Americans forced to take pictures of gays getting married

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Churches could employ photographers to take pictures of people who get married in the church... and if the church doesn't marry gay couples, the photographer doesn't take pictures of gay couples. So you can still be a religiously free bigoted photographer if you want. You just can't discriminate if you have a photography business open to the public.

[Sava]

Gay people = KKK members?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

A) That's apparently not true. B) The issue here seems to be that she was too honest in turning them down. If she had simply said it was due to a schedule conflict, I doubt a court case could have been filed.

So the outcome of this ruling is more politeness from religious people?

[MrFun]

No one is codifying religious objections. No one is trying to impose a theocracy. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The dispute is between one person's right to freely exercise their religion, versus another person's right to get their picture taken.

Saying that this really is about "religious freedom" is a nice way of sanitizing one's bigotry and prejudice.

[Felch]

Wrong. This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

My bad. I figured that since BU was rambling about theocracy that the case was about religion.

Saying that this really is about "religious freedom" is a nice way of sanitizing one's bigotry and prejudice.

Accusing people of bigotry is a convenient way to dismiss their legitimate dissent. Did it ever occur to you that other people have freedoms of their own?

[DinoDoc]

So the outcome of this ruling is more politeness from religious people?

Less honesty. By all accounts the rejection letter was fairly polite all things considered.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just can't discriminate if you have a photography business open to the public.

So what is next, am I not allowed to set my own prices?

If the government can tell me whom I must take on as a client, why can it not tell me what I must charge for my services?

[Ben Kenobi]

if you deny them any of the rights the rest of us enjoy, where does it end?

How is the photographer in this case denying any right that the couple possesses? They are free to seek another wedding photographer.

As you succinctly said - the rights of the gay couple end as soon as they cross over to infringing on the first amendment rights of the photographer - both in freedom of association, and in freedom of expression.

[DinoDoc]

So what is next, am I not allowed to set my own prices?

What? You wanna hold an Affirmative action bake sale?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

How is the photographer in this case denying any right that the couple possesses? They are free to seek another wedding photographer.

As you succinctly said - the rights of the gay couple end as soon as they cross over to infringing on the first amendment rights of the photographer - both in freedom of association, and in freedom of expression.

So tell me where the line is that one thing is discrimination and another is free speech. Look, I don't like any part of telling a business who they can and cannot choose to do business with, but discrimination is a real thing no matter how much anyone denies the connection with this. It's not so simple as First Amendment freedoms. Where's the line?

[Felch]

I'd say that the line should be drawn between things that are urgent and things that are not. Getting a motel room, a meal, or a doctor's appointment are all potentially urgent. Getting a wedding photographer shouldn't be (unless you're eloping).

We should also consider the alternative possibilities open to the customer. If you're in a city, it's not hard finding any number of alternatives. If you're in some shitkicking town out west, it might be impractical to find anyone else.

I'd have far more sympathy for the plaintiffs if they were denied something like a motel room, since that can be a real hardship. If I were in their shoes, I'd just write a nasty Yelp about the wedding photographer and move on with my life. But then I'm not prone to histrionics.

[Ben Kenobi]

So tell me where the line is that one thing is discrimination and another is free speech.

If you want a wedding photographer find one who will do your wedding the way you want it to be done.

Look, I don't like any part of telling a business who they can and cannot choose to do business with, but discrimination is a real thing no matter how much anyone denies the connection with this. It's not so simple as First Amendment freedoms. Where's the line?

The line is that freedom of association permits the business owner to take on whatever clients they desire. That's the line.

If someone doesn't want to do a Catholic wedding, do you think I'm going to be upset? The instant the photog whines about it, I dump them and find someone who will do it. You see, my goal is to get great wedding photos, not to shut down businesses through litigation. There's a difference.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Most of what you're talking about, still ignoring that discrimination is a thing, is a matter of taking personal responsibility, which I rather wish people were more prone to, but submit is a separate conversation. We can talk about the way the world should be, instead of how it is, but that's not the topic under discussion, is it?

-This is for Felch, too.

If someone doesn't want to do a Catholic wedding, do you think I'm going to be upset?

Yes.

Yes I do.

[Felch]

We can talk about the way the world should be, instead of how it is, but that's not the topic under discussion, is it?

-This is for Felch, too.

I thought you were asking where I would draw the line. If you just wanted to know what the law says, you could have just looked it up.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

-Still ignoring that discrimination is a thing. If it wasn't for that, your answer would be excellent. It's not too bad, anyway.

Is the Libertarian talk you do so often a troll? I'm really asking.