Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Vuk]

I guess the root of it is that when you offer your services as a commercial photographer, what you are saying is that the jobs you are going to do are no longer an expression of your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but those of your clients, as they are paying you for the service and your art will be guided by their vision, not yours. You are merely the vehicle for their expression when under contract. Once your shingle is on the door offering your services for hire, unless a customer is actually asking you to do something illegal or something that you can prove would harm yourself or others, you just have to bite the bullet and do it. So yes, if the poet was advertising her services commercially as a pen for hire, I would support a law that prohibited her from refusing to serve gays at her lunch counter.

As a side note, I wonder if this case would have ever made it to court if the photographer had said "I'm sorry, but my personal and/or religious beliefs make me uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships and marriage, so I am afraid I might not be the best person to hire to capture this very special day for you. I would be happy to refer you to my colleague, Mr. So-and-So, who is an excellent photographer and would be happy to have your business."

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

[Goofball]

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

[Vuk]

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc). He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?
You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

[Goofball]

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc).

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor. Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody. I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

Homosexuality is not a "belief." Hatred of homosexuals is a belief. If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way. Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?

[Vuk]

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor.

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody.

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

Homosexuality is not a "belief."

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?

Hatred of homosexuals is a belief.

Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way.

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

[Montmorency]

If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business?

Jeez, then where would the straight women go?

[Goofball]

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.


You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

No, it should not. That is where our fundamental disagreement lies. Turning away anyone from any business based on sexual orientation, gay or straight, should not be allowed.

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

Sure, if you want to say a belief in not harming others is a moral belief that's fine. I then propose that this is the only morality that should have any value, as it is also practical. All other moral beliefs are based on trying to force others to behave as you want them to simply because you find behaviour to the contrary offensive, either due to religious beliefs or social/cultural prejudices.

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

That's where you lose me. I will never accept "God doesn't want you to" as a legitimate argument about any topic. It has no basis in logic and "God's will" can be made to serve whatever purpose anybody wants. It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?




Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you in particular hate homosexuals, only that there are people who do.

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

Sorry, to be clear: It's not their beliefs that are causing harm. It's the actions they take (discrimination, for example) based on those beliefs that cause harm. You're free to believe whatever you want. As long as you don't harm others and try to use your beliefs as justification.

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

So it's okay to deny some services but not others? How do we decide which ones? Should there be a big list? As far as the "expression" aspect goes, as I said before: when you, as a photog take on a commercial contract, the creativity, thoughts and ideas you are being paid to express are not yours, but those of your customer. This is not a freedom of expression issue. Using your argument, a bricklayer or a landscaper could refuse to work on a gay man's property because he believed his "art" would be compromised.