Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
lgbtqnation.com
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
I disagree with him, and I think he's bigoted. But I don't think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn't want to photograph. And it's not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It's the most common side hustle I see people try.
And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not "have the right to the labour" of those services?
I disagree with that framing entirely. But I'm curious to know how you would differentiate.
I'd say it's the business model.
Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.
If it's a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that's open to everyone equally.
If it's a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it's less "owner sells things" and more "clients contract owner for XYZ", and at that point, I'd tend to agree that it's a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party's decision to not enter that agreement doesn't mean they shouldn't have that option.
What if it was a photographer who didn't want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?
I don't think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don't feel like it's fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that's their business.
Again, I'm not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn't bigoted, just offering a distinction.
I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with "independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public." And I agree with you
I'm not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn't, so the comparison isn't of equal demographic descriptors.
I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let's say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.
A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don't think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.
A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.
Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she's being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there's a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family's history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that's not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.
There's even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn't want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won't work with men.
Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can't change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.
As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It's different when it's like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.
But in the cases I'm talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are "always open" except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they're just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are "always closed" outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you're actually using it. I see storefronts as "always open" valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they're closed. In contrast, contract workers are "always closed" valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it's a good or shitty reason to anyone else.
While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other's reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? If not, you read a lot into what little I said and much I wouldn't have said, had I said more.
This isn't about defining a business model. It's about defining discrimination and protected groups. By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that's not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.
At the end of the day, a Trump rally is not a protected group, so a business can say no. Just like a shop proprietor can refuse business to said rally goers, but not to a protected group.
Healthcare falls into this quite easily.
So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone building a deck? I shouldn't discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn't expose me to anything I object to (I'm using "I" universally here - I'm queer positive and don't build decks). But like if I'm a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.
So I don't know that the line is just a one on one service. That's not quite there, but it's close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.
I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn't anything that can be forced on someone.
Yeah I agree that it doesn't seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that's a good thing. And honestly, to me it's one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it's just opening up that opportunity to competitors.
So you don't wanna photo gay weddings? That's cool, someone else will.
Gig worker versus someone providing a service to the general public. A wedding photographer is not on the job until you both accept the terms and sign a contract.
Besides, do you really want a wedding photographer that doesn't want to be there and has to be legally forced?
I'd say anything that could be considered as creative, and isn't necessary for life.
That said, I'd rather non-essential creatives be allowed to discriminate. Who wants a closeted homophobe photographing their wedding? I'd rather a non-professional friend do it with their cell phone.
Should they also be allowed to have a whites only business? Because I'm pretty sure they legally can't discriminate that way. It's only okay if someone is LGBT+.
No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.
Example:
Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal
Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal
Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal
Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)
But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself
I don't think you understood what I said.
The difference is in the business model.
If they're working individual jobs on a freelance, case by case, contract-based model, then they can do whatever they want as far as signing a contract to do work or not signing a contract to do work with whomever they wish.
The reasons might be shitty sometimes, but that's not enough of a reason to compel all freelancers to do work they don't want to.
Are you actually claiming that as long as you're freelance, you can discriminate against people by race?
I'm saying you don't have to sign any contract you don't want to sign with anyone for any reason.
Any reason including "I don't work with black people?" Are you sure about that?
So you're saying minorities don't have a right to anything but the bare essentials?
Or are you saying the right of bigoted business owners to discriminate trumps the right of individuals to be treated equally?
Is mixing a drink creative?
Is hairstyling creative?
Is designing landscapes creative?
Is putting shingles on a house creative?
Is doing electrical work creative?
What type of work that requires some level of skill and design specific to the project not creative?
Why don't minorities deserve the right to hire the same businesses as everyone else?
I don't think you understood what I said.
This is basically how it's handled. In the Masterpiece Cake case it wasn't about selling the couple "just" a cake. If they'd wanted one out of the case the Shop was legally required to sell them one. They wanted a custom cake and that falls under "creative" which changes the rules.
The United States has long held that artistic expression, basically creative work, is protected under the 1st Amendment as a type of speech and the Government cannot compel speech without extreme need and even then it can only do it narrowly and temporarily.
What we really have with these is a collision between individual rights. Is it fair for the Government to abrogate the 1st Amendment Right of one person by compelling them to speak (create art) in order to satisfy the 14th Amendment Right of another person?
It may seem obvious but consider the controversy around Piss Christ. It was art and was thus subject to 1st Amendment protections and without those protections it would have been removed.
So not allowing art, creative work, 1st Amendment Protections would cause a pile of other problems. There is no perfect solutions when rights collide, there are only trade-offs.
Yes. I mean... if someone thinks it's okay to force a minority to create racist content, their opinion isn't worth a reply. And logically, that's essentially what is being said when someone wants to force someone to create to spec something they don't agree with.
Thank you for that great explanation!
Not saying this is a perfect analogy, but consider housing. If you are renting or selling real estate, you can not discriminate based on protected classes. However, if you are renting a room with shared spaces, you can deny applicants for any reason.
I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the "create a website for same-sex weddings". I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it's a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn't be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don't know if I'm elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I'm coming from?
A wedding photographer offers their services to everyone having weddings. If that photographer refuses to photograph same-sex weddings, is that not the same as denying service to someone over their sexuality?
You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.
At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know
I think this issue is why we have protected classes and why sexual orientation/preference/gender should be one.
When you say "graphic artists can reject any idea and they don't have to justify it" the implication is that they can reject it for any reason which is not strictly true.
"I don't feel like it" is a perfectly valid reason.
"I don't like Black people" is not.
A photographer can choose not to do a job because they don't feel like it, but not because it's for a Black person or a Jewish person.
The issue here that is being overlooked in a lot of the discussion (but definitely is not being overlooked by the Supreme Court) is that LGBTQ people are not a protected class. Every time one of these cases pans out it sets another precedent that will be used to keep it that way.
It's not the same as being forced to photograph a Trump rally or campaign photos. A far more apt comparison imo is race. Most people would agree that a business (any business) should not be able to exclude someone based on their race.
The United States has long held that creative work, art basically, is a form of Speech and protected under the 1st Amendment. This means that compelling art is the same compelling speech and boy howdy are there a bunch of laws around that, laws that society really needs to have.
So it's a collision between rights:
On the one side we have the Photographer and their Constitutional Claims to not be compelled to create art (speak) and their right to not do something that is against their religion.
On the other side we have a LGBTQ person and their Constitutional Claim to not be denied services as a member of a protected class.
We currently draw the line by protecting the right to not be compelled to speak. In practical terms this means that buying a standard per-packaged Good or Service cannot be denied to people in a protected class. If a member of that protected class wants to purchase a Good or Service that would require creative input then the seller can refuse.
It becomes more clear if you create a scenario where someone in a protected class wants something distasteful. Let say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says "Blood and Soil" with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.
They also need a wedding photographer but their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7' tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo's while they both kiss Hitler's cheeks.
So how does Society decide this mess? Do we force the Jewish bakery to make that cake because the buyers are minorities and gay? Do we force the photographer to take those pictures? Would YOU want to be forced to do either of those?
I sure as hell wouldn't because what they want is deeply and personally offensive. This is why we protect against compelled speech.
I just hope those two guys are happy together regardless.
I wouldn't do that either.
One is and artistic and expressive occupation. Stitching up a gay person wouldn't be perceived as a form of statement. But being required to produce work in the traditional style of a wedding photographer could be perceived as issuing a statement in support of the event.
If you sold signs, you shouldn't be able to decline someone a blank sign just because they are LGBT. But you shouldn't be required to design one that carried a pro LGBT (or any other kind) of message.
I see where you are going with that, and I follow. But what about when we get into healthcare that can be perceived as queer-specific?
Say, when a doctor refuses to do proper STD screenings for a gay man, refuses to prescribe PrEP or PEP, or refuses to authorize checks on hormone levels?
All taken from experiences me and my friends have had, by the way.
I wouldn't consider screenings or prescribing countermeasures to people who suspect exposure to medical threats particularly artistic or expressive. All those seem like pretty normal things for any sexually active adult to ask for regardless of sexuality.
Additionally those should be confidential so I don't see them as a form of compelled speech.
Take something you strongly disagree with. Let's say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn't matter what, just one you disagree with.
You've decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let's say, event planning.
A political party approaches you to host their biggest rally yet. On enquiring, what it's about, you find out it's the one you disagree with.
Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue.. But you host events, you don't control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that's somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.
You can't make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn't want to be made to do things against your own. That's called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone's beliefs, but we don't strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.
In the US, the civil rights legislation forces racists to serve black people and that is great.
There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to "something you strongly disagree with" is not fitting analogy.
We aren't talking about "beliefs". We're talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.
We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Let's say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says "Blood and Soil" with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.
For a wedding venue they'd like to have this excellent location and catering company.
They also need a wedding photographer and their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7' tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo's while they both kiss Hitler's cheeks. They plan to stop by Stak Studios tomorrow and talk to them about it.
How are you feeling about your statement right now?
You're confusing ideology with identity.
Which is equivalent to saying you want to bring back "whites only" or "no gays" signs and whatever else. No thanks.
And let's be clear. We aren't actually talking about getting "whatever" from "whomever." We are talking about people who are members of a group (not by choice) having the right to expect the same treatment as others from a business open to the public.
On the other hand, you have stated, essentially, bigoted owners of businesses open to the public can deny business to anyone who holds this proverbial membership card you mention.
Never said it was.
The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.
Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn't be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn't be denied service because they're gay.
Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.
The thing's you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can't even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it's fine since it's coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you're the bad person or not.
It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.
The Handmaiden's Tale didn't get 8.4 on iMDB because people can't wait for that future enough.
Nothing but baseless assumptions and accusations. Waste of time.
Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.
And I appreciate you taking your time to state you're wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We're trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.
More baseless accusations, without addressing anything I said.
You've been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you've said is in direct opposition of the protection of people's freedoms and beliefs. You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that's fine and that you can take people's beliefs from them and replace them, which is literally within definition of authoritatianism—the polar opposite of liberalism.
Are you simple?
More idiotic accusations, no substance.
What? I've said nothing of the sort.
Stop arguing with people you have imagined.
Yawn.
You know your text is still there, right? Like it's still totally readable and still totally there.
Yeah, okay. I'll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It's fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it's way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we're reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can't refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We'll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they'll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!
Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though. They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.
I'm going to say it again: Stop arguing with people you have imagined.
You're right, but that's an unpopular take in this hive mind.
Lemmy folk can't handle reality that contradicts their ideals.
a hive mind isnt when people disagree with you honey
This feels like it should be Libertarian 101. Thought the communities were left here, but apparently they just say that to feel good.
Whether you see it or not, your opinion is carving out a way for legal bigotry when done by a christian. Of course an atheist refusing to serve this asshole bigot would open up the door for a religious discrimination case against the atheist because bigots want nothing more than to divide society. We have no obligation to defend a bigot's rights they are actively taking those same rights away from others.
To say that anyone can be a photographer belittles the skill associated with a professional photographer. That's akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there's a qualitative difference.
That aside, would there be any sign that the photographer could put on their door that would be illegal? No Blacks, No Jews, No Women, etc… If not, play that to the logical extreme; What if all photographers in town had the same sign? What services are appropriate to deny in entirety to a specific class of people.
Yes anyone with a camera can be a photographer just like anyone with a paintbrush can be a painter. Just because it takes skill to be good at them doesn't mean the unskilled are just babies with fisherprice cameras pretending.
Oh boy, someone feels called out.
No. He gets to choose who to work for. He doesn't get to choose not to work for entire classes of people when those classes are protected.
It's the same as if he said he didn't want black clients.
I mean...now you're getting into the realm of words vs actions.
In the case of a freelance contract worker, there's a difference between saying "I don't do work for gays and blacks" and keeping your mouth shut (or providing some excuse like that you're already too booked) and no-quoting that work, in effect not working for these groups.
However in both cases, I believe it is (and should be) legal.
Rude and offensive, sure, but I feel it's a situation where you have to allow assholes to be assholes because the alternative is compulsory work which opens a whole new can of worms and is an even bigger restriction on freedoms.
So many people in these comments are trying to legislate morality, and it's just a non-starter in these circumstances.
Protected classes deserve protection. Trying to get around that gets you sued.
This potentially opened the floodgates for discrimination. Unless this is specifically only for for “hired” or “contract” If not…. Coming soon to stores in the south near you
“NO F****TS ALLOWED”
“TRA***ES NOT WELCOME”
I don't think he has the right to make his business known publicly if it isn't available to the public-- all of it.
What a dumb take. There are plenty of businesses that advertise to the public but are not open to serving the public.
What if it's purely a subject matter question? Surely you wouldn't be OK with a wedding photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures if they didn't want to photograph adult activity...
They shouldn't be blocked from being a photographer just because they're unwilling to photograph ALL subjects. That's fucking stupid.
Unfortunately this is a strawman argument. The subject in question is a wedding. It shouldn't matter what sexuality or race the people are.
There's a difference between filming/photography of pornography vs a wedding. Don't be disingenuous suggesting that the mere act of being gay equates the same to pornography.
probably shouldn't compare a gay wedding to being forced to take sexual photos
While I agree about a photographer not having to photograph things they don't want to, as someone else said, where do you put that line in the sand?
If the private business of a photographer can deny their services, can the private business of a hospital deny their services for those same reasons?
The problem is it's a hard discussion to have as on the one hand you want private businesses to be able to give bigoted folks the boot, but then private businesses of bigots can then throw you out all the same. Advocating for the first does mean unintentionally advocating for the latter.
The bigger problem is why are there private hospitals.
That's a much easier answer. Money and
briberylobbying.Eh, if he want to leave money on the table, that is his business, I am sure there are plenty of people in a small town seeing the niche the guy just opened, the "Don't be an asshole" niche.
The discriminating photographer will find that more than just LGBT people don't want to support him. How many more is absolutely up for debate, but probably enough to support a new photographer
Why shouldn't he be forced to photograph things he doesn't want to photograph? If he just photographed things he wanted to, it would be a hobby. He's not hanging around weddings taking photos for fun. He's being paid to do a job, and the job is the same whether it is two men, two women, or one of each.
Apply the same logic to someone who didn't want to photograph Asian people. "Hey, I know you're in love, but I don't condone your marriage because my God says Asian people shouldn't get married. Sorry."
It's not that he should be forced to work for people he hates. It's that he should not be allowed to be in the business at all if he wants to discriminate against his clients.
Why are headlines about American Christians always the exact opposite of what the Bible wants them to be?
What happened to love thy neighbour and shit
Selective religion to suit their needs. Oldest trick in the literal book.
Jesus was white BTW
/s in case it wasn't abundantly clear
I bet he had a Midwestern accent too.
As someone who grew up in a very religious household, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind, the worst people I ever met were the church crowd. Everyone was so nice to each other inside the building but as soon as the service was over, people showed their real colors in the parking lot.
You'd get parents screaming at their kids for "misbehaving" during the boring ass sermon, cars bolting out of their parking spaces with no disregard for other people walking, cars battling each other to try and get out of the lot before the other guy.. You know.. Cause football was starting soon.
What does america/americans have to do with it? Im pretty sure religious people being hypocrites riding on their high horse while doing awful things has been a thing since long before the US was founded.
Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?
I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?
It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won't serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?
I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.
The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.
Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn't protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).
Same reason black people wanted to eat at the whites only lunch counters.
I don't think that's a 1:1 comparison.
Why not? Equality is equality.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.
I doubt it starts that way, probably more like a Google search for "wedding photographers near me", a few names pop up, you go there, start signing paperwork and getting signed up, and then when you put down your two names, they look at you with disgust and tell you to get out of their shop, interrupting your thoughts about normal stuff like marriage licenses.
So then you take your shaken fiancé from the store, and look for other wedding photographers, and probably learn that there are far more Christian photographers than you thought, and not many that would preside over a fairly mundane marriage, save for the fact its just two guys instead of a guy and a gal.
Does this in return mean that LGBTQ+ couples win the right to discriminate against christian photographers?
It would also likely mean that LGBTQ+ photographers won the right to discriminate against christians.
I would refuse to work at a Trumper wedding, so I'm glad we have the right to say no to that. That's the whole point of this ruling.
If this was a photographer of color refusing to work a klan wedding no one would be arguing that they shouldn't have been allowed to say no.
Well, they can, by just not choosing to hire one.
I think you might actually have just gotten the point here without knowing it. It's perfectly reasonable to pick a photographer who's not a bigot, just like how I would choose not to shoot photos for bigots.
You get how this works now?
Yes. For example, by not hiring him
Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn't be able to sue unless you are harmed. That's the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.
i am kind of torn on this.
on the one hand I think it's important that you can refuse to work with people you don't like for whatever reason.
On the other hand, this is an absolutely childish and stupid reason to not work with someone.
You can refuse for any reason - except those involving discrimination against a protected class. Sexual orientation is supposed to be a protected class. You can still discriminate, you just have to give another/no reason and make sure it doesn't look like you're doing it for a prohibited reason.
If I wanted to say that no people with glasses were allowed to shop in my store, that would be allowed. If I wanted to say that no pregnant women could shop in my store, that wouldn't be allowed. If it was a pregnant woman wearing glasses, I could claim the first reason, but then, if I was found to be allowing other people with glasses to shop, my reasoning would be challenged and I would have to demonstrate that I wasn't discriminating because of pregnancy.
At least, this is how discrimination laws are supposed to work.
It turns out that anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak and not fully defined, allowing bullshit like this to seep out of judge's mouths and through the cracks. The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment only grants equality under law, so it only really affects governments. The Civil Rights Act extends this out to private employment under Title VII, but not much further.
What the 303 Creative v. Elenis ruling (the Supreme Court ruling that led to the settlement here) does, in theory, is allow any private person the right to discriminate against any protected class (eg pregnancy, disability, and all the others) so long as the person they're discriminating against isn't an employee. This is clearly bullshit, and I'm sure if people started discriminating against Christians they'd be up in arms.
Thankfully, this settlement does not in any way strengthen this ruling, it only gives one asshole permission by one state - there is no ruling here, just an out of court settlement, thus it does not extend to anyone else. In particular, the state probably thought that because there was no injured party actually being discriminated against there wasn't much point wasting time and money litigating.
Obligatory IANAL.
Your comment should be an article. Excellent clarifications.
Thanks. I think my other comment made soon after gave a bit better detail on the laws:
What's there to be torn on?
You can't honor people's rights just when they suit your agenda. What would happen if you refused to work with someone and other people thought it was 'absolutely childish and stupid'?
It feels...weird to me. Like refusing to work with someone at your job because they like coffee. Or dislike tigers.
Or more accurately, they were born with blue eyes and you just hate people with blue eyes. And you can't stand them so much that you take your case against blue-eyed folk to the highest court of the land just to ensure you never have to work with them or take them as clients at your IT company. Sometimes it makes me wonder how we ever even got here, lol.
I'm pretty sure the photographer in question got all his court fees paid for by PACs or think tanks.
So you think I should be able to start job interviews by asking people if they've ever voted Republican? Because we absolutely employ LGBT people, so I have a legitimate interest in protecting them from bigots.
At this point? I think it's not unreasonable. Given the state of the Republican party right now, you don't vote for them for their economical policy or whatever they pretended to care about decades ago. They only concern about culture war bullshit, and by voting for them you agree with it, and that includes unwavering hate for LGBT people.
Who was hiring him?
More work for the intelligent ones that don't discriminate.
I can´t believe I actually have to say this but here it comes: Everyone should be free to choose the things they do and don´t do. Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do. This goes for LGBTQ+ people just as it goes for photographers and all other humans in this world. I support human rights 100%, which obviously especially includes discriminated minorities like LGBTQ+. However, I have to say that the framing in the article and it´s title, are edgy af and sound like based on an extremist, culture warrior ideology, instead of rational thinking and common sense.
"I don't want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings." -- like that? Or how about signs on businesses "No Gays" or "No Hispanics". Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don't want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?
Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.
The thing you're ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.
If you run a business, you don't have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.
Putting up a discriminatory sign is public structural discrimination and already illegal afaik, so it does not work as an example in this context of private individual discrimination. In reality it is not possible to force a homophobe person to become tolerant, no matter how many laws you make against discrimination. The only way that really helps is education and a social development towards more tolerance. Forcing christian fundamentalists to work with gay people, despite they absolutely refuse it, is not the way but would only create even more social tension and hate.
They absolutely have the right to post such things(first amendment). They just have to be willing to accept any consequences as a result.
So in your example Black people have no right to a service if the location does not wish to serve them? If the next closest location is a days drive away so be it? Maybe they just need to go live closer to those services?
An atheist living in Saudi Arabia absolutely has the right to walk into the public square and shout that god does not exist. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences of execution as a result.
Stating a fact of physical ability does not contribute any additional information in a discussion about legality.
I stated the amendment pertaining to my comment.
You absolutely do not have the right to post a sign like "No Hispanics" at your restaurant, under current US law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). You do not have to wait for an actual hispanic person to show up and be refused service to be liable - the presence of the sign alone is already in violation and can get you fined or imprisoned. You cannot claim "This sign is just for decoration as an expression of my 1st Amendment rights, we would never actually enforce it." In this way, the Civil Rights Act already does abridge your right to write any sign you want, ironically in direct contradiction to the "Congress shall make no law" language of the 1st Amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
And yet, it seems legal to not serve someone based on religious beliefs as well as sex, based on the numerous times it has happened. Why is that ok but not the other? I mean, i know it's not really ok, but it's still allowed to happen.
That's the Supreme Court for ya! Their judgements do tend to meander and sometimes flip over the years, especially recently. You are probably refering to Masterpiece Cakeshop (2017) decision being different from the civil rights era cases, like say Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) where the defendant who did not want to serve black customers at his BBQ restaurants unsuccessfully argued that "the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." It is still enlightening to read the actual court decisions and the justifications used to arrive at one conclusion or another, and especially their explanations for how the current case is different from all the other cases decided before. After a while though it does start to look as if you could argue for any point of view whatsoever if you argued hard enough.
So they can post the sign as long as it’s just decoration? The fuck are you talking about?
Explain to me how the first amendment pertains at all to refusing service to people based on race or sexual orientation.
Then rejecting a Christian should be perfectly legal. Soery mate, O don't serve christians because I'm atheist.
Sure, obviously you should have the right to do so, if that´s what you want to do. That is exactly what I meant to express when I wrote "Everyone should be free to choose". Apologies if I did somehow not express that clearly enough in my first comment.
You did they're just taking it personally.
That's totally fine. You shouldn't be forced to work with people you don't want to work with.
That's not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.
That guy doesn't want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say "well he doesn't want to deal with that, so the law can't make him"? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn't unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn't protect the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Sure, but that brings us right back to "does refusing service to someone harm them?"
Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone's wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.
There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.
Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably... But the point still stands
No, just more limited than your interpretation. I never meant to imply that "Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do." should cancel out all of people's personal responsibilities. Nobody who offers a service is responsible to offer that service to everyone imo. Imagine a gay person working in any field, could be forced by law, to provide their service to neo-nazis and you might see how pointless your approach is in practice.
Glad we agree that we don't want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.
But I mean if you don't force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it's the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Is the rule "as long as there's alternatives it's ok"? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don't want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
There's no universal "anti social behavior" metric, unfortunately, I don't think.
Those are examples of public, structural discrimination, which imo is the kind of discrimination that is manageable with laws pretty well. However there is also the kind of individual, private discrimination that can not really be solved by the law. I think it absolutely should be illegal for a company to openly discriminate a group, let's say by putting up a "No XY" sign and officially not serving XY. However, I also see the limits of how much such laws can do in practice. For example despite such a law being in place, a company could easily still not serve XY -just inofficially- and simply claim a full schedule whenever XY people show up/call, without the law being able to do anything about it. That is why I think laws are not enough and in the end a real social change is necessary to end these types of unjust discrimination.
Discrimination based on inherent traits is unjust af and therefore can never be "okay".
I feel the same
Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
It's not a simple topic, right? On one hand, I would want it to be legal to put up a "we don serve Nazis" sign, on the other hand, one could argue that someone who was born into a Nazi family and was constantly spoon fed the ideology from the beginning, never really had a chance to not become a Nazi.
In the end I think only education that leads to the understanding that people who are different from you are not your enemies, can help the problem.
While I agree with you in theory, the problem is that this Christian photographer likely has screamed cAnCeL CuLtUrE at some point when someone denied them access to something, like during the pandemic when businesses required masks.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Waiting for the first Christian couple to be denied the photographers services, to lose their shit about it! It happened when that bakerdid it and it will happen here.
Sigh. US politics really wants me to become an anarchist.
Having looked at his photos, I'm gonna say this is no big loss for the LGBTQ+ community. They're marginally better than the stuff advertised on Nextdoor, but man really went all in on the vignettes, and he doesn't seem to have any eye for detail.
But also, fuck the Supreme Court for allowing this nonsense.
How is his policy/service any different from a whites only lunch counter?
It isn't.
The line seems to be based around custom services or requiring artistic impression. Just selling tacos with choice of 5 toppings, can't discriminate. Selling tacos with custom designs on the tortillas, can discriminate.
Making burgers is the same regardless of who eats it.
Taking photos is different based on what you're taking pictures of.
There was an article on Slate a few years ago that I wish I could find again. It was a fictional story about what it was like for a lesbian, with a kid and a wife, going through a day in which businesses were allowed to refuse her service. It's a slippery slope, guys.
I feel like there's a distinct possibility that this supreme Court is going to hollow out a lot of civil liberties over the coming years
Keep in mind, the supreme court doesn't control the nation.
The people do.
You're right. I'm a huge advocate for increased political participation. But. There are a lot of people who live in very red states that can have their liberties chipped away and they won't have much redress because they're surrounded by so many people that agree that they shouldn't have those rights. There are a lot of states where abortion is illegal and it's unlikely they will pass ballot initiatives to reinstate that right they way Ohio just did.
I think more participation and more education could solve all of this though.
So the people can fire the judges in the supreme court?
No. If the supreme court makes a ruling that is so unpopular that people don't follow it, then people won't follow it.
Not the Supreme Court, but cannabis is still a Schedule 1 controlled substance. That didn't stop states from legalizing it because of how unpopular prohibition is. The federal government knows this, which is why we don't see massive retaliation against states with legal weed.
Government and its enforcement is way more communal than people realize.
Got it, laws don't exist if we can't read
I don't think you get it, because that was not my point.
You do know that enforcers/cops are fascists?
Alright, buddy. Gonna block you now.
You seem too far gone.
Show me someone saying "This is fine", and I'll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they're going to be blocked out of society for the crime of...existing. This is only the first step to "All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals". Y'all are unhinged.
Obligatory:
It's not a step, they literally are allowed to discriminate, under US law.
First off, the only protection US law gives is towards "sex", not "sexual orientation". The right to gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation, rather the 14th amendment merely states that the law must treat all citizens equally. The state cannot refuse to hear a civil suit filed by a black man, and the state cannot refuse the marriage of gay people. It only applies to the government (as well as those contracted by the government per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).
Second, US law only considers sex a protected class in matters of employment. Title II of the Civil Rights Act governs inter-state commerce only, and only grants protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not cover sex/gender, and does not cover sexual orientation, and only applies when the business involves a significant number of customers from out of state or products whose supply chains involve other states.
The way it's supposed to work is that states can set their own laws on the matter. However, states must set their laws within the bounds of the Constitution. What happened with 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to free speech supercedes any law the state makes, thus, unless Federal law says discrimination is illegal then it is a-ok in law.
As it is, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination for sexual orientation specifically, and discrimination based on sex is only protected in matters involving employment.
US law is shiiiiiiiite. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Republican Congress, too busy fingering their own assholes, to actually make some proper legislation.
We've always had bigots. We always will. In the past, bigoted business behavior has resulted in opportunity for those who are willing to serve the clients the bigots won't. Minorities understand this, and minority-friendly businesses prospered.
I can understand being upset that a business won't accept you as a customer. What I don't understand is why anyone would still insist on supporting that offensive business with their patronage. I'd be spreading the word about their practices, asking folks to boycott them.
You folks got the priorities upside-down
Our backwards, unelected Supreme Court is to blame for this bullshit.
Thank You RBG, for clinging to power right to the bitter end.
Yeah I do question why she didn’t retire.
They were convinced Trump didn't have a shot at winning and the legislative branch was also intentionally holding up new judge appointments in Obama's last term.
Yup, who would've thought that in the end, RBG and Mitch McConnell would be the wonder twins of any political goal?
When he refused to even bring the Garland vote to the floor, that's when I knew I'd make a terrible leader.
The way our system is set up that a single politician who is only elected by half the population of Kentucky can unilaterally alter the composition of the highest court in the land for decades by deciding not to do his job is absolutely ridiculous. And if I were able to call the shot when it happened, I'd have seen him at the end of a short rope on the front lawn of the capitol for it. I know that's not the legal, moral, responsible way of handling situations like that, but that's what I'd have liked to see.
Yeah very relatable. This tyranny of the minority bullshit conservatives are pulling off is infuriating. And every time it feels like they get handled with kid gloves.
May her legacy always show how her arrogance regarding her health and who should replace her made the country objectively worse.
And now Biden is doing it, too. These fucks just don't seem to know when it's time to take up pickleball and let someone else have a turn with the torch.
Yeah, fair. That’s not the problem.
The problem comes when they think everyone else is required to do business with them.
“Rules for thee and not for me” and all that.
Hey homophobic waiter, can you please serve this gay couple some food? Please don't spit too much on it.
I think that discrimination, any discrimination, is bad and should over time be eradicated with education. But just trying to make the point here... You can't let businesses discriminate, but you also can't force individual persons to go against their beliefs -as retarded as those beliefs might be- and expect good results at the end. Did this couple really expect nice pictures?
In this case, the business IS the individual, and you can punish the business I guess, but this is something that in the practical real world ends with a homophobic waiter staying quiet and instead just spitting all over the food he's about to serve to you.
I guess I'd rather know someone's opinions before dealing with them.
Would it work is the wedding couple is a MAGA fan?
No one should be forced to participate in something they disagree with. Whenever I'm trying to figure out if denial of service is reasonable, I imagine it with nazis. For example wedding cakes. If a gay couple goes to a bakery for a wedding cake, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to decorate in a specifically gay way (like a topper with a pair of men). If a gross couple wants to have a nazi wedding, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to pipe a swastika on it.
If it's reasonable for a photographer to feel uncomfortable working a nazi wedding, it's reasonable for one to feel uncomfortable working a gay wedding.
Obviously there's an enormous difference between being gay and being a nazi. I'm not equating those things. I'm equating the feeling of repulsion and discomfort of the one providing the service.
You're also equating the cause of the feeling of repulsion.
You're repulsed by Nazis because Nazis are evil.
Why are you repulsed by gay people? Hate. Yes, even if disguised behind "religious reasons."
Regardless, I'm not saying that we must force the photographer to "work while being repulsed" (and I wouldn't want anyone on my wedding day that I know is repulsed by it anyway, but I digress.) I'm saying that we must continue peeling off that core of a hateful onion that is religion and bigotry until nothing is left.
And having said that: don't want to deal with "the gays"? Don't start a business in a place where gay people are protected. I'd say this ruling is in the wrong.
Also, I believe the photographer should be able to reject a job due to its type of content. Hear me out. Gay wedding? Yes. Gay wedding with a dildo theme? Nah. Straight wedding? Yes. Straight wedding with a cat killing theme? Nah.
I'm not sure if you're using the general "you" or the specific "you" so I just want to clarify that I am bisexual and not at all repulsed by LGBT people.
You make a good argument in your last paragraph. Photography is a more difficult situation to judge than the cake thing, but I feel like the photographer is often such an integral part of the wedding, that it's more of a participatory service, and my argument is about not making people participate in something they find unsavory.
Lmaooooo you're comparing two dudes kissing to a genocidal, white supremacist disctatorship. Get real.
Rhetoric must not be one of your strengths.
He's comparing people that most of us wouldn't want to work with (Nazis) with people this photographer doesn't want to work with.
Stay in school.
Those aren't the same situations. You're allowed to discriminate against Nazis or people who own a ficus, but not gays. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a legally well defined distinction.
In both cases you don't want to offer those people a service because of hatred. You're allowed to hate people and discriminate against them for a variety of reasons. As a society we've legally decided that it's not acceptable to hate (insofar as it leads to discrimination) for many reasons innate to a person (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...). That's the line.
I'm not talking about what the law allows. I'm talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.
As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.
And thankfully for pretty much all minorities, this law represents sounds ethical principles and the desires of the general population, and not your desires to treat gays and blacks the same as Nazis as long as you hate them enough.
I'm pretty sure you choose to be a hateful spiteful Nazi. You don't choose to be gay. There's a HUGE difference. It is a bad faith argument to equate holding hateful views and opinions to being born different. With that reasoning, the feeling of discomfort when an owner sees a black person or an Asian person is acceptable grounds to deny services to them.
I didnt equate hateful opinions to being born different. In my example, the business is not allowed to discriminate against gay people by denying them the same products and services that they provide to straight people, anymore than they could discriminate against people of color by denying them the same products and services they provide to white people. My scenario is about forcing businesses to actively participate in * behaviors* they find deplorable.
I would also say if the bakery won't put a gay topper on a cake, they can't put a specifically straight topper on either.
So what you're advocating is for everyone to get the same cake for all occasions and decorate it as they can in private? A gay couple should never be able to buy a cake with a topper, just a cake in public? Hide their shameful lifestyles? A boy shouldn't be able to buy a strawberry pink cake because that would be unnatural
That just never seems to work out right, judging by historical evidence, does it? Wouldn't it help if there were... Laws to protect from that?
How would that ever be enforced?
The point is: if you find proving a service to a gay person as deplorable as someone advocating for racial superiority or genocide, you should be forced to rethink your line of business
You have taken my comments and turned them into an extreme that they do not support.
Saying individual retailers should have the right not to sell a topper is not the same as saying no retailers should sell toppers.
Saying an individual service provider should not have to participate in an activity is not remotely saying anyone should have to hide themselves from public.
If the bakery sells pink cakes, by the actual argument I made, a boy should be able to buy the cake the same as any other customer. I do not appreciate you attributing to me arguments that not only did I not make, but are the exact opposite of what I said.
Edit: stray letter.
I am going to let Bob Updegrove of Virginia know what I think of him as a person.
For heels boos are the same thing as an applause
Not the way I do it.
You do you. Everything you say online is stored on some server somewhere though.
Skydaddy is so proud today!
2017 called they want their 1st world problem back