# 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:** 29
**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 15, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/561 "2012-06-15T18:14:46Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Millions of people go through life without being photographed. I see a miniseries. _ **The Undocumented** _. Tales of the millions of people who have never had their visage immortalized. Tonight’s episode, _Homely Henrietta_. ETA: Goddammit, by appearing in an episode it wrecks the premise. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/562 "2012-06-15T18:16:57Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I see a miniseries. _ **The Undocumented** _. Tales of the millions of people who have never had their visage immortalized. Tonight’s episode, _Homely Henrietta_. > > ETA: Goddammit, by appearing in an episode it wrecks the premise. Never mind. It could work with a Carlton the Doorman type setup. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/563 "2012-06-15T18:17:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There is every chance that this is the silliest argument that has ever been thrown out in GD. It does manage to be ethically terrible and completely goofy at the same time. That’s not easy. ---
**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 15, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/564 "2012-06-15T18:21:41Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > On the level of this situation, that’s basically what it amounts to. The photographer(s) are not pushing for legislation to ban gay marriages from being photographed or preventing the couple from hiring another photographer. They simply don’t want to photograph this wedding and a small business should certainly have this right (i.e., the right to turn down a potential client for whatever reason silly or otherwise). Personally, I have to wonder at the mentality of someone who would want a photographer who admits they don’t want you as a client. Are you suggesting that when someone’s legal rights are being withheld, that they simply forget about it and move on? That these folks just try to be good little gays, and not make waves when they are discriminated against? That they should just go away and hope to find someone who does not break the law? If someone does not insist that their legal rights are upheld, they have pretty much voluntarily surrendered those rights. I hope that is not what you believe is an appropriate action. ETA: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot > If every photographer doesn’t want you as a client, you probably shouldn’t have your photograph taken. Is this a whoosh? Or what? You can’t be serious. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/565 "2012-06-15T18:28:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m saying it sounds like you’ve accepted my argument, although I don’t think you meant to. The whole ‘she’s not discriminating against gays, she’s discriminating against same-sex marriage’ thing is nonsense because only gays have same-sex marriages. Well, theoretically. But only pro-choicers have abortions. Again - what? Are you not following my train of thought? A pharmacist can also refuse BC to a woman even though women are the only ones who need birth control.\* \*in pill form > [@](#): > > This issue has been litigated elsewhere in the past. If the church has a building it rents out to the general public, then yes, they cannot discriminate against gays on religious grounds. Well, I’d _hope_ you’d understand that what happens in a NJ court doesn’t affect what happens in my home state. There are also states that _don’t_ protect same sex couples in the wedding industry, but NM has no bearing on that until it reaches SCOTUS. Do you extend this to clergy as well? ---
**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 15, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/566 "2012-06-15T18:31:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It does manage to be ethically terrible and completely goofy at the same time. That’s not easy. That, and it flies in the face of something that’s been mentioned about 5,000 times during the thread: by that logic, black people shouldn’t have eaten lunch in Southern cities. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/567 "2012-06-15T18:35:58Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Do you extend this to clergy as well? It’s hard to take a question this asinine seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/568 "2012-06-15T18:40:54Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Are you not following my train of thought? A pharmacist can also refuse BC to a woman even though women are the only ones who need birth control.\* Does this pharmacist also refuse to give women high blood pressure medication? antibiotics? analgesics? If he doesn’t refuse to give women other pills, it is clear his discrimination is NOT based on the person’s sex. Of course, I personally think a Pharmacist that refuses to dispense legal medication should take up a new line of work, but that’s beside the point for this thread. > [@](#): > > Do you extend this to clergy as well? Are they selling something? Providing a service or product in exchange for money? Then yeah, they can’t discriminate over sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/569 "2012-06-15T18:42:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This kind of logic enables Jim Crow and apartheid systems to exist. “If nobody wants to serve you, you don’t deserve to be served. We know that because nobody wants to serve you.” Mmmm, tautology! That logic may have been used to justify Jim Crow and Apartheid, but it wasn’t actually used by many of the people who had to follow it. Many people didn’t like following it. Jim Crow and Apartheid were _laws_, specifically _because_ there were people willing to do business in a non-discriminatory manner. That would put the ones who wanted to discriminate at a competitive disadvantage. Hence, _laws_ that compelled everyone to play by the discrimination rule. I don’t know about South Africa, but in the southern US, there were many business owners that _hated_ Jim Crow, because it compelled them to needlessly duplicate facilities and services, and compelled them to turn away customers, even if they were at less than maximum capacity, just because the potential customer was “the wrong color” for the underutilized facility. If the majority had actually _supported_ Jim Crow, rather than merely being to apathetic to oppose them (as was the actual case), you would have seen _much_ more resistance to the Civil Rights Act after it was passed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/570 "2012-06-15T18:45:14Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Well, theoretically. But only pro-choicers have abortions. Again - what? Pretending for a moment that that’s actually true, it’s not an issue here. It is not against the law to refuse to sell those pills, and it’s not discrimination against pro-choices - again, a non-protected class as far as I know - it’s refusing to sell them to anyone. (And it probably should be illegal to refuse that kind of service in my opinion. If you don’t want to dispense drugs, don’t be a pharmacist. That’s a case where a public accomodation law would apply very well.) > [@](#): > > Well, I’d _hope_ you’d understand that what happens in a NJ court doesn’t affect what happens in my home state. It wasn’t in my home state either, and I was making reference to a precedent, not assuming you knew about it. I am pretty sure it was discussed earlier in the thread. > [@](#): > > Do you extend this to clergy as well? No. Clergy don’t make their services available to the general public, they make their services available to believers and their congregation. They make it explicit that they cant refuse to marry two people. If a church has an accomodation that it rents out to the general public, it can’t discriminate against protected classes for religious reasons. That was the case in the example discussed earlier where a church (or congregation) was sued successfuly. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/571 "2012-06-15T18:47:40Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Of course, I personally think a Pharmacist that refuses to dispense legal medication should take up a new line of work, but that’s beside the point for this thread. Actually, it’s _exactly_ the point of this thread. If the photographer doesn’t want to serve customers the law says they must, should the photographer take up a new line of work? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/572 "2012-06-15T18:54:33Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > If the photographer doesn’t want to serve customers the law says they must, should the photographer take up a new line of work? If the law stays on the books and applies to her, what other option is there? Unless she can do business while deliberately flouting the law and getting sued over and over, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/573 "2012-06-15T18:56:35Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If the law stays on the books and applies to her, what other option is there? Unless she can do business while deliberately flouting the law and getting sued over and over, that is. I wasn’t disagreeing with the premise, I was pointing out to the other poster that it’s the same question in this thread as the pharmacist example. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/574 "2012-06-15T18:57:48Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I never quoted a law pertaining to public places. You most certainly have me confused with someone else. [Apparently, it is you who’s confused.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15168468&postcount=487) > [@NotreDame05](#): > > The NM law says: > > **any person** in any public accommodation ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/575 "2012-06-15T19:00:01Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I wasn’t disagreeing with the premise, I was pointing out to the other poster that it’s the same question in this thread as the pharmacist example. I agree it’s a very similar issue. Like I said earlier, it’s surprising that it hasn’t been discussed more here, but this has mostly been focused on the photographer and the New Mexico public accomodation law. ---
**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 15, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/576 "2012-06-15T19:07:29Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Well, I’d _hope_ you’d understand that what happens in a NJ court doesn’t affect what happens in my home state. There are also states that _don’t_ protect same sex couples in the wedding industry, but NM has no bearing on that until it reaches SCOTUS. I don’t know why he’d “understand” that, because it’s not true. Certainly the decisional law of another state is not _binding_ on the courts of your own state, but the courts of your state will certainly look at the approach the courts of other states have taken when deciding an issue for the first time. ---
**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 15, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/577 "2012-06-15T19:07:53Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [Apparently, it is you who’s confused.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15168468&postcount=487) No,you are confused. “Public accommodation” does not mean “public place” in common parlance. We’re talking about [Public accommodation](http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm) in the sense of legal definitions of civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/578 "2012-06-15T19:08:19Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I wasn’t disagreeing with the premise, I was pointing out to the other poster that it’s the same question in this thread as the pharmacist example. Conceptually, it’s very similar, though there’s no law that requires pharmacists to treat all legal medications equally. I just didn’t want to sidetrack this thread with an abortion pill debate. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/579 "2012-06-15T19:13:42Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > No,you are confused. > > “Public accommodation” does not mean “public place” in common parlance. We’re talking about [Public accommodation](http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm) in the sense of legal definitions of civil rights. Still, linguistics confusions aside, my point stands: a Church an its recption hall are not “public accomodation”, therefore my hypothetical Chatolic-wedding-only photographer can get by without breaking the law. ---
**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 15, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/580 "2012-06-15T19:18:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Still, linguistics confusions aside, my point stands: a Church an its recption hall are not “public accomodation”, therefore my hypothetical Chatolic-wedding-only photographer can get by without breaking the law. A reception hall is “public accommodation” if the church acts as a business by renting it out to members of the public at large, rather than just to members of it’s closed congregation. This would be particularly true if the church generally advertises via public means (newspaper, etc) rather than by something like a church bulletin, which only goes to congregation members. Even though the Church building itself is open to the public to see or visit, it is not generally considered a “public accommodation”, since it is **used** for it’s intended purpose only by members of the church, not by the public, and is not rented to the general public for use. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=30)