Tired of the rat race in New York City, Jonathan and Marc, respectively a designer and lawyer, decided to convert a Victorian mansion in the Hudson Valley into a bed and breakfast. They’d always wanted to convert an adjacent barn into a banquet and reception facility.
With the state legislature passing a law recognizing same-sex marriages, they decide to do so and bill their place as a facility celebrating such unions. With his legal background, Marc will even facilitate the paperwork for out-of-state couples.
Given Jonathan’s skill as a designer, soon their facility gains a name for itself. Couples from across the country flock there. Soon, a straight couple see pictures of a gay couple’s ceremony and wants to have their nuptials performed there. Jonathan balks, preferring only to accommodate gay and lesbian unions. Marc agrees with the sentiment, but warns of the legal consequences, saying that if they refuse the straight couple, they would run afoul with the state’s non-discrimination law.
And this is where laws designed to further equality limit our freedom, even that of gay and lesbian individuals. Marc is probably right.
Just as Jonathan and Marc should be free to choose the types of unions they celebrate at their private establishment, so too should a Christian photographer in New Mexico be free to refuse to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. We may not like their choices and may contend that their preferences do not represent sound business practices, but allowing them to choose for themselves how to run their own enterprises is essential to free enterprise.
Those who would demand that the hypothetical New York gay couple — and the very real New Mexico photographer — be required to serve certain individuals manifest their own authoritarian streak, that they can better decide for these individuals how to run their business than can the proprietors themselves.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Rob Tisinai, with whom I don’t always see eye to eye, offers a “counter-example” which echoes my point:
. . . a gay wedding photographer who doesn’t want to shoot a wedding held in a church that works hard to deprive him of his marriage rights — forcing him to photograph such a wedding is adding insult to injury. As it happens, many people don’t believe me when I tell them the same laws that forbid a photographer from discriminating based on sexual orientation also forbid photographers from discriminating based on religion (and vice versa, of course). But it’s true.
Exactly.
i may not agree with your conservative side on all matters, i DO agree with you on this issue. the answer is simple: if you don’t wanna do your job accomodating me because i’m gay, then fine, i’ll take my business elsewhere.
i disagree with anti-discrimination laws when the private sector is involved. however, these laws enable gays (& straights) protection from abuse/misuse in the public sector. iow, DHS (or any government entity) should not be able to say ‘no we won’t work with you because you’re gay’.
that might be where we part company. i don’t know you well enough yet to say one way or another. but at least we can respect each other’s position, right? that’s how America should be governed.
And therein lies an interesting issue — some business owners may intentionally set themselves up to cater to a niche market. Why shouldn’t that be permitted?
Heck, we already allow legal sex discrimination — I dare any male reading this to see how far they get fighting against the “women only” policy at the local Curves franchise.
I have to agree as well. I can think of a counter-example even closer to home: a gay wedding photographer who doesn’t want to shoot a wedding held in a church that works hard to deprive him of his marriage rights — forcing him to photograph such a wedding is adding insult to injury. As it happens, many people don’t believe me when I tell them the same laws that forbid a photographer from discriminating based on sexual orientation also forbid photographers from discriminating based on religion (and vice versa, of course). But it’s true.
Or the touchy subject of a “gay” bar vs. a straights-only bar. And All Gods helps the man with the temerity to cross the threshold of a lesbian bar uninvited or unaccompanied.
This one gives me pause too, as long as the photographer isn’t accepting public funds of course. I’d feel differently if we are talking about a restaurant or a hotel, but compelling a photographer to attend an event he/she finds objectionable to in order to stay in business seems a bit much to me. It reminds me of the firefighters compelled to attend a gay pride parade when they had moral objections to doing so.
leQ, you pretty much nail it when you write, ” if you don’t wanna do your job accomodating me because i’m gay, then fine, i’ll take my business elsewhere.” Exactly.
Rob, great counterexample. Will update the post with it.
I agree with the principle that businesses should be allowed to serve who they wish. I live in New Mexico, and I’ve always wondered about the couple who would force a photographer to shoot their wedding. Do you really think you’ll end up with good pictures of such a special day?
leQ has the correct attitude. Fine, I’ll take my business elsewhere.
Remember when there was freedom of association in this country? past tense.
Would anybody in NY hold them to that standard?
good point.. I am gay, but weary of gays who sue – like the eharmony deal – there are tons of gay dating/hook-up sites… how would we like it if straight people sued to be included – this non-discrimination stuff can go both ways, but the liberal gays like playing victim too much to consider that