Gay Rights Hypocrisy: Bryan Adams boycotts Mississippi, has no problem doing shows in Egypt

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: DeadFoot

The law protects free expression of religion. When a baker willingly serves all customers, and simply doesn't want to participate in a wedding ceremony that is against their religion, that right should be protected. I wouldn't ask a homosexual baker to make a cake with a Bible verse about homosexuality on it. I wouldn't ask a Jewish deli for a ham sandwich. I wouldn't expect a Muslim caterer to serve my Bible study class. We can run businesses, and allow for some concessions, and not be discriminatory. Forcing someone to photograph a wedding that violates their religious beliefs is, in fact, breaking the law, wherein that law should protect their right to religious expression. That isn't confusing to be at all.

The thing is that your premise is correct; people have the right to religious expression.

Being a photographer is not a form of religious expression as far as most level-headed people are concerned, and the laws reflect that as far as I know.

Your use of the word "violate" makes me feel like you've got your mind made up regardless, though.

When someone is forced to violate their beliefs, by actively participating in a wedding, then yes, their right to religious expression is compromised. Being a photographer means, in many cases, being a part of some event or another. When that event goes against one's religion, they have the right to not participate. Would you demand that a Muslim photographer take pictures at someone's baptism? Confirmation ceremonies?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

When someone is forced to violate their beliefs, by actively participating in a wedding, then yes, their right to religious expression is compromised. Being a photographer means, in many cases, being a part of some event or another. When that event goes against one's religion, they have the right to not participate.

Nope.

We're not talking about a person; we are talking about a business.

A business cannot discriminate on a set of protected grounds.

You don't get to break the law and claim immunity to legalities based on personal "religious beliefs", and it's outrageous that anyone would even think such a thing.

I could easily say that it's against my religion to serve black people, could I not?

Would you demand that a Muslim photographer take pictures at someone's baptism? Confirmation ceremonies?

Yes.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

When someone is forced to violate their beliefs, by actively participating in a wedding, then yes, their right to religious expression is compromised. Being a photographer means, in many cases, being a part of some event or another. When that event goes against one's religion, they have the right to not participate.

Nope.

We're not talking about a person; we are talking about a business.

A business cannot discriminate on a set of protected grounds.

You don't get to break the law and claim immunity to legalities based on personal "religious beliefs", and it's outrageous that anyone would even think such a thing.

I could easily say that it's against my religion to serve black people, could I not?

Would you demand that a Muslim photographer take pictures at someone's baptism? Confirmation ceremonies?

Yes.

A small business isn't a faceless entity; it's the people that own and operate it. To claim there are no rights for small businesses is to claim that people themselves have no rights. We do not lose our rights when we decide to participate in commerce, or earn a living. Such a stance is very dangerous to freedom. Not participating in a wedding isn't breaking a law, either. Businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Many, for that matter, even post signs to that effect. No one has the right to force others to agree with them. That's what this is about.

At least, on that question, you are consistent. Many are not.