Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Apparently. The New Mexico Court of Appeals has upheld a judgment against a Christian-owned photography studio that declined to take pictures for a gay couple's commitment ceremony. Now, you might think that the owners of a business like a photography studio have a perfect right to accept or decline clients as they see fit. But if you think that, you haven't been keeping up with "public accommodation" law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 introduced the concept of "public accommodations" to ban discrimination in places like hotels and restaurants, i.e., places that provide the necessities of life like food and shelter. But in New Mexico (as in most states, alas), a public accommodation is now defined as "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public," i.e., any business. And so, if you have the nerve to run a business, you must forsake your religious principles if they might be deemed insensitive to gays, lesbians, or other protected categories (which, depending on the state, can include the obese, smokers, people of Appalachian origin, etc. etc.).
Is it not depressing that a small-time photographer, who wanted nothing more than to photograph the subjects of her choosing, has a judgment against her for violating the politically-correct sensibilities of the state "human rights commission?"
- Comment (45)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '12
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
What!?!
What will happen now is that all kinds of Arizona businesses will engage in the kind of screening that goes on in real estate (Section 8? You need to be earning 40X the rent and have credit of 700+ to qualify.)
And is the Arizona DOS going to send screeners to every kind of business now?
The photographer was maybe too open about his preference (that openness can and should cost him business people like, say, me, who has enjoyed good working relationships with Gay & Lesbian people) but the cost should stop there.
Nov '11
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
I remember this case and mention it whenever anyone asks me why I would be hesitant to enact blanket approval for gay marriage at the federal level - it would only be so long before disagreement with gay marriage proponents would be defined as bigotry, and prosecuted.
I don't personally think there should be a distinction at the federal (or state) level when it comes to the sexual orientation of marriage partners. But if there are not enough ironclad exemptions in the law to prevent instances like this an instance when government should be less intrusive becomes an instance where it is more intrusive.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
This is exactly why same sex marriage will harm the rest of us - we will have our noses rubbed in it by the courts!
The normalization of homosexuality will lead to the ostracization, penalization and, eventually, incarceration of those who don't approve of this lifestyle.
My libertarian friends who believe otherwise are naive.
Jun '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
What options would a wedding photographer have if the wedding ceremony was taking place in a private cemetery, under the direction of a Satanic priest? Can the photographer at least opt out of that? I'm assuming the wedding party has permission to use the cemetery, and no laws are being broken.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Small business owner = Kulak.
Apr '12
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Agreed -- it's depressing, and evidence for why the libertarians are mostly wrong about gay marriage. If countries that actually have a legal institution of marriage for gays (metaphysically, I don't actually think it's possible) can teach us anything, it's that most homosexuals don't want to be married. What they do want is to be able to coerce the rest of us into sanctioning their relationships. Gay marriage will not be a win for individual liberty.
Oct '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
The problem in this case is not gay marriage, it's how the Civil right's act is being interpreted. In this case, it is being used as an instrument of force and coercion, a way to deny the individual and property rights of owners of the photography business.
I am not sure how that makes libertarians "wrong" on this issue. It's pretty simple...everyone should mind their own business.
Edited on June 13, 2012 at 8:58pmDec '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
I don't even think it's their relationships they want sanctioned. They want sanction, acceptance, and perhaps even advocacy of their sexual acts. What they want society to applaud cannot be discussed within the Ricochet CoC.
Dec '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
I suppose next time the photographer could just take the gig and then take artistic license with the product.
Oct '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Will the Supreme Court uphold this? Judicial activism doesn't help gay couples; cases like this entrench loathing of gay couples far more than homophobic hate groups ever could.
Jun '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Yup, you can do wonders with bad lighting. :) But the danger is, that it somehow becomes the public's eternal measure of your work.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
So, photographers are not considered artists under the law?
What if they wanted to commission a painting or a sculpture? Would a painter or a sculptor also be legally prohibited from refusing?
Jan '11
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Broad interpretation?
What gives law its authority is the consent of the governed. When you deliberately interpret the words of the law to contradict the consent of the governed, the law loses its authority. A clever lawyer may pat himself on the back for his vivid imagination, but each flight into pure fiction destroys the authority that the lawyer is trying to exploit.
Oct '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
The King Prawn
I don't even think it's their relationships they want sanctioned. They want sanction, acceptance, and perhaps even advocacy of their sexual acts. What they want society to applaud cannot be discussed within the Ricochet CoC. · 5 minutes ago
That's not a problem with gay activists, it's a general problem with nihilistic sexually libertine activists, who often seem to have the upper hand. Regardless, I think gay couples want public legitimacy of their relationships, not sex; they don't seek public acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their sex life any more than straight couples do.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Interesting, the court's opinion is the exact opposite as what was decided in Snyder v Phelps (the free speech case where, in my opinion, the lone Alito dissent was the correct decision.)
Mar '11
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Frozen Chosen: The normalization of homosexuality will lead to the ostracization, penalization and, eventually, incarceration of those who don't approve of this lifestyle.
My libertarian friends who believe otherwise are naive.
I don't see how libertarians are cast into a negative light here - this decision by the NM court is also antithetical to the views of most libertarians.
In essence, I feel that gays should be allowed to marry, and photogaphers who find that morally inacceptable should be allowed to deny them service.
The main problem here lies with public accomadation laws and the coercion inherent therein. Perhaps they are indeed a necessary evil, but I think most libertarians would agree that they should be interpreted narrowly - and this case seems to me well outside the realm of basic protections.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
The other part of the story is that no money ever changed hands (until the New Mexico commission on Human Rights ordered Elane to pay)- there was never a contract, just a refusal to provide a service that could be obtained elsewhere.
Dec '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Joseph Eagar
The King Prawn
I don't even think it's their relationships they want sanctioned. They want sanction, acceptance, and perhaps even advocacy of their sexual acts. What they want society to applaud cannot be discussed within the Ricochet CoC. · 5 minutes ago
That's not a problem with gay activists, it's a general problem with nihilistic sexually libertine activists, who often seem to have the upper hand. Regardless, I think gay couples want public legitimacy of their relationships, not sex; they don't seek public acknowledgement of the legitimacy of theirsex lifeany more than straight couples do. · 4 minutes ago
Straight couples don't need to clamor for legitimacy of their acts; they already have it. It's not "relationships" that straight people have a problem with. It is the acts. There is simply no way to condone an intimate relationship while condemning the sexual aspects of it.
Oct '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
The King Prawn
Straight couples don't need to clamor for legitimacy of their acts; they already have it. It's not "relationships" that straight people have a problem with. It is the acts. There is simply no way to condone an intimate relationship while condemning the sexual aspects of it. · 9 minutes ago
To put it bluntly, why are you obsessing over the sex life of others? Do you seek public legitimacy for every type of sexual act you engage in? The idea is absurd.
Aug '10
Re: Religious Liberty Does Not Apply to Businesses
Mendel
Frozen Chosen: The normalization of homosexuality will lead to the ostracization, penalization and, eventually, incarceration of those who don't approve of this lifestyle.
My libertarian friends who believe otherwise are naive.
I don't see how libertarians are cast into a negative light here - this decision by the NM court is also antithetical to the views of most libertarians.
In essence, I feel that gays should be allowed to marry, and photogaphers who find that morally inacceptable should be allowed to deny them service.
The main problem here lies with public accomadation laws and the coercion inherent therein. Perhaps they are indeed a necessary evil, but I think most libertarians would agree that they should be interpreted narrowly - and this case seems to me well outside the realm of basic protections. · 15 minutes ago
While your reasoning is rational, Mendel, unfortunately too many of the judges in our country are not. My problem with libertarianism is that it is long on theory and short on practice. Political theory has to take into account the actual state of our society.