| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2012 05:33:41 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
That's because it's not protected. See my last post. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:34:31 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
The ruling was against a business, not a person. A person is free to discriminate as much as their bigoted mind allows, a business cannot. |
While like most areas of constitutional protection, non-discrimination is an area of constant flux, as the court balances conflicts between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.
Clive's question of if a provider of specialty goods would be more free to discriminate than a provider of essential goods is one of the points of current debate, and more so the ability of providers of services to have more latitude than providers of goods.
A place of accommodation is free to refuse service to patrons based on how they choose to behave. The buisness can set standards of deportment and dress. They can not refuse service based on their inherent traits. The tricky point of this case is that to the New Mexico studio, their religious views see homosexuality as a behavior, not an inherent trait. I happen to disagree with them, but stripping them of their right to choose their clientele based on what they perceive to be behavior, strips me of my right to serve whom I choose. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:37:26 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
That's because it's not protected. See my last post. |
Hmmm, seems to make sense, but it also doesn't. Let's say the argument isn't that I'm discriminating because you are gay, but I don't shoot same sex ceremonies (I wouldn't do it for a sham heterosexual same sex ceremony). I think the legal blog spoke about this and said that if the action (same sex ceremony) and the status (ie. being gay) are linked enough you can't discriminate. It seems in the same regard you have an action (female circumcision) and a status (tribal muslim) that are highly correlated. I'll try to quote the paragraph from the legal blog.
EDIT: Here you go. Seems to cut both ways.
Elane also tried to argue a "status/conduct" distinction in this case, asserting that Willock's sexual orientation was irrelevant to Elane's decision to refuse to provide photography services. Rather, their refusal was because of their religious belief that photographing the ceremony would "convey the message that marriage can be defined other than the union of one man and one woman." They would have no objection to photographing Willock in other contexts, and they would not turn down a job to photograph a ceremony involving a different-sex couple, even if both members of the couple were gay!
The court was unwilling to credit this argument, observing that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S.Ct. 2971 (2010), had specifically "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" in a case involving an exclusionary membership policy by a student organization. The court also noted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), where she rejected Texas's argument that the Homosexual Conduct Law, outlawing same-sex conduct, did not discriminate based on sexual orientation because it would also be violated by same-sex conduct involving straight men or straight women. Finding that the law targeted "conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual," Justice O'Connor concluded that it was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class." Judge Garcia followed similar reasoning in finding that Elane was engaged in sexual orientation discrimination.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 17:40:16. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:39:10 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
I believe female circumcision has been outlawed in most countries. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:39:29 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
So now the government is allowed to tell photographers who they have to take pictures of? Sorry but it's just more rights being handed over. Why would the couple want their picture taken by someone who was morally against their marriage in the first place. To me this comes down as a vandetta against the photographer for having their own opinion.
The whole thing just smells bad. |
I was going to state my own opinion, but you already said it as well as I could have.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:41:40 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.
WHAT?!
It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?
IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.
It's their business. |
Are you seriously comparing discrimination and prejudice against those of a different sexuality/race/gender etc with not being able to smoke?
WHAT?!
Jeez... |
No, I'm simply saying that when the government gets into issues like this it's against the rights of the business owner. If the businesses were allowed to serve whomever they choose, any business would most likely make decisions that will offend some and encourage others.... such as smokers vs non-smokers and homosexual vs non-homosexual.
I'm saying that the owner of the business, taking the stance that he did (yes I know it's legally the business taking the stance, but it's really still the owner who is, since businesses can't make decisions) is aware that he is giving up the homosexual clientele. That should be his prerogative, just as it should be his right to decide to give up smoker or non-smoker clientele.
Where I live it's against the law to smoke in public buildings. I'm okay with that since the entire public "owns" that business. But, I think it should be up to the private business owners to decide if they want to allow smoking in their building... just as a home-owner decides that for the building he owns.
On the same side, if he doesn't want to males or two females holding hands in his building... or people with blonde hair... or bare fingernails... or purple shirts or... it should be his right to say what goes on in his building. He will most-likely lose business over it, but that's the choice HE should make. It's his building and his livelihood.
The government should stay out of it unless they own the property where they say the discrimination occurred.
It's the same thing as them telling me how many gallons of water that I can use to flush my toilet.
It's not their business.
Now, if they physically harm a person with a purple shirt or bare fingernails or... Then, that's a crime and must be punished.
On the flip side, if I'm a person with a purple shirt and I'm offended that they won't take me business, I go elsewhere where someone wants the "Purple Shirt" money. If I'm really offended, I'll tell all my friends about it (whether they wear purple shirts or not) and then some of THEM won't give their money to that business either.
So, the business might go under by not serving people in purple shirts. And the owner might starve. But that should be HIS PREROGATIVE! He owns the business.
It has nothing at all to do with the homosexual or the Purple Shirted Ones. His rights are not being infringed upon. There are other photographers/restaurants. It's the business owner's rights that are being infringed upon. He has to do something he does not believe in. Is he right? I don't know or care.
[That's my thoughts on the matter, and I won't post again, although I know there will most likely be some disagreement about my thought. :D]
And... BTW... I don't smoke. |
Right you are, Lydia. There is nothing to be gained from prohibiting smoking in a private business that can't be gained from requiring the owner to state, on the door, "SMOKING IS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES" as a warning to any and all who may enter. Don't want to be around smoke? Don't go in. Simple. Liberty.
And when people are offended by a private business decision to serve this person or that, they can protest, tell their friends, boycott the business, write letters to editors, etc. But instead, now they demand that big-nanny write more laws restricting what business decisions we can make or what opinions we can hold. (Most of which laws, IMO, are meant mainly to stroke the fur of one constituency or another in order to secure future votes.)
Truly public facilities should be smoke-free, and bias and discrimination free.
And BTW, I don't smoke either.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 17:45:19. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:44:11 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
I agree with  chazoe in that it sounds like some kind of vendetta. A photography business owner also has the right to choose his/her clients, right? To compare the photography business to a restaurant or store is ludicrous.
Of course, the real issue is they are trying to control why the owner said no. If he would have just said "I don't want to." or "I am busy that day." that would have been "allowed."
Instead he disagreed on moral grounds so the government has to stick its nose in.
Lesson learned: Don't make a public moral statement. Obviously, this was exactly the government's intention. |
I also agree with this. An employer, in most states I am aware of, has the right to hire or terminate people without specific reason. Many restaurants have signs saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. Like you said...the trick is to not give a reason why...and that IS reasonable. It's their business. If I am selling my car, I have the right not to sell it to someone and no court should or could order me to sell it to a particular person. For the same reason, the photographer would have been more appropriate to simply say "thanks but no thanks" and leave it at that. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:45:15 PM · #108 |
| I just thought of a humorous circumstance where our Leroy shoots nudie shots of young women and then is approach by a dude to do the same. Is he within his rights to turn him down? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:45:50 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
but you shouldn't. the clientele should be accepting of your beliefs and not force you to accept theirs. |
They're not asking you to accept their beliefs. Just take their picture. You can't say, "This company doesn't take photos of Jews" whether you have 1 employee or 100. If a customer seeks your services while knowing that you disagree with their beliefs, who's really having the problem with acceptance? |
Sure they are, if else why the lawsuit. That's the problem I gave with this whole matter. If someone doesn't want to perform a service for you. Move along. You know your lifestyle isn't widely accepted. Deal with it.
Everyone feels they need to suw when their feeling get hurt. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:48:52 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just thought of a humorous circumstance where our Leroy shoots nudie shots of young women and then is approach by a dude to do the same. Is he within his rights to turn him down? |
It's probably only a matter of time until that is NOT ok....sadly. I'm guessing it's still ok now (until someone decides to try and sue, of course) since it's not a matter of race or sexual orientation. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:49:01 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A place of accommodation is free to refuse service to patrons based on how they choose to behave. The buisness can set standards of deportment and dress. They can not refuse service based on their inherent traits. The tricky point of this case is that to the New Mexico studio, their religious views see homosexuality as a behavior, not an inherent trait. I happen to disagree with them, but stripping them of their right to choose their clientele based on what they perceive to be behavior, strips me of my right to serve whom I choose. |
Yes, now we're on the right track. Two guys or girls standing in a room in formal attire with some people talking isn't exactly outrageous behavior, and discrimination in that case would be for just being who they are in an otherwise normal activity. Individual perception does not trump what it actually is. Substitute an interfaith or interracial couple and you have the same scenario. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:49:19 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
That's because it's not protected. See my last post. |
Where it not such an unspeakably horrible act, devoid of medical or personal reasoning, it would be. The social, cultural and religious reasoning for protection, are overwhelmed by other considerations. Male circumcision is viewed by some with almost equal horror in some quarters, yet it has some medical reasoning and wider cultural acceptance so we think nothing of it legally. These are not digital issues. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:56:16 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Individual perception does not trump what it actually is. |
Not to bring up Plato's analogy of the cave and and the whole question of what constitutes our perception of reality that has been the nub of philosophic debate as long as western culture has existed, but are you saying that the court should mandate what is and is not reality, and all citizens should shape their perceptions in accord with what the government tells them? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:56:26 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Where it not such an unspeakably horrible act, devoid of medical or personal reasoning, it would be. |
Government restrictions on specific moral matters, public safety, ecology and so forth are a different conversation. It's not the same as discriminating against people as a class for simply being who they are. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:57:10 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by cdpayne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just thought of a humorous circumstance where our Leroy shoots nudie shots of young women and then is approach by a dude to do the same. Is he within his rights to turn him down? |
It's probably only a matter of time until that is NOT ok....sadly. I'm guessing it's still ok now (until someone decides to try and sue, of course) since it's not a matter of race or sexual orientation. |
Ah, but gender is a protected status as well. We're not used to males being discriminated again, but they would be in this case. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:58:23 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
I believe female circumcision has been outlawed in most countries. |
Yeah but that's not going to stop an arguholic. All situations, no matter the likelihood, must be considered! |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 05:59:36 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody saw my female circumcision as something that would be protected but nearly everybody would have a problem with. |
I believe female circumcision has been outlawed in most countries. |
Yeah but that's not going to stop an arguholic. All situations, no matter the likelihood, must be considered! |
No, in this case it does. I actually was not aware of the illegal nature. If it is illegal it's not a good example. A male circumcision might be, but it's a weaker argument. I still like the voodoo wedding with the chicken sacrifices. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:02:20 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
are you saying that the court should mandate what is and is not reality, and all citizens should shape their perceptions in accord with what the government tells them? |
What I'm saying (and perhaps not so eloquently) is that if you perceive an otherwise-normal situation as repugnant simply because of the class of people participating, then that's your problem. Legally, they have the same right as anyone else and a business open to the public in general must set personal opinion aside for the sake of equality. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:02:29 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Sure they are, if else why the lawsuit. That's the problem I gave with this whole matter. If someone doesn't want to perform a service for you. Move along. You know your lifestyle isn't widely accepted. Deal with it.
Everyone feels they need to suw when their feeling get hurt. |
I kind of feel this approach is kind of lame and a bit cowardly. I mean, leaving aside the fact that i don't equate homosexuality as a lifestyle, we are talking about discrimination in general so if we change the word 'lifestyle' to, say, 'colour' or 'religion' or 'disability' what are we left with? The same old tired bigotry that we've heard a million times before. 'Your type ain't welcome round here. Deal with it and move along.'
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:03:32 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Where it not such an unspeakably horrible act, devoid of medical or personal reasoning, it would be. |
Government restrictions on specific moral matters, public safety, ecology and so forth are a different conversation. It's not the same as discriminating against people as a class for simply being who they are. |
But at some point religious people have to have the right to be who they are as well. By forcing a Christian photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay marrieage aren't we discriminating against that person's beliefs as well?
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:20:29 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
In Canada, since healthcare is provided by the government, they should be allowed to steer behavioral patterns which serve no tangible benefit and are only a drain on the system. In Ontario, restaurants and bars have been smoke free since 2006. If the outdoor patio has a roof but open on all sides, also banned, as it should be. |
...and the government makes millions from taxes yet provides no incentives nor assistance to help smokers quit. You have governments that have no problems installing needle exchange programs in the core of the city, help drug and alcohol addicts and all kinds of wonderful programs for those less fortunate, yet they treat smokers like lepers.
You mention outdoor patios... you do realize of course that in places like Ottawa that you no longer can smoke there, nor on public beaches, nor in community owned golf courses.
I am all in favour of healthy lifestyles, but if we are to follow this logic, why not tax people who embark on hazardous activities like sky diving, base jumping, rock climbing, white water rafting and a host of other activities that often require rescuers to go out and extricate them from the dangerous situations they put themselves in.
Not all is crystal clear... there is room for a lot of discussion.
Ray
PS: NO I don't smoke.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:23:31 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
But at some point religious people have to have the right to be who they are as well. By forcing a Christian photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay marrieage aren't we discriminating against that person's beliefs as well? |
You have the right to believe what you want in private, but you cannot extend that belief into actions against others. It's no more discriminating against religious beliefs than requiring a McDonald's franchise owned by a white supremacist to serve minorities is discriminating against his beliefs. If the supremacist or a church wants to rail away against some class of people at their own meeting or have a march down main street, hey knock yourselves out, but the same people can't refuse a fill a car with gas just because of who's driving. I may not want to take photos of a circumcision, hate rally or sex act no matter who performs it, and that's fine because I'm not not singling out a class of people. But I can't be perfectly OK with shooting wedding ceremonies and then balk because the bride happens to be Irish or black or short or even a guy. That is the crux of discrimination.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 18:24:39. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:23:34 PM · #123 |
| Nothing stirs up a conversation on DPC like this one... |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:24:25 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Where it not such an unspeakably horrible act, devoid of medical or personal reasoning, it would be. |
Government restrictions on specific moral matters, public safety, ecology and so forth are a different conversation. It's not the same as discriminating against people as a class for simply being who they are. |
But at some point religious people have to have the right to be who they are as well. By forcing a Christian photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay marrieage aren't we discriminating against that person's beliefs as well? |
So what you're saying is you can't separate business from the personal? In other words the phrase used often in business (i.e. "it's nothing personal, just business") is a complete lie? This could open up a can of worms for Corporate America. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:24:52 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chazoe:
But at some point religious people have to have the right to be who they are as well. By forcing a Christian photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay marrieage aren't we discriminating against that person's beliefs as well? |
You have the right to believe what you want in private, but you cannot extend that belief into actions against others. It's no more discriminating against religious beliefs than requiring a restaurant owned by a white supremacist to serve minorities is discriminating against his beliefs. If the supremacist or a church wants to rail away against some class of people at their own meeting or have a march down main street, hey knock yourselves out, but the same people can't refuse a fill a car with gas just because of who's driving. I may not want to take photos of a circumcision, hate rally or sex act no matter who performs it, and that's fine because I'm not not singling out a class of people. But I can't be perfectly OK with shooting wedding ceremonies and then balk because the bride happens to be Irish or black or short or even a guy. That is the crux of discrimination. |
More seriously, do you think Leroy could turn down shooting boudoir pictures of men on the basis of their gender? |
|
