the right to "discriminate"
From World...
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that an evangelical-owned wedding photography business violated state discrimination laws when its co-owner declined to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple. The commission ordered Elane Photography to pay $6,600 to cover the legal fees the same-sex couple incurred in filing its complaint.
Though the sum may be small, the principle at stake is large enough to draw an appeal from the Alliance Defense Fund, which will challenge the ruling in state district court. ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence told WORLD that the current ruling ignores First Amendment protections for religious practice and free speech: "This is compelled speech. You cannot use non-discrimination laws to force private groups or individuals to support a message they don't agree with."
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 2:42 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
If we are going to have laws against discrimination, they should cover gay people—there's a lot of prejudice against gay people.
The broader question, here, is the role of law vs. personal freedom in such things. And that leads to ethical and practical questions.
Should a gay photographer be sued if he's unwilling to photograph a straight couple?
Imagine a devoutly Roman Catholic photographer who refuses to photograph a wedding between two people who have been divorced. After all, Jesus himself prohibited remarriage after divorce (except in cases of infidelity), and unlike many Evangelical churches, the Roman Catholic Church to this day does not permit remarriage after divorce. So our hypothetical photographer would feel justified in refusing to promote this kind of marriage; he would argue it violates his religion to participate in the ceremony in any way. You should be aware, of course, that not only is discrimination on religious grounds prohibited, it is prohibited on the basis of marital status.
And as far as personal freedom goes, we have no reason to believe that Elane Photography's right to express their religious beliefs (that homosexuality is morally wrong) has been compromised. They can say anything they wish, but they cannot discriminate in public commerce. Our reaction to this story would be much different if Elane Photography refused to photograph an interracial marriage.
At least in these sorts of examples, I think parties should be able to "discriminate" in terms of public commerce-- outside of force or fraud.
I agree with your inter-racial marriage example, except that you couched it in terms of "our reaction". There is a (large) difference between a legal response to their choice and most of us merely thinking that their bigoted or moronic.
I am predicating this statement with "as a gay man and a member of the clergy", It is an issue as to what was posted or not posted. Was the discrimination publicly broadcast thereby making the couple distinctly singled out or is it part of a pre-existent corporate policy that would have been easily known by all parties?
If it was the first than the couple has every right to sue for bad business practices and a failure for the business to identify their choices regarding who they serve and disenfranchising the consumer, hence the an actual denial of equal status as a citizen consumer.
If a business owners/establishments are going to discriminate as to whom your clientèle is then it needs to be posted and documented, so I have the choice to boycott your services as well and tell my family and friends to do the same. Was there a sign posted or statement on the application for services that had to be initialed?
If it is the later than shame on the gay couple for starting a fight where non should have existed in the first place.
Individual freedom goes both ways!
Peace,
Fr. Fozy Bear
Fr. Bear, I had a similar question. Was this a matter of a private commitment ceremony that was about to begin when the photographer exclaimed, "I didn't know you guys were gay--I'm outta here!" (Weddings are expensive; this would have been a cause of real distress to the particpants.) Or was the commitment ceremony some sort of public political protest? If it's the former, the argument of the photographer that he's being forced to participate in speech that's against his moral beliefs would hold less water. But if it's the latter, he would have a point.
Regardless of the merit of this particular law, I certainly hope that prejudice against gay people continues to decrease. Eventually I hope we have the same revulsion towards a photographer refusing to shoot a commitment ceremony that we now would have against a photographer refusing to shoot an interracial marriage. Given that interracial marriages were finally legalized in all jurisdictions within my own lifetime, I think it's a reasonable thing to hope for.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home