Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
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a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated?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?