>>>>In the second case a private individual should able to refuse any business he or she chooses - doesn't even need state a reason.
>>>
>>>Welll...that's not quite 100% correct. Smart thing would be to NOT provide a reason or simply to lie (like we're too busy to do it). You can't refuse business to someone as a result of discrimination - can't tell someone you don't want their business because they're black right? Same thing here - can't refuse customer because they're gay. ......actually the 'smart' thing to do would be not to be an ass to start with and take the pictures...hahaha
>>
>>I completely agree it is true that to refuse a client because of race or orientation or whatever is ethically wrong.
>>
>>
>>But is it legally wrong, if you a not a public venue or company but merely an individual for hire?
>>
>>As a programmer, a single individual, if someone wants to hire me to do the membership database for the Aryan Nation, am I allowed to say I hate everything you stand for and refuse to work for you? Their organization - like the Klan - is legal. But do they have a legal right to my services?
>>
>>Gay marriage let's assume is legal but if I have a religious objection am I legally required to participate as part of the support staff?
>>
>>I accept advertising on my Opus Dei blog. Am I legally required to accept advertising for Planned Parenthood?
>>
>>I do think that if I were the person attempting to hire someone and they said I don't like you I don't want the job I would be quite grateful to know that up front and go on to someone more sympatico.
>>
>>Suing over this would be a political statement but I don't think it should accomplish anything but to highlight someone's behavior that I found worthy of censure. (the photographer in this case)
>>
>>Actually I think venues should be able to refuse any group that wants to book them - as long as they will publicly state the reasons and "We hate Black people/Gays/Latinos" is fine. Let's see what that does to their business.
>>
>>Let people declare their beliefs, prejudices, hatreds and small-mindedness and let the market sort it out. I think in today's environment they would be on the wrong side of history.
>
>I agree 95%.
>
>My disagreement is very narrow as it pertains to this :
>Suing over this would be a political statement but I don't think it should accomplish anything but to highlight someone's behavior that I found worthy of censure. (the photographer in this case)
>
>I don't believe suing is limited to being a political statement. We have a couple of lawyers here in Northern California who specialize in shakedowns of small business owners based upon ADA violations.
>
>One ended up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. ;)
>http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/03/4879212/sacramento-ada-lawyer-sued-by.html

Maybe we agree. I meant I don't think anybody should get a dime for suing for that (hence removing any lawyer's incentive) but if they want to it to call attention to something, fine, Of course I did miss the point that this can still result in expense guarding against frivolous suits.