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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I thought it was obvious I was talking about a gay couple

I thought the tense was singular and the plural that came after was meant in a general sense.

So is there a difference between painting them and photographing them?

Morally no.

So we’re back to this:

‘I’d like a portrait of my partner and myself’’
‘Are you gay? I don’t paint gays’.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So we’re back to this:

Freddy:

‘I’d like a portrait of my partner and myself’’

‘Are you gay? I don’t paint gays’.

Since it is a certain circumstance and not the people I wouldn’t call it discrimination.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So we’re back to this:

Freddy:

‘I’d like a portrait of my partner and myself’’

‘Are you gay? I don’t paint gays’.

Since it is a certain circumstance and not the people I wouldn’t call it discrimination.

Then the original photographer should make it clear he won’t do business with a gay couple whose son is having a birthday. Or a couple who are not married but are celebrating fourty years together. Or the birth of a child to a couple whonare not married.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Then the original photographer should make it clear he won’t do business with a gay couple whose son is having a birthday.

They can since it is a birthday.

Or a couple who are not married but are celebrating fourty years together. Or the birth of a child to a couple whonare not married.

The birth of a child is for the child, but they shouldn’t do business for the anniversery.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I would think there would be people of other races and other nationalist groups, putting signs in their respective windows, as well. I never said sauce for the goose was not also sauce for the gander.

 

[Freddy]

I would think there would be people of other races and other nationalist groups, putting signs in their respective windows, as well.

In your world…of course there would be. And in the case of the local cafe I mentioned earlier we could have expected to see a sign in their window saying ‘Barista required. No blacks need apply’.

What a wonderful world.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

These grey areas are becoming so murky that it’s not possible any more to differentiate what people want and what they don’t.

That’s part of how the conscience thing would work, but there are obvious extremes to avoid and a consistency test is a good idea.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

What a wonderful world.

Take the good with the bad. There’s more good than bad.

 

[Calliope]

As long as you open a business to the public, you cannot arbitrarily excluded people.

As an artist I wouldn’t be arbitrarily refusing to serve certain people, I would refuse a particular job. If I had a repeat client and they came in and asked me to do a commission of something I found disturbing, reprehensible or immoral, I would turn down that JOB. I honestly could not do it justice. Just because I am an artist doesn’t mean I can and must do any job any person wants me to.

I am a whiz doing fish but if someone asked me to do a portrait of their brother, I’d refuse because I suck at doing people. Should they be able to sue me because I won’t take a job drawing their brother?

If I sold sandwiches, I’d sell them to anyone who wanted them, taking art commissions is a different matter. It’s also different because the customer can refuse to pay for the commission if they feel it doesn’t meet their expectations.

Again, must I take a commission to draw their brother knowing I can’t do a good job and they won’t be satisfied? I am upfront in saying I reserve the right to refuse certain commissions. Sometimes it’s because I’m too busy, or because I don’t think I can do the subject justice, or because I just feel like I’d really hate working on that particular job.

 

[Calliope]

Why just the etc? Finish the list, Calliope. The sign in your shopfront can now read:

‘No Nazis, people who hate, violent people and gays’.

I would not refuse service to any of those people, but I may turn down certain art commissions. If a Nazi comes in and asks me to make them a piece of art that is within my skill set and a subject that I don’t find morally reprehensible, I’ll make it.

If my sister asks me to design a racist poster for her, I’ll refuse that commission. It’s not about the person, it’s about a particular job that I cannot in good conscience participate in.

Again, my services are luxury services and to my understanding I am not required by law to take every job someone asks of me. I am not discriminating against the customer, I am refusing a particular request. I do not have to be all things to all people all the time in order to do business.

I don’t have to provide every possible service that any artist anywhere might provide. Similarly my local grocery chain butcher is not required to do kosher or halal killing and butchering just because someone asks them to. But I don’t think they have to have a sign up warning people that they don’t provide that particular service. They sell meat to anyone who wants to buy it, but they aren’t required to provide a particular service just because a customer requests it. I’ve asked my butcher for certain things that didn’t have anything to do with religious requirements and sometimes they tell me they can’t do that or get that for me. I’m not going to sue them, I’ll go elsewhere and see if someone else provides that service.

If you support someone’s right not to ‘help celebrate’ a gay marriage then I think it’s reasonable to say that you disgree with the marriage taking place in the first instance.

That’s quite a leap there. And my stand has nothing to do with gay rights or homosexuality. It’s about the right to refuse a particular luxury service that I am defending.

If a gay artist refused a job creating homophobic pamphlets, I stand up for their right to do so. They should not have to participate in that.

Nor should a black doll maker be forced to create an effigy of a black person that will be used in a mock lynching.

 

[Calliope]

I know that she doesn’t want them publicly celebrating their love for each other.

Really? How is that? How do you know what I believe about homosexual relationships?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Why just the etc? Finish the list, Calliope. The sign in your shopfront can now read:

‘No Nazis, people who hate, violent people and gays’.

I would not refuse service to any of those people, but I may turn down certain art commissions. If a Nazi comes in and asks me to make them a piece of art that is within my skill set and a subject that I don’t find morally reprehensible, I’ll make it.

If my sister asks me to design a racist poster for her, I’ll refuse that commission. It’s not about the person, it’s about a particular job that I cannot in good conscience participate in.

But it’s not about you, Calliope. It’s what you say you want which will then be apllicable to others in similar situations. All of us have to give up a certain amount of personal freedom to ensure the overall freedom of everyone. Not just Catholics. All of us.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I know that she doesn’t want them publicly celebrating their love for each other.

Really? How is that? How do you know what I believe about homosexual relationships?

Because you back a photograpers right to refuse to take on a commision at a gay wedding because it will somehow seem to justify the wedding itself. If you had zero problem with the marriage then why would you support the photographer?

I may be wrong and you are a gay rights activist just supporting people’s individual freedom of contract. In which you will have my unreserved apology.

So which is it?

 

[Calliope]

I may be wrong and you are a gay rights activist just supporting people’s individual freedom of contract. In which you will have my unreserved apology.

Bingo! Have you read my previous post where I stand up for a gay artist not being forced to design a homophobic pamphlet or the black doll maker not having to create an effigy for a mock lynching?

There is definitely a need for antidiscrimination laws. No one should be denied service or jobs due to gender, sexual preference, race, etc etc. Nor should they be denied housing, food etc etc. Nor should they be forced to participate in something that is morally reprehensible to them.

There are jobs I will never take (I’m speaking of 9-5 jobs) because they are counter to my ethics. And if a person has issues serving particular groups of people then they had better stay out of jobs that require they serve them.

If I run my own business I am not required to take every custom order that is proposed to me. If I work for a bakery then I am required to take any order the boss tells me to, and if I feel I cannot, then I need to quit and find a job that does not go against my ethical code or require skills that I don’t have.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I may be wrong and you are a gay rights activist just supporting people’s individual freedom of contract. In which you will have my unreserved apology.

Bingo! Have you read my previous post where I stand up for a gay artist not being forced to design a homophobic pamphlet or the black doll maker not having to create an effigy for a mock lynching?

There is definitely a need for antidiscrimination laws. No one should be denied service or jobs due to gender, sexual preference, race, etc etc. Nor should they be denied housing, food etc etc. Nor should they be forced to participate in something that is morally reprehensible to them.

There are jobs I will never take (I’m speaking of 9-5 jobs) because they are counter to my ethics. And if a person has issues serving particular groups of people then they had better stay out of jobs that require they serve them.

If I run my own business I am not required to take every custom order that is proposed to me. If I work for a bakery then I am required to take any order the boss tells me to, and if I feel I cannot, then I need to quit and find a job that does not go against my ethical code or require skills that I don’t have.

Then I do apologise. I’m really sorry I misrepresented your views. Lesson learned.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I’m afraid I don’t know what you are talking about, what you’re getting at, or where you are going with this line, but you sound very unfriendly, so I’m finishing this. God bless.

 

[Dolphin]

If taking pictures of soul damaging sins is fine then why not take pictures of murder or adultery?

Taking pictures of something consents to the very nature of it. Why would someone who holds Christian values want to make money off of taking pictures of a potential soul destroying sin?

 

[Rau]

A photographer that chooses to service a particular demographic or not, is the same as a surgeon also deciding who they want to save or not.

The demographic is not the issue. It’s the event. Big difference.

What if the top five surgeons in the country where all non Catholics, should they have the right to not operate on Catholics?

No. But they perhaps should have the right to decline to perform a particular operation such as sterilization or abortion.

 

[Inquiry]

sealabeag:

No, it is not obvious, and I don’t mean to be patronising but don’t think you understand how a right works. True rights are innate to the fact of being a human being, they are God given. They can be suppressed, interfered with, and circumstances can make some incapable of practicing them, but they exist, regardless.
On the other hand, a government can tell us, for example, that homosexuals have a “right” to marriage, but that makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that they don’t.
A right simply is .

The age old question: “is this glass half empty or half full”? The rights given by the nation-state are enforced, the rights given by God are NOT. And that is a fundamental difference.

Plenty of things seem ephemeral but are beyond the power of the State to change. If the State outlaws the Eucharist does that change whether you are fit to receive it? No. And if the State decided that, to prevent discrimination, the Eucharist should be given to the unbaptised too, would that mean that the unbaptised were ready to receive it? No. If the State says you are not human, does that mean you are not human? No.

The State can only functionally remove your rights, but it cannot actually remove your rights. When the State makes a law that denies part of your rights it has not changed your rights, it has only changed how much it infringes upon them.

 

[o_mlly]

What if the top five surgeons in the country where all non Catholics, should they have the right to not operate on Catholics? Or a major food supplier choosing to only feed Buddhists? Its a difficult proposition riddled with many problems

Government laws that prohibit citizens acts are more easily justified and enforced than laws which mandate citizens to act. The anti-discriminatory laws purport to prohibit but, in fact, mandate citizens to act.

Previous plaintiffs in similar cases have prevailed. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise religious freedoms. The Virginia ordinance will likely be amended.