So what if it was a choice? I don’t especially think it is a choice, but even if it was, why would that make it OK to discriminate against it?
Because if it’s a choice, then it’s a sin and that’s icky. Which means GEEPERS can discriminate.
This is what I told you to stop doing - including several times in this thread. I’m giving you another warning here. And again, members with other religious views are instructed not to respond to this type of comment.
I would argue he can refuse it on the grounds that THAT DESIGN is offensive. Bad graphic design is not a protected class.
He CANNOT refuse it on the grounds he doesn’t print shirts for Christians.
Absolutely. I don’t think the atheist photographer should be forced to provide service any more than the Christian. The law is too broad in scope and just plain wrong.
It doesn’t matter if it is an expression or not. The government is forcing someone to do something against their beliefs. That is wrong, and flies against the notion of religious freedom.
Another nitpick: This is not correct. Most states do not have a crime called “statutory rape.” Instead, once the sexual contact is demonstrated, you are essentially immediately guilty based on your age vs. victim’s age. What you would see when you looked up the sex offender is “X degree sexual assault of a child”- nothing about the difference in ages. The whole point of statutory rape is that it is inherently no different than “forcible” because the victim can never consent.
They have a religious belief about taking pictures?
They are being forced to have a SSM against their beliefs?
You’re still confused about how this works. If there are no tables available or rooms for rent, then there’s no discrimination and your hypothetical “gay” person is unlikely to get anywhere. Especially if the denial is simply “sorry, no room”. The “discriminator” would have to say “sorry, no room for gays” (or even “your kind”) to even pass the smell test. You can’t claim discrimination for a decision that wasn’t based on discrimination to start with.
And bear in mind that someone would also be in violation for saying “no room for Christians”. There’s no “special rights” here - we all belong to several suspect classifications.
As much as I disagree with the platforms that GEEPERS is arguing from, I do find the argument a little…odd.
There’s a difference, to me, between refusing service in a restaurant and booking a photographer. The former seems like a public business service whereas the latter is discretionary. It’s hard to articulate, but I do see a difference.
I’m the liberal who actually does believe people have the right to be ignorant bigots. I heartily believe in publicly shaming such people and making their bigotry apparent to all. I’m not sure I’m super behind legally mandating them to take elective jobs they don’t want to do.
That said, I suppose I can’t get too up-in-arms about it either.
Governments force people to do things against their beliefs all the time - some people don’t believe they should pay taxes, or wear clothes in public, or whatever. Government force is neither an argument for nor against this photography thing.
That about sums it up, GEEPERS, sup?
Black people could have gone to another photographer, too. Here’s the thing: they shouldn’t have to, and neither should the gay couple.
I’m very curious to hear how you think this “cost taxpayers a good deal of coin”, incidentally.
Dunno about that. It could be spelled just fine, but with a punctuation glitch:
“Legally, I can’t refuse. You’re business; however you might prefer a photographer who isn’t morally opposed to same sex marriage.”
Allright, you seem to be thinking that there should be no such thing as a “protected class” FULL STOP when it comes to a private business providing services. You have specifically said above that religion should not be a protected class.
So let’s hypothesize a time in the future… Where Christians are in a distinct minority in the country.
Would you be perfectly content if the laws about discrimination against protected classes of people had been eliminated? In other words, in this future hypothetical time, where Christians are not numerous, you’d be good if all businesses were allowed to post signs saying “No Christians served” or “Christians not allowed in this shop”.
How about if you had separate Christian water fountains in my store? If Christians were not allowed to ride in my taxi? What if every grocery store in a town refused to serve Christians? You good with that?
I suspect you would be calling these Christians “persecuted” and “unfairly treated”. And you’d be right.
Wouldn’t that be adultery? What was the punishment in Leviticus for that? Death if I recall. Seems like God’s penalty for such a vile behavior was harsher than ours.
Nice. Well done. 
I suspect that he’d be thrilled that the Second Coming was imminent, as evidenced by the realization of the “prophecy” about needing the Mark to be able to engage in commerce.
Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but it’s been my understanding that fornication does not become “adultery” unless at least one of the fornicators is married (to someone other than the co-fornicator).
Is this a good distinction upon which to justify discrimination? You chose your religious beliefs. Would it then be permissible for a Muslim doctor office, the only doctor in your town, to refuse you his medical services because you are a Christian and therefore, an infidel?
Or your only pharmacy in town refuses to fill your prescription because of your contrary political beliefs to those of the pharmacist.
Or you local gas station refuses to sell you gasoline for your car because you are a Christian and the store owner an atheist.
This distinction between permitting discrimination on the basis of a characteristic people are born with or choose to have is untenable.