His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think he has the right to make his business known publicly if it isn’t available to the public-- all of it.

    • cricket98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a dumb take. There are plenty of businesses that advertise to the public but are not open to serving the public.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What if it’s purely a subject matter question? Surely you wouldn’t be OK with a wedding photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures if they didn’t want to photograph adult activity…

      They shouldn’t be blocked from being a photographer just because they’re unwilling to photograph ALL subjects. That’s fucking stupid.

      • GunValkyrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately this is a strawman argument. The subject in question is a wedding. It shouldn’t matter what sexuality or race the people are.

        There’s a difference between filming/photography of pornography vs a wedding. Don’t be disingenuous suggesting that the mere act of being gay equates the same to pornography.

      • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures

        probably shouldn’t compare a gay wedding to being forced to take sexual photos