Politics - Video Duplicator Case

The Claim:  Video Duplicator in Arlington Virginia forced to produce video for a lesbian activist. 

 
What is this about?  

In 2006, in Arlington, Va., a video duplicator, who was a devout   Christian, refused to reproduce certain videos for reasons of   conscience. He was ordered by the Arlington County Human   Rights Commission to produce video material for a lesbian activist   or pay for someone else to duplicate the videos.

(see FRC Link  8th paragraph from   2007)  Note: this article is from October 2007, over a year after this issue was resolved.

 For more details..

In March of 2006 a video duplicator in Arlington VA  refused to  duplicate two pro-homosexual films for a lesbian activist.  As of   April 25, the duplicator was still refusing to do so against the Human Rights Commission’s wishes.  

(see also this link)

So what happened in this case?  What was the outcome?  

Though Christian organizations and various blogs were   bemoaning this at least as late as October of 2007, the issue was resolved in June of 2006.  The evidence for this is seen here..

http://www.arlingtonva  us/Departments/Communications/PressReleases/5445.aspx   (LINK NO LONGER ACTIVE)

There was no trial… no court case.  The Human Rights   Commission of Arlington Va. reversed its position.  Like other   stories of alleged violations the resolution of this one was kept   quiet by Christian resources.

What is my take on this?  

Well,  I am left wondering what the big ruckus is to begin with.  As I do in most of these situations I try to imagine how I would feel if the situation were reversed.  Re:  How would people feel if a video duplicator refused to duplicate a video on the salvation that comes   through Christ on the grounds that Christianity was homophobic?  I   can just hear the law suits now and the complaints from Christian political organizations.

I am glad, I guess, that this video duplicator did not have to copy films he found objectionable.  However, I question, as stated above, whether we are shooting ourselves in the foot with such actions.  

It is interesting to note that in this case Christian political groups are defending the right of a business to refuse service to someone based on the content of the message.  However, the exact opposite argument is made in this case of the antigay billboard ads.