85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job (2013)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | July 12, 2013 | Scott Rasmussen

[Kazan]

Americans draw a fine line when it comes to respecting each other’s rights. If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 7-8, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

[lepton]

It would seem to apply to your examples of a Muslim-owned business refusing to serve pork...and so?

[linn37]

Personally I’d take the job. However if I didn’t want to do it I would just triple my price so they would look elsewhere.

[lepton]

“Would this law allow a Muslim cabbie to refuse to pick up blind people with service dogs? “

The law might allow them to make the argument in court, in a private lawsuit rather than just in one where the government is suing.

[CitizenUSA]

“Or get out of the wedding picture biz.”

Why should anyone allow the homosexualists to drive them out of the wedding photography business without a fight? Didn’t the poll just say something like 85% is on our side?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Why should anyone allow the homosexualists to drive them out of the wedding photography business without a fight? Didn’t the poll just say something like 85% is on our side?”

I take it you’ve never been personally sued?

Sometimes it is worth it. If the law ends up on the side of gaydom, it will not only be a losing fight, but it will be costly in terms of money, time, mental anguish, etc.

Every business owner should either come up with a strategy to act legally or get out of the biz. That is always true, gay or not.

The 85% don’t vote like they poll apparently...

[Impala64ssa]

Here's an example of how absurd it can become. And here . These incidents were dramatizations, though what's amazing is this clown managed to cruise around Watts with a klan uniform and live to tell about it. Had these been actual events, could the drycleaner and restaurant owners be sued for refusing to serve this idiot?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Lesbian to Baker: "My partner and I have decided to tie the knot! We'd like to order a special wedding cake.

Baker: "Bake a cake for your gay wedding? Oh, absolutely!!! We offer a special gay wedding cake celebrating the perversion of marriage.

Baker: "It's our Gay Marriage Cake!! It communicates that gay marriage is a perversion of what God created!"

Lesbian: "That is ugly! What about the cake picture in the window?"

Baker: "Oh, that cake is part of the Straight Wedding Cake Package we offer to our straight customers. We offer the Gay Wedding Cake Package to our lesbian and gay customers. How many people do you want it to serve?"

[CitizenUSA]

You’re on the right track, but laws against discrimination create endless government regulation and litigation. Someone doesn’t get his order of fries, for example, and he’s suddenly suing the business for discrimination based on his skin color or sexual preference.

The free market better addresses the issue of businesses that refuse service on racial, religious, or other grounds. For example, businesses that are perceived to treat customers unfairly will have to pay a price for doing so.

None of this applies to government of course. That is the only entity that is constitutionally prohibited from discriminating based on skin color or sex (even though they do it all the time). Don’t ask me how I as a private citizen can’t refuse service based on skin color, but the government can hire someone or prefer them in a contract based on skin color.

Just to be clear, I have no problem doing business with homosexuals. I’m not a wedding photographer, and I haven’t even considered if I’d have a problem photographing a gay marriage. What I do know is I shouldn’t be forced to violate my faith as a price of doing business if I decide it’s morally wrong. I’d also extend the same liberty to others who may not want to do business with me.

[luckystarmom]

How about a gay business will have to provide services at Westburo Baptist?

[CitizenUSA]

I’m sorry, but we already lost the freedom of association during the civil rights era. Look. I think it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of skin color, and government certainly shouldn’t be showing preference or discriminating based on it (even though they do). Private citizens are different. We should have the liberty to associate with who we like. The injury done to the civil society by letting government decide what’s fair and equal is far worse than isolated incidents of discrimination by private citizens or businesses.

[CitizenUSA]

“Now we finally see the public accommodation crap used against us and decide it’s a bad thing.”

You can sure say that again. I remember decades ago when one of the battles was over whether or not a Christian renter could refuse to rent to an unmarried couple. Seems almost quaint nowadays (even though fornication is sin), but the bottom line is we lost the freedoms of religion and association long ago. It doesn’t even matter that those particular rights are enshrined in the US Constitution, supposedly the supreme law of the land.

[CitizenUSA]

“Every business owner should either come up with a strategy to act legally or get out of the biz. That is always true, gay or not.”

I respect that. The left has these Christian business owners in a real conundrum. It really comes down to obeying the law or going out of business, because a Christian would probably consider lying or deceiving to avoid the job to be morally wrong, too.

[Crucial]

I don’t understand how anyone can be “forced” to do a job for someone. It sounds like slavery to me.

[murron]

You’re right. I never fuss at waiters or fast food workers. But I wouldn’t be surprised if these homos didn’t use the cake at all, but just wanted to start trouble. Can you imagine if the bakers did something to the cake and got caught? They would be in so much more trouble.

[MNDude]

you couldn’t be dumb of course.

But there’s no crime in letting a cake sit out for a few days and get a little dry is there?

[MNDude]

you couldn’t be dumb of course.

But there’s no crime in letting a cake sit out for a few days and get a little dry is there?

[Impala64ssa]

Christian would probably consider lying or deceiving to avoid the job to be morally wrong, too.

In a way it's comparable to those "gun toting Christian fanatics" who made up the abolishionist movement and set up the Underground Railroad. Surely they were in situations were they lied to the bounty hunters to protect the runaway slaves, and themselves for that matter so they could help more "fugitive" slaves seek safe haven. Same thing with the Righteous Christians who help as many Jews as they could escape the Nazis.

[rwfromkansas]

Wait....they forced eharmony to accept gays?

[rwfromkansas]

I m sure you would not like that though, and most Freepers would be ticked off if that happened.

[rwfromkansas]

That is missing some stuff I saw the other day for some reason.