This article from Reason Magazine is getting some traction. The author discusses a recent court case lost by a wedding photo company where they were sued for not doing gay marriages. The author argues that companies which are homophobic should be allowed to discriminate. After all, “who wants a wedding photographer who is repulsed by their union and is forced to be there by law?” So go to another photographer, don’t give him your business! Besides, the law is against the Freedom of Association provided by the 1st Amendment. The author goes on to discuss lawsuits he thinks are ridiculous against online dating websites which didn’t provide gay couple options, and one of them – after being sued – establishing a separate, non-cross-promoted site for gay couples, and were sued for that.
Now, I’m a young guy new to reading about current events, so what do I know? But the article got me thinking. It sounds to me like we’re rehashing the 60s civil rights debate, with the same old arguments from those who may not be considered bigots who don’t like civil rights laws: Businesses which discriminate will lose you as a customer, just go elsewhere, you wouldn’t want to be in a discriminatory environment so why do you want the law to enforce your beliefs, eventually the people will solve as many problems as can be solved and the government shouldn’t be using its’ heavy hand to enforce morality, etc. But wanted to get some perspective of the teeming millions on some of the questions I got to thinking about: Are civil rights laws important or are market-based solutions enough?
Nothing is going to ensure non-discrimination, in the sense of “every single provider of services enthusiastically embraces their customer’s values and beliefs.” The point he’s making is not a legal one, but a moral one: given that there are any number of other photographers who would enthusiastically take the job of photographing a gay wedding, what’s the point of finding the one guy who doesn’t and trying him to force him to take a gig that he finds morally abhorrent? You can say you’re advancing tolerance or something, but you’re really not: that kind of compulsion against conscience just makes those inclined to be anti-gay even moreso.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you approve of a gay atheist photographer being compelled, under force of law, to photograph a church service celebrating people who were “cured” of being gay, and talking about how they’ve been liberated from that awful, terrible lifestyle? Does that sound like the kind of society you want to live in?
The rather major differences from the civil rights era are that in most cases, Jim Crow was not merely habit, but de facto law, complete with sheriffs and/or mobs willing to coerce merchants or service providers willing to violate the “rules” by giving blacks equal treatment; the upshot being that it was functionally impossible for blacks to get the goods and services they wanted.
This case would be analogous if the photographer was the only one in Phoenix, or the best by a mile, or if there were some sort of conspiracy by which many photographers agreed not to shoot gay weddings. AFAICT, none of that is the case. They found the one guy in town who didn’t want to do their wedding, and then took him to court to make him. The point of the article is that, the legalities aside, it’s a dickish thing to do, and will do far more to foster anti-gay bigotry than to dispel it.
The author makes the highly questionable assumption that the business would refuse service because that business was discriminating. That’s not the only scenario in question. What is also possible is that the business refuses service because if it offered it, it thinks it would lose customers—folks who were upset about offering such a service. This fear only need be real enough to act on, because it isn’t like the business could just conduct a quick costless experiment to see if the fear was reasonable.
If we think it is more likely that, absent the politics of the issue, the business would happily offer the service, then anti-discrimination laws could be seen as a benefit. But you cannot easily separate the politics of the issue and declare this a net benefit to society, because the costs to the haters—no matter how misguided—are difficult to measure. You might say that their costs are irrelevant, because they weren’t parties to the transaction, but this is just the political analogue of pollution, and I don’t know how to draw this line, really.
A fairly unrestricted market should be able to take care of most cases, as long as:
[ul]
[li]It is in fact a market scenario (that is, one where some commodity or service is being bought and sold, and there’s choice/competition)[/li][li]The potential targets of discrimination are not a very tiny minority[/li][/ul]
If it’s a monopoly, non-purchased/non-competitive product/service, or if the customer base is really small, then discrimination might persist indefinitely without some control to prevent it.
But if you’ve got a stack of paying customers waving their cash around, needs unmet, that’s usually enough to provoke enterprising agencies to step in and serve/exploit. Maybe not as quick as the initial customers would like, but that’s a problem for any new market sector, independent of discrimination.
This would be a viable theory if most or even providers were discriminating in this way; but as the article points out, there are plenty of other providers happy to take the job.
I was discussing discrimination in general, instead of extrapolating from the particular to the general. I’d hope the author of an article in “Reason” wouldn’t commit such a basic error of reasoning.
It depends on what you are trying accomplish. As Furt noted, much of the civil rights focus in the last century was towards overturning Jim Crow laws and things like poll taxes where the government was actively discriminating against minorities. Separate But Equal was the law of the land.
Congress, however, decided to extend the nondiscrimination ruling into the private sector. Many libertarians types would argue that was going to far. The government can’t discriminate, but private businesses should be able to. At any rate, I agree that the market can mitigate some discrimination, but not all. Heck, just look at the situation now with private clubs-- many of them discriminate because it is legal to do so.
I’m not sure I see any problem with the private club situation. To be a private club they must be discriminating on some criterion or set of criteria by definition. And such agents aren’t in the market in the sense we’re discussing anyway.
As a gay man, I totally agree with the author of that article. I want to know who my enemies are; I don’t want the government forcing them to act like my friends.
The society I want to live in is one that doesn’t let businesses put up “No Fags (Blacks / Chinese / Catholics / Jews, whatever floats your boat) Allowed” signs. No more forcing particular folks to the back of the bus, no more separate but equal schools or separate water fountains and restaurants just for the “right” people. No more “Irish need not apply”, no more anti-miscegenation laws, no more DADT, no more DOMA.
You want to be open for business, you don’t get to pick and choose your clientele based on race, sex, creed or sexual orientation. Period. Don’t like it? Don’t be in business. I’m not going to cry for some photographer who’s optics just got sullied by taking a picture of a gay couple.
Yeah, I totally want a doctor to be forced to perform an operation on me even if he thinks I’m trash. I totally want a restaurant to prepare my food when they hate me. I totally want a lawyer to be forced to represent me when he thinks I’m a born criminal.
Personally, I find this to be the same kind of error as those that insist everything is political. But for the sake of not diverting the thread, I’ll just accept this monism. OK, they are in a different market. That “different market” is one in which I don’t mind discrimination, just like the “different market” we call “a family” is one in which I don’t mind “the boss” spanking the probies.
They are in a different market. They are subject to different market forces, but market forces nonetheless. The number of out-and-out racists in this country is dramatically less than it was 50 years ago. You had a much bigger market for racists then, and didn’t need to be bothered so much if your club excluded blacks.
I’m sorry I wasn’t able to cook up a perfect analogy for you, but unfortunately, there is no such thing. And whether or not you care a given market should be able to tolerate discrimination isn’t a reflection on whether it is a market or not.
Yes, America pre-Civil Rights Movement was truly a wonderland for southern blacks, it must have been refreshing to have no uncertainty about who despised them.
On preview, let me ask you, do you think that the dramatically reduced number of out-and-out racists is unrelated to the government cracking down on open racism?
You’re an independant contractor. You get contacted by the White Pride League, Focus on the Family, and NAMBLA, all of whom wish to hire you to work on their (perfectly legal, race- creed- and sexual orientation-based) advocacy campaigns. You have no qualms working for them, and will give them your best efforts, right? And you think it’s just fine if they choose you specifically because they know you dislike them, ad want to force you to act against your conscience?
There were lots of starwmen out there in the fields then, too.
We don’t really know what would have happened if we had purged the government of racist laws, but allowed private businesses to discriminate. But I don’t consider “eliminating racism” to be a trump card that can automatically be pulled out to justify limitations on personal freedom. So, maybe there would be more racists now. So what?
There’s a difference between asking people to be non-discriminating of ideas people have, and asking them not to be bigoted against what people are. Nobody’s born a White Nationalist. They have a choice in the matter, and I can certainly disapprove of their choice of causes or opinions.
People don’t choose to be born black, or gay, or a woman.
(besides, you’re pulling the old “but if you don’t tolerate intolerance, you’re intolerant !” canard. That’s not going to fly.)
So yes, to answer the question in the article, I do want a racist to take picture of my wedding. I want him to shut the fuck up and take pictures of my miscegenatin’ wedding and fucking like it ; and if he sabotages them intentionally I want him sued out of business, too. That’s how they’ll know they’ve lost and nobody’s interested in looking out for their bullshit.
How else are you going to curb racism or homophobia or misogyny in society, if you let them thrive like a yeast infection out in the open ? If there are no penalties for it ? Or, to take the problem from the opposite angle, what value to society is racism or homophobia ? What justifies protecting gratuitous hatred ?
Asshole is not a protected class. These folks can stop being assholes anytime they wish, at which point I’d be happy to serve them. Gay people can’t just stop being gay in order to please their wedding photographer.