# 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:** 8
**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 12, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/141 "2012-06-12T03:42:08Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But (coming back to my earlier discussion w/ **Farmer Jane** ) would taking pictures be considered a form of speech, legally speaking ? Not exposing them or displaying them, but simply snapping the shots ? I wonder…and no legal scholar here…but if SSM isn’t legal in NM and it’s been currently making the rounds in NM politics and news…isn’t the ceremony itself an act of political speech? Still, no photographer just snaps shots and calls it a day. Or - to flip this a little - it sounds like under the NM law, if someone, say, der trihs, were a graphic artist and he was solicited by the, I donno, Southern Baptist Chili Cookoff Commission to do their work, can he refuse? Could he argue that the SBCCC was a political entity as well as a religious one? Or does it not matter because the SBCCC isn’t a person, but a group? Gaah. Political speech _is_ protected in some states. It kind of worries me that as someone who always dreamed of having a bed and breakfast before I retire, I may be forced to house a Focus on the Family Save Our Sanctity to Marriage convention or something. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/142 "2012-06-12T03:45:49Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > isn’t the ceremony itself an act of political speech? I doubt it. > [@](#): > > Or - to flip this a little - it sounds like under the NM law, if someone, say, der trihs, were a graphic artist and he was solicited by the, I donno, Southern Baptist Chili Cookoff Commission to do their work, can he refuse? Yes. Think about this - you’re proposing that people can never say they’re busy and can’t take a job. What they can’t do is say “we don’t do photographs for Baptists/gays/black people” etc. You can refuse jobs but you can’t exclude a class. Sounds like an easy workaround in any case. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/143 "2012-06-12T03:49:53Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Pure malice? It’s pure malice for force someone to personally witness an act that is morally offensive to someone’s sacred beliefs. Those “sacred beliefs” are pure malice. Hatred for the sake of hatred. > [@GEEPERS](#): > > Would you like it if you were forced to take photographs of something that offended you greatly? Of course not; but if that was my job, that’s what I’m supposed to do. I find Christianity offensive, but if I was a photographer and some Christians asked me to photograph their wedding I’d do it anyway. And I expect that your deep concern over people being forced to photo things they find “immoral” would suddenly vanish in my case. And I’m not “offended greatly” at things out of malice, so the two cases don’t compare anyway. ---
**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 12, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/144 "2012-06-12T03:55:02Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Your ignorance of Christianity is most revealing. Try Hebrews 13:4 I really doubt Hebrews 13:4 says anything about a good-natured jibe about a typo, but if it does I’ma start readin’ the bible (runs off and checks—nope, not a word), and I see your Hebrews and I raise you a [Hebrew](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Mason) who \*might \*be able to teach you to have a sense of humor. > [@GEEPERS](#): > > No seriously, in the real world, I offer solid arguments backed up with supporting evidence which are laughed off the stage by a hostile audience who would rather chew their tongues off than bow down and admit that gasp, a Christian is actually right about something. Even the posters who don’t feel completely comfortable joining the black rebellion still feel the need to distance themselves from my OP. I speak the truth, and if I was truly spouting nonsense, these threads would be ignored and die early deaths instead of enraging the atheist hordes to attack me viciously and unfairly. \ > > I welcome a civil and fair debate anytime. Unfortunately, I won’t get on this forum. I disagree. You do not welcome debate; you only welcome agreement with your claims. You are unable to entertain any idea that conflicts with your own view of the issues under discussion. If you are aware that a particular poster does not share your views _in their entirety_, you discount or ignore any statements that poster makes. You pick and choose bits and pieces of posts to respond to that reinforce your image of yourself as Jesus himself upon the cross, martyred by the demonic hordes on the SDMB. For evidence of this, one needs only perform a search for posts that include the word atheists by the poster **GEEPERS**. Go ahead; I’ll wait. > [@GEEPERS](#): > > I have no problem with your ilk calling my arguments stupid and incoherent. I do get annoyed if you refuse to demonstrate without backing support exactly why they are stupid and incoherent. Otherwise, it is nothing more than boasting arrogance. If you’d be so kind as to answer a direct question ;), what ilk am I? What do you know about me that makes you believe I will call your arguments “stupid and incoherent?” Why do you claim that I will refuse to demonstrate anything without backing support? This is the heart of my contempt of your posting and “debating” style. You are completely blind to any color other than black or white. You cannot understand that opinion covers a spectrum ranging from slack-jawed apathy to frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. You are totally unaware of the billions of people that fall somewhere outside of “what you believe” and “what some atheist believes.” You make irrational generalizations about people based on a label you apply to them without any knowledge of their actual thoughts or experiences. Your selective blindness precludes any real exchange of ideas, which is what most of us look for in conversation and debate. Just my humble opinion, of course. PS: I hope the way I presented **GEEPERS** ’ quotes above is appropriate. I felt it was necessary to address his response in a certain order, but I’m aware I’m treading in alien soil here in GD, so please feel free to report my post and or hit me with a modhammer if necessary. Edited to note that I reported my own post after seeing that Marley23 had posted regarding side issues. I’m a bad, bad bird. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/145 "2012-06-12T04:00:03Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Or - to flip this a little - it sounds like under the NM law, if someone, say, der trihs, were a graphic artist and he was solicited by the, I donno, Southern Baptist Chili Cookoff Commission to do their work, can he refuse? Could he argue that the SBCCC was a political entity as well as a religious one? Or does it not matter because the SBCCC isn’t a person, but a group? > > Gaah. Political speech _is_ protected in some states. It kind of worries me that as someone who always dreamed of having a bed and breakfast before I retire, I may be forced to house a Focus on the Family Save Our Sanctity to Marriage convention or something. Personally, I thinks it’s wonderful that as a society we have said that our personal biases should not result in certain protected groups that have been historically persecuted not having access to services that everyone else can enjoy.We’ve come so far, it’s easy to forget how bad it was. I love that I can’t be kicked out of a store for wearing a star of David or that I didn’t have to check out venue after venue for the Bat mitzvah reception. Sure they could make some reason up, but if I could prove it was discrimination (revealing email, employee testimony, pattern of behavior) they would be punished. Our society says ‘no’, just do your job and don’t make personal what should be professional. So does that mean I have to then deal with protected groups _I_ might find immoral? Sure, but it’s the price I’m willing to pay. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/146 "2012-06-12T04:06:10Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > But she isn’t “simply snapping the shots.” She is exercising the same editorial control and discretion as a newspaper or publisher. She is staging the scenes, choosing the lighting, the angles, the arrangement of people and objects in the pictures, each done to celebrate, recognize, and memorialize the event and occasion, which constitutes as artistic expression. After all, photography is protected by copyright because of the creation of expression in photography such as wedding pictures. But she’s offering this “speech” up for sale to the general public, and photographing the particular things that her clients ask her to. In other words, she’s not exercising the editorial control that you describe over her speech. She picks the angles, lighting, and composition, but she freely hands off the selection of subject matter to her customer. I have a hard time seeing commercial photography for hire as the photographer’s free speech (I would be more inclined to call it free speech on the part of the client). ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/147 "2012-06-12T04:07:03Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I wonder…and no legal scholar here…but if SSM isn’t legal in NM and it’s been currently making the rounds in NM politics and news…isn’t the ceremony itself an act of political speech? Still, no photographer just snaps shots and calls it a day. > > Or - to flip this a little - it sounds like under the NM law, if someone, say, der trihs, were a graphic artist and he was solicited by the, I donno, Southern Baptist Chili Cookoff Commission to do their work, can he refuse? Could he argue that the SBCCC was a political entity as well as a religious one? Or does it not matter because the SBCCC isn’t a person, but a group? > > Gaah. Political speech _is_ protected in some states. It kind of worries me that as someone who always dreamed of having a bed and breakfast before I retire, I may be forced to house a Focus on the Family Save Our Sanctity to Marriage convention or something. The ceremony itself is probably not “political speech.” However, interestingly enough, you can, I think, refuse service on the basis of 1st Amendment free speech principles when you are being asked to engage in conduct constituting as engaging in speech, whether by words or expression, or creating speech, which is the same as speaking, whether by words or expression. In my opinion, a professional photographer, or someone whose livelihood occupation is photographry, is creating expression by photographing wedding pictures and doing so constitutes as expressive conduct. Photographs, painting, songs, works of literature, newspapers, are all speech and protected by the 1st Amendment. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/148 "2012-06-12T04:08:03Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Personally, I thinks it’s wonderful that as a society we have said that our personal biases should not result in certain protected groups that have been historically persecuted not having access to services that everyone else can enjoy.We’ve come so far, it’s easy to forget how bad it was. > > I love that I can’t be kicked out of a store for wearing a star of David or that I didn’t have to check out venue after venue for the Bat mitzvah reception. Sure they could make some reason up, but if I could prove it was discrimination (revealing email, employee testimony, pattern of behavior) they would be punished. Our society says ‘no’, just do your job and don’t make personal what should be professional. **So does that mean I have to then deal with protected groups _I_ might find immoral? Sure, but it’s the price I’m willing to pay.** I hope you understand that my issue was about the law and people’s personal liberties. What does the law say? Apparently **Bricker** didn’t see the shining BatSignal. Like I said before, in some states, political affiliation is protected, and that makes me uncomfortable. I feel like the law does allow for conscious objections in many areas, so I’m still struggling to connect all the dots that make the flag here. At any rate, I’ve enjoyed this conversation. Not the OP himself, but the thought process that was applied to the case. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/149 "2012-06-12T04:11:45Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > But she’s offering this “speech” up for sale to the general public, and photographing the particular things that her clients ask her to. In other words, she’s not exercising the editorial control that you describe over her speech. She picks the angles, lighting, and composition, but she freely hands off the selection of subject matter to her customer. I have a hard time seeing commercial photography for hire as the photographer’s free speech (I would be more inclined to call it free speech on the part of the client). Your statement “she is not exercising editorial control” is at odds with language from the opinion. _“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.”_ The photographer’s input, such as placement of people, objects, angles, lighting, and the editing process by the photographer, constitutes as the photographer’s speech, the photographer’s expressive conduct and the photographer’s expressive contribution. In other words, assuming, arguendo, it is speech of the client, it is not exclusively speech of the client but also speech of the photographer. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/150 "2012-06-12T04:11:55Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I hope you understand that my issue was about the law and people’s personal liberties. What does the law say? Apparently **Bricker** didn’t see the shining BatSignal. > > Like I said before, in some states, political affiliation is protected, and that makes me uncomfortable. I feel like the law does allow for conscious objections in many areas, so I’m still struggling to connect all the dots that make the flag here. > > At any rate, I’ve enjoyed this conversation. Not the OP himself, but the thought process that was applied to the case. I do understand. I feel, reading the legal statutes someone posted earlier that there is no case that photographer should be allowed to bail out. Unless there is, because what the hell do I know about law. But our laws should reflect our values as a society, so to me, this not being legal makes perfect sense. I was responding mostly to the scenarios you posed about your BB and der trihs, and why I think legally it makes sense that they couldn’t discriminate either. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/151 "2012-06-12T04:15:25Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I hope you understand that my issue was about the law and people’s personal liberties. What does the law say? Apparently **Bricker** didn’t see the shining BatSignal. > > Like I said before, in some states, political affiliation is protected, and that makes me uncomfortable. I feel like the law does allow for conscious objections in many areas, so I’m still struggling to connect all the dots that make the flag here. > > At any rate, I’ve enjoyed this conversation. Not the OP himself, but the thought process that was applied to the case. > [@](#): > > I feel like the law does allow for conscious objections in many areas, so I’m still struggling to connect all the dots that make the flag here. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/152 "2012-06-12T04:17:35Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > The photographer’s input, such as placement of people, objects, angles, lighting, and the editing process by the photographer, constitutes as the photographer’s speech, the photographer’s expressive conduct and the photographer’s expressive contribution. In other words, assuming, arguendo, **it is speech of the client, it is not exclusively speech of the client but also speech of the photographer**. (bolding mine) That’s a much better way to put it than I did, and I agree with that (given your assumption arguendo). I think the free speech argument fails when the photographer offers her speech as a product for sale to the general public - at that point, it’s equivalent to a public accommodation and subject to the same discrimination laws as any other publicly offered service. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/153 "2012-06-12T04:17:51Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > The ceremony itself is probably not “political speech.” However, interestingly enough, you can, I think, refuse service on the basis of 1st Amendment free speech principles when you are being asked to engage in conduct constituting as engaging in speech, whether by words or expression, or creating speech, which is the same as speaking, whether by words or expression. In my opinion, a professional photographer, or someone whose livelihood occupation is photographry, is creating expression by photographing wedding pictures and doing so constitutes as expressive conduct. Photographs, painting, songs, works of literature, newspapers, are all speech and protected by the 1st Amendment. In _Hurley_, SCOTUS said: > [@](#): > > To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed. - 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/154 "2012-06-12T04:20:37Z")
Just trying to explore the limits of this situation… Imagine I run a horrible little church in Florida that really hates Muslims. I discover that a Muslim has set himself up running a graphic design company in my community, so I decide to give him shit. Specifically, I design “Mohammad is a demon!” t-shirts and hire his company to create the shirts. They feature a cartoon Mohammad sporting horns and a lascivious forked tongue. I make it very clear that this isn’t a jibe; this is my genuine belief. Surely the design guy can refuse the job? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/155 "2012-06-12T04:20:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Those “sacred beliefs” are pure malice. Hatred for the sake of hatred. To avoid hijacks, GEEPERS has been instructed to refrain from his “everybody hates Christians” schtick. For the same reason, you will refrain from your “all religious people are evulll” schtick in this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/156 "2012-06-12T04:22:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Just trying to explore the limits of this situation… > > Imagine I run a horrible little church in Florida that really hates Muslims. I discover that a Muslim has set himself up running a graphic design company in my community, so I decide to give him shit. Specifically, I design “Mohammad is a demon!” t-shirts and hire his company to create the shirts. They feature a cartoon Mohammad sporting horns and a lascivious forked tongue. I make it very clear that this isn’t a jibe; this is my genuine belief. > > Surely the design guy can refuse the job? You win the thread. Butt you’d have even more points if Mohammad was a cartoon caricature. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/157 "2012-06-12T04:25:11Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/158 "2012-06-12T04:25:50Z")
My understanding is that protected religions are somehow recognized. You’d have to demonstrate that hatred of Muslim was a tenant of some established religion. Am I correct? Oops- resp to LHOD. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/159 "2012-06-12T04:30:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > To avoid hijacks, GEEPERS has been instructed to refrain from his “everybody hates Christians” schtick. For the same reason, you will refrain from your “all religious people are evulll” schtick in this thread. > > [/Moderating] I didn’t say anything about all religious people; as others have pointed out millions of Christians _don’t_ have those beliefs. I was asserting that a _specific set of beliefs_ held by _some_ Christians is in fact bigoted. Which those beliefs are, unless you want to argue that condemnation of homosexuality isn’t bigoted if it’s done in the name of religion. A relevant issue, since **GEEPERS** was asserting those those beliefs are automatically good because they are “sacred”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/160 "2012-06-12T04:34:23Z")
I’m not going to get into sematic wrangling. Your statement was functionally the same as GEEPER’s–an unsupported generalization that someone with whom you disagree is doing bad things for bad reasons–and you will refrain from repeating that stuff in this thread. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=9)