So what about a photographer "religiously opposed" to mixed race marriages?

[yellowcanine]

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-wedding-photographer-cant-be-forced-to-work-same-sex-weddings-judge-rules.html

Is SCOTUS going to protect his right to be a religious bigot?

[Squinch]

1. If it is a private business, the Constitution demands that right should be protected.

I hate it, you hate it, but free speech is essential to all our values.

[yardwork]

7. That's not correct, according to the Supreme Court.

Private businesses are no longer allowed to post "whites only" signs in their windows. Do you want to go back to those days?

Any business can turn away an individual, but they aren't allowed to discriminate against entire classes of people.

[Squinch]

10. This isn't about posting signs, though. This is about turning away customers based on personal

preference. That makes the question of "entire classes of people" kind of moot. If you choose not to work with gay people because of a personal preference against each gay person who presents themselves to you, it's the same result as if you choose not to work with gay people, but it is Constitutionally protected.

[yardwork]

11. That's not what this lawsuit says.

Read the decision. This was a preemptive lawsuit to set a precedent to decline service to an entire class of people.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, it's easy for photographers to decline services to individuals. All they have to do is say they're already booked or busy that weekend or going on vacation.

This case was about creating a legal precedent for her to state on her website that she won't serve gay people.

[Throck]

2. Who would want to work with a bigot anyway?

Let her keep her values. Bigots are self exterminating and will ultimately have no customers. Force her to do something she's against and the work might be sabotaged. You can't trust bigots and really have to be careful of closet bigots.

Photographers are a plenty out there, not like their brain surgeons.

[MichMan]

3. Service industries are not required to take on all clients all the time

Lawyers for example are not required to take on every single case from every client, just as artists are not required to perform or create works of art for every single person that wants to book them.

[yardwork]

8. Exactly. But this photographer wants more.

She wants the right to put "no gays allowed" on her website.

[dawnie51]

4. Photographers better think twice....

gatherings that use their services are almost non existent in the Covid era now. And any guest now has a pretty decent camera right on their phone, so there is no shortage of persons who could take pictures. They won't be the set up, story telling types of photos we have become used to in recent years, but they will be nice pictures of the actual event. So working to make you and your services like this is not smart.

[beachbumbob]

5. nothing forces a service provider like a photograper to take clients

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. I don't understand this at all.

I was a wedding photographer for 20 years. I am the person who asked brides to be their photographer. If I didn't want to shoot someones wedding, all I had to do was say that I was booked that weekend.
Someone sounds like an attention whore.

[yardwork]

9. More than an attention whore, a tool to roll back civil rights.

This was a preemptive lawsuit. No gay client approached this photographer. She agreed to be part of a preemptive lawsuit in the hope of creating a legal precedent that would undo decades of civil rights decisions.

It's not about not wanting to photograph a particular client. It's about wanting the legal right to post "no gays allowed" on her website. And from there, it's legal to post "whites only."

[Ferrets are Cool]

12. Gotcha

[yardwork]

13. And, I want to sincerely thank you for posting your experience as a photographer.

I am gay. My wife and I were married in 2015. I wrote to many photographers, and only a few responded. I was up front that this was a same sex wedding. I'm reasonably certain that some of those who didn't respond didn't want to photograph our wedding. That's fine. As you say, it's easy to decline to serve an individual customer. That's quite different, however, from seeking the right to put "no gays" on one's website.

[Ferrets are Cool]

17. I had stopped shooting weddings by the time Alabama finally started "allowing' them (2015)

I always wanted to shoot them. It also always made me happy when the officiating minister was female. Dunno why, but they were NEVER stuffy weddings when the minister was female.
I am happy you were able to get "legally" married in 2015. I hope you have a wonderful life together.

[yardwork]

18. Thank you so much! We are very happy!

Our officiant was a woman, too.

[NYC Liberal]

14. That's exactly what it's about -- attention.

[AmyStrange]

15. What if a gay photographer was hired to film an anti-gay rally?

Last edited Sun Aug 16, 2020, 01:34 PM - Edit history (2)

-

Should they be forced to comply also?

ETA: I misread the intent, and I was wrong for asking this question.

Please forgive me.
===========

[LiberalFighter]

16. How does that work for hospitals?

Will they have the right to turn away people because of ones religion, race, or gender?

The same could be for public schools. Can teachers refuse to include based on that criteria in their classrooms?

If an entity requires a business license or a person requires a professional license granted by the government religion, race, or gender should not be the basis on whether they will serve that person.