Maryland DJ under attack for not working a homosexual party

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Facists: Because a Maryland DJ refused to work a birthday party for a homosexual couple they have now registered a complaint to the Montgomery County Human Rights Commission.

In this case, Lampiris [the owner of the DJ company] said he had never heard of [Maryland’s anti-discrimination] law, “but it’s important for us to make a stand. We don’t want to go against the law, but we also sometimes are called to do that if it goes against your faith. To me it would be like a synagogue having to cater to a neo-Nazi party or black DJ having to do a KKK dance,” he said. Gay clients don’t pose a “physical threat – it’s a conscience thing, and conscience is very important for everybody. In fact, I think it’s the most important thing.

Once again, the homosexual has not been denied service. There are plenty of DJs in the DC area that would handle this party. By filing the complaint they have instead waved the flag that demands that everyone approve of their behavior, even though it is considered morally wrong by many. (I must note that no one in this case is trying to stop their homosexual lifestyle. The DJ company is merely refusing to endorse it or agree to it.)

Or to put it another way, you will be made to agree.


  • Cotour

    I have participated in well, well over 200 comment panels (a Behind the Black record?) on this web site on this religious business V gay rights issue. I have shared my personal business philosophies and practices that I have developed through trial and error over the years and found to be respectful of my customers and conducive to doing good business. And while those rules and practices work well for me and many others and my points about states rights and responsibilities to their citizens regarding discrimination can be elements of the legal system determining whether discrimination has occurred or not our conversation tended to divert from answering the core Constitutional question:

    Q: Does the state have the right to judge who’s First Amendment religious freedom rights or beliefs in operating their business where they consider they are being forced into participating in an activity they consider offensive to their religious beliefs and refusing service to those other citizens who are truly offensive to their religious beliefs? (a long question representative of how complex the answer can become)

    Taking that conversational ride over those 200 plus comment panels served its purpose for me as I hope it served for the others who were along for that ride. While I believe I made solid and logical arguments that justify taking the time to understand all of the complexities of dealing successfully and respectfully with the public I think I allowed the core question to become lumped in with and glossed over in answering that core question.

    The simple answer to the core Constitutional question IMO is NO.
    (thank you Edward and Robert for your participation)

    That is the SIMPLE answer to the core Constitutional question but we all know that life can be more complex than just the word NO when it comes to individuals rights. So back to the complexities, each one of these cases of “discrimination” may have to all be litigated and weighed, probably all the way up to the Supreme Court, to determine whether discrimination as defined by the state has occurred or not. Its not ideal but that is the reality of our country at the moment.

    In the end if sanity ultimately prevails over time these kinds of issues should be worked out and will not have the disruptive and divisive potential as they have today. But the conversation, argument and clash of swords is needed to clarify the complexities and is what gives America its strength and its unlimited potential to grow. America is not a zero sum country.

    This particular DJ discrimination issue will turn on the sincerity of the owners of the business and THEIR beliefs and values as displayed in what is reported as a component of their contract and how they have conducted themselves in the past.

    How can the state prevail on such a question as reading the sincerity of an individual or what someone does or does not religiously believe?

  • pzatchok

    “I’m sorry I am busy that day. But if you would like I can try to find some one to fill in. I have a couple of trusted people who might have the time. Though they might cost a bit more.”

    Actually have a few people you can call who might be able to fill in first.

  • Edward

    Interestingly, he also discriminates against those who favor vulgar music, provocative dancing, strippers, fortune tellers, psychics, and magicians. Are these discriminations even allowed?

    What about people who are frightened of clowns? Would a DJ who is frighted by clowns have to work at a party that has a clown? Can you imagine the clown coming on stage and the DJ runs, screaming, from the room? Whose rights are superior: the clown lover or the clown fearer? We can only hope that a shopkeeper cannot be forced into a situation in which he fears for his life, no matter how safe he may actually be.

    As for the “I am busy that day” excuse, that only satisfies those who are not trying to entrap you. That evasion is too easily countered by the professional suer (pronounced sewer, but the meaning is “community disorganizer”).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *