US Supreme Court protects photographers' legal rights.

[Alan Edward Klein]

In a case decided today, the Supreme Court ruled that free speech in the Constitution protect photographer's rights to not work for certain people whose beliefs they oppose.

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples​

"...The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that's different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels..."

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. One of the court's liberal justices wrote in a dissent that the decision's effect is to “mark gays...

finance.yahoo.com

I realize that it may be tricky to stay out of politics with this one. But it's an important decision that effects the legal rights of photographers and videographers and other artists.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s been an interesting experience knowing you, Alan.

 

[Kino]

So, I am sure the Christians will take it in stride when they are refused service for their religious beliefs...

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Lord knows I need a legal basis to refuse services to a pool of childless, dual-income couples.

It is a tricky topic indeed, which is why I like to stick to dictionary definitions.

Bigot, n. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To clarify my original post, it is not that artist can deny service to selected people, but can deny to use their art to express beliefs the artist doesn't believe in. For example, if you're a Christian jeweler, you can't deny services to any person who wants you to design a diamond ring whether they're LBGQ, a minority, or a believer in witchcraft. However, if they want you to design jewelry depicting some witchcraft motif, and that offends you, than the constitution protects your right of free speech and expression.

So I would think that let;s say a wedding photographer cannot deny a gay couple from hiring them to shoot a birthday party. But if the photographer doesn;t beleive in gay marriage, the consitution protect their rights of expresssion and free speech and doesn;t have to shoot the gay wedding. A Jewish cook can refuse to prepare non kosher meals. A vegetarian caterer doesn't have to serve meat. etc.

This right of free speech does not extend to businesses like hotels and restaurants open to the general public to deny minorities, LGBQ, or anyone else.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So, I am sure the Christians will take it in stride when they are refused service for their religious beliefs...

That's right. If an atheist caterer refuses to cater a Christian ceremony, they would be protected by the constitution's right of free speech. However, if they refused to serve them just because they're Christian, they're not protected.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Lord knows I need a legal basis to refuse services to a pool of childless, dual-income couples.

It is a tricky topic indeed, which is why I like to stick to dictionary definitions.

Bigot, n. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

So the government should force a tatoo artist to tatoo the face of Hitler on someone's arm if they want it. Otherwise, the artist is a bigot? You see the problem you open when you start selecting what people should believe or not believe? What's reasonable to you may be bigotry to others and vice versa. The constitution takes no stand on the value of expression because America doesn't want to demand specific, government sanctioned beliefs from its people. That's why freedom of speech and expression is so cherished here.

 

[warden]

I realize that it may be tricky to stay out of politics with this one.

Duh. How did you figure that out?

 

[chuckroast]

So the government should force a tatoo artist to tatoo the face of Hitler on someone's arm if they want it. Otherwise, the artist is a bigot? You see the problem you open when you start selecting what people should believe or not believe? What's reasonable to you may be bigotry to others and vice versa. The constitution takes no stand on the value of expression because America doesn't want to demand specific, government sanctioned beliefs from its people. That's why freedom of speech and expression is so cherished here.

FWIW Alan I am way on your side on this. Even the largest businesses have private owners. And owners have the moral right to the use or disposition of their property so long as what the do isn't fraudulent, forceful, or threatening. Just because I may not like their stance - say an atheist refusing to photograph an explicitly Christian or Jewish wedding - doesn't vacate that business owner's freedom of speech or their views on faith.

The US was built on immigraton, and that means it's necessarily pluralistic. There is no one point of view and likely there never will be one. Either all of us are free to pursue our photographic path the way we want, not the way some government agency tells us to, or none of us are free to do so. The same freedom that gave Robert Mapplethorpe the room to make explicitly homosexual images and display them for sale, must also accrue to the devoutly Christian baker or photographer who do not wish to support same sex wedding events. That's not "bigotry", it's letting everyone live their life as they see fit (other than fraud/force/threat).

 

[chuckroast]

So, I am sure the Christians will take it in stride when they are refused service for their religious beliefs...

They're likely to do just that.

 

[MattKing]

As a Moderator:
Politics, religion, politics, religion, politics.
As a result, thread is closed.
Moderator hat off.
I won't even touch how weird the decision is legally.