There’s a photographer in Minnesota who happens to believe gay marriage runs counter to his religion so when a gay couple asked him to take pictures at their wedding he declined. And landed in court.
At his trial he argued he had a right – a religious freedom – to say no but the federal judge told him that he was ‘discriminating’ against gays and, no matter what he believed, he couldn’t do that.
If you think about it, we’ve landed in a pretty odd place: The courts will protect a skinhead’s right to protest and Antifa’s right to counter-protest but if a photographer believes he shouldn’t take pictures at a gay marriage he’s guilty of a crime?
I guess you could say, as a lawyer told me, All that skinhead was doing was talking. He may have been talking about discriminating. But he wasn’t actually discriminating.
But the photographer wasn’t trying to stop the couple’s gay marriage. He just didn’t want to be a part of it. It just doesn’t sound consistent: We’re for the rights of a skinhead and for the rights of an anti-skinhead but a religious photographer from Minnesota is guilty of a crime.