That’s kind of missing the point. And by “kind of”, I mean totally.
Seems to me that, if I’m offering X services to the general public, but X+1 services only to a certain class, I’m still violating anti-discrimination laws. Like, if I’m a baker, and I’m willing to sell my cheapest, crappiest cakes to black people, but only sell my really expensive, high-quality cakes to white people, I’m still on the hook for discrimination, right?
The same reason the people who conducted sit-ins at segregated lunch counters wouldn’t go eat somewhere else: even if you’re a minority, you deserve to be able to participate fully in society. You probably won’t choose to patronize to a business run by a bigot unless perhaps you want to show him that being openminded does have its financial rewards, so you certainly can choose to go somewhere else, but you don’t have to allow everybody the privilege of slamming the door in your face.
Sure.
Whose rights are being theoretically violated, the parents or the baby?
The parents. They are the people trying to buy a service supposedly offered to the public, and being rejected.
But the “damage” done according to those beliefs are done to the child, should he remain uncircumcised. And even the photographer claims it’s the infant’s rights being violated.
So, can an infant’s right to religious beliefs or practices be violated, given that the infant can’t possibly understand those rights?
But doesn’t “inextricable” imply that the relationship goes both ways? Certainly, you can’t be an observant Jew and fail to circumcise your male children- but it’s also common for non-Jews (in the US, the rate is still over 50%) to circumcise their male children. It’s not the same for same-sex marriages - it’s virtually unheard of for two same sex heterosexuals to marry each other.
The parents have a right to make religious decisions for their child.
The photographer isn’t suing anyone. The photographer is being sued.
The people suing him are the parents who want to commission his services.
Therefore the question at issue in the lawsuit will be whether the photographer is violating the rights of the parents by refusing to provide services to them.
The rights of the child are not directly at issue because, whether the photographer photographs the occasion are not, the child will be circumcised. The photographer’s stance cannot therefore be justified as a defence or vindication of the rights of the child. It merely registers the photographer’s distaste at infant circumcision. And that distaste is (presumably) sincere and genuine, regardless of whether you, I or the court agree with the photographer’s view that the circumcision is an attack on the human rights of the child. So the issue before the court doesn’t require a finding as to whether circumcising the child is, or is not, an attack on the child’s rights.
True – but those circumcisions don’t have a party. It’s virtually unheard of to engage a photographer to photograph a non-Jewish circumcision.
It’s not the infant that wants the pictures.
In the same way, the wedding participants are still married, even if the photographer doesn’t take pictures. They sued because they had a right not only to marry, but to engage a photographer to take pictures of the celebration.
The Jewish parents would sue because they have a right not only to circumcise their child, but to engage a photographer to take pictures of the celebration.
At what point would the court be compelled to conclude that this is a frivolous lawsuit?
Can we safely assume the photographer in this case is a conscientious objector to the procedure and the market place is full of photographers who are not? So the couple is free to select a different photographer without harm or discrimination being done to any party or standing laws with regard to discrimination.
Sounds like something that should have been caught in discovery. The way it should go, is that the parents to be, meet the tog and discuss the proposed shoot. The happy couple discuss what’s to be shot and the tog gives a price based on that. Then it gets drawn up in a contract.
If a tog has an issue with the proposed shoot , based on issues outside the viewfinder, his or her schedule is going to be very full, for the proposed time frame and would no doubt refer the parents to another tog, or simply say sorry and be done with it.
The actual reasons for turning down a shoot would never arise in conversation.
Declan
I’m not sure what you mean should have been caught in discovery, but in the case this is an analogy to, the reasons for turning it down did arise, and almost immediately. The couple emailed the photographer and the photographer said it would not provide its services to that kind of ceremony.
Is that at all relevant, though? The discrimination (if that’s what it is) isn’t diluted by the presence of other photographers (or restaurants or movie theaters or schools) who are willing to serve everyone.
Not in my 47 years of experience being Jewish.
In my experience, Jews for Jesus are not really Jewish, and are misrepresenting themselves. I think the photographer has the right to insist that his work not be used in pamphlets that are blatant misrepresentations. I don’t know what kind of clause he needs to put in the contract that says the photos won’t be eprinted in some form not for private use, but I imagine that is possible.
I don’t suppose he can subject the couple to a test of real Jewishness, though. Then, there is some weird “Torah observant Christians” group, who don’t call themselves Jews, but pretty much function like Jews for Jesus, and probably have brises.
I’m challenging the position that this is discrimination. Conscientious objection? Sure. Discrimination? Not so much.
Does that analysis also apply to the same-sex couple that wants to hire the photographer to photograph their wedding?
Er… britot. I suppose “brises,” is correct if you argue that bris is now an English word, entered into the language from the Hebrew, as opposed to a Hebrew word being used to describe a Jewish ceremony.
But I am a prescriptivist. So: one bris, multiple britot.