The real problem with gay people is simply a lack of neighborliness ... and niceness

Has anyone thought about forcing a bigot to serve you may result in indifferent or substandard service? Even if you are fully legally and morally entitled to service, and I believe you are, why would you want to hire someone who is resentful about the job they are doing? Not to the point where the client could legally object to paying, but a wedding photographer can do a lot to sabotage his own product - take the pictures when someone is still looking the other way, lousy candids, play a bit with lighting so things are slightly overexposed, etc. Especially for something as important and unrecreatable as wedding photos, I’d want someone enthusiastic or at least professional about doing the job, not someone resentful about it.

Right, this times 1,000. Furthermore, I would think it’d be obvious that if you use the threat of a lawsuit to force someone who hates you to make you a *food product *you can’t watch them prepare…well, you are braver than I am. Hiring a photographer is a less risky proposition, but there have to be subtle, passive-aggressive ways a photographer could make your photos turn out suboptimally at a level which still would not rise to the level of lawsuit (not to mention being a sourpuss at a joyous event). [I see that **muldoonthief **expounded upon this concept while I was composing my post.]

IANAP, but it strikes me as something else besides a straight business proposition (like selling someone a camera, say). What if you were hired to photograph a cross burning at a Klan rally? Still just a business proposition? (I should say that I am one of those ACLU types who would ardently defend the Klan’s right to march in public; forcing someone to take them as a photography client, though, seems a different kettle of fish.)

The very event itself, and certainly the ceremony and the kissing.

I don’t have an example, and I don’t think I need one–as you say, the idea is “notional”. However, I can certainly say that if I were a photographer, I would not want to photograph such weddings. You might respond that therefore, I should not become a photographer. Okay, where is this line drawn? Let’s say the following scenario occurred:

Lisa is getting married to Ann. One of Lisa’s friends, Tanya, who is a radical separatist feminist who believes all hetero marriages are oppressive (and these people do exist–I have known some personally), is an artist. As a wedding present, Tanya offers to paint a portrait of Lisa and Ann.

One of the guests at the wedding is Mary, a friend of Ann who is also a lesbian engaged to be married. Mary doesn’t know Tanya at all but is very impressed by how the painting turns out and puts word through the grapevine that she would like to pay Tanya to do a painting like that of her and her fiancee. Tanya agrees, and pretty soon she’s got a nice little sideline going of these paintings. She puts up fliers at feminist bookstores and lesbian bars, and gets lots of clients. But then one day the sister of one of her clients is getting married to a man, and asks Tanya to paint her and her fiance. Tanya flat out refuses–the thought makes her gag. Can/should she be sued?

I say no. I don’t think an artist should be forced to take on commissions of subjects they do not feel good about. And I don’t believe that a photographer should be seen as fundamentally different from a portrait painter in this respect.

Liberal Judeo-Christians crack me up with their tortured logic. The Bible clearly denounces homosexuality in no uncertain terms, in both the Old and New Testaments, yet liberal Judeo-Christians (just to be clear to anyone who does not recall this: I am a liberal *atheist *and am rolling my eyes at this attempt to square the circle, **not **endorsing the Biblical view) contort themselves into pretzels trying to claim otherwise.

Leviticus 18: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

1 Corinthians 6: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Romans 1: “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Leviticus 20: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

So if you really believe this is the Word of Almighty God, you would be *insane *to cooperate in any way with gay marriage. In this respect, I believe fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and ultra-Orthodox Jews are more consistent at least about their beliefs (although we atheists are the only ones who are both consistent *and *right).

It’s true that the Bible is unambiguously against two men having sex in many passages. However, this law isn’t about forcing people to have gay sex, now is it? It’s about providing a business service to people who have gay sex. On this topic, the Bible is silent.

If you look at Jesus in particular, he was someone who lived and associated with people who led sinful lives. He didn’t claim that his religion meant that he didn’t have to have any dealings with sinners whatsoever; he hung out with prostitutes. Look at the story of the Good Samaritan – a person who participates in a religion that was seen as very abhorrent to traditional Judaism is portrayed in a positive light. He helps someone without regards to such borders.

From my perspective, the tortured logic on this topic is that some Christians insist that acting in a hateful way isn’t countermanding Jesus’ message. “I know that Jesus said to love thy neighbor, but when I hate and ostracize gay people, it’s actually loving them, because they’re bad people going to Hell… so really, it’s love, not hate, when I shout ‘faggot’ out my car window at two guys holding hands, I promise. It’s a government-protected religious expression of my religion of peace and love!”

I might, but then again I might not. Your hypothetical that follows basically assumes a response I have not yet made. Just pointing that out.

In the United States people can sue for just about anything. Filing a lawsuit, however, is not the same as winning a lawsuit. Can the sister prove measurable damages? I would say no, given that no agreement was ever entered into, nor that any money changed hands for contracted goods or services. Can a person prove damages if a photographer simply declines a proposed contract to take photos at their wedding? Well, that depends. IF a judge or jury agrees that professional-quality photos are an essential part of the wedding, and IF persons desiring the photographs had no other reasonable option available to them, then, well, maybe, but even there it seems rather an iffy proposition.

In my view, the potential for lawsuits is not the issue. What I believe is a reasonable point of contention, is: are gays a protected class, i.e. protected from discrimination based on bigotry? They are not, currently, but I can see a reasonable argument that they should be.

This is exactly how it is going to go down when they start passing these ‘Religious freedom’ laws. Someone is going to refuse to serve a Christian because of their religion and certain groups are going to freak out about it. Hoist on their own petard. If my state made it legal and common to refuse service based on religious views, I would try to do it at least once a day to a Christain.

I’m not sure it’s a good idea to force businesses to take on clients they don’t want. My issue is, if I walk into a business and they refuse me, for whatever reason, then they have wasted my time. Businesses that want to refuse service should at least have to advertise that fact for all to see. Otherwise it’s unfair to those who spend the time to contact the business only to find that business isn’t open to them.

You’re not fooling me - you say you’re hanging your head in shame, but really you’re just trying to sneak a peek at my genitals.

Because that’s what gay people do constantly.

Apparently.

Bull.

Christians already play pick and choose with biblical passages. There’s literally centuries of justifications for how and why they are allowed to “creatively interpret” what they don’t like. Worse, many non-fundamentalist Christians are onboard with gay marriage, so it’s not something fundamental to Christianity, either.

You can claim it makes religious sense. You can also claim your objections arise from the little green Martian only you and your friend Barney Rubble can see. It doesn’t make it true.

Sure (although I’m not sure Judeo-Christianity is all about “peace” necessarily; but that’s getting off on a tangent). But what about the tougher case of someone who does not want to scream hateful abuse at a gay person, but to hold their hand and pray with them to give up their sinful ways and become right with God before it’s too late? What if they are sincere, friendly (creepy, sure, but friendly), and devoted to “saving” people from hellfire? Someone like that might never say an ill word about anyone, but could still be fundamentally opposed to participating in any way in a ceremony that brings someone else “further from God” or whatever.

This is my position, to a certain degree. But it’s a tough, murky area, because I certainly don’t think we can let it go to the extent it was in the Deep South. I think of travellers especially (because residents could rightly be asked as to why they just don’t move somewhere more tolerant). If someone is travelling through an area, and needs to stop for a bite to eat or is too tired to drive further and needs a hotel room, the whole idea of “public accommodation” comes into play.

Wedding cakes with certain messages on them*, and wedding photography, do not seem to rise quite to that level. It also involves artistry, as I said upthread. Tough to know where to draw the line, though, for sure. (For instance, what about caterers?)

*A compromise might be that they have to “bake the cake”–though again, I’d be leery of what unwelcome “precious bodily fluids” might find their way into such a cake–but that the customer might have to get a tube of icing and write in the names of the bride and bride or groom and groom.

ETA:

Did you just skim my post and miss this caveat:

?

I’m with you on the “little green Martian” angle; but most people in America (and the Constitution itself) unfortunately support the idea of protecting people’s right to live their lives based on archaic superstitious belief.

No, I didn’t miss it (and I know you’re an atheist).

I’m saying it’s still a BS argument. Trying to tell Christians what you think they should believe as Christians is not merely condescending, it’s not even right.

Christians themselves haven’t agreed on what they should believe (even given the same source materials) for nearly the entire history of Christianity. Your argument is no better (though to be fair, no worse) than any of these and adds nothing new. It’s just a way of saying “Look at these funny ‘Christians’ who don’t even have religious faith the right way”. There’s plenty of that from fundamentalists. There’s no need to join their ranks.

If there were a branch of Christianity that used a Bible that contained only the Gospels, or better yet some reconstructed version of Q, then I’d give them some latitude. But as long as they are carrying around a book that in many passages makes Mein Kampf look tame, yet insisting they can at the same time be as tolerant and accepting as any secular progressive, I’m going to keep calling bullshit on them.

If I thought doing this might push some of the liberal Xtian crowd into the right wing fundie camp (and thus tilt elections in a direction I’d abhor), I’d consider stifling my expression of this view. But I find that highly unlikely and think it is far more likely, over time (especially if a lot more atheists adopt my stance) to shame such progressives into fully deprogramming themselves from religion altogether.

I think you misunderstood me because I was saying this is a good thing. If businesses can’t discriminate, the personal bigotry of the business owner becomes irrelevant. You’re not knowingly helping a bigot. You’re patronizing a business and encouraging businesses to ignore sexual orientation entirely. Of course businesses can still advertise themselves as gay-friendly and some will be more welcoming of gay clients than others, and the consumer can reward those businesses and their owners accordingly. But I think you’ll notice that nobody makes this argument about businesses who wouldn’t serve black customers anymore, and it’s probably harder to discriminate against racial minorities since they tend to be more numerous than gays and lesbians.

And the customer will be rightfully disappointed in the service received, and not recommend them to others, or leave a negative review on yelp and so by being a dick, the photographer has lost themselves not only future business from the actual customer but lots of business from people who wouldn’t even think about the gay angle but just assume they’re a lousy photographer.

I don’t see the problem with a bigot deliberately putting himself out of business. But I think even the stupidest and most prejudiced business owner can see the problem with deliberately giving customers bad service just because they don’t like them. And again: if this isn’t too big an obstacle for protected classes like women and blacks and Latinos, it shouldn’t be an obstacle to this kind of integration for gays and lesbians.

Which does not in any way help the person who now has a mediocre wedding album. I’m assuming that not every gay person wants to be a fearless self-sacrificing social crusader. Maybe they just want good wedding photos, and knowing that a particular photographer hates the fact he’s being legall forced to take their photos is important.

How will they know that? Why, knowing that, will they hire that person?

I’m referring back to the post by panache45, who doesn’t want to give his business to someone who is legally required to serve him, but is resentful about it. It sounds like he thinks the law could backfire, and I can certainly see the point of view of “I’d rather take my business to someone who wants it, instead of someone who is scared I’ll sue him if he doesn’t provide it.”

But gay couples can still take their business to whoever gives them the warmest welcome. And of course if they’re choosing between two photographers and one has a portfolio full of great pictures of same-sex couples and the other seems to have taken only mediocre photos of the same couples, I know who they’re going to hire.

Depending on how you define “this argument”, Rand Paul did–and then had to backtrack when it predictably caused a firestorm. But for libertarians who are not in such a high profile job, I think the position that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason (and then accept the market-driven hit that doing so might give to their reputation) is pretty common.

Unless it gets through the grapevine that it was only gay customers who were dissatisfied. Hasn’t Chick-fil-A done just fine since their anti-gay stance became well known, thanks to a lot of religious right types purposely giving them their business?

Because maybe they’re the best in the area, and if someone has the money to pay for the best they shouldn’t have to settle for less because the store owner thinks people like them aren’t the right sort of people.

He may have taken that position, but I think the big issue there was that he appeared to say the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s were a bad idea. You can see by the reaction that that’s pretty far out of the mainstream.

By “the grapevine,” of course, you mean social media - where a story like this would go viral quickly and the business might get hit with a big discrimination lawsuit.

Chick-fil-A doesn’t turn down gay customers. Still, in a sense that’s a good example here: they don’t refuse to serve anybody, but their views are well-known and consumers can act accordingly (eating their more often if they’re retrograde dicks or simply don’t care, and taking their business elsewhere if they disagree with the company’s views).