I've seen signs posted in establishments: "We reserve the right to refuse to serve any customer" but I don't recall if I've seen such signs in the past few years--- it used to be a cover for anti-black discrimination, and later anti-hippie (no long hair or bare feet?).

Nevertheless, this reeks of the cases where pharmacists have refused to fill prescirptions for contraceptives. How would the right wingnuts feel, for example, if a gas station attendant or owner refused to sell gasoline to an SUV on the grounds that he believed SUVs contribute to American dependency on foreign oil and also contribute global warming, and this offends him? I am of the opinion if you set yourself up offering a service to the public then you do so without discrimination, unless it is for something actually illegal. This forcing your own opinions on others is getting out of hand.

Sometimes, and this looks like one of those situations, it can be helpful to ask yourself how would you feel if another minority were discriminated against for religious reasons.  What if he declined to copy a film that was about another religion or an ethnic minority?  Would that be ok?

And what if this were a pharmacy or a physician who wanted to refuse services?

This was bound to come up under Dillon sooner or later wasn't it?

Anyway, on a positive note, here is a great blog -
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/

Part of the issue here is that there aren't many places out there like Bono's that still do film transfer work.  The Bono business is basically a dying breed, there are probably fewer than 5 companies in the U.S. who still do this type of film transfer work--none locally.  I don't know the legal issues--and I'm not a lawyer--although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this ends up being a case for the federal courts. 

As a bit of a personal aside--my brother actually worked for Bono Films about 10 years ago.  At that time the business management was transitioning from Joe Bono, who was an all-around class act, who'd learned his film chops while in the military (WWII, I believe)--to his son Tim.  Tim was pretty much the family black sheep--he had a very self-destructive personality and troubled background. He wasn't educated.  It's conceivable that Tim has become a born again Christian within the past 10 years; however, he didn't have these scrupples when he took over the business 10 years ago.  The film company pretty much developed anything and everything that came through its doors (including the film stock for the movie Buffalo 66, which SoCons probably wouldn't find up to their moral standards).

Among Tim's more charitable Christian acts, was cancelling my brother's health insurance retroactively--so that for a one month period when my brother was still employed by Bono he was effectively without insurance.  My brother found out about this when he received a $200 doctor's bill about a month after he'd left Bono's.  My brother probably would have been within his rights to sue Bono, but he, perhaps wisely, just moved on to another production company and got on with his life. 

The long and short--I'm not surprised to hear about this story.  It's pretty much a continuation of Tim's very troubled and pathetic life.  It's a shame that the family name and family company has to be dragged into this mess. 

what should the government's role be in this case?

As a matter of principle--this seems like a pretty clear cut case of discrimination.  The company is within its rights to refuse material that it deems obscene, but a protest march shouldn't fall in that category.

I also agree with Dan that this action is likely to cause a backlash.  I don't think attitudes on gay rights are as far advanced as they are on issues that concern racial discrimination. 

Advancing matters through the courts is probably an expedient way to resolve this immediate issue.  As far as addressing the underlying problem--prejudiced attitudes towards gays--I have some reservations about this approach.  A big confrontation on this issue is probably inevitable.  It's not a fight that anyone should be looking forward to, but it may be inevitable.

First off, what was on the tape?  No pornography, just a march.  So, that isn't so bad.  However, I would disagree that this is outright discrimination, unless one thing is occuring. 
Is there another film production company that could do the same job as a price not so far above Mr. Bono's?  If Mr. Bono can choose to decline this job, and Ms. Vincenz can easily take her business elsewhere, then she should speak with her dollars and not with her lawyers.  I am all for gay rights, but this type of thing just causes a backlash.  Of course, like I said, if there really are no other options for film production companies, and/or Ms. Vincenz asked Mr. Bono if there were any others she could go to if he wouldn't make copies of hers, and he said, NO WAY WILL I TELL YOU - then maybe she had a point.  However, of all the battles gays and lesbians face, this is not one that is institutional persay, and will probably backfire.  No offense to Ms. Vincenz.

Only 5 film transfer in the country?  No way?  Well, maybe in that case, but did Bono refuse to tell her of another company?

Also, this is different than a pharmacy or gasoline, in my opinion, in several ways, although I don't have time to discuss them.  However, only 5???

I checked with my brother on this and got the following answer: "It depends--there are certain film stocks and types of processing that Bono's specializes in.  She probably could have gotten her 16 mm film produced elsewhere though."  In otherwords, she had other options locally.

The law states that once a business opens itself up to the public, it cannot keep out customers of a "protected class." So the business could not refeuse her because she is a woman, or because of race, and maybe not because she's gay - this Supreme Court may have already ruled the latter is not a protected class.  This is because the Feds control "Interstate Commerce" and forcing people to find other businesses that won't discrimiate has historically forced many people to travel widely and out of state.  See Heart of Atlanta Motel  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States

On the other hand, if the denial is because he doesn't approve of the content on the tape, I'm not sure he's done anything illegal.  Bad for business, maybe.  Talk to the business owner, persuade him he's not compromising his principles by helping to capture histor. Ask him to move his principles, or take your business elsewhere.