Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Totally agree. In a free market economy, which I thought we were supposed to be, one party offers a product or a service, and the other party decides he wants the product or service. Both sides should agree on the arrangement. If I say that I don’t want to provide the service, you are equally permitted to say that you don’t want me to provide it. When there is agreement on both sides, the transaction takes place.

I would think if the seller didn’t want to enter into an agreement, for this that or whatever reason, or for no reason, that should be his prerogative. Why should any independent company be forced into a business agreement?
 
Freddy said:
You think people having a bias against blacks, homosexuals and Jews is hyperbole? Honestly…?
Click to expand...
No, I think that you mixing up bias against people with refusing to participate in situations is hyperbole. I even specified that in my last post. Admittedly if you didn’t intend to mix it up it wouldn’t be hyperbole just an honest mistake. It’s wrong either way.

The thing is, whether you are intending to or not you are reaching for emotional arguments. Emotional arguments are very good for mobilizing people to enact change, they are not good as a rebuttal for free speech. Free speech is a human right. It has to be beyond the reach of emotion because “I just don’t like that guy, he shouldn’t have rights” is also an unfortunately common emotional argument.
[/quote]
 
Shasta-Rose said:
Totally agree. In a free market economy, which I thought we were supposed to be, one party offers a product or a service, and the other party decides he wants the product or service. Both sides should agree on the arrangement. If I say that I don’t want to provide the service, you are equally permitted to say that you don’t want me to provide it. When there is agreement on both sides, the transaction takes place.

I would think if the seller didn’t want to enter into an agreement, for this that or whatever reason, or for no reason, that should be his prerogative. Why should any independent company be forced into a business agreement?
Click to expand...
Let’s say that I was a white nationalist and I made the argument that it was entirely up to me who I served in my restaurant. That it would be my prerogative. And that I could actually put a sign in the window saying that I wouldn’t serve a specific group of people.

Do you think it would give most people pause for thought?
 
Inquiry said:
40.png
Freddy:
You think people having a bias against blacks, homosexuals and Jews is hyperbole? Honestly…?
Click to expand...
No, I think that you mixing up bias against people with refusing to participate in situations is hyperbole. I even specified that in my last post. Admittedly if you didn’t intend to mix it up it wouldn’t be hyperbole just an honest mistake. It’s wrong either way.

The thing is, whether you are intending to or not you are reaching for emotional arguments. Emotional arguments are very good for mobilizing people to enact change, they are not good as a rebuttal for free speech. Free speech is a human right. It has to be beyond the reach of emotion because “I just don’t like that guy, he shouldn’t have rights” is also an unfortunately common emotional argument.
Click to expand...
Just see the post immediately above this one for a response.
 
Last edited:
your argument is stupid. (sorry for being harsh, but you had no problem in calling him stupid).

You compare a gay wedding with an Orthodox wedding as if it was the samùe thing. Not at all.

You think it is only a question of “sin” as if it is only a legalist question that can be solve by CCC or something like else. If nothing is written black and white, you should do it. Nonsense argument.

Of course we should and should be able to follow our conscience.

And sorry but a photographer is not a public agent, or been invested in a public mission. Onlmy a private entrepreneur with a private mission.
 
A restaurateur is not an artist. Neither their preparation of food nor their serving of food classifies as speech. They are not participating in a statement when they make food. They are not operating on commission. Again, your example is not the same.
 
Freddy said:
So it would be ok to put on their business cards ‘No blacks, Irish or Jews’?
Click to expand...
Ok in what sense? It’s their business card and yes they can put whatever they want on it and live with the consequences.

On a moral level I don’t agree with refusing to serve people based on ethnicity, gender, etc. But as an artist I would refuse commissions that went against my conscience.

I would not make anything that glorified Nazism, hatred, violence, etc. I would not do that because I disagree with the cause it represents. I would not take a commission that went against my religious teachings as well. I’m not discriminating against the person, but I am unwilling to support a particular cause or belief.

When I was a teacher I taught everyone who came to my classes, I didn’t ask about their personal belief system because it was irrelevant. They paid for my class and I taught them. I provided the same service to everyone. But if someone had asked me to teach a class glorifying what I believe to be immoral, yes, I would have refused to teach it. (I was not a public school teacher and was not bound to the rules one accepts when they take a job paid by taxpayer dollars)
 
It is a distinction with a massive difference. And I should point out that in a situation where an artist is forced to accept a commission the nose belongs to the artist, the fist belongs to the one who wants to force them.
 
Mythicalbio said:
This is just stupid. There is no sin in taking photos of a gay wedding, at least none that I know of. Neither would it be for an illicit straight one, or a bigamist straight one, etc. Or to provide clothing, catering, etc. People make a deal out of nothing. Doing such services doesn’t imply that one believes anythkng. Taking photos at an Orthodox wedding doesn’t imply schism for instance. This is not a hill to die on. A public business services the public (whoever constitutes that).
Click to expand...
So If the KKK hires a photographer to take pictures of a klan picnic, should a photographer be allowed to say no?

Of course the photographer should be allowed to say no. A private business should be allowed to pick & chose their bespoke work.

Photography at a wedding is bespoke work.

Now, if the couple was coming into the studio for standard pictures in front of a screen, that’s different. That would not be considered bespoke. A photographer should not be allowed to kick a same sex couple out of the studio if they are simply requesting a typical in studio photo package.

Same with a wedding cake. Buying a standard cake, without any customization is not bespoke and a baker should make that for anyone. But sitting down with the couple, discussing their love, designing a custom cake with several consultation sessions, and personally overseeing delivery is very bespoke.

Businesses should be allowed to turn down bespoke work for any reason, and if they do so they live with any fallout that may come.

BTW - if I was a part time photographer, I would want to only do Catholic weddings. Should I be criminalized for that?
 
Last edited:
The mere fact that someone operates on commission already indicates that they do not take all jobs. Your ‘simple solution’ is asking artists to jump through extra hoops just to maintain their free speech rights.
 
Just to add my tuppence-ha’penny’s worth to this discussion: In a free market, “liberal” economy, a business should have the right to deny business to anyone, for any, reason - it should be the prerogative of the business who they choose to serve or not to serve. And yes, controversially, if a business owner is a racist, they should be free to not serve whomsoever their racism is aimed at. In other words, nobody should be forced to provide a service to anyone. In any decent society, the logical end of this would be that the racist business would simply go out of business.
 
It doesn’t matter that you think it is not much of a burden, it is still a burden. The artist does not need to earn her freedom of speech rights, she already has them. To abridge them in any way you need to overwhelmingly show that the change is both necessary and as minimally invasive as possible.

It might be good business for an artist to be up front about what she will and will not do, but that is not necessary for her to use her rights.
 
Last edited:
Katolikuss said:
40.png
Inquiry:
It might be good business for an artist to be up front about what she will and will not do, but that is not necessary for her to use her rights.
Click to expand...
Honesty in advertising is a law. And the freedom of speech does not equal freedom to discriminate. The solution is still simple: “open a members only club and she can refuse membership to anyone she wants to.”
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech does equal freedom from compelled speech. That is the proverbial nose you are swinging your proverbial fist into. The artist does not have to speak (Which includes creating art) if she does not want to.

Also, you are trying to make the advertising laws do far too much work. They aren’t as robust as you think, both because the list of things a business can do is always shorter than the list it can’t, and because as laws they can’t override rights.
 
All human acts are either good or evil (no neutral knowingly chosen acts exist) and sin is an objective matter. Nothing is written about this situation that I have read, I simply used the Church teachings and applied them. Either way, following the conscience is imperative. If one truly believes that reading a book on Mondays is a sin against God, even if it isnt, then doing it anyways is an act of hate towards God and yourself. Whatever is not from faith is sin, says Paul.

The conscience should be well formed though and not forming it according to the moral law of God is an act of neglect, and creates lies. When you speak of God and His law, you are judged by God.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Let’s say that I was a white nationalist and I made the argument that it was entirely up to me who I served in my restaurant. That it would be my prerogative. And that I could actually put a sign in the window saying that I wouldn’t serve a specific group of people.
Click to expand...
except you would have to get around the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits public accommodations from refusing service to customers because of skin color, race, religion, sex, nationality, or any physical conditions a customer can’t prevent.

The right to refuse service, then, means that public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, banks, gyms, and stores, can lawfully deny service to a customer if they feel that their business might suffer from engaging in such a transaction—as long as they don’t base that decision on the categories above."

So you could be sued under this law if you say, listed "no Blacks allowed’.

A photographer is not a public accommodation.
 
But your position is apparently not that you wouldn’t refuse, but you’d mandate that everyone else not be allowed to refuse either. That’s arrogant and wrong.
 
That is not it, and I have said many times here in the thread that I have no idea if people are right or wrong with governments violating conscience (in this instance), I am indifferent to it if it isn’t mandating true sins. Polsci is not my area. My first post was nothing more or less than my annoyance with Christians making it seem like the moral law of God is something other than it is, and therefore making us look bad and indirectly telling lies about the faith due to their malformed consciences.
 
Last edited:
But I think part of the issue is that society isn’t always decent—hence the need to protect against discrimination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top