Is this fair?

[Hughsie]

I heard an account recently of a Christian photographer somewhere in America who was contacted by a homosexual organisation to cover an event they were holding (I'm not sure what the event was but it was something benign I think). After realising he had been contacted by a homosexual organisation (and one that was supportive of gay rights) he refused the job on moral grounds because of their views on homosexuality.

He is now facing a discrimination lawsuit for his actions.

What is anyone's view of this, and where does your opinion stem from?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I guess it depends on the law.

It may seem like he deserves it because he's a homophobe. But if you look at it from his point of view, for example, if an atheist is asked to do a job for a someone like Ray Comfort. I'm quite sure many would find it rather distasteful to do business with someone we think is a conman. Similarly I would likely not want to do business with groups that promote ideas I'm very against at a personal level and would like to have the freedom to do that. It's not like he refused on grounds that the person is a homosexual, he did so because they were promoting gay rights, something he did was against. Is that discriminatory?

[Hughsie]

I guess it depends on the law.

It may seem like he deserves it because he's a homophobe. But if you look at it from his point of view, for example, if an atheist is asked to do a job for a someone like Ray Comfort. I'm quite sure many would find it rather distasteful to do business with someone we think is a conman. Similarly I would likely not want to do business with groups that promote ideas I'm very against at a personal level and would like to have the freedom to do that. It's not like he refused on grounds that the person is a homosexual, he did so because they were promoting gay rights, something he did was against. Is that discriminatory?

I'm not sure that the event itself was pro-gay marriage event or anything. I'm a bit sketchy on the details but I believe the organisation also have non-gay events too (such as charitable events and members events etc.).

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Well is the organization pro gay rights? As in is it one of their agendas to promote gay rights? If so I think he's ok to say he doesn't want to take the job. However if he says he doesn't want to photograph a gay wedding then I think it's discriminatory. Basically he can orient his business in such a way that it only supports organizations/political ideas he supports. And then his customers can, in turn, decide not to hire him because he's against gay rights.

[Angrboda]

Damn hard to render a legal opinion without an actual case to consider. What you've given us is an anecdote totally lacking in all the relevant details. Asking our opinion on such vague crap is stupid and worthless.

[Hughsie]

Damn hard to render a legal opinion without an actual case to consider. What you've given us is an anecdote totally lacking in all the relevant details. Asking our opinion on such vague crap is stupid and worthless.

I'm not asking for a legal opinion. I'm asking whether you agree that a Christian businessman's moral views are a good enough reason for him to refuse service to people he knows are pro-homosexuality. Or whether you think that should be considered discrimination.

If you don't like the thread feel free to not bother with it but is it really necessary to be a dick about it?

[Minimalist]

It took a while to find the case you were talking about....2006 is not "recent"...but it appears to be this one.

http://www.queerty.com/new-mexicos-frigh...-20091217/

The photographer violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

The fascist blogosphere is up in arms....but there is nothing new in that. They are up in arms about poor people seeing a doctor so fuck them.

[pocaracas]

If the man was paid to do the job, but bailed, then he should, at least, return the money...
If there was a contract signed by both parties and one bails due to some non-contractual detail... then he suffers.

If it was all word of mouth, then there's no case.

[Doubting Thomas]

The simple fact is that, based on the law, a business can't discriminate against customers based on race, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation. I see Christian photographers refusing to do business with homosexuals exactly the same as restaurants putting up signs that say "Whites only." And apparently so does the law.

[professor]

If your right to your religious view (whatever it may be) (supported by the Constitution) is trumped by something else, then the Constitution is voided.
If you go by what is written in that doccument- then the photographer is within his rights and his rights are violated.

The bill of rights is useless without lawful people upholding them.