U.S. : Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Started Mar 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
MichaelKJ Veteran Member • Posts: 3,466
Re: U.S. : Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Biggs23 wrote:

MichaelKJ wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

MichaelKJ wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Ace of Sevens wrote:

I'm no lawyer, but I did take business law at University of Iowa and art law from their law school. My understanding is that Dan is correct. In general, you can refuse business for whatever reason you like, except for certain things that are deemed suspect. The law makes the distinction because the suspect classes have a history of people trying to shut them out of access to society. Biggs23 may not like this distinction, but it's how the law works and has for decades.

You clearly are not a lawyer. Religion is ALSO a protected class, so my original comparison stands as valid. Just because you do not like the the distinction doesn't change how the law works.

Federally, religion is a protected class. At this juncture, sexual orientation is not.

To give an example of a well-established precedent, if you're a photographer who doesn't believe in the mixing of the races, you can't refuse to shoot an interracial wedding. If they are having a biker-themed wedding and you think that's tacky, you can turn them down for that.

Agreed. But religion is also a protected class.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination against someone because of their religion. However, there is nothing in Title VII that make it legal for someone to discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.

You either misunderstood or ignored my original comparative analogy concerning a gay photographer being able to 'discriminate' against the WBC because of their religion.

In your comment above, you appear to argue that Ace of Sevens' argument is wrong because religion is a protected class. My point was that the law doesn't allow members of protected classes to discriminate based on their protected class status. Thus, your pointing out that religion is a protected class and sexual orientation is not is irrelevant.

So as I thought, you did misunderstand my comparison. My comparison asked if a gay photographer could turn down an event at the WBC where they disparaged gay people in general (but did not direct such comments directly at the photographer). In other words, if the gay photographer turned down such an event, he would be the one discriminating against the WBC because of their religion. That is where the protected class of religious people came into play.

I see your point.  A gay photographer would not have the right to turn down such an event.

Sexual orientation is protected in 21 states, including New Mexico, which is the state where the photographer whose case is being heard by the Supreme Court works. The NM ruled against the photographer because of New Mexico prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The photographers in the case that the Supreme Court is hearing dropped their religious freedom case and are focusing solely on free speech. Their argument is that artistic professionals should not be forced to apply their artistic talents to subjects on which they disagree.  Since the appeal is based specifically on religion, it would appear that a ruling in favor of the photographers would allow refusal of service for any strongly held belief. IMO, this makes it much less likely the Court will decide to take the case.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. Have a good one and God bless!

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow