Via Ace and Breitbart, NM’s Supreme Court has ruled that New Mexico law compels photographers who religiously disbelieve in gay marriage to serve gay weddings.
If the law does: Then it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.
What gay couple who are attempting to start a lasting and memorable relationship would hire a wedding photographer who would rather not have the job? Furthermore, what prevents a talented gay photographer from capitalizing on his affinity for gay weddings? Would you ask a great vegetarian Muslim chef to preside over your pig roast?
Sadly, heliotrope, there are plenty of people looking for their 15 minutes. It is not about the issue, but more about seeing themselves in the news and becoming “the story.” Best recent example I can think of is Ms. Sandra Fluke. She now has her very own Wikipedia page – she is now “somebody.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke
Yeah, never settle for being a little fart when you stand up and show everyone what a big one you really are.
You’d think such people would recognize that forcing someone to do a job for you against their will probably won’t turn out well. If you insult a waiter or waitress, there’s a chance they will do something not-so-nice to your food, for instance. In “theory” a wedding is supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event you want to be perfect, so why push your luck by having someone there who might enjoy sabotaging your efforts?
I know it sounds petty, but what would prevent a photographer (or any other “independent contractor”) from simply doing a really lousy job when “forced” to do it? If all the photos were slightly out of focus, or the heads were cut off in key shots, they can simply plead incompetence. After all, being incompetent is practically a virtue in society these days…look at the White House, the IRS, the DOJ, and onward.
The interesting part is that the American Bar Association’s code of ethics allows lawyers to refuse to take homosexual clients; because the quality of their legal representation would be compromised if the lawyer hates them. But of couse, lawyers insist on holding everyone else accountable to a different standard.
Photographers, florists, and others who are forced to service gay weddings against their will should do a half-assed job of it. If nothing else, to get back at all the gay marriage activists who lied that no one would be required to take part in a gay marriage against their will.
Don’t assume that the suit is about a couple getting the photographer they want.
Think of it as a movement to undermine liberty, a movement that will specifically target people of various faiths in order to drive the out of the public sphere.
It makes a lot more sense that way.
Jimmy, you’re quite right about “forcing” people to do something. And this goes across the board, not just for gay weddings.
Here in New Jersey, it is against the law for an employer to state that they will not hire the unemployed. (This law was in response to several companies listing in their job postings that “the unemployed need not apply.”) So, great, now we don’t know who the idiots are! And as a result I will be sending my resume to companies that will NEVER consider me or any other unemployed person. Instead we now have to go through the fake motions of applying for a job that I will never be considered for.
And, so, many folks will now deal with photographers, florists, caterers, etc. who bail at the last minute because of some made-up excuse; rather than knowing from the get go that it was never going to happen, or they get substandard service.
In public opinion terms, forcing people to do acts of what would otherwise be ‘free expression’… which are now ‘coerced expression’… is just like giving a gigantic middle finger to the American people. This is not going to fly, I think. All of the opinions of the activist class Gay Inc groups aside, I don’t even think the majority of LGBT people in the flesh agree– let alone that significant of a number of the rest of society.
It was never really about equality, it was always about power.
Shouldn’t people getting married just hire a different photographer? There are lots of photographers. I’m a writer, and if someone wanted to hire me, they would have to get my agreement first. Same with any job. I mean, McDonalds can’t just say to someone, “We want you to flip hamburgers for us. We will pay you the market rate. You have to work for us.” Clearly, if you go to McDonalds, they can’t refuse to serve you because you are gay. But that is like comparing McDonalds to a photographer. Photography isn’t a mass market consumer business exactly the same as a restaurant.
It will always be a slippery slope…
A “public accommodation” is typically the basis for compulsory non-discrimination; you walk up to the counter and order/book/receive the goods or services; retail stores, bars and restaurants, hotels, etc… I think that if you have a walk-in type of business, you’re on the hook to strictly-observe the discrimination laws.
Professional services imply a more personal…even intimate…relationship with the client. When is “…I think we’re not a good fit”, or “…I don’t think I my best can address your needs”” discrimination and not just declining a potentially sour business-relationship? In my own profession, I’m both ethically-commanded not to discriminate…and at the same time ethically-commanded to not take clients where I’m not able to do best for their needs. And unlike a medical professional, I have no moral imperative nor am oath-sworn to assist anyone in need or distress. Sometimes you just have to be exceedingly-diplomatic about how you address the challenge of a bad-fit with a client and his/her/their needs and capacities.
I would apply the standard for the photographer of;
– It there a valid technical or professional capability issue? A wedding is just a wedding. They should all have the same issues and challenges.
– Is it outside of their area of practice, expertise, or professional? The photographer was a “wedding photographer”, not someone who did primarily commercials and print ad-copy.
– Did the photographer publically offer to do weddings? Yes.
– Is the only reason to decline the “photographer’s discomfort”? Yes.
– Does that “discomfort” prevent them from doing a competent and workmanlike job? Probably not.
Without all the details, I feel the photographer was in the wrong. And definitely points-off for not being more diplomatic and cleverer in weaseling-out of taking the job. Just blurting out “…I don’t do gay weddings” in this day-n-age was foolish.
– Say you’re booked that weekend,
– You don’t have the resources for the complexity of their needs,
– Diplomatically quote them a ridiculously-high price that they’ll balk-at.
Or buck-up, pocket the money and don’t advertise you’re a bigot….and go on a cruise since you effectively charged them double.
The couple are just trolling for their obligatory Obama Phone Call.
Pretty ingenious, really.
As an aside, there’s a gay couple suing the Angelican church to force them to preside over their ceremony. I suspect the Archbishop in NYC will be next.
I am pretty sure this was not about the couple hiring the photographer they wanted but a out being rejected so they could file the lawsuit. The couple did indeed find another photographer.
I think this case is a hard one anyway-on one hand I think those religiously opposed to gay marriage should have a way to say no but the. There is a fine line between refusing to take pictures at a wedding (which I can empathize with) and refusing to serve a gay couple at a restaurant or rent them an apartment etc.
Just Me,
I lived in an apartment where part of the lease was that the apartments were ‘dry’. (I believe they were owned by Mormons). If I didn’t want to abide by their rules… I’d have moved somewhere else.
What do you call it when you force someone to serve against their will?
It’s called slavery.
People tend to forget that the racial discrimination on the early to mid 20th century wasn’t just a bunch of people being mean, it was governments, including the Federal Government, making LAWS that discriminated.
Not really. If you own a business, you ought to have the right to serve … and employ… whoever you want without Government interference. The current laws and regulations that deny an employer this choice are a gross violation of his economic rights.
And “BINGO” to you Juan. Therein lies the catastrophic danger to this “constitutional republic.” That the Federal Government and it’s surrogate dictatorial arm of the Federal Court System is destroying freedom after freedom.
Our “Overton Window” is closing more and more every day. The rest of that POS obama’s term, and 8 years of Hillary will just about shut that window for generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Sorry, don’t mean to be a downer, but watching these past 5 years has been painful. Especially in light of the fact that a great many of us saw this coming and were powerless!!
My point exactly Juan. No one has the right to my labor, except me.
This makes my blood boil. To anybody wondering why the couple didn’t hire a gay or gay-friendly photographer, the answer is simple: look at the imperial Romans. “Inviting” somebody suspected of being a Christian to offer sacrifices to a Roman god was a popular tactic back in the day. Even if there were plenty of people who believed in the Roman gods or at least paid lip service to them, it was always the Christians who were invited. Suggestions of other people to perform the sacrifice were overruled or flat-out ignored. Force the person into a situation where they must compromise their ethics and morals or refuse, and then continue to pressure them until they give in, or you throw them to the lions. This is not about equality. This is about stamping out anybody who does not submit to the zeitgeist to assure the new society’s stability.
There was a time in our country when a person was forced to provided a service against their will. My ancestors know it all too well,it was called slavery. I thought we did ways with it long time ago.
Living in New Mexico, I wish the courts would not get involved in gay marriage. One member of my local bridge group just got married to her partner of 33 years. I don’t know whether to congratulate her because it would indicate that I approve of gay marriage rather than civil unions for all. I will just keep my mouth shut as the lady is very nice but is also very left wing.