His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
I disagree with him, and I think he’s bigoted. But I don’t think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn’t want to photograph. And it’s not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It’s the most common side hustle I see people try.
And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not “have the right to the labour” of those services?
I disagree with that framing entirely. But I’m curious to know how you would differentiate.
I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the “create a website for same-sex weddings”. I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it’s a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn’t be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don’t know if I’m elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I’m coming from?
A wedding photographer offers their services to everyone having weddings. If that photographer refuses to photograph same-sex weddings, is that not the same as denying service to someone over their sexuality?
You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.
At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know
As one of the LGBT, I’m fine with this. I want the ability to refuse work to the Religious and Republicans—and I have done so for decades. The difference is, I don’t tell them why. I just say I’m busy. Because even though I want them to burn in a fiery hell, I’m not an asshole.
Show me someone saying “This is fine”, and I’ll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they’re going to be blocked out of society for the crime of…existing. This is only the first step to “All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals”. Y’all are unhinged.
Obligatory:
I think it’s a bit silly to apply Popper to an issue about taking wedding photographs. Popper himself published the idea in 1945, in a time where intolerances were a bit more on the serious side.
Why are headlines about American Christians always the exact opposite of what the Bible wants them to be?
What happened to love thy neighbour and shit
Generally speaking it’s almost always a bad idea to force somebody who’s diametrically opposed to your core values to work for you. I don’t understand how they would have wanted this to ideally go? That the photographer grinds their teeth while being forced to take photos of them?
