# 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:** 31
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/601 "2012-06-15T23:18:07Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I’m arguing because of the law as I see/understand it. Now, if you’d like to amend the Constitution or advocate for a federal bill extending these protections to gay couples, then that’s fine. This is clear bullshit. Not only have you not made anything resembling an actual legal argument, a New Mexico court has apparently decided that this photographer _did_ violate state law, and so your references to the U.S. Constitution and federal law are just weaseling. You can have your opinions about the merits of the law – and clearly you do – but you have not been making an argument about what the law actually states. ---
**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, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/602 "2012-06-15T23:29:42Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > This is clear bullshit. Not only have you not made anything resembling an actual legal argument, \*\*a New Mexico court has apparently decided that this photographer _did_ violate state law, and so your references to the U.S. Constitution and federal law are just weaseling. > \*\* > You can have your opinions about the merits of the law – and clearly you do – but you have not been making an argument about what the law actually states. There is no weaseling. It’s perfectly acceptable to mention federal law and SCOTUS cases about the First Amendment. If it isn’t, then someone _please_ take my teaching license away. Also, if you don’t mind, please provide cites for all of the times you have cited law in this thread. I think about three people have actually cited cases, so I guess anyone who provided cites for things that have passed or posed objections to a thought process must just be _weaseling_. That’s about 99 of us in a 13-page thread. :rolleyes: I have already said what I feel the merits of the law are in regards to same sex marriage. I also expressed what I feel the law says _now_. You, on the other hand, just whined. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/603 "2012-06-15T23:35:11Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Scenario A: > > Pharmacist won’t give birth control to a woman, but will dispense other pills. > > Scenario B: > > Photographer won’t do a commitment ceremony, but will photograph portraits of gay people. > > You get it now? :dubious: No, I don’t. Those are two entirely unrelated issues. Perhaps if you could explain how they’re remotely similar? > [@](#): > > Well, birth control (sans vasectomy) is not an option for men. You’ve never heard of condoms? ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/604 "2012-06-15T23:37:22Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > There is no weaseling. It’s perfectly acceptable to mention federal law and SCOTUS cases about the First Amendment. If it isn’t, then someone _please_ take my teaching license away. The lack of a federal law on this issue does not mean that a state law can’t exist. If you really, honestly don’t understand that – rather than just having made a lame attempt to weasel out of an argument – than someone really should take your teaching certificate away. > [@](#): > > Also, if you don’t mind, please provide cites for all of the times you have cited law in this thread. I haven’t made any legal arguments either. But unlike you, I’m not pretending I did. There’s no reason for me to cite the law. > [@](#): > > I think about three people have actually cited cases, so I guess anyone who provided cites for things that have passed or posed objections to a thought process must just be _weaseling_. That’s about 99 of us in a 13-page thread. :rolleyes: Nope. It’s only the ones who falsely claimed they were making legal arguments when they hadn’t done so. So far, I count one. > [@](#): > > I have already said what I feel the merits of the law are in regards to same sex marriage. I also expressed what I feel the law says _now_. You have in no way advanced any sort of argument about what the state law that was applied in this situation actually says. You made a vague reference to U.S. law that is irrelevant as that was not what applied in this situation. If you think you have a legal argument to make, then bone up on New Mexico law and explain why the jurists who made this decision were wrong. Since there is approximately zero chance of you doing so, I can rest in comfortable assurance that when this thread is over and done, you still will have made no semblance of a legal argument. > [@](#): > > You, on the other hand, just whined. Pointing out the pathetic holes in your argument is not “whining”, silly. ---
**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, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/605 "2012-06-15T23:48:04Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > The lack of a federal law on this issue does not mean that a state law can’t exist. If you really, honestly don’t understand that – rather than just having made a lame attempt to weasel out of an argument – than someone really should take your teaching certificate away. Well, if you don’t understand that state law isn’t the final say-so, then I’m glad you don’t have a teaching certificate. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/606 "2012-06-15T23:52:58Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Well, if you don’t understand that state law isn’t the final say-so, then I’m glad you don’t have a teaching certificate. Do you think the state law is somehow unconstitutional? Want to elaborate on why you think the state law isn’t the final say so? ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/607 "2012-06-15T23:53:07Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. My church’s hall is married-in-the-church-building-only…wil that be ok for “Catholic-weedings only”? ---
**Author:** ![Sudden\_Kestrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@Sudden\_Kestrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sudden_Kestrel)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/608 "2012-06-15T23:55:53Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Well, if you don’t understand that state law isn’t the final say-so, then I’m glad you don’t have a teaching certificate. Then why do states even _have_ laws? Or courts? Or law enforcement agencies? ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/609 "2012-06-15T23:58:03Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Well, if you don’t understand that state law isn’t the final say-so, then I’m glad you don’t have a teaching certificate. I refuse to believe that you are really, honestly stupid enough to think that this is an argument. States laws illegalize many, many acts that are not illegal under federal law. If you don’t understand that, you should not be teaching anything. State and local antidiscrimination laws that apply to LGBT people have existed for years and years. They are not unconstitutional (and if you want to advance the novel argument that they are, you will have to actually make a legal argument. You know, where you talk about the law and stuff.) ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/610 "2012-06-16T00:06:25Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Do you think the state law is somehow unconstitutional? Want to elaborate on why you think the state law isn’t the final say so? This thread actually goes on for quite awhile if you want to have a peek. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > No. It doesn’t mean they followed the law, however. > > With religious liberty comes liability. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Imho, ssm should be legal in all 50 states. But I also think that when religion and equal rights clash, the smaller scope of the law should apply. > [@](#): > > **How photography doesn’t fall under free speech I can’t tell you.** > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Oh. I was thinking of one’s right to free speech (or the freedom to not speak)…which, thanks to the 14th Amendment, should be applied to all states. > > But if this person has an LLC and she’s conducting business, she may have waived some of that. > > I don’t know. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > What do you think about what I said about First Amendment rights? Or do you think that when you open up a business, you waive some of them? Certainly if I had a business I couldn’t discriminate against my employees based sexuality. But what if my employee wanted take leave because their same-sex spouse was sick and I denied it? Can I do it? Neither my state nor Federal law offers that privilege. > > I’m really seeing the irony here. New Mexico doesn’t allow discrimination of services because of sexual orientation but they will allow discrimination of marriage licenses based on sexual orientation. :smack: _Hurley_ has been tossed about in this thread a lot, and even though the NM court cited it, it doesn’t mean you can’t argue that it shouldn’t have gone the other way. I’m also not sure why you want me to repeat Notre Dame’s posts. > [@mister\_nyx](#): > > I refuse to believe that you are really, honestly stupid enough to think that this is an argument. Oh, the “I’m not calling you stupid but I am calling you stupid” thing. ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/611 "2012-06-16T00:22:50Z")
You can start on page 4. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Employment Division v. Smith_. 494 U.S. 872 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC\_CR\_0494\_0872\_ZS.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZS.html) > > You do not have, under the law, a “conscious objection” to laws which are neutral and of general applicability, including religious objections. She does not have a viable religious objection or a conscious objection to this law thanks to Justice Scalia’s rationale in the decision cited above. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > In _Hurley_, SCOTUS said: > > - Since SCOTUS has already said people have the right to _not_ speak, wouldn’t this principle apply? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > The answer is it MIGHT. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed _this_ precise factual issue. In my opinion, based on my comments so far, I think under these facts, she is A.) Creating speech or expression and B.) Her taking the pictures, and what she does to take those pictures, including editorial control, results in the photographer, such as Elane, speaking or engaging in expressive conduct. > > It isn’t much of a stretch to reach the conclusion she is creating speech/expression and indeed speaking or engaged in expressive conduct under these facts. If so, then this law cannot compel her to take these pictures as it would constitute as compelled speech. > > There are, however, some rational counterarguments to this position. It is possible to oppose law or a decision based on its merits (like my concerns about freedom of religion) and also based on what you already know or understand to be the law (in regards to compelled speech). But while I’m at it, I’m 100 per cent uncomfortable with _compelled speech_. If I am a painter for hire and you want me to paint a photo of your Flying Spaghetti Monster and I don’t want to, I really don’t want to be sued for it. I really value my freedom of association. I also think there’s a distinction between not photographing same sex ceremonies in a state that doesn’t allow gay people to marry and just refusing to photograph gays, period. I wasn’t aware that I had to cite legal precedent for that. :dubious: I’m not a lawyer. I said that. I like the Dope because I learn things and I can exercise some muscle. You can see my train of thought throughout the thread. If you want to make this personal, open up a Pit thread about me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/612 "2012-06-16T00:56:57Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But while I’m at it, I’m 100 per cent uncomfortable with _compelled speech_. If I am a painter for hire and you want me to paint a photo of your Flying Spaghetti Monster and I don’t want to, I really don’t want to be sued for it. If you want to be picky about what you paint, don’t set yourself up as a business open to the general public. For example, I work with concept artists a lot. Each deal is unique. Terms are spelled out in advance, with a statement of the scope of work described in a contract. Artists like that don’t have a storefront. They don’t have a sign up in the window saying “Pictures painted! $300!”. You can’t just walk in off the street and buy a standard art package off a list. They’re not a public accommodation. And so, they can pick and choose what they work on for any damn reason they want. (Although, in general, since most of them are professionals, they’ll make a good faith effort to deliver on whatever it is the client wants.) Or there’s this guy I know who’s a food photographer. He had a studio in his house and shoots pictures for magazines. He doesn’t advertise to the general public. He just works with a list of clients that he’s built up over the years. No one can force him to come over to their big gay wedding and take pictures. He’s not operating a public accommodation. However, if you set yourself up as a service that \*anyone \*can avail themselves of (even if you’re doing something artistic), then you can’t turn around and refuse work from someone who’s a member of a protected class. ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/613 "2012-06-16T01:10:38Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I’m not arguing because I think the photographer was morally right here. I’m arguing because of the law as I see/understand it. Now, if you’d like to amend the Constitution or advocate for a federal bill extending these protections to gay couples, then that’s fine. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > There is no weaseling. It’s perfectly acceptable to mention federal law and SCOTUS cases about the First Amendment. If it isn’t, then someone _please_ take my teaching license away. Well, I’ll be taking that license, because as others have explained, we’re not talking about federal law. We are talking about the law of an individual state whose constitution provides protections that the federal constitution does not. If you want to argue that New Mexico law should mirror federal law on the subject, then you can quote federal law and SCOTUS all you want. However, you aren’t arguing that, as you said yourself in the first quote above. If you want to argue that New Mexico law should be trumped by the Federal constitution, you can argue that, too, and that’s a reasonable argument. Clearly, there’s a balancing test involved. However, this appears to be a religiously neutral law and thus the state need not demonstrate a compelling interest to defend it. Even if it did have to, the State of New Mexico has clearly decided that its public policy is to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is a pretty damn compelling interest. This is really no different from a state law prohibiting polygamy without respect to sincerely held religious beliefs on the practice. > [@](#): > > Imho, ssm should be legal in all 50 states. But I also think that when religion and equal rights clash, the smaller scope of the law should apply. What, in your opinion, is “the smaller scope of the law” here? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/614 "2012-06-16T03:23:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [Apparently, it is you who’s confused.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15168468&postcount=487) Re-read my comment…you said “public places” but I did not say “public places” in my quote. You are confused, not me. ---
**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 16, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/615 "2012-06-16T03:27:11Z")
If there is any way we could force a few Christians to come mow my grass this weekend, I’d really appreciate it. I’m not gay, personally, but I think the guy down the block might be. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/616 "2012-06-16T03:30:30Z")
> [@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. This is not true if you are a photography business like Elane Photography. If you are a photography business like Elane Photography then there is a good likelihood you would be in violation of the NM law. Especially considering language from the decision in which they take a very broad and expansive view of “public accommodation.” Of course, you can conveniently retort you do not include in your hypothetical the fact you were advertising a photography company for only “Catholic weddings.” Yet, given the context of this thread, which is the facts the decision, you less than well defined hypothetical left much to be desired and of course the reader was forced to fill in the facts. After all, nobody can tell from your hypothetical whether you are discussing a business or not. So, I chose to assume a fact which is fundamental to the case being discussed, a photography business. You can hopefully forgive me for being too presumptuous in my endeavor to fill in the lack of information in your hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/617 "2012-06-16T04:03:25Z")
> [@Sudden\_Kestrel](#): > > Well, all right, but it won’t be anywhere near as much fun as coming up with that pun was. Federal judiciary or not, my point was and is that a ridiculous number of things can be described as “speech or expressive conduct.” If we can apply that label to wedding photographs, then why can’t I apply it to my Nuclear Family PostAtomic Play Pen with the yellow bunnies painted on it? “It’s the only play pen big enough to hold the new, mutated, post-Fukushima babies, but I’m not going to sell it to you, because your wife is a—well, she’s a _husband_.” > [@](#): > > The initial complaint was filed in 2006, original ruling in 2008, appeal ruling 2012. Doesn’t seem like a long time if you’re a lump of coal, but 6 years seems too long to decide a case that is as cut and dried as you “pretend” this one to be. Six years is “too long to decide a case” because you say so? No, and the fact is there are a plethora of other reasonable alternate explanations to account for the 6 years. Those alternate reasons are individuals not having the money to initiate a lawsuit, other people not being aware they have a possible viable legal exception to the law, and finally, the passage of 6 years quite simply has absolutely nothing to do with whether a case is “cut and dried” or not. Your non-sequiter aside, I have never asserted or been pretentious about this case having a clear and easy answer. I have stated, more than once, there does exist “counterarguments” to my position, the Court has never decided this precise issue, and this MIGHT constitute as a free speech violation. So, despite your unmitigated efforts to strawman me ad nauseum, I’d appreciate it if you ceased making arguments for me and equally stop making incorrect allegations regarding how I have characterized this argument. It isn’t conducive to having a productive dialogue, it isn’t accurate, and a waste of your time and mine in discussing it. > [@](#): > > Is there some reason you find the ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals to be unworthy of consideration? Their decision seems to be based on many of the cases you refer us to, yet you object to their conclusions. Granted, they’re not the fancy-schmancy SCOTUS, but they do represent the state in which the affected business was operating and in which both plaintiff and defendant reside. Well, the New Mexico Court of Appeals never asserted there wasn’t speech or expressive conduct under these facts. They admit there is speech. However, they cite cases which do not remotely support their position as they suggest. They reach a rather intringuing and paradoxical conclusion. As I noted previously, a common theme between the 1st Amendment jurisprudence and copyright jurisprudence for photographs is the element of speech and expression. To receive 1st Amendment protection under the Speech Clause requires speech or expressive conduct and to receive copyright protection, including photographs, requires speech or expressive conduct. In a preceding post I noted the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate court decisions listing the factors constituting as expressive conduct by photographers, i.e. the photographer does have an expressive message, i.e speech of the photographer. Interestingly enough, the NM appellate court mentions some of them but then reaches the odd conclusion it isn’t speech of the photographer. While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take, in that “it decides which pictures to take, which pictures to edit, and how to edit them[,]” this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography. According to the case law I have found regarding copyright, it most certainly is speech and expressive conduct of the photographer. > [@](#): > > Federal judiciary or not, my point was and is that a ridiculous number of things can be described as “speech or expressive conduct.” Perhaps but this isn’t the issue and it is not germane to what we are discussing. ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/618 "2012-06-16T05:02:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by E\*\*uphonious Polemic \*\* > 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. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > My church’s hall is married-in-the-church-building-only…wil that be ok for “Catholic-weedings only”? I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by “married-in-the-church-building-only”. If you mean that ONLY those who have an actual marriage ceremony in your church (which ONLY marries members of the congregation, or those who share congregant’s religion), and does not advertise to the public are subsequently allowed to have a reception in the Church hall… and if they are consistent in upholding this rule… Then I think that the Church hall is NOT a public accommodation because it does NOT offer to rent it’s services to the public and does not advertise itself as being available for rental to the general public. This means they do not have to rent the hall to a couple who were not married in their church. This seems simple enough. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/619 "2012-06-16T10:49:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … > If you want to argue that New Mexico law should be trumped by the Federal constitution, you can argue that, too, and that’s a reasonable argument. Clearly, there’s a balancing test involved. .. The is pretty clearly the argument that **Farmer Jane** has made - 1st Amendment trumps NM law. There should be nothing surprising about the idea that federal constitutional rights take precedence, assuming incorporation under the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade found a constitutional right that trumped the state law of many states. The question for Johnny Roberts and the Supremes is if Elane Photography has a 1st Amendment right not to be compelled to provide their services if their photography is expressive speech. ---
**Author:** ![OldnCrinkly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@OldnCrinkly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldnCrinkly)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/620 "2012-06-16T12:20:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, it’s not, not even in Iowa. The issue of gay marriage has been _politicized_, but that doesn’t mean that every individual gay union is _political_. The vast majority of gays who are (or want to get) married aren’t doing so to make a political statement, they’re doing it because they’re in love. > > So, I guess, my question to you is, do you think that racial minorities should not have the level of protection they currently enjoy? Or do you think that there’s some reason sexual minorities should not be protected to **the same extent** as race and religion? (Bolding added by me) I don’t think every, or even many, gay people want to get married as a political statement. That being said, taking a photographer to court to demand their artistic (expressive) services be provided is a political statement. Similarly, refusing to shoot the ceremony is a political statement. As far as the rights of various minorities, I think that is the issue here. Someone will be denied their rights. Both sides have rights, but one must outweigh the other. Personally, I do not agree with an artist being compelled to engage in production of any artistic endeavor. There are some claims that their right not to accept some particular job are limited by the fact that they are a business. I can understand that point, to a degree. I would not agree that their right is completely eliminated. I do see a distinction between “I don’t shoot gay people.” and “I do not shoot same sex commitment ceremonies.” I see that some people disagree, which is fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=32)