isn't hard to be non-discriminatory: you just treat everybody with respect and dignity, they pay for their goods and services. It's only when these so-called loving, caring and compassionate individuals attempt to shove their medieval practices and beliefs down other's throats that there is a problem. Been there, done that, not going back.

To a Christian baker hired to make a wedding cake or photographer for a same-sex couple: bake the damn cake or take the damn pictures and be done with it. You aren't invited to the ceremony, you aren't a party to the nuptials, and nobody but nobody asks the brides or the grooms where they bought the cake, the rings, or the pictures... unless the baker, jeweler or photographer did an exceptional job. You'd think these professionals would focus on being the best in their field, rather than bemoaning the fact they are participants in civilization.

Why the fuck does it matter if it's art or not? If I do a boring job day after day, why should I be treated differently?

[quote]Why do we not buy Barilla products, because they are homophobic

You shouldn't have been buying it before. CARBS, you fat whore.

[Quote] Of course he should be able to refuse to photograph anyone he likes. It’s a free country.

This would cause absolute chaos in the marketplace if companies could pick and choose whom they would sell to

[Quote] Of course he should be able to refuse to photograph anyone he likes. It’s a free country.

Except the part that my taxes support his business. My taxes pay for the police and firefights that protect his place of business. The taxes pay for the roads that bring him customers. My taxes likely paid for his student loans that educated him in his profession.

I think the court made the right decision. No one should be compelled to "speak" and art is a form of speech. This protects gay creative workers as well. I'm perfectly fine with it.

It's a contractual job. You can't be forced into a contract.

What can one expect from a judge in KY.

I agree with courts that you should not be able to force businesses to engage in messages or activities that violate their religious beliefs. Baking cakes, singing songs, artistic expression should never be forced by government. As Justice Kennedy said, respect for gay rights should not lead to bulldozing of religious rights. The two should be balanced.

I don't have a problem with this. Forced labor is akin to slavery. I think governmental agencies or those getting government contracts would be an exception. Also, health practice, including pharmacies. No one should be able to deny someone health treatment based on sexual orientation.

r17, why are religious people allowed to discriminate against people they don't like, but atheists can't? I thought we were supposed to be equal

r27, this isn't "forced labor" - you are dumb

R29, so if I refuse to perform music at a Christian wedding because I don't approve of Christians, and the government says I have no right to refuse my services, and I am forced to perform -How is that not "forced labor?"

R30, you probably wouldn’t have a right not to sing or play at a Christian wedding if it offends your religious beliefs to do so.

I meant you probably would have the right not to perform

Because, R30, you put your "labor" (or, if you want to call it "art", call it "art") out there for [italic]everyone[/italic] to buy; once you've made the offer, [italic]anyone[/italic] can accept it and it's called "a contract". This is not complicated. It is only troubling for bigots who want to make an offer, and then choose [italic]who[/italic] may accept it.

No, R31, in the commercial marketplace, if you make your goods and services available to anyone, you have to make them available to everyone. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, gender or race. And we have Justice Gorsuch to thank for ruling in Bostock that the CRA of 1964 covers gender identity and orientation, and is thus illegal.

You'd think the libertarian @R23 would not only know this, but defend it as well. It's such a basic concept... but then again, as I've written a thousand times, not all idiots are libertarian, but all libertarians are idiots.

Someone needs to order a Wiccan cake and test this out.

Frankly, for some of this stuff where a small "mistake" can ruin things, I'd rather these idiots are upfront with me and say no.

Can you imagine hiring one of these idiots because they'd get sued otherwise and having them take crappy wedding pix or a cake that's just slightly over-baked and a bit dry, just enough to mess it up, not enough to be called out for it.

R33, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Even Gorsuch in Bostock recently intimated he disagrees

Only people whose views align with mine deserve rights! It's the only way to bring about complete equality and justice.