Somehow Facebook, etc. can refuse services to people based upon their expressed ideological views (which FR also can and should be able to do) - including what constituted “hate speech” and |fake news” but a baker cannot refuse to create a custom expressive work for a ideological cause they disagree with.
Just as a patriotic military veteran song writer, or sign maker, or baker should not have to create a special custom expressive work for the expressed purpose of celebrating the fall of Saigon, nor a black or Jewish baker a KKK event, or even a Muslim the anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel, neither should they have to do so for a homosexual event.
Such are not essential services, and refusal by one song writer or other expressive artist to provide a special work opens the door for another to do so. But the problem is when the courts have essentially required every state to salute the flag of Sodom, which is akin to having to salute a Communist flag.
Thus such cases of non-essential services engaging in the creation of custom expressive works should be treated like as a song writer being forced to create a work contrary to his beliefs. However, if such is a commercial artist offering song writing then they need to state a right of refusal to create custom expressive works contrary to their beliefs, whether it be a patriot writing a song about the glories of Communism or a Communist about the glories of capitalism, etc., etc. This is not the same as a Uber driver refusing services to a synagogue, church or mosque, but that of custom non-essential expressive works.
Appeal the decision.
Being able to force someone to perform a service is slavery. They have no “right” to her services and force her to go places she does not wish to go.
Remember how they said tolerating them wouldn’t have any effect on your life? Yeah, well....
So memorializing a religious event isn’t participating it it?
You have to be free to take what commissions you like and refuse ones you do not or you are a slave.
Because a slave may not say no.
The gaystapo goes after all that oppose their queer and unnatural ways. Law is supposed to protect us. Glad it was stopped this time.
Just made the pictures look like hell.
The “Hot Civil War” Clock just ticked a few more clicks towards midnight. Keep it up, black-robed tyrants - you’re going to find out soon what true justice feels like.
Wolves protecting their own.
If she was a mad Mo follower and the pair of bum bandits wanted a pic of Mo with a bomb in his turban, she would be praised for taking a stand against islamophobic homos.
I think if I were in that situation, I would subcontract the work out to someone else and let them have the entire fee, save for a small “finders fee” for the time I had to spend servicing their service (finding another photographer, baker, florist, etc). And then I would make it my business to have a list of other service providers who were comfortable with whatever I wasn’t, that I could slide the actual work to. That way I did provide the work, it was adequate, and I want forced to do something against my conscience or anyone else’s - plus I would be helping others to find work. Win/win/win!
So take lousy pictures and charge them 3 times the rate
It’s the “with prejudice” part that bothers me.
Learn about malicious compliance. Put a gun to my head to force me to do something and you won’t like the outcome.