# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/681 "2012-06-17T00:26:08Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Fair enough… all of a sudden I had felt like the poster child for making pornographers a protected class! 😃 Well, they should. Have you seen the size of those dicks ? Or the purdy women them dicks plough into ? Bound to cause jealousy and persecution. I’m speaking from experience here, I swear ! ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/682 "2012-06-17T01:43:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Did you read what I wrote? Both groups are Jewish (for all I know, both of the groups in the Elane case are Christians). One just has a stream that says “no photography during religious services” and the other doesn’t. I’m wondering if you want to compel them to enter into a contact as well, since not agreeing to the contract apparently violates the rights of a protected class. ---
**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 17, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/683 "2012-06-17T02:21:54Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Evidently not. You believe that the freedom of LGBT people to engage in the same sorts of commerce that everyone else does is irrelevant (or, more likely, you’re actively opposed to it), and that the invidious motives of people who want to discriminate against LGBT people are sufficient reason to deny us freedom. No, what I believe is that all persons, regardless of their sexual tastes, should have freedom to engage in the exact same sort of commerce, namely free commerce, which is commerce where both parties chose freely to participate. I do not believe that any person, regardless of sexual tastes, should have the legal ability to coerce anyone else into appearing at a particular event. In other words, I believe in freedom according to the definition found in a dictionary, “the power to determine action without outside restraint”. You, on the other hand, seem to believe in an Orwellian redefinition in which freedom is the state where government forces individuals to do things that they didn’t choose by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/684 "2012-06-17T02:26:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > . . . an Orwellian redefinition in which freedom is the state where government forces individuals to do things that they didn’t choose by themselves. No… A definition where a regulated market prohibits people discriminating in business against certain classes of persons. You also don’t have the “freedom” to dump mercury into the lake, or to play you boom-box very loud at midnight, or sic your dog on the postman. Yes, regulations limit freedom. And we should all thank God (or government) that there are at least some regulations on businesses. Remember lead-based paints? ---
**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 17, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/685 "2012-06-17T02:29:37Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > It that unlikely event takes place, then that will be the will of the people. You don’t get to run the country exactly the way you want to ,you know. That’s true, I don’t. > [@](#): > > Do you really fear this eventuality? Seriously? Or is your slippery slope analogy just for the sake of debate? Again, why wouldn’t I consider it a serious possibility? New Mexico now has a law saying that people with one particular sexual taste have the privilege to force any business person they wish to appear at an event and deliver them services. Why shouldn’t I expect that sets of people with other sexual tastes won’t eventually demand the same privilege? **mister nyx** keeps saying that such a scenario is “ridiculous”, but thus far he’s ignored my question of why it’s ridiculous. ---
**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 17, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/686 "2012-06-17T02:32:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No… A definition where a regulated market prohibits people discriminating in business against certain classes of persons. > > You also don’t have the “freedom” to dump mercury into the lake, or to play you boom-box very loud at midnight, or sic your dog on the postman. > > Yes, regulations limit freedom. And we should all thank God (or government) that there are at least some regulations on businesses. Remember lead-based paints? Yes, you’re correct. Regulations do limit freedom. I’m glad you agree, rather than joining with those who pretend that government coercion increases freedom. In the particular cases of environmental pollution and such, I support those restrictions on freedom because they are necessary to prevent harm. A photographer who chooses not to work at a certain event obviously harms no one and thus there’s no comparable need to remove his 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 17, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/687 "2012-06-17T02:34:29Z")
Sexual taste? That’s pretty dismissive of the significance of what we’re talking about. Sexual orientation is as fundamental a part of self identification as is gender, for most people. ---
**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 17, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/688 "2012-06-17T02:39:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No, what I believe is that all persons, regardless of their sexual tastes, should have freedom to engage in the exact same sort of commerce, namely free commerce, which is commerce where both parties chose freely to participate. I do not believe that any person, regardless of sexual tastes, should have the legal ability to coerce anyone else into appearing at a particular event. In other words, I believe in freedom according to the definition found in a dictionary, “the power to determine action without outside restraint”. You, on the other hand, seem to believe in an Orwellian redefinition in which freedom is the state where government forces individuals to do things that they didn’t choose by themselves. You believe in a “freedom” which applies strictly to the removal of very specific types of restrictions from commercial transactions. In fact, I understood your point of view already; you didn’t need to reiterate it – and as for “Orwellian redefinition”, with your definition of “freedom”, you’ve got me beat by a country mile. [QUOTE=ITR champion] mister nyx keeps saying that such a scenario is “ridiculous”, but thus far he’s ignored my question of why it’s ridiculous. [/QUOTE] I have done no such thing. I’ve explained more than once that trying to argue against a hypothetical, using what’s known as the ‘slippery slope fallacy’, is only necessary if you can’t argue against the actual scenario in question. The fact that you can’t come up with a response to what I said doesn’t mean I didn’t say it, it just means that you have no response. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/689 "2012-06-17T04:17:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > . . . A photographer who chooses not to work at a certain event obviously harms no one and thus there’s no comparable need to remove his freedom. Here, I must vigorously disagree. Discriminatory practices in business are harmful to individuals, and harmful to society. This is what led to the Jim Crow era of segregated lunch counters, and the division of society into racial castes. It was at the heart of one of the ugliest periods in our history, and led to the necessary correction of the Civil Rights Acts. I am forced to agree with the previous post; if you had your way, this kind of ugliness would return. This is not a “victimless” form of wrongdoing, like smoking cigars; this hurts real people, by making second-class citizens of them. I can only condemn the spirit of evil that would make anyone wish to exercise a freedom that crushes the soul of an entire class of persons by relegating them to a deprived underclass. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/690 "2012-06-17T04:33:35Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Did you read what I wrote? Both groups are Jewish (for all I know, both of the groups in the Elane case are Christians). One just has a stream that says “no photography during religious services” and the other doesn’t. I read what you wrote and I don’t know why you’re implying otherwise. I am saying that this policy would apparently only discriminate against Jews, so I wondered if it would run afoul of the law for that reason. The policy you’re describing is not not “no photography during religious services,” it’s “no photography of Jewish religious services.” The first one isn’t discriminating against anyone and the second one is. So I am not sure how it would be handled but I can imagine it being an issue. And like I said, I have trouble imagining someone who is opposed to photographing some religious services becoming a wedding photographer. > [@](#): > > I’m wondering if you want to compel them to enter into a contact as well, since not agreeing to the contract apparently violates the rights of a protected class. This has been dealt with over and over already: nobody is being compelled to enter into a contract. ---
**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 17, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/691 "2012-06-17T04:53:09Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Six years is “too long to decide a case” because you say so? My _actual_ statement of “6 years **seems** too long” and your “Six years **is** too long” (emphasis mine) do not mean the same thing, so stop trying to “strawman me” to avoid addressing my real point. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > 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. Yes, I’ve noticed that you have kind of a hard time taking a stand, as noted especially here: > [@](#): > > 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. Including phrasing that allows you to weasel out of your claims as necessary does not (in my humble opinion, and only based upon what has been stated here on this day and not on any other day, and barring any unforeseen forays into the future or the past that may disprove my contention) mean you are not making those claims. You’ve stated several times that in your opinion wedding photographs represent “speech or expressive conduct” on the part of the photographer/business owner. It’s _that_ claim I am disputing. I am \*so \*planning to borrow the phrase “Your nonsequitur aside,” though. For some reason it strikes me funny. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > 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. \ According to the case law I have found regarding copyright, it most certainly is speech and expressive conduct of the photographer. You missed a bit of what the appellate court had to say about expression: [QUOTE=Elane Photography, LLC, v. Willock] 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. \ In no context would Elane Photography’s conduct alone send a message of approval for same-sex ceremonies. Without explanatory speech, the act of photographing a same-sex ceremony does not express any opinions regarding same-sex commitments, or disseminate a personal message about such ceremonies. [/QUOTE] They have clearly expressed their opinion that photographs taken under the circumstances relevant to this case are not instruments of speech as claimed by Elane Photography and thus are not protected under the First Amendment. The court mentions that it considered a case I don’t believe you’ve mentioned\*, _State [of New Jersey] vs. Chepilko, 965 A.2d 190,_ which concerned an Atlantic City photographer who was cited for snapping and selling photographs of people on the boardwalk. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the ordinances under which he was cited could not be applied under the First Amendment. The New Jersey court found that “defendant’s business activity does not serve predominantly expressive purposes and therefore is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment.” Now once again, this is not the SCOTUS and probably doesn’t have the gravitas you require, but it does appear that the NM court considered the issue of expression in commercial photography when making its decision. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > Perhaps but this isn’t the issue and it is not germane to what we are discussing. Well, actually, it is—or at least it is an important aspect of what we’re discussing. If we are to believe that wedding photographs taken by a photography business are “expressive speech or conduct” and possibly protected under the First Amendment, we need to examine what other products might be considered under that definition. Your involvement in this discussion with me was based on your objection to my statement that there should be no exemption to the law (against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) due to the “artistic work” involved in wedding photographs. I know you regret that now ;), but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/692 "2012-06-17T05:13:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Here, I must vigorously disagree. Discriminatory practices in business are harmful to individuals, and harmful to society. This is what led to the Jim Crow era of segregated lunch counters, and the division of society into racial castes. It was at the heart of one of the ugliest periods in our history, and led to the necessary correction of the Civil Rights Acts. I am forced to agree with the previous post; if you had your way, this kind of ugliness would return. > > This is not a “victimless” form of wrongdoing, like smoking cigars; this hurts real people, by making second-class citizens of them. I can only condemn the spirit of evil that would make anyone wish to exercise a freedom that crushes the soul of an entire class of persons by relegating them to a deprived underclass. Actually I’ve not said that I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act. That’s merely a stance that certain other persons have dishonestly tried to pin on me. Concerning civil rights, I agree [with Rev. Martin Luther King](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) that in the South there was a nonstop campaign of terrorism, denial of Constitutional rights, economic segregation, and personal violence directed at blacks; further that since the state governments themselves were leading this terrorist campaign, extraordinary action by the federal government was justified at the time, hence I would have supported the Civil Rights Act then. Nowadays it would be irrelevant if the portion of the Civil Rights Act dealing with private businesses was repealed as no business would exclude blacks and any that did would be immediately hit by boycotts. However, the current attempt by the left to link all their issues to the civil rights struggle and to invoke emotional phrases such as “second-class citizens” and “spirit of evil” strikes me as silly. Contrary to what you might think after reading some posts around here, homosexuals in America today are not treated as blacks were in the South sixty years ago. There are not daily bombings and burnings of their buildings, as there were of black churches then. State governments do not take away the right to vote from gays. Indeed as this thread shows us, gays use state governments to strip rights away from other people. According to the law, a photographer could legally refuse to photograph a wedding because the bride is too short, or because the groom has a mustache, or because the bridesmaids are wearing green, or because they’re driving to the church in a Chevy rather than a Ford, or for any of countless other dumb reasons. The photographer simply can’t refuse to do a wedding because it’s a gay wedding. So those the law treat short brides as “second-class citizens”? Does it “crush the soul” of men with mustaches? ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/693 "2012-06-17T05:20:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A photographer who chooses not to work at a certain event obviously harms no one and thus there’s no comparable need to remove his freedom. Commerce that denies goods and services to a particular group of people based on bigotry and ignorance is not good for society. This is why there are laws to prevent this. These laws have been agreed upon by legislators who have been elected in democratic elections by the voting populace. Sorry. Democracy has decided that your views are no longer acceptable in this day and age, and have been relegated to the dustbin of history. Thank goodness. ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/694 "2012-06-17T05:25:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Actually I’ve not said that I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act. That’s merely a stance that certain other persons have dishonestly tried to pin on me. Concerning civil rights, I agree [with Rev. Martin Luther King](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) that in the South there was a nonstop campaign of terrorism, denial of Constitutional rights, economic segregation, and personal violence directed at blacks; further that since the state governments themselves were leading this terrorist campaign, extraordinary action by the federal government was justified at the time, hence I would have supported the Civil Rights Act then. Nowadays it would be irrelevant if the portion of the Civil Rights Act dealing with private businesses was repealed as no business would exclude blacks and any that did would be immediately hit by boycotts. Uh, yeah. I don’t think anyone was in doubt about your position. You think it’s a-okay to discriminate against LGBT people, but you think racial minorities deserve protection against discrimination, because that doesn’t challenge your deeply-held belief that it’s okay for people like you to mistreat LGBT people. I don’t think anyone needed you to clarify that. Clarifying your position doesn’t make you sound any better. ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/695 "2012-06-17T05:45:42Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Sorry. Democracy has decided that your views are no longer acceptable in this day and age, and have been relegated to the dustbin of history. You are entirely correct. In many areas of life, to a large extent, individual freedom has been relegated to the dustbin of history, but that doesn’t prove that individual freedom was a bad thing while it lasted. ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/696 "2012-06-17T05:47:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You are entirely correct. In many areas of life, to a large extent, individual freedom has been relegated to the dustbin of history, but that doesn’t prove that individual freedom was a bad thing while it lasted. Sorry about how our freedoms won out, bro. ---
**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 17, 2012, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/697 "2012-06-17T06:12:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Contrary to what you might think after reading some posts around here, homosexuals in America today are not treated as blacks were in the South sixty years ago. There are not daily bombings and burnings of their buildings, as there were of black churches then. State governments do not take away the right to vote from gays. Indeed as this thread shows us, gays use state governments to strip rights away from other people. Has it occurred to you that there don’t have to be exact parallels between pre-CRA treatment of black people and current treatment of the GLBT community for the same basic principles to apply? There aren’t daily burnings of GLBT buildings or churches in part because there are few buildings or churches that can be identified as being exclusively owned by people from that community. Instead of talking about a group of people who are easily identified as different from the oppressing majority as black people are, we’re talking about people who look just like “the rest of us” and who have been forced to hide within the community in order to avoid persecution. With occasional exceptions (some of them as brutal as lynchings of black people ever were), discrimination against people in this community has been conducted for the most part _sotto voce_, but that doesn’t make it any less of an abomination. > [@](#): > > According to the law, a photographer could legally refuse to photograph a wedding because the bride is too short, or because the groom has a mustache, or because the bridesmaids are wearing green, or because they’re driving to the church in a Chevy rather than a Ford, or for any of countless other dumb reasons. The photographer simply can’t refuse to do a wedding because it’s a gay wedding. So those the law treat short brides as “second-class citizens”? Does it “crush the soul” of men with mustaches? While your talk of mustaches and bridesmaids’ dresses is meant to trivialize it, the type of business behavior involved here does have the potential of crushing souls (or their equivalent) and of relegating gay and lesbian citizens to second-class status because it is a systemic issue, not just a case of a single business hurting the feelings of one couple. That is why antidiscrimination laws exist, to prevent discrimination against classes of people that have traditionally suffered widespread discrimination. ---
**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 17, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/698 "2012-06-17T06:55:39Z")
> [@Sudden\_Kestrel](#): > > While your talk of mustaches and bridesmaids’ dresses is meant to trivialize it, the type of business behavior involved here does have the potential of crushing souls (or their equivalent) and of relegating gay and lesbian citizens to second-class status because it is a systemic issue, not just a case of a single business hurting the feelings of one couple. That is why antidiscrimination laws exist, to prevent discrimination against classes of people that have traditionally suffered widespread discrimination. Thank you for debating intelligently and politely, rather than by personal attacks. I appreciate it. Nonetheless I don’t find what you’re saying here convincing. Phrases such as “crushing souls” and “relegating gay and lesbian citizens to second-class status” are vague and don’t mean anything specific. Indeed some might suspect that their utility lies in their vagueness, and that some people use them to push emotional buttons without actually having any specifics in mind. Good laws cannot be based on such vagueness. A government should be able to state a precise reason why a law exists. As for the mention of “classes of people that have traditionally suffered widespread discrimination”, that opens up a huge can of worms because the number of such classes is endless. Have BDSM fans traditionally suffered widespread discrimination? How about fat people? Or vegetarians? Nerds? Left-handers? All these groups and many others could make a claim that they’ve been discriminated against. Once the government starts to award the privilege of bossing others around to certain groups based on past instances of discrimination, where does it end? If a legal wrong has been done to some group, they may file a lawsuit and if they win, they get fiscally compensated. That’s the right way to deal with such issues. Trying to correct past discrimination with extra privileges in the present is the wrong way. If gays and certain other groups are awarded the privilege of bossing others around, then that literally does split society into legal classes, with the bossing groups in the upper class and the rest in the lower class. ---
**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 17, 2012, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/699 "2012-06-17T07:07:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As for the mention of “classes of people that have traditionally suffered widespread discrimination”, that opens up a huge can of worms because the number of such classes is endless. Have BDSM fans traditionally suffered widespread discrimination? How about fat people? Or vegetarians? Nerds? Left-handers? All these groups and many others could make a claim that they’ve been discriminated against. Once the government starts to award the privilege of bossing others around to certain groups based on past instances of discrimination, where does it end? > > If a legal wrong has been done to some group, they may file a lawsuit and if they win, they get fiscally compensated. That’s the right way to deal with such issues. Trying to correct past discrimination with extra privileges in the present is the wrong way. If gays and certain other groups are awarded the privilege of bossing others around, then that literally does split society into legal classes, with the bossing groups in the upper class and the rest in the lower class. Well, then, too bad for you that the our nation has decided that folks deserve to be protected from people like you. Thankfully for the rest of us! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/700 "2012-06-17T07:10:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Thank you for debating intelligently and politely, rather than by personal attacks. I appreciate it. Yeah, if we could just get back to some good ol’ persecution without all the fag enablers getting all objecty. I mean, here you are, wanting to make it safe to oppress gays and someone has the nerve to respond with rudeness??? Who the fuck do they think they are, anyways?!? So should we allow people to deny food and life saving medicine to gays, or just housing and education? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=36)