The point is to be tactful, you don’t tell someone they smell out right. There is always a way to decline any job respectfully. If you don’t say anything discriminable the court can do nothing, there’s simply no case. If I decide I want to take a short holiday with my family over the supposed job date there is nothing the court can do & if I decide to cancel my holiday that’s my free choice.

There’s one difference here though: this is a group organizing a boycott of a Christian’s bake shop. Everyone is free to boycott a business for whatever reason. But that’s different than the LAW forcing someone to compromise their beliefs.

here’s an example that’s even more on point: Bakery Faces Boycott For Refusing To Make Gay Wedding Cake

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/bakery-faces-boycott-for-refusing-to-make-gay-wedding-cake.html

The New Mexico case was the exact case to which I was referring. One could make the argument that expressing your religious beliefs publicly on your site could possibly help you avoid such an issue. I would hope that if a same-sex couple would avoid an openly devout Christian photographer knowing that their personal convictions would go against their wedding. Why try to hire an artist to capture the most important day of your life if they don’t agree with what you’re doing?

Since religious affiliation is a “protected class” too (from what I understand), what if a Muslim wanted to hire a devout Jew to make a promo video for a mosque? (Or vice versa)? Intuitively it seems like when it comes to artistic expression, the law would allow for someone to deny a job on religious grounds.

Can a church be forced to hire someone engaged in a practice that is clearly outside the boundaries of the church’s doctrine, whether or not it’s homosexuality or some other lifestyle that church sees as not biblical?

Thanks for the comment Jason, I read the article, wow, that seems to cross the line in my mind, but I guess the fact of the matter is that their could be consequences with taking a stand and one must be willing to face them. I did read through some of the comments on that article and I found those very enlightening. This person, who is FOR Gay Marriage had a very good point in their comment:

“I am actually for gay rights and would gladly photograph a gay wedding. However, I don’t believe it is right to force a privately owned business to photograph one. We as photographers are artists, and we won’t give the best quality if it’s something we don’t want to do or feel uncomfortable doing. What if a couple comes to me and asks me to photograph them having sex? Will I be sued because I don’t feel comfortable doing that? Why, in this “free” society, should the government tell me what I HAVE to photograph. This upsets me. Also, artists discriminate all the time. When I do casting calls I look for a specific body type and look. Will the government tell me that I can’t do that as well?”

I guess it comes down to the whole “protected class” thing. Hmm… good discussion.

In almost every state, it would be illegal for a photographer to refuse to photograph a gay couple – even on religious grounds. And, yes, it’s been tested by the courts. (see -http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/christian_photographers_sued_f.php)

Likewise, it would be illegal for a Chick-fil-A to refuse to hire or serve someone who was gay.

So, no, you don’t have a right to say no to a paying job just if you reason is considered discrimination against a protected class. If you offer services to the public, you must offer those services without discrimination, even for religious reasons.

That’s not even close to the same thing as the CEO expressing that he supports the traditional definition of marriage. It only became a crazy story when the Mayor of Boston said that they wouldn’t allow Chick-fil-A to open stores in their city. It only became a story when someone decided to seize on the politics of it all.

It’s worth mentioning, that even the ACLU – which is one of the staunchest advocates for gay marriage, has come to the defense of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy against the political threats as a result of expressing his views.

That said, unless a given person conviction is integral to your brand message, you’re probably off leaving it out of public discussion. There’s never a reason to lose a client over politics or religion.