|
|
Post by skyfire on Dec 29, 2009 12:22:29 GMT -5
I know it's a pro-Catholic website, but this is the link I was shown.According to the article, two professional photographers in New Mexico have been sued by a homosexual woman who claims that the duo violated her civil rights. The violation? They refused to take pictures of the woman's "commitment ceremony" to her lover, citing their religious beliefs. If even vaguely true, then I can see a legal shitstorm brewing if the pair lose their appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Dec 29, 2009 13:16:57 GMT -5
Can you say Gadfly boys and girls....I just knew you could!
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 29, 2009 13:17:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 29, 2009 13:30:14 GMT -5
The problem is, you can apply that same line of thinking to say the photographers have a right to say no to every black couple or interracial couple who wants photos taken. And if that were the case, you can damn well bet there would be lawsuits. And the lawsuits would be justified. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 29, 2009 13:34:10 GMT -5
The problem is, you can apply that same line of thinking to say the photographers have a right to say no to every black couple or interracial couple who wants photos taken. And if that were the case, you can damn well bet there would be lawsuits. And the lawsuits would be justified. Yes you could apply the same line of thinking. I still don't think that a private business owner should be compelled by law to serve people he does not want to. Freedom is a double edged sword. |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Dec 29, 2009 13:36:19 GMT -5
I don't think that private businesses should be forced to server customers they do not want. Even if it is bigoted. That's pretty much my point, too. Cases like this, where a homosexual person has gone "they disagree with me?! They must suffer for violating my civil rights!", only serve to reinforce the negative stereotypes people have about homosexuals and further fuel the panic about there being an organized campaign to criminalize religion over the issue. If the woman was indeed shocked by all this, there were other, more adult ways to handle matters, such as telling her friends not to patronize the company or taking the matter to the local newspaper. I honestly can't believe that the judge in this case sided against the photographers, as it's been long-since established that private businesses can do or refuse to do business with whoever they want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 29, 2009 13:36:39 GMT -5
Chop off the last sentence and I'll agree with you. There are many good reasons to refuse service to someone. "They're gay/black/muslim/otherminority" is not one of them. ITT: Skyfire claims that filing a discrimination lawsuit is childish and claims that taking offense at bigotry is the same as being anti-religious. |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Dec 29, 2009 13:44:04 GMT -5
ITT: Skyfire claims that filing a discrimination lawsuit is childish and claims that taking offense at bigotry is the same as being anti-religious. Never underestimate the value of a good sob story in the hands of the media. A lawsuit? The people who you're suing can make themselves out as martyrs. A well-orchestrated PR campaign? You can go murder their puppy for spite and the populace will still forgive you because they've been led to believe that the other party deserved it. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 29, 2009 13:56:01 GMT -5
Chop off the last sentence and I'll agree with you. There are many good reasons to refuse service to someone. "They're gay/black/muslim/otherminority" is not one of them. Rights with good reasons does not freedom make. I agree that refusing service to someone based on those reason is not good, but it should not be illegal. ITT: Skyfire claims that filing a discrimination lawsuit is childish and claims that taking offense at bigotry is the same as being anti-religious. I can agree with Skyfire and not share his reasons. I don't think this was about some PR campaign. I was about a person generally feeling hurt. I just don't thing that is enough to warrant making a business pay in a court of law. The issue would have been completely different had the photographer agreed to take pictures and found out the day of and refused. That did not happen. The refusal can before any agreement was made. If nothing else the couple that were refused should have went to the media and other outlets and put the word out about this business. They could have organized protests or boycotts against it. That would be well within their rights. |
|
|
|
Post by David D.G. on Dec 29, 2009 14:16:31 GMT -5
Chop off the last sentence and I'll agree with you. There are many good reasons to refuse service to someone. "They're gay/black/muslim/otherminority" is not one of them. Rights with good reasons does not freedom make. I agree that refusing service to someone based on those reason is not good, but it should not be illegal. I am tempted to agree in principle, and in an ideal world that would make perfect sense. But this is not an ideal world. Just a few decades ago, restaurants and other businesses that refused service to members of racial minorities were compelled by force of law to stop their discriminatory practices. If not for the law taking a part in this, we might still see an awful lot of businesses displaying "Serving Whites Only" signs. Was this an abuse of the law, to force businesses to stop discriminating against racial minorities? If it was, then how would you have addressed the issue? If not, why would it be an abuse of the law to force businesses to stop discriminating against LGBTs? ~David D.G. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 29, 2009 14:54:28 GMT -5
I am tempted to agree in principle, and in an ideal world that would make perfect sense. But this is not an ideal world. If it were an ideal world we would not even have to have this discussion. Yes in some places signs and businesses like that might still be around. Those places would be few and far between. I don't know if I would call it an abuse, it is just not a practice I agree with. I feel that it should have been addressed as I said above. Publicly call the business out. Protest them, boycott them. Yes in some backwater places that might not have worked. As I stated freedom is a double edged sword. If you owned a business would you want to be forced to serve the WBC, or the KKK, or a White Power group? |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Dec 29, 2009 15:02:25 GMT -5
@david D. G.: restaurants serve the public. A professional photographer serves the clients he chooses to serve. And how witless would you have to be to work around a law seeking to mandate unprejudiced service? "I'm sorry, my schedule is full that day." Done.
Test case: go to a doctor who is not accepting new patients, and tell him or her that he is legally obliged to accept you.
Woot! 900!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 29, 2009 15:13:48 GMT -5
This sounds familier...very familier........
Ironbite-didn't this happen in Utah and it involved Mormons?
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 29, 2009 15:29:53 GMT -5
I have to agree with Nickerson. I don't think this is a civil rights issue, and I don't think a lawsuit is the least bit legitimate. We aren't talking about some necessary service for health or safety, such as a doctor or a police officer provides. If some douchebag photographer wants to decline service because he's a bigot, go find another photographer. Spread the word about his douchebaggery. Bring the economic pain. Going to the courts is on par with filing a lawsuit because someone called you a mean name.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on Dec 29, 2009 15:50:13 GMT -5
In general, the civil rights on this and legal discrimination of businesses is weird. The first thing to remember is that the freedom that is supposed to trump all others is individual freedom, not corporate freedom. As such, the general guideline is individuals may act bigottedly, but a business that serves the public may not. E.g. if you are renting out a room in your house you may require the tenant be white. If you are renting out rooms in the apartment complex you own, you may not discriminate based on race. This is a good policy because otherwise money=rights in that the owners of big businesses get to work against the rights of those they dislike. Thus, a great deal of this case likely rests in how big is this videography business (professional works that dominates the market in the area or a couple of guys with a camera who do this on the weekend.)
|
|
