“In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees.”
I’m sure that for every law that I throw out, you can find one (or a dozen) that will contradict it. And that is my point – the law is very contradictory, and just arguing the law only ends in the appeal to authority (i.e. judge/jury).
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I believe you could make a case that “pay” in the above quote would also include support, such as time and materials.
So in the end, what have you achieved by forcing the photographer to compromise his moral values by supporting an institution he finds reprehensible? He will most likely do a good job because he’s a professional, but he now realizes that the authority of the state is capricious. He becomes a libertarian.
Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after-all?