# Should Christians Be Forced to Photograph Gay Weddings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847 "2012-06-11T19:50:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/341 "2012-06-12T20:09:57Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I posted a clear distinction between homosexuality as a lifestyle choice vs other forms of discrimination where a person does not have such a choice. So what if it _was_ a choice? I don’t especially think it is a choice, but even if it was, why would that make it OK to discriminate against it? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/342 "2012-06-12T20:14:10Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > So what if it _was_ a choice? I don’t especially think it is a choice, but even if it was, why would that make it OK to discriminate against it? Because if it’s a choice, then it’s a sin and that’s icky. Which means GEEPERS can discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/343 "2012-06-12T20:19:08Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > It’s never wrong when a Christian’s right is being taken away. Atheists are most likely giddy about it. This is what I told you to stop doing - including several times in this thread. I’m giving you another warning here. And again, members with other religious views are instructed not to respond to this type of comment. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/344 "2012-06-12T20:41:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Just trying to explore the limits of this situation… > > Imagine I run a horrible little church in Florida that really hates Muslims. I discover that a Muslim has set himself up running a graphic design company in my community, so I decide to give him shit. Specifically, I design “Mohammad is a demon!” t-shirts and hire his company to create the shirts. They feature a cartoon Mohammad sporting horns and a lascivious forked tongue. I make it very clear that this isn’t a jibe; this is my genuine belief. > > Surely the design guy can refuse the job? I would argue he can refuse it on the grounds that THAT DESIGN is offensive. Bad graphic design is not a protected class. He CANNOT refuse it on the grounds he doesn’t print shirts for Christians. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/345 "2012-06-12T20:55:12Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > An Atheist photographer with a public business in NM is not allowed to deny service to people because he does not like the fact they are Christian. > > Does this mean his rights are being taken away? Absolutely. I don’t think the atheist photographer should be forced to provide service any more than the Christian. The law is too broad in scope and just plain wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/346 "2012-06-12T21:01:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Becoming a photographer is a choice, and is not an expression of religious belief. If they don’t like photographing sinners, they should not have gone into business as a photographer for hire. It doesn’t matter if it is an expression or not. The government is forcing someone to do something against their beliefs. That is wrong, and flies against the notion of religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/347 "2012-06-12T21:03:20Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Also, the database of offenders lets you know the offense committed. So you have full knowledge if the offense was, say, statutory rape as opposed to forcible rape. Another nitpick: This is not correct. Most states do not have a crime called “statutory rape.” Instead, once the sexual contact is demonstrated, you are essentially immediately guilty based on your age vs. victim’s age. What you would see when you looked up the sex offender is “X degree sexual assault of a child”- nothing about the difference in ages. The whole point of statutory rape is that it is inherently no different than “forcible” because the victim can never consent. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/348 "2012-06-12T21:06:05Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > It doesn’t matter if it is an expression or not. The government is forcing someone to do something against their beliefs. That is wrong, and flies against the notion of religious freedom. They have a religious belief about taking pictures? They are being forced to have a SSM against their beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/349 "2012-06-12T21:07:17Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > It’s not the same because anyone on the street can simply claim to be gay and receive special protection. Let’s say you want to get into that nice restaurant or rent at that apartment. Just simply threaten discrimination and you’re in. Also, if certain lawmakers get their way, you could be paid reparations as well. You’re still confused about how this works. If there are no tables available or rooms for rent, then there’s no discrimination and your hypothetical “gay” person is unlikely to get anywhere. Especially if the denial is simply “sorry, no room”. The “discriminator” would have to say “sorry, no room for gays” (or even “your kind”) to even pass the smell test. You can’t claim discrimination for a decision that wasn’t based on discrimination to start with. And bear in mind that someone would also be in violation for saying “no room for Christians”. There’s no “special rights” here - we all belong to several suspect classifications. ---
**Author:** ![typoink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@typoink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/typoink)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/350 "2012-06-12T21:08:18Z")
As much as I disagree with the platforms that GEEPERS is arguing from, I do find the argument a little…odd. There’s a difference, to me, between refusing service in a restaurant and booking a photographer. The former seems like a public business service whereas the latter is discretionary. It’s hard to articulate, but I do see a difference. I’m the liberal who actually _does_ believe people have the right to be ignorant bigots. I heartily believe in publicly shaming such people and making their bigotry apparent to all. I’m not sure I’m super behind legally mandating them to take elective jobs they don’t want to do. That said, I suppose I can’t get too up-in-arms about it either. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/351 "2012-06-12T21:34:19Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > It doesn’t matter if it is an expression or not. The government is forcing someone to do something against their beliefs. That is wrong, and flies against the notion of religious freedom. Governments force people to do things against their beliefs all the time - some people don’t believe they should pay taxes, or wear clothes in public, or whatever. Government force is neither an argument for nor against this photography thing. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/352 "2012-06-12T21:52:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > GEEPERS, your only argument here seems to be that you feel that the law should be changed so that sexual orientation is no longer a protected class. > > You seem to feel that they should not be a protected class because they are sinners. > > You base this on your personal interpretation of Christian scripture, an interpretation that is not shared by all Christians, and is not shared by others in the country from other faiths. > > Essentially, you feel that the laws should be changed, against the will of the people, so that you would be free to discriminate against gay people because your own interpretation of Christianity tells you that this would be OK to do so. That about sums it up, GEEPERS, sup? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/353 "2012-06-12T21:53:22Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > It’s certainly not comparable to the civil rights era where blacks did not have a choice. This gay couple could have easily went to another photographer, but they decided to raise a big stink about it, most likely costing taxpayers a good deal of coin. Black people could have gone to another photographer, too. Here’s the thing: they shouldn’t have to, and neither should the gay couple. I’m very curious to hear how you think this “cost taxpayers a good deal of coin”, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/354 "2012-06-12T22:03:24Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > So would it be legal for a photographer to say “Legally, I can’t refuse you’re business; however you might prefer a photographer who isn’t morally opposed to same sex marriage.” > [@Eve](#): > > In my opinion, that would be both legal and moral; just spelled slightly wrong. Dunno about that. It could be spelled just fine, but with a punctuation glitch: _“Legally, I can’t refuse. You’re business; however you might prefer a photographer who isn’t morally opposed to same sex marriage.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/355 "2012-06-12T22:21:40Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Absolutely. I don’t think the atheist photographer should be forced to provide service any more than the Christian. The law is too broad in scope and just plain wrong. Allright, you seem to be thinking that there should be no such thing as a “protected class” FULL STOP when it comes to a private business providing services. You have specifically said above that religion should not be a protected class. So let’s hypothesize a time in the future… Where Christians are in a distinct minority in the country. Would you be perfectly content if the laws about discrimination against protected classes of people had been eliminated? In other words, in this future hypothetical time, where Christians are not numerous, you’d be good if all businesses were allowed to post signs saying “No Christians served” or “Christians not allowed in this shop”. How about if you had separate Christian water fountains in my store? If Christians were not allowed to ride in my taxi? What if every grocery store in a town refused to serve Christians? You good with that? I suspect you would be calling these Christians “persecuted” and “unfairly treated”. And you’d be right. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/356 "2012-06-12T22:35:54Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I think it’s vile to treat sex offenders as sub-human members of society. There are many who have to wear the label for life for extremely minor offenses like an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old. I am merely demonstrating the double standard. Who made you God to determine which form should be vile and illegal? Wouldn’t that be adultery? What was the punishment in Leviticus for that? Death if I recall. Seems like God’s penalty for such a vile behavior was harsher than ours. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/357 "2012-06-12T22:36:55Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Dunno about that. It could be spelled just fine, but with a punctuation glitch: > > _“Legally, I can’t refuse. You’re business; however you might prefer a photographer who isn’t morally opposed to same sex marriage.”_ Nice. Well done. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/358 "2012-06-12T22:44:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Allright, you seem to be thinking that there should be no such thing as a “protected class” FULL STOP when it comes to a private business providing services. You have specifically said above that religion should not be a protected class. > > So let’s hypothesize a time in the future… Where Christians are in a distinct minority in the country. > > Would you be perfectly content if the laws about discrimination against protected classes of people had been eliminated? In other words, in this future hypothetical time, where Christians are not numerous, you’d be good if all businesses were allowed to post signs saying “No Christians served” or “Christians not allowed in this shop”. > > How about if you had separate Christian water fountains in my store? If Christians were not allowed to ride in my taxi? What if every grocery store in a town refused to serve Christians? You good with that? > > I suspect you would be calling these Christians “persecuted” and “unfairly treated”. And you’d be right. I suspect that he’d be thrilled that the Second Coming was imminent, as evidenced by the realization of the “prophecy” about needing the Mark to be able to engage in commerce. > [@Omar\_Little](#): > > > [@GEEPERS](#): > > > > I think it’s vile to treat sex offenders as sub-human members of society. There are many who have to wear the label for life for extremely minor offenses like an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old. I am merely demonstrating the double standard. Who made you God to determine which form should be vile and illegal? > > Wouldn’t that be adultery? What was the punishment in Leviticus for that? Death if I recall. Seems like God’s penalty for such a vile behavior was harsher than ours. Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but it’s been my understanding that fornication does not become “adultery” unless at least one of the fornicators is married (to someone other than the co-fornicator). ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/359 "2012-06-12T22:52:48Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but it’s been my understanding that fornication does not become “adultery” unless at least one of the fornicators is married (to someone other than the co-fornicator). > **[Adultery | Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Christianity)** > > Adultery is considered immoral by Christians and a sin, based primarily on passages like Exodus 20:14 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. Although 1 Corinthians 6:11 does say that "and that is what some of you were. But you were washed", it still acknowledges adultery to be immoral and a sin. > Catholicism ties fornication with breaking the sixth commandment in its Catechism. > Until a few decades ago,\[when?\] adultery was a criminal offense in many countries where the dominant religion is Christianity, espec... > [@](#): > > Some churches have interpreted adultery to include all sexual relationships outside of marriage, regardless of the marital status of the participants ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/360 "2012-06-12T23:46:03Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > And you haven’t posted any good counter-argument with supporting evidence demonstrating exactly why I am wrong. I posted a clear distinction between homosexuality as a lifestyle choice vs other forms of discrimination where a person does not have such a choice. Now this did birth the genetic homosexuality discussion which unfortunately got buried under countless replies. Maybe I’ll get back to it someday. Is this a good distinction upon which to justify discrimination? You chose your religious beliefs. Would it then be permissible for a Muslim doctor office, the only doctor in your town, to refuse you his medical services because you are a Christian and therefore, an infidel? Or your only pharmacy in town refuses to fill your prescription because of your contrary political beliefs to those of the pharmacist. Or you local gas station refuses to sell you gasoline for your car because you are a Christian and the store owner an atheist. This distinction between permitting discrimination on the basis of a characteristic people are born with or choose to have is untenable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=19)