# 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:** 33
**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 16, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/641 "2012-06-16T19:34:59Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Same sex weddings don’t exist in New Mexico. Of course they don’t photograph them. I think you know that it’s short hand for a same sex commitment ceremony. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/642 "2012-06-16T19:36:20Z")
[Actually, they do. There just aren’t very many of them.](http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Story/Judge-affirms-same-sex-marriages#) ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/643 "2012-06-16T20:00:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Actually, they do. There just aren’t very many of them.](http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Story/Judge-affirms-same-sex-marriages#) Fair enough - except they aren’t performed there. She’s not in the commitment ceremony business. She’s in the wedding business. And portrait business. And neither of those things were solicited from her. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/644 "2012-06-16T20:02:19Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Same sex weddings don’t exist in New Mexico. Of course they don’t photograph them. Then it’s strange that Elane Photography made that comment in response to a request to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. I was making a direct quote from their emails. I guess that whatever you want to call it - and it was obvious what I was saying - Elane won’t photograph a ceremony for a same-sex couple whether it’s a legally recognized ceremony or not. They plainly understood what they were being asked to photograph and refused because of the identity of the participants. But you know, it’s sort of too bad they didn’t try this metaphysical excuse. “Your ceremony doesn’t exist, so we can’t photograph it.” It would’ve made as much sense as “they don’t discriminate against gays, they just don’t photograph same-sex marriages.” > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Fair enough - except they aren’t performed there. She’s not in the commitment ceremony business. She’s in the wedding business. You’re now inventing excuses even the plaintiffs didn’t make. First email from Elaine photography: “Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.” Second email: “Yes, you are conect in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!” They photograph a variety of events, including weddings and engagements. Just not ones that include same-sex couples. It’s not because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage and not because they don’t do commitment ceremonies. It’s because they don’t approve of gay marriage and don’t want to take pictures of gay getting married or committed. ---
**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 16, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/645 "2012-06-16T20:05:03Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Fair enough - except they aren’t performed there. She’s not in the commitment ceremony business. She’s in the wedding business. And portrait business. And neither of those things were solicited from her. Then she would need to show evidence that’s she’s refused to do/never done a hetero commitment ceremony, or 40th anniversary party, or any life cycle event other than weddings and portraits. She’s admitting her exact rationale for not doing this event and it flies in the face of the law. She’s not claiming these other reasons. She’s offended by gay marriage so won’t do this event (whatever it’s called). ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/646 "2012-06-16T20:09:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then it’s strange that Elane Photography made that comment in response to a request to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. I was making a direct quote from their emails. I guess that whatever you want to call it - and it was obvious what I was saying - Elane won’t photograph a ceremony for a same-sex couple whether it’s a legally recognized ceremony or not. They plainly understood what they were being asked to photograph and refused because of the identity of the participants. Well… > [@](#): > > ``` > We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. > > This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information. > > Thanks > > ``` > [@](#): > > Hello Vanessa, > As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios. > -Elaine- > [@](#): > > Hi Elaine, > Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your **photography services to same-sex couples**? > Thanks, > Vanessa > [@](#): > > Hello Vanessa, > Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not **photograph same-sex weddings** , but again, thanks for checking out our site! > Have a great day. > -Elaine Then her partner emails and asks about services for a wedding without specifying the genders and because Elaine was willing to do business, she’s sued. I wonder if they sued anyone else (obviously not) or if Elane Photography was the only company that refused. edit: Now that I think about it, I can see how a Jewish person would refuse another Jewish person of a different sect a photography bid. Photography isn’t allowed during a synagogue service (bar mitzvah, wedding, etc) in a lot of circles. Mine doesn’t allow it. Another may, but what if the photographer objected because of Jewish law? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/647 "2012-06-16T20:19:04Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I wonder if they sued anyone else (obviously not) or if Elane Photography was the only company that refused. I’m guessing Elane was the only studio that turned them down explicitly because they were a gay couple. I’m not sure what you were attempting to illustrate with the bolding. The plaintiffs asked them to photograph the commitment ceremony and the studio responded that they don’t do same-sex weddings, clearly understanding the two things to be basically equivalent and indicating they are objectionable for the same reason. They didn’t refuse to photograph the event because the ceremony isn’t legally binding or because they thought it was a wedding and not a commitment ceremony. They refused because it was a same-sex couple. So they’re discriminating against gays. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > edit: Now that I think about it, I can see how a Jewish person would refuse another Jewish person of a different sect a photography bid. Photography isn’t allowed during a synagogue service (bar mitzvah, wedding, etc) in a lot of circles. Mine doesn’t allow it. Another may, but what if the photographer objected because of Jewish law? I’m not quite sure what scenario you are thinking of here. If you’re saying the photographer won’t do Jewish weddings because _he_ won’t take photographs in synagogues (and won’t let someone else do it for his company), then I can see an issue. If he won’t accept assignments in synagogues where he might have a problem because the sect doesn’t allow photography in the temple, I don’t think that’d be a problem. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/648 "2012-06-16T20:30:16Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Fair enough - except they aren’t performed there. She’s not in the commitment ceremony business. She’s in the wedding business. And portrait business. And neither of those things were solicited from her. Actually, the couple solicited photography services for both a “commitment ceremony” and a “wedding”. From testimony in the record: [QUOTE=Vanessa Willock] We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we 'd like to receive pricing information. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=the other partner, Misti Collinsworth] Hi Elaine, I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates? Thanks!! [/QUOTE] The response to the first inquiry: [QUOTE=Elaine Huegenin] Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios. [/QUOTE] The photographers also testified at trial that they had… > [@](#): > > …an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners. If it was left at that, there might be merit in your argument that they “don’t do commitment ceremonies”. That wasn’t it, though: > [@](#): > > Hi Elaine, > Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I 'm a bit confused, > however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company > does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples? > Thanks, > Vanessa > [@](#): > > Hello Vanessa, > Sony if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we > do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site! > Have a great day. > -Elaine Incidentally, I found the [appellate court’s opinion](http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf) upholding the HRC’s ruling (which was unanimous, for what it’s worth.) Of note: > [@](#): > > Willock points out, and we agree, that the expansive language of the current NMHRA “extends protection to ‘services’ and ‘goods’ as well as ‘facilities’ and accommodations,’ making [it] clear that [the NMHRA] reaches commercial activity beyond the nineteenth-century paradigm of an inn, restaurant, or public carrier.” > > \ > > The United States Supreme Court also emphasized that the “fundamental object [of civil rights] was to vindicate the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies [the] denial of equal access to public establishments.” > > \ > > Elane Photography argues that these expanded definitions of public accommodations fail to take into account or distinguish the unique artistic nature of certain service, such as those offered by Elane Photography. However, Elane Photography avoids addressing the critical factor that a photography business does offer its goods or services to the general public as part of modern commercial activity. In response, Willock specifically emphasizes the numerous jurisdictions that have adopted a broad definition of “public accommodation” and have included businesses “providing services to the general public,” and have not recognized a special exception for nonessential, artistic or discretionary businesses. > > \ > > Elane Photography also poses another hypothetical situation in support of its > argument. The hypothetical involves an African-American photographer’s refusal to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally because the photographer wanted to “refrain from using her photography to communicate a message that she finds deeply offensive.” Elane Photography claims that “\*t would be absurd to find (and this Court would, no doubt, decline to conclude) that the photographer discriminated against the Klan member because of his race.” This argument fails as a matter of law. As the district court stated that “[o]nce one offers a service publicly, they must do so without impermissible exception. Therefore, [Elane Photography] could refuse to photograph animals or even small children, just as an architect could design only commercial buildings and not private residences.” What Elane Photography’s hypothetical fails to address is the fact that, like animals, small children, and private residences, the Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected. > > \ > > [Discussing “protected speech” as opposed to _conduct_] Here, as in Rumsfeld, the NMHRA regulates Elane Photography’s conduct in its commercial business, not its speech or right to express its own views about same-sex relationships. As a result, Elane Photography’s commercial business conduct, taking photographs for hire, is not so inherently expressive as to warrant First Amendment protections. The conduct of taking wedding or ceremonial photographs, unaccompanied by outward expression of approval for same-sex ceremonies, would not express any message from Elane Photography. Similar to Rumsfeld, an observer who merely sees Elane Photography photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony has no way of knowing if such conduct is an expression of Elane Photography’s approval of such ceremonies. Instead, such an observer might simply assume that Elane Photography operates a business for profit and will accept any commercially viable photography job. > > \ > > “[v]oluntary commercial activity does not receive the same status accorded to directly religious activity.” > > \ > > We hold that Elane Photography’s refusal to photograph Willock’s commitment > ceremony violated the NMHRA. In enforcing the NMHRA, the NMHRC and the district court did not violate Elane Photography’s constitutional and statutory rights based upon freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the NMRFRA. We affirm the district court’s denial of Elane Photography’s motion for summary judgment and its decision to grant Willock’s motion for summary judgment. ---
**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 16, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/649 "2012-06-16T20:33:11Z")
This particular case is so clear cut that one could almost wonder if the photographer and the couple were in collusion to bring the most obvious case for a legal test. To turn this case into something other than exactly what it is requires complex mental gymnastics. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/650 "2012-06-16T20:33:45Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Then her partner emails and asks about services for a wedding without specifying the genders and because Elaine was willing to do business, she’s sued. I wonder if they sued anyone else (obviously not) or if Elane Photography was the only company that refused. As a matter of practicality, it’s very difficult to prove discrimination cases like this unless the defendant admits that they discriminated (as here), or there was written evidence (as here). Generally, such things come down to a he-said, she-said deal, in which case the plaintiff will usually lose (having the burden of proof). ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/651 "2012-06-16T20:46:06Z")
Thanks for your posts of the decisions, RNATB. ---
**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 16, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/652 "2012-06-16T20:51:16Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Thanks for your posts of the decisions, RNATB. Seconded. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/653 "2012-06-16T20:57:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not quite sure what scenario you are thinking of here. If you’re saying the photographer won’t do Jewish weddings because _he_ won’t take photographs in synagogues (and won’t let someone else do it for his company), then I can see an issue. If he won’t accept assignments in synagogues where he might have a problem because the sect doesn’t allow photography in the temple, I don’t think that’d be a problem. Sorry. I’ll explain: Conservative Jews don’t allow photography during bar mitzvahs. So let’s say a Conservative or Orthodox Jew did photography for a business. They do all kinds of Jewish and non-Jewish weddings and functions. As a policy, they aren’t open for business on the Sabbath, but that’s not a problem. Then they get an email from a Reform Jew who asks if they’d be available to photograph the bar mitzvah celebration? Oh, of course! Wait, you want me to photograph _during the ceremony_? In _shul_? That’s prohibited according to my sect; sorry. We are happy to provide services for your bar mitzvah party but my religious beliefs prohibit me from doing this during the service. Will the conservative Jew be held liable? Both groups are Jews, the conservative photographer does Jewish events, but only within the scope of their religious beliefs. The Reform Jew is a protected class, the bar mitzvah is on a Sunday, and _their_ synagogue allows photography. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/654 "2012-06-16T21:05:55Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Will the conservative Jew be held liable? It’s an interesting example. If you’re saying they’ll photograph any religious ceremony except a Jewish one, it seems possible that would run afoul of the law. In real life I have trouble imagining someone with those kinds of beliefs getting into this kind of business given the obvious potential for conflict with their religious views. ---
**Author:** ![VegasReno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/94ad74/32.png) [@VegasReno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VegasReno)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/655 "2012-06-16T21:10:29Z")
Could a photographer be compelled to shoot a porn shoot? Or a swingers party? I mean to not to would be to discriminate based on lifestyle… Some absurd arguments I’m seeing here. There is not an inability for them to get a photographer. But not every photographer wants to shoot something against their personal beliefs. Some photographers might only shoot weddings in a specific church (often done), or a specific building. Does that mean they have to expand their scope of shooting. I’m someone who thinks personally the state has no authority to ban civil unions between homosexuals… largely because the state only deems your marriage as a literal contract between two parties. It has then no legal authority to prevent certain classes to enter into a contract, while others can not… but the state in the same respect can’t force you to enter into a contract… and by the way, that’s what they are doing here. Completely different end of the spectrum. I mean can the state require you contractually get married by the age of 30? Of course not. Then why can it contractually require you to perform a service against your beliefs? What is this freedom we like to talk about in the US, if you don’t have that freedom? ---
**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 16, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/656 "2012-06-16T21:16:35Z")
Swingers and porn stars are not protected groups. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/657 "2012-06-16T21:23:46Z")
> [@VegasReno](#): > > Could a photographer be compelled to shoot a porn shoot? Or a swingers party? No and no. The law says the photographer can’t discriminate against certain classes of people, not that they can’t turn down any job. > [@](#): > > I mean to not to would be to discriminate based on lifestyle… A porn film isn’t a lifestyle. > [@](#): > > There is not an inability for them to get a photographer. That’s not the issue, although if every studio can refuse to photograph the ceremony, they absolutely could find themselves unable to engage a photographer. > [@](#): > > But not every photographer wants to shoot something against their personal beliefs. Yes, we know. And they can’t do that if they are offering their business to the general public. > [@](#): > > Some photographers might only shoot weddings in a specific church (often done), or a specific building. Does that mean they have to expand their scope of shooting. Again, no. > [@](#): > > but the state in the same respect can’t force you to enter into a contract… and by the way, that’s what they are doing here. No, it isn’t. All of this has been covered more than once. > [@](#): > > Then why can it contractually require you to perform a service against your beliefs? It can’t. It can say that as a business, you cannot offer your services to the public and then refuse to do business with certain types of people. [quote] What is this freedom we like to talk about in the US, if you don’t have that freedom? [QUOTE] What about the freedom of minorities or unpopular people not to have access to the same business as everybody else and not live like pariahs? ---
**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 16, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/658 "2012-06-16T21:28:40Z")
> [@VegasReno](#): > > What is this freedom we like to talk about in the US, if you don’t have that freedom? Okay, aside from your stupid question about requiring someone to film pornography – a question that you wouldn’t have had if you’d even bothered to glance at the rest of the thread – as a matter of law, in the US, in some circumstances you do not have the freedom to discriminate against particular groups that have experienced and continue to experience unfair treatment. If the freedom to discriminate against LGBT people is that valuable to you, I suggest you not move to one of the few states where you might legally face consequences for doing so. And frankly, I don’t see myself shedding a lot of tears for people who are only committed to “freedom” when we’re talking about the freedom to deny opportunities to groups that have already dealt with enough shit. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/659 "2012-06-16T21:29:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A porn film isn’t a lifestyle. Pity. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/660 "2012-06-16T21:31:25Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Swingers and porn stars are not protected groups. Not at the present time. Who knows what groups the left will decide to award special privileges to in the years to come? > [@Marley23](#): > > What about the freedom of minorities or unpopular people not to have access to the same business as everybody else and not live like pariahs? In the Constitution I can find the guarantee of freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech quite easily, whereas I cannot find the freedom to force businesses to come to your wedding and perform a service there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=34)