RT @TWERadio: Vanderbilt University stands firm against campus-ministry groups 
Click to Print
Include Comments
First Amendment rights v. discrimination
When a same-sex couple asked Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin to photograph their commitment ceremony, Huguenin declined, citing conflicts with her personal beliefs. The couple took action, however, filing a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division. Now Huguenin’s studio Elane Photography is being tried under state anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.
“On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with,” [Alliance Defense Fund] Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. ”That’s a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony – that marriage can be defined as two women or two men.”
In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees.
Lorence said the case is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights: “Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, ‘We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people’s right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.’” Thus, shouldn’t individuals like Huguenin have the right to decline?
back to top87 Comments to “First Amendment rights v. discrimination”
Well, I think they have the right to decline.
No one would force her to take pictures of adults if she was a baby photographer. As usual, liberals are about controlling what people do and think.
This is a perfect opportunity to start a whole new niche business. Let someone who wants to do it start one.
And it’s not just photographers. What if you are a wedding planner, and you just don’t want to plan a same-sex wedding?
Can you force a sole proprietor to sell a product she doesn’t want to sell? I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
I have seen signs at restaurants saying the owner reserves the right to refuse service. shouldn’t a photographer have the same right? What if this were someone wanting her to photograph a pornographic scene. Would she have to do that or could she legally refuse?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know when businesses are legally permitted to refuse service, and I’m not a lawyer. Even so, I predict that she will lose. If sexual preference is protected under NM law in the same way as race, age, religion, gender, etc, a decision in her favor would basically make all anti-discrimination laws impossible to enforce.
Report comment to moderator
The Sodomite lobby is not about rights, but crushing dissent and shutting up those, particularly Christians and churches, who would hold them accountable to God’s standards.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: As usual, liberals are about controlling what people do and think.
How is a law prohibiting a business from refusing service to a Black person or a Christian any different from one prohibiting such refusal based on marital status?
Report comment to moderator
Hey, Arcadia. I bet NJL answers.
Report comment to moderator
If I’m a photographer, every job I turn down costs me money. It doesn’t cost anyone else anything.
So, if I don’t want to photograph weddings because the bride is too pretty, too ugly, too fat, too skinny, or has a mustache, I should be allowed that.
I understand that the law forbids such thinking in the case of landlords, for instance, but landlords and photographers are different, aren’t they.
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB – “landlords and photographers are different, aren’t they.” only until Hillary or B.O. get elected.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think that photography is in the same category as restaurants or rental housing. In a sense, the last two are public services provided by private companies. They also involve basic necessities–food and housing.
Of course, I tend to think that all private business owners should be allowed to provide or deny service to whomever they want. They should treat people fairly and kindly, but no law should force them to. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t it? I’m glad that African Americans are free to go to restaurants and hotels and such, but we paid a high price in loss of freedom to make it happen.
Report comment to moderator
If sexual preference is protected in NM, and there is no applicable conscience exception, then it seems that under the law Elaine must agree to serve gay couples or stop doing portrait/wedding photography altogether. (NJL, would you address that specific point?)
BTW, this case reminds me of a similar case (also from the Southwest, I believe) about a couple who operate a landscape design business, and who got in some kind of hot water for refusing a gay couple as clients, citing their Christian beliefs. Anybody remember this? Relevant?
Report comment to moderator
Does this send the message that the photographer would have to take the job, and perform in the manner of anyone es=lse doing work he/she doesn’t want to be doing?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t claim to know NM law, but it seems that the defense lawyers’ tactics–invoking free-speech rights to trump the state law–indicate that they know they won’t win by arguing against the anti-discrimination charge.
Lawyers’ thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad that African Americans are free to go to restaurants and hotels and such, but we paid a high price in loss of freedom to make it happen.
Well said Kyle. Unfortunately, business owners are no longer free to run their business as they see fit. This woman should be forced to photograph whomever shows up at her door. This is, after all, what we asked for when we asked for more govt involvement.
Report comment to moderator
If sexual preference is protected in NM, and there is no applicable conscience exception, then it seems that under the law Elaine must agree to serve gay couples or stop doing portrait/wedding photography altogether.
Of course, I tend to think that all private business owners should be allowed to provide or deny service to whomever they want. They should treat people fairly and kindly, but no law should force them to. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t it? I’m glad that African Americans are free to go to restaurants and hotels and such, but we paid a high price in loss of freedom to make it happen.
Bingo. Just like the foreclosure crisis* we’re in right now, this is just another piece of Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy. Christians love the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it’s blatantly unconstitutional, and it destroyed the concept of private property and freedom to contract with whoever a person wants. Whether you love black people, hate black people, or have no opinion on way or another, you should be free to decide who is and who isn’t allowed on your business property, and who you will or won’t do business with. Once we granted government the power to take away those freedoms, and gave it the right to tell businessmen whom they must serve and do business with, because we don’t approve of people who don’t like black people, then Christians have no right to complain when government uses the same power to tell them that they have to serve/make contract with people they would rather not be involved with. In fact, I’m pretty sure that had this story been about a Georgia photographer being sued for refusing to photograph the wedding of an interracial couple, most of the Christians on here would be cheering the lawsuit on and denouncing the photographer. Just like many thought Bob Jones University got what it deserved when the IRS took away its tax exemption for banning interracial dating, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling. Religious liberty effectively died the day of the ruling. The SC upheld the ruling because BJU’s stance violated “public policy”. One of these days in the not too distant future, that ruling will be used to strip Christian colleges that ban same sex dating of their tax exemption. And there will be nothing Christian can do about it, because they didn’t speak up in 1964 and 1983.
* Yes, the foreclosure crisis is another legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Read all about it.
http://snipurl.com/1zn63
Report comment to moderator
No matter who or what you are, would you really want your wedding photographer taking pictures under duress?
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad that African Americans are free to go to restaurants and hotels and such, but we paid a high price in loss of freedom to make it happen.
Well said Kyle. Unfortunately, business owners are no longer free to run their business as they see fit. This woman should be forced to photograph whomever shows up at her door. This is, after all, what we asked for when we asked for more govt involvement.
I’m sorry but I just can’t seem to bring myself to mourn the loss of the dubiously important “freedom to discriminate.” Loss of the freedom to discrimnate was nothing compared to the freedom which African-Americans were denied up until that time, to be treated exactly as any other free citizens.
Report comment to moderator
Do gay hairdressers have the right to refuse service to Christians?
Report comment to moderator
#17. Why not? What if Fred Phelp’s wife came in and wanted her hair done?
Report comment to moderator
There will naturally be some ambiguities here. For instance, what kind of statements does she make on her web site, her offer of service as it were? There are no red flags saying “Christian” and so alerting the potential customer. So does the customer have a good faith expectation that she will be served? There is nothing about her speech to indicate that any objection would be made.
Second, we may fault NM law, but if the couple were say black, or mixed race and the photographer declined on racial grounds, would that be permissible? I would think the willingness to advertise and solicit business means one has agreed to take all comers.
Of course, there are other ways to decline a job other than to say, “You’re X and I won’t serve you.” For instance, there is always the busy appointment book, or the higher price point.
So while I feel a sympathy for the photographer, she really needs to manage her business better.
Report comment to moderator
Bingo. Just like the foreclosure crisis* we’re in right now, this is just another piece of Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy?
NT – does the author you cited have actual stats to back up his claims? If so, please cite them for all to see. Otherwise, he is race-baiting. In fact, the Wall Street Journal put that meme you are spouting to rest. Fact is, rich whites are as much to blame for the credit crisis (and that’s what it is) as poor blacks or Latinos.
Report comment to moderator
Here we go BobBuckles!
First, I’ll agree with Harris that Elaine has to manage her business better. Just so you know, lawyers turn down clients all the time. And it’s legal. It’s a personal service. (Not so if I decide to work for legal services, let’s say. Then I’m an employee. Different rules apply.)
To Arcadia and RR:
It has long been my feeling that the free exerise clause will be given its due in the next few decades, and not just about this issue. The Muslims are already going to court. And I would use this clause in addition to the free speech clause. Why are you so prepared to force this woman to violate her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs? Why do you think you have the right to do that?
Maybe it’s not about gender or discrimination at all. Maybe it’s about commerce. If a person doesn’t perform that kind of work, why would you insist that she do it? Photography is an art. Why would you ask an artist who does landscapes to paint a portrait? If Elaine were a seamstress and she only made clothes for women, would you take her to court and force her to tailor a pair of trousers for your father? Why can’t Elaine have a wedding photography business that specializes in heterosexual weddings? Are you going to force Christian bookstores to carry books on gay pornography? Would you force a ceramics company to produce a figurine of two gays together? Think specialty shops. Where’s the freedom to do what you want to do?
Landlords. In NJ, if I live in the same house (i.e., a two-family), I can discriminate all I want for whatever reason. Not so if there are considerably more units; then the scales tip towards discrimination. Restaurants serve more than one person at a time, so that’s different, too. It’s not a personal service. Would you force a cook to take a job with gay people just because she cooks and they eat? She can’t refuse? Does that even make sense to you?
(That ought to give ‘em something to chew on for a while, eh Bob?)
Report comment to moderator
AND: where are Elaine’s human rights?
Report comment to moderator
Restaurants can decline to serve whomever they wish, the signs are posted for everyone to read. The same should apply to those who photograph weddings, etc. I suppose you could take it a step further……taking a photographer to court if he/she didn’t take pictures of a simi nude wedding.
The homosexual agenda is transparent.
Report comment to moderator
You know, Victoria is right about restaurants (But isn’t that really designed to keep people without jackets or people who haven’t bathed out?)
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Not only dress. It also allows a restaurant to exclude those who argue, use profanity and any other reason they deem un-welcome.
Doctor’s can deny an individual person care if they wish. They can send them to another doctor who will accept them as a patient.
Report comment to moderator
My dentist doesn’t take unruly children. (Fortunately my three kids behave well there.) He tells the paretns to take the children to a different dentist. Could he be breaking the law?
Report comment to moderator
No, KyleA. My nephew’s orthodontist doesn’t take kids who take the bands off in the basement with pliers either. Can you force someone to put themselves in the position where they might have to defend themselves against malpractice?
Report comment to moderator
Lester, do you have a link to where the WSJ refutes the author? If so, please share it. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Restaurants can decline to serve whomever they wish, the signs are posted for everyone to read.
In theory, yes they can. But in reality, if the people they exclude for loudness, rudeness, inappropriate dress, etc, are disproportionately black, they will soon have a multi-million dollar lawsuit on their hands, and they will lose. Just talk to the people at Denny’s and Waffle House.
Report comment to moderator
I am a landlord. If I choose not to accept an applicant for an empty apartment I don’t give a reason. It is harder to have problems if I don’t give reasons for not renting. I just rented to that one not this one.
People often talk too much.
When a child or teenager is sent to Juvie, the first thing they are told is “No talking!” There is less trouble if they don’t talk.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, NJL. Don’t know where you got the idea I was FOR the photographer being forced to do this (I was asking what kind of situation she’s in legally, if NM includes sexual orientation in its list of can’t-discriminates) but anyway…
Business owners refuse service all the time, as several of you have noted. Sometimes in an upfront way (”Please take your business elsewhere”) and sometimes in disguise (”scheduling conflicts”).
But what’s going on here is the gay-rights lobby coat-tailing the civil rights movement, and doing a fairly effective job of it. We once told white proprietors of lunch counters that they can’t refuse service to blacks. Now, in states where sexual orientation is protected, it looks to me like photographers who consider lesbian relationships morally abhorrent cannot refuse to commemorate their ceremonies with pictures. So is there an effective free-exercise defense for such a business owner?
Report comment to moderator
And let me propose, with reference to BB’s comment in 30, a scenario in which the photographer doesn’t state her reasons, but gets accused of prohibited discrimination anyway (perhaps her theology comes out in discovery). What then?
Report comment to moderator
No problem, NT. Here you go:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119205925519455321.html
Report comment to moderator
But what’s going on here is the gay-rights lobby coat-tailing the civil rights movement, and doing a fairly effective job of it. We once told white proprietors of lunch counters that they can’t refuse service to blacks. Now, in states where sexual orientation is protected, it looks to me like photographers who consider lesbian relationships morally abhorrent cannot refuse to commemorate their ceremonies with pictures. So is there an effective free-exercise defense for such a business owner?
No, there’s not.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Lester, but the WSJ article doesn’t refute the article I linked to by any stretch of the imagination. Here’s the lede:
As America’s mortgage markets began unraveling this year, economists seeking explanations pointed to “subprime” mortgages issued to low-income, minority and urban borrowers. But an analysis of more than 130 million home loans made over the past decade reveals that risky mortgages were made in nearly every corner of the nation, from small towns in the middle of nowhere to inner cities to affluent suburbs.
This in no way refutes or even conflicts with the other article. The NY Post article never claimed that it minority borrowers were the main problem with the subprime crisis. What it said was that after allegations of widespread racial discrimination in mortgage lending, the feds ordered banks to come up with standards that wouldn’t lead to blacks being disproportionately turned down. The only way to do that was to lower their loan approval standards. But since you can’t have one standard for blacks and one for whites, they had to be lowered across the board, thus leading to lots more high risk borrowers being approved, from every racial group.
Of course, there was never any discrimination to begin with. Banks aren’t in business to help white folks and shaft black folks. They’re in business to make money. You don’t make money by denying loans to credit worthy applicants because they’re black. As the NY Post article makes clear, when income and credit histories were taken into account, the “racial discrimination” disappeared. Blacks and whites with roughly the same income and same credit histories were approved and denied at the same rates.
Report comment to moderator
Get your facts straight, NT. Fact is, the reason for the credit crisis was Wall Street, not mortgage lenders. Wall Street started packaging risky mortgages into securities with stable mortgages. By “blending” these mortgages into tranches, the Wall Street whizzes diversified the risk. That was all well and good as long as the economy was strong, home values were on the rise and the dollar remained somewhat strong.
Oops.
To say that a law passed almost two decades ago had anything to do with the credit crisis of the last year is ridiculous. What happened to all those “risky” mortgages BEFORE Wall Street started packaging and selling them to our creditors abroad?
Oops again.
You can thank the falling dollar, our trade deficit and our national debt for creating this problem. You can also thank the Wall Street financial engineers, and the tacit OK from the SEC and Congress, for placing all these mortgages into securities.
The problem wasn’t banks lowering their standards to accomodate blacks. The problem was when Wall Street saw houses as investment vehicles instead of homes.
Your economist needs to examine the problem a little more closely.
You need to place the blame where it belongs, or stop insinuating that it is a black problem by evoking MLK.
Again, if the law was the problem, then you can find where these risky mortgages caused a problem BEFORE Wall Street packaged them up and sold them to our creditors in Riyadh and Beijing.
I’ll wait for that.
Report comment to moderator
Y’know, I’m starting to feel sorry for gays in NM. Apparently, the only photographers available for gays seeking photography services are Christian ones. Maybe all the non-religious photographers moved to a different city or something.
Makes me wonder…did this couple bring on the lawsuit to make a point/and or a bit of change? Legalities aside, most communities have many services available. If one bows out due to religious reasons, well, they lose the business. Simple as that. Unless your lifestyle/issue/ego demands “satisfaction.”
Report comment to moderator
Lester, Wall Street may have packaged the risky loans with the good ones, but they never made the risky loans to begin with. And the guy in Shaker Heights who lost his house because he was approved for a loan doesn’t really care if if the mortgage company sold his loan to Morgan Stanley who sold it to some guy in Timbuktu.
Report comment to moderator
Make that “because he was approved for a loan he really couldn’t afford”.
Report comment to moderator
OK, Joel Mark, here’s your chance. On another thread you say the Golden Rule trumps other clear biblical teachings. Would this photographer want another photographer to refuse to take pictures of her wedding because he doesn’t approve of her lifestyle? If not, then why should she do it to these two women? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right, Joel?
Report comment to moderator
WRONG NT – 40
When something goes against your religious beliefs, as in providing a service to homosexuals, it is a choice which someone makes and it is THEIR RIGHT!
I have a right not to go to a homosexual stylist, just as it’s their right not to style my hair if they choose not to.
This has nothing to do with the “Golden Rule” it has to do with religious beliefs. Those who are strong Christians are not going to take part in, a homosexual ‘anything’-
The day may come when homosexuals can marry. If this happens, this will not mean that pastors from Evangelical Churches will be REQUIRED to marry these people.
It’s this inching, which we see and the ‘agenda’ with the ITCH to INCHING that’s causing all the rash.
Report comment to moderator
If this happens, this will not mean that pastors from Evangelical Churches will be REQUIRED to marry these people.
I wouldn’t be so sure. If they tie it to non-profit status, many preachers (evangelical or not) will be faced with a tough decision.
Personally, I don’t think churches should file for non-profit status (tax-exempt is granted differently), but that’s a different thread.
Report comment to moderator
The day may come when homosexuals can marry.
Actually, that day is already here. They’ve been marrying in MA and various foreign countries for three or four years now.
Report comment to moderator
What would people think if. . .
an African American photographer refused to work at a wedding of KKK members with a burning cross at the reception?
a Jewish photographer that was a descendant of Holocaust victims refused to work at a wedding that used swastikas as decorations?
a homosexual photographer refused to work at a wedding in a church that refused membership to unrepentant homosexuals?
Report comment to moderator
#22 NJLawyer
They passed a law that only gay couple have rights now. You must have missed it. Hispanics when into apoplectic shock over this and finally ended up suing Africa for producing Blacks in the first place and American Blacks eventually were only ones allowed by US law to go into this kind of shock.
It can get confusing but with proper liberal training and electroshock treatments a normal slave should be able to keep up with it all.
Report comment to moderator
In hindsight the photographer should have taken the job. But alas, due to things outside of the photographers control, like faulty equipment or some such nonsense, the pictures of the blessed event all came out blank quite unexpectedly. As a result – no payment was due – so sorry. I’m sure the photographer would get sued for that, since this couple set the photographer up for a law suit in the first place. They probably just wanted someone else not gay to pay for their wedding out of spite. Nasty folks these gay people are – they are quite unusual.
Most normal gay folks would have just found a gay photographer in the first place to give their business to. No hassles that way and no one wants hassles.
In either case, the photographer can close their business, declare bankruptcy for it and open a new the next day and never pay these gay scofflaws off.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, Wall Street may have packaged the risky loans with the good ones, but they never made the risky loans to begin with. And the guy in Shaker Heights who lost his house because he was approved for a loan doesn’t really care if if the mortgage company sold his loan to Morgan Stanley who sold it to some guy in Timbuktu.
That didn’t make any sense. Of course, you never answered my questions in my previous post. If you could, then maybe your theory might have some weight. Until then, it is just correlation, not causation.
Of course, if the law really is the problem, and the law forced banks and lenders to relax their mortgage approval processes, then the current stricter enforcement is clearly illegal, right?
Oops.
Maybe you and your economist friend should do some research, get your facts, and actually read the law.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia (5): How is a law prohibiting a business from refusing service to a Black person or a Christian any different from one prohibiting such refusal based on marital status?
Frank: There are two different issues here: The law as it is, and the law as it ought to be.
Re. anti-discrimination law as it is: Being black or Christian aren’t morally questionable behaviors. But sexual relations with a member of the same sex is — to say nothing of sexual perverts seeking the social acceptance of their perversion through homosexual “marriage.”
That said, I think we should consider the mattter from the perspective of what the law ought to be. I.e., I think people — even business owners — should be legally allowed to exercise their right of free association, up to and including the right to refuse service to anybody they choose, for any reason they choose.
Yes, that’s right. Businesses ought to be allowed to refuse service to a Black person or a Christian. If people (including business owners) have a right to freely associate, they certainly should enjoy the right to freely dissociate.
The fundamental problem with broad anti-discrimination laws is the deification of the State, as manifested by a confusion between sins and crimes. Biblically speaking, all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes (which are really just sins requiring punishment at the hands of the civil magistrate).
By turning what the Bible calls a sin — racial discrimination — into a crime, the State has assumed the role of God in the sinner’s life.
But this case is even worse, because the State is turning a matter of Christian conscience — Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to assist two sexual perverts in the social acceptance of their relationship — into a crime.
Report comment to moderator
Well, there has always been a distinct thread running through conservative Christianity that has been pissed ever since segregation was outlawed. Rulings like “Brown vs Board of Ed.” and the 1964 Civil Rights Act have particularly grated on a not insignificant number of conservative Christians, who still retain a wistful longing for “States rights” (code for segregation).
So I’m not surprised to see some conservative Christians still supporting the right of a business to put up signs saying “Whites only” or “No blacks allowed”.
And it’s no shocker that many conservative Christians support legal and social discrimination against gays. We gotta get them used to black people first before we can move on to gays.
Sometimes I wish there were signs on stores, etc. that say “We do not serve conservative Christians” so that they can get a taste of their own medicine. It might teach them a lesson in tolerance toward other people. Probably not though – most people hang on to their prejudice long after the rational for it has been destroyed.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (49): And it’s no shocker that many conservative Christians support legal and social discrimination against gays. We gotta get them used to black people first before we can move on to gays.
Frank: Big, big difference between the two, pal.
Black people simply look different. It is unbiblical (a.k.a. “a sin”) to treat people differently because of their face.
But homosexual behavior, on the other hand is a … what, Anlir? That’s right, a behavior. And biblically speaking, it is not merely a sinful behavior, but a criminal one.
So perhaps you can understand the reticence of Bible-believing Christians to not want to participate in the ceremonial recognition of such morally questionable behavior.
Orrrrr … mebbe not.
Anlir (49): Sometimes I wish there were signs on stores, etc. that say “We do not serve conservative Christians” so that they can get a taste of their own medicine.
Frank: Say, now there’s an idea.
You can start with the porn shops and the new age stores.
But even if you run a grocery or a gas station and you don’t want my business, it’s really no skin off my nose.
Really.
Go for it.
Report comment to moderator
Ya see, it’s this kind of vicious attacking of Christians that makes me want to enact a “scorched earth” policy when it comes to fighting back. Muster the legal eagles, win in court, then counter-sue until they are financially obliterated.
I can already hear you liberal whiners…save your keystrokes. You and yours started the fight, and you need to be taught that picking a fight means losing in a huge, painful, won’t-ever-go-there-again way.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry. This is a personal service question.
Tell me liberals: Does the free exercise clause have any meaning for you? Does free speech? Or is that non-gays can only believe what you want them to believe, they can only say what you want them to say? Tell me where the freedom is?
We’re not talking about a job where a person represents a corporation and the corporation has the right to fire you if you don’t do the job. You always have the right to quit. We’re talking about personal services. I discriminate all the time — so do you all. I don’t associate with drug addicts, murderers, prostitutes, etc. It’s my life, and I can do that. I don’t have to represent them either.
I hope we’ll find out what happens with this case.
And don’t forget to wait for the appeals process to be finished.
I’ve concluded from this thread that liberals are against personal freedom. We must all conform. My goodness, I’m hearing “We are the Borg. You will be assimilated.” (Please, Kennethos, take me away in the Tardis!)
Report comment to moderator
How is a law prohibiting a business from refusing service to a Black person or a Christian any different from one prohibiting such refusal based on marital status?
Ah, but there’s one problem: There was no discrimination based on marital status.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: The free exercise clause means that you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want. If, like some people, you believe that a god created Blacks as an inferior race, or that women must always be subservient to men, you are free to believe it, and most importantly, to preach it.
And in the public sphere, including the marketplace, you can not be discriminated against because of those beliefs.
However,generally in the public sphere, you MAY NOT implement/use those beliefs, to use them as a sword to discriminate against others or excuse yourself from complying with established public policy.
I gather that your apparently more muscular version of the clause would countenance or even encourage widespread discrimination and non-compliance according to any individual’s religious beliefs, however wild they may be. Muslim teachers would be free not to work on Fridays, Jewish merchants not to serve or sell to Christians and Wiccans to teach in occult regalia and have the solstice off.
I think you have in mind very much the same kind of society that lots of Sunnis Shiites and others are trying to create in Iraq.
It won’t work. I hope.
Report comment to moderator
A balance is needed between personal freedom and societal interest. In general, a private service operate in the public sphere should not be allowed to discriminate ie restaurants and multi-unit rental buildings. However, an individual should be given the freedom to refuse to serve in business which are more one on one. In this I actually agree with NJL
In any event both sides seem to be spoiling for a fight. The photographer is making a public stand for a position which could’ve been expressed as simple as “I’m not interested” “I’m busy” etc. There is no need to express any condemnatory viewpoints.
Report comment to moderator
PS — and yes an individual can refuse on any basis — for instances refusing to rent to people who smoke or drink. If you are renting an apt in the family home, and you don’t like the smell of their cooking, or anything as mundane you should be allowed to terminate the tenancy within a reasonable amount of time.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you are mixing up all kinds of issues.
First, you shouldn’t compare government-owned schools to privately owned businesses. (Unless you don’t believe in the concept of private ownership at all?)
Second, at the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the schools were still pretty much considered the responsiblity of the state in what was a much more federal system than we have now. As much as I agree with integrated schools, and I do, I also believe that we should have stuck with the Constitution that our forefathers agreed to. We can amend it, but we should not just ignore it. What we have done–to our great detriment–is devolved into a country of disparate groups that compete for power through the misuse of the judicial system.
One thing about rights is that we have the right to be wrong about many things. Many things are immoral but not illegal. (You of all people should appreciate that principle, for it gives you the basis for challenging anti-sodomy laws.)
Even though I believe that most forms of discimination are immoral, I don’t think that they should all be illegal.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Anlir, you mixed up one more thing.
You mix up racial identity with theological beliefs. Being a “conservative Christian” is not parallel to being “black” in any way. Nobody is born a conservative Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Haven’t we evangelicals been predicting this type of action for years now, while the pagans on this blog have been say ‘No, no, don’t be ridiculous!”
LOL.
Report comment to moderator
Poor Phrank – he can only define gay people by what they do in bed. (How would you like to be defined solely by what you do in bed, Phrank?) His inability to see gay people as human beings is par for the course for too many conservative Christians, who will do anything to avoid facing that fact. When one want to perpetuate prejudice against people, stripping them of their humanity and defining them by other characteristics is a good tactic. Phrank earns his “A” today in perpetuating prejudice and stereotypes. Way to go Phrank!
*****
Kyle A.,
Interesting that you bring up “theological belief” which is freely chosen, yet receives both legal and social protection in this country. Yet, a person’s sexuality, which is likely not chosen, receives little to no legal and social protection. Even if we grant that a person’s sexuality is freely chosen, why should it be treated any differently from religious belief, which is also freely chosen?
One thing we can count on: where there is prejudice, where there is discrimination, we can count on our conservative Christian friends to be leading the charge in support of it. They just don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR
“Poor Phrank – he can only define gay people by what they do in bed. (How would you like to be defined solely by what you do in bed, Phrank?)”
Isn’t it the Gays that are Identifing themselves by what they do in bed. I am “GAY”.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia (54): However,generally in the public sphere, you MAY NOT implement/use those beliefs, to use them as a sword to discriminate against others or excuse yourself from complying with established public policy.
Frank: Hmm. “Established public policy.” Nothing like a rock-solid, never-changing standard, huh? You really don’t want to hang your case on something that arbitrary now, do you?
I mean, at one time in this country — in most of our lifetimes, in fact — homosexuality was widely viewed as a perversion. A deviancy. A sin.
Or (if you prefer) a mental illness.
Then a bunch of these perverts leaned heavy on the APA and convinced them — doctors, for Pete’s sake — to change their “established policy,” and … voila, the normalcy of homosexuality became “established policy”!
What a stunt!!
Based on that your approach, by what ethical yardstick do you presume to prohibit interspecies sexual relations? Isn’t what happens between a man and his horse their own business? Who are you to say otherwise?
I mean, all we need to do is prohibit discrimination against zoophiles. Bada boom, bada bing … established public policy.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd #61: Isn’t it the Gays that are Identifing themselves by what they do in bed. I am “GAY”.
Only because those who would oppress them define them that way. Once you’ve been put into a group whose rights people are trying to limit, you don’t have much choice but to accept the label and fight back against the oppression.
If nobody cared what other people did in bed and didn’t try to shape public policy based on their disapproval of other people’s sex lives, you would never hear about it.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Let’s get down to brass tacks. (Or is it tax? Nevermind … )
What exactly is your objection to a committed Christian photographer turning down a job photographin a homosexual commitment ceremony?
To use Arcadia’s example (last paragraph of 54), should a Christian photographer with strong convictions about not working on the Lord’s Day be forced by law to take a job shooting a Sunday wedding?
On what ethical principle?
By what legal reasoning must a provider of services — non-essential services, like wedding photography — accept every job he’s offered, no exceptions?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (63): If nobody cared what other people did in bed and didn’t try to shape public policy based on their disapproval of other people’s sex lives, you would never hear about it.
Frank: Really? What are your thoughts on polygamy? Incest?
Or zoophilia? (Please don’t tell me you’re a speciesist, now!)
Or do even you, after all, agree that there are, in fact, cases where public policy ought to be based on social disapproval of certain sexual practices?
Report comment to moderator
Frank:
Incest is wrong because, ew. And, children resulting from incestuous relationships have seriously higher than normal risks of defects and deformities. (Strangely though, if the Bible is to be taken literally, just who did the children of Noah procreate with to repopulate the Earth?)
Zoophilia: Animals can’t consent.
Polygamy/polyamory: Actually, I have no objection to these kinds of arrangements for people who choose to enter into them.
Sure, there are cases where public policy should be based on disapproval of certain sexual practices: Those that are non-consensual. As long as all parties involved are consenting, and of legal age to consent, the secular law should not forbid.
Whether they all are morally right is a different issue. It’s not the role of the government to enforce particular religious moral principles.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (66): Zoophilia: Animals can’t consent.
Frank: I simply can’t image that you advocate eliminating pet shops. Do pets — which are, by definition, animals — consent to being owned? Then what’s the difference?
I’m not going to go into how I imagine beastiality takes place, but suffice to say that, if the invitation is issued and the animal takes it up … consent.
Put another way, why is consent never a concern when the object of an animal’s affection is my leg or sofa cusion?
But more to the topic at hand: Why are you so concerned with consent in sexual relationships, but not in commercial ones?
Zoophilia is bad because animals “can’t consent,” but when a human photographer doesn’t consent to photograph a commitment ceremony between homnosexuals, well by golly, the full might and rescources of the State must be brought to bear!
SteveG (66): It’s not the role of the government to enforce particular religious moral principles.
Frank: You don’t believe that for a moment, so stop pretending you do. You plainly believe it to be the role of the government to enforce homosexuals’ religious moral principles — “I will not answer to God for my sexual practices,” or possibly “there is no God” — over the religious moral principles of the photographer — “I choose not to photograph the celebration of a sexual relationship that God’s word calls abominable.”
Just face facts, Steve. Your so-called “ethical” system is utterly arbitrary, and hasn’t a leg to stand on. It is thoroughly shot through.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (66): Incest is wrong because, ew.
Frank: So if the photographer had said, “I don’t want to shoot a homosexual commitment ceremony because, eww,” you’d have no issue with it then?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (66): [C]hildren resulting from incestuous relationships have seriously higher than normal risks of defects and deformities.
Frank: So if my sister have been sterilized or are both infertile, you’d have no problem with us getting married, right?
Or, if homosexual sisters wanted to get married, again, no issue I assume?
Report comment to moderator
Should read “So if my sister and I have both been sterilized, or if we are both infertile, you’d have no problem with us getting married, right?”
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, if you paid attention when you read my posts, you would understand that I have taken the position that people who perform PERSONAL SERVICES, i.e., lawyers, individual photographers, a seamstress, etc., have the option of refusing to do a particular job. This is not discrimination. This is merely exercising control over one’s own life.
This is VERY different than working at a restaurant or a bank or a store, etc. Let’s take the Muslims who don’t want to ring up the bacon in a grocery store. Some even make the customer scan it and bag it. Some stores have made a reasonable accommodation to the Muslims, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. If the store said “that’s the job,” they have the option of firing the Muslim for non-performance and the Muslim has the option of quitting. The Muslim has the option of never taking the job in the first place. Even here, you can’t FORCE someone to do a particular job.
That’s what you want to do! You want to FORCE people to do something they don’t want to do. You want to degrade those people because you don’t agree with what they believe. If that person says “no” to you, you want to effecively force them onto their knees and capitulate to you. That’s appalling. Do you have your sword ready to behead them, too?
It seems to me that you are saying if a state legalizes prostitution (NJ doesn’t), if it also has a system that you can’t refuse gainful employment if offered in order to collect unemployment benefits (NJ does), that if a prostitution job (a personal service) is available, the state can force an unemployed woman into performing prostitution because it is considered legal gainful employment or she doesn’t get the pro rated amount of benefits. That’s sick!
I understand now what Peter Leavitt was trying to say the other day: the link between a hatred of Christianity and liberal, centralized control = fascism. The gays here and you are the fascists, not me. I’m sorry that not everyone likes you. Here’s a news flash: they don’t have to! That’s life! That’s freedom of association, also found in the First Amendment.
And SteveG: “Whether they all are morally right is a different issue. It’s not the role of the government to enforce particular religious moral principles.”
Moral principles are not necessarily RELIGIOUS principles. The state has the duty to keep society cohesive. It uses moral principles to do that. It’s not as simple as “consent.” For example, in Germany a person solicited another on the internet to allow the other to be killed and then eaten. Someone CONSENTED to be killed and then eaten. One is dead and the other is in jail. Society decided it was immoral to do this. It wasn’t based on any religious principle either. Think about it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL:
I would urge you to rethink your last paragraph:
Such a view is, IMO, not biblically defensible.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #67: You don’t believe that for a moment, so stop pretending you do. You plainly believe it to be the role of the government to enforce homosexuals’ religious moral principles — “I will not answer to God for my sexual practices,” or possibly “there is no God” — over the religious moral principles of the photographer — “I choose not to photograph the celebration of a sexual relationship that God’s word calls abominable.”
I haven’t expressed an opinion pro or con on the photographer, so please don’t assume you know what my position is.
The rest of what you say here is bunk. It’s not enforcing a religious view to allow homosexuals to live according to their own consciences. That’s just freedom.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #71: This is VERY different than working at a restaurant or a bank or a store, etc. Let’s take the Muslims who don’t want to ring up the bacon in a grocery store. Some even make the customer scan it and bag it. Some stores have made a reasonable accommodation to the Muslims, but they are under no legal obligation to do so. If the store said “that’s the job,” they have the option of firing the Muslim for non-performance and the Muslim has the option of quitting. The Muslim has the option of never taking the job in the first place. Even here, you can’t FORCE someone to do a particular job.
Funny how the Christians never see the value of this argument when it’s made about Christian pharmacists who don’t want to provide the “morning after” pill.
Report comment to moderator
I would tell a pharmacist to quit if it came to that, but if the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, he really can’t quit, can he? If he works for CVS, a chain pharmacy, it’s different. CVS has the same option as the supermarket — provide the accommodation — allow someone else to fill the prescription, or fire the pharmacist. But the guy down the street from me who owns his pharmacy alone shouldn’t be forced to go against his conscience.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I’m not sure exactly what you mean. People can be moral without being religious. You don’t think the Japanese are moral people? Their law isn’t based on biblical principles.
My point about consent is that consent alone shouldn’t be the basis for a law. People can consent to all sorts of evil things, see the German case.
Report comment to moderator
Really, just pick up the Yellow Pages and find someone who does want to be your wedding photographer. Is it that difficult?
Maybe it’s because I’m not a very confrontational person, but why bother with the expense, time and anxiety of a lawsuit when there are simpler alternatives?
Also, I certainly wouldn’t want someone at my (hypothetical) wedding if they are there under duress.
So you can all roll back your “sodomite lobby” and “homosexual agenda” placards. No-one elected this couple to be the representatives of the thoughts of all homosexuals on the matter.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (73): I haven’t expressed an opinion pro or con on the photographer, so please don’t assume you know what my position is.
Frank: Fair enough. In your expressed support of homosexuals against “oppression” (generally), I assumed that you supported the homosexual couple’s legal actions against the Christian photographer (in particular). So I would like to know your views on this specific issue.
SteveG (73): The rest of what you say here is bunk. It’s not enforcing a religious view to allow homosexuals to live according to their own consciences. That’s just freedom.
Frank: First, please understand that, from a biblical standpoint (which I strive to adhere to), all morality is based upon religious presuppositions of some kind. The four primary religious questions — Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? — are ultimately what informs man (whether he’ll admit it or not) in his attempt to define various acts as being righteous or sinful, legal or illegal, just or unjust. The Bible teaches that God has written His law on the hearts of all men — even the atheist who denies Him and the pagan who worships false gods. Thus, any attempt to allow “freedom” that consciously denies either the existence of God or His nature is founded upon a religious view. (To put it another way, even an anti-religious view is inherently religious.)
But again, as regards the case in question here, if the homosexual couple succeed in bringing punishment upon the reluctant photographer, the law will have been used by them to attack freedom — and a religiously-informed freedom, at that — not to permit it.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I haven’t expressed an opinion specifically on the photographer because I’ve seen some merit in both sides of the argument. As it’s progressed, though, I’m leaning strongly toward the argument that the photographer should have the right to refuse.
That’s especially so because there are plenty of other photographers who would be happy to have the business. Unless the one refusing is so amazingly good that they could argue his refusal denies them access to a much higher level of work than they could otherwise get, I don’t think they really have a case.
As for your second point … you strive to adhere to a Biblical standpoint, but surely you must understand that the civil laws — the ones that apply to all people regardless of their philosophical or theological beliefs — can’t be based on that standpoint. It’s not the role of the government to ensure that everybody lives by your view of the Bible.
As you argue it here, there is no escaping a religious element in any decision. OK, but if that’s the case, then the proper role of a civil government is to allow the widest possible range of religious expression to take place, so that they are not inhibiting anyone from following their beliefs.
Now, when I made my comment in #73, I was referring to the existence and liberty of homosexual people to live as they believe they should, and not specifically to the proposed use of the law to compel the photographer to go against his own conscience. I think I agree with you on that specific point.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (76): My point about consent is that consent alone shouldn’t be the basis for a law. People can consent to all sorts of evil things, see the German case.
Frank: (Taking your last point first, if I may.) Yes, I agree that consent must never be the basis for determining right from wrong.
NJLawyer (76): Frank, I’m not sure exactly what you mean. People can be moral without being religious.
Frank: I agree that people can be moral without being religious. Even many atheists, I’d wager, have a fairly decent sense of morals (i.e., how they treat others and how they wish to be treated by others).
But that isn’t the same thing as saying, “Moral principles are not necessarily RELIGIOUS principles,” or “Society decided it was immoral to do this. It wasn’t based on any religious principle either,” which statements I take issue with.
Moral principles are religious principles. See my remarks to SteveG above. God writes His law on the hearts of all men — devout believers, devout pagans, non-practicing “religious” and atheists alike. They all know, more or less, “Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.” They know it instinctively, and for religious reasons, because God has caused them to know it, whether or not they acknowledge Him or give Hom glory and honor.
And the proof, if I may be so bold, is found in your own (contradictory) statements:
“Society decided it was immoral to do this” (71); and “consent alone shouldn’t be the basis for a law” (76).
If morality/law shouldn’t be based on consent alone, how can it be decided by society alone?
Can society justly decide — i.e., apply coercion via the law — that Christian photographers must photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony?
And using your German consentual cannibalism example, can society justly decide someday that cannibalism between consenting adults is now legal?
Can human beings justly enact evil, whether they be two consenting adults, or a democratically-acting community?
Report comment to moderator
The gay couple should have just dropped it. What happens in a case like this is Christians rush to the side of those discriminating for “God” to show support that God hates gays. They will do 5 times the business for a month or so from those loving Christians who love to hate. And all because a couple of “militant” gays get tired of people telling them how worthless they are and how underving of respect.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, yes society could decide that consentual cannibalism is moral. The Germans could have said this is a simple contract, both parties agreed, mind your own business. (Talk about your slippery slopes.) Half of our society has decided that aborting a baby is moral and it has the force of law decided only by a Supreme Court majority. Half of our society has decided that homosexuality is moral. And there is a movement afoot to secure sympathy and acceptance of pedophilia. Hey, it’s just a different notch on the continuum of sexual behaviors, so why not move the acceptable point some more? None of that was so when I was a kid. God’s law hasn’t changed. The heart of man has.
Now you and I may agree that God has written his law on the heart of man. I believe that’s so, that there is an innate sense of right and wrong, but history doesn’t show that society acts that way. In some places, it was/is acceptable to drown a defective child. Most of us shudder at that, but I think it was Michelle (I could be wrong), but someone posted last week that she hasn’t seen a Down symdrome child in ten years. She’s right. They are aborted. It’s the same thing as drowning a born baby, just sooner. What about euthanasia? “Society” has found that to be acceptable. See Oregon and the Netherlands.
Just as a person may be lost to God, so, too, may a society. Just because you want a just society, doesn’t mean you live in one. I could write an opinion and order for this case going either way, and either one can be made to sound high-minded and “just” — not just “constitutional.”
God’s law may be written in the heart of man, but it can and is rejected on a daily basis, man’s own beliefs simply declared “just.” I have literally heard a federal judge say there is a principled way to kill a baby (partial birth abortion). When you know that there is a perfectly healthy baby there and but for its skull being pierced and brains sucked out, it will live and grow, and you can still say there is a principled way to right an opinion that endorses that which to me is clearly murder, yeah — society can “justly” decide it’s a-ok. Society did, until the Supremes overruled it.
Perhaps, Frank, you give more credit to man than I do.
Report comment to moderator
That should be “write an opinion” not “right an opinion.” Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that I pretty much agree with what you just wrote may indicate that I should have phrased the question differently:
When society declares something to be moral that God’s word clearly says is immoral, does that make it so?
Or does it just make society wrong?
Report comment to moderator
#82: Frank, yes society could decide that consentual cannibalism is moral.
You see how disgusting the hate is to compare two people in love with cannibalism? Only someone so consummed with hatred and fear could possibly make such a comparrison. And all because they want to push their “mystical beliefs” on people that may not even believe in ghosts.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I think it makes society wrong.
We’re going to have to wait for the Lord’s return, when the government is on His shoulders.
Report comment to moderator
#86: We’re going to have to wait for the Lord’s return,
Oh man, who dreams up this stuff? Since no mystical God was ever here to begin with, there won’t be one coming back.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!