I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let's say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.

A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don't think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.

A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.

Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she's being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there's a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family's history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that's not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.

There's even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn't want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won't work with men.

Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can't change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.

As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It's different when it's like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.

But in the cases I'm talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are "always open" except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they're just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are "always closed" outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you're actually using it. I see storefronts as "always open" valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they're closed. In contrast, contract workers are "always closed" valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it's a good or shitty reason to anyone else.

While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other's reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.

By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that's not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

No that is part of what I mean. And it is about defining a business model.

They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they're negotiating individual terms with individual clients.

If the photographer was a black woman who'd been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?

What if instead it's someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist...and now they're being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?

I'm not saying that I personally wouldn't do these events or that I feel the person's objection may be legitimate or not, my point is that it doesn't matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that's a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.

Just my opinion and you're free to disagree!

Yeah I agree that it doesn't seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that's a good thing. And honestly, to me it's one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it's just opening up that opportunity to competitors.

So you don't wanna photo gay weddings? That's cool, someone else will.

No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.

Example:

Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal

Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal

Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal

Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)

But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself

The difference is in the business model.

If they're working individual jobs on a freelance, case by case, contract-based model, then they can do whatever they want as far as signing a contract to do work or not signing a contract to do work with whomever they wish.

The reasons might be shitty sometimes, but that's not enough of a reason to compel all freelancers to do work they don't want to.

I don't think you understood what I said.

I don't think you understood what I said.

I don't think you understood what I said.

Thank you for that great explanation!

Yes. I mean... if someone thinks it's okay to force a minority to create racist content, their opinion isn't worth a reply. And logically, that's essentially what is being said when someone wants to force someone to create to spec something they don't agree with.

The United States has long held that creative work, art basically, is a form of Speech and protected under the 1st Amendment. This means that compelling art is the same compelling speech and boy howdy are there a bunch of laws around that, laws that society really needs to have.

So it's a collision between rights:

On the one side we have the Photographer and their Constitutional Claims to not be compelled to create art (speak) and their right to not do something that is against their religion.

On the other side we have a LGBTQ person and their Constitutional Claim to not be denied services as a member of a protected class.

We currently draw the line by protecting the right to not be compelled to speak. In practical terms this means that buying a standard per-packaged Good or Service cannot be denied to people in a protected class. If a member of that protected class wants to purchase a Good or Service that would require creative input then the seller can refuse.

It becomes more clear if you create a scenario where someone in a protected class wants something distasteful. Let say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says "Blood and Soil" with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.

They also need a wedding photographer but their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7' tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo's while they both kiss Hitler's cheeks.

So how does Society decide this mess? Do we force the Jewish bakery to make that cake because the buyers are minorities and gay? Do we force the photographer to take those pictures? Would YOU want to be forced to do either of those?

I sure as hell wouldn't because what they want is deeply and personally offensive. This is why we protect against compelled speech.

You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.

At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know

I wouldn't consider screenings or prescribing countermeasures to people who suspect exposure to medical threats particularly artistic or expressive. All those seem like pretty normal things for any sexually active adult to ask for regardless of sexuality.

Additionally those should be confidential so I don't see them as a form of compelled speech.