How do you figure that? Whether or not it’s discrimination has to do with the reason you, as the business owner, turned down the business. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the words you used to the ex-client.
Or, do you think it ceases to be discrimination when photographer after photographer turn down your business for unstated reasons, while your straight friends get to pick whichever photographer is giving them the best deal?
Before this hijack goes any further, I would admit freely that it is possible for a devious enough service provider to violate the anti-discrimination law without drawing undue attention.
It’s not splitting hairs. You’ve written the same question but worded it so that a Yes answer for one is equivalent to a No answer for the other. It’s not wrong, just potentially confusing.
Question: Could they set up a photography club, and make membership contingent upon some set of bullshit requirements, then give “club rates” to members and offer non-members the same services at, say, a 1000% surcharge?
Missed the edit window: To answer the question in the thread title: YES! Every Christian should be forced to buy expensive photography equipment, pay an exorbitant fee for photography lessons, and present proof that they have photographed at least one gay wedding BEFORE they are permitted to be buried in a Christian cemetery.
If I’m reading that right, no, they can’t just pretend they’re a club. But if they really had a private club and offered photography for members, they could pick and choose whom they served.
Originally Posted by SirGalahad
Here’s were the hell it has to do with it … if a business, in this case a photographer, sees that it can’t object to working for a prospective client on religious grounds because the clients protected-class status trumps the religious freedom claimed by the photographer (the photog is Xtian and it’s against their beliefs to be involved in a gay wedding), then I don’t think it would take very long for said businesses to try to find some other means of avoiding said clients and their events.
Then you posted this:
SirGalahad asked if the law lets customers go berserk and be abusive to businesses as long as they’re members of protected classes.
You should have quoted this:
“OK, here’s a hypothetical scenario: a gay couple go to the Xtian photographer at the photography studio that features a Jesus Fish in their Yellow Pages ad. The couple walks in and says: “Look you right-wing S.O.B., you better photograph our wedding or we’ll slap you so hard!””
That’s not berserk, but I think it’s the post you must have been referring to.
My point remains, that a company eventually can be forced to do business with someone, and that the objection that it may indeed be against their religious teachings (they may quote Corinthians 5/11 for example), will not protect the company (in fact, your answer may be that if they are that religious, they shouldn’t be in a public business).
I’m not getting the anger about this line of thought, or the suggestions that it highjacks a thread about “Should Xtians be forced …” I think my questions go to the heart of the subject.
Next question, if the wedding between Big Hoss McBubba and Bekka Mae Stubbs features a whole BBQ’d hog, and the theme of the wedding is “Wild Hogs!!”, could the Government force Abdul’s Moslem Wedding Photographers (their motto is “Don’t wear a veil, go to jail!”) to photograph the festivities? Would they?
Yes, it was. Whether you call it berserk or not I think the point stands. You were asking the law means a business must accept a prospective black or gay client even they have some other valid grounds to decline their business. The answer is no. But their race/sexuality/etc. can’t be the reason their business is turned down.
If they are offering a public accommodation, no, according to this law their religious views are not an excuse for discrimination against protected classes. I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise.
No. “People who like to eat pork” is not a protected class.
Ah, but are Xtians a protected class, and could McBubba make the case that the reason Abdul won’t photograph his hitchin’ to Bekka Mae is that they’re born again Xtians? What does he need to prove that? If Abdul denies service to enough Xtian rednecks, could they eventually sue the photographer?
If Xtians can be forced (as is the subject of the OP), can Muslims be forced? And more importantly, would (IYHO) the Government similarly apply the laws of the State of New Mexico?
I’m still not understanding your point. Or, perhaps more accurately, seeing your point. Yes, if a person feels his religion forbids him to do business with gays (or blacks, or Jews, or women), he will not be able to run a business that’s open to the public without violating his religious principles. That’s not a conclusion in this discussion, that’s one of the premises. One that, I believe, no one has seriously disputed.
Religious freedom is an important and cherished right, but it is not the only right held by the citizens of the United States, nor is it the supreme right. It must be balanced against the rights of other citizens, which necessarily means some limits must be imposed on it when interacting with the public, just as all rights are necessarily limited in the public sphere by the rights of other people.
Wait a minute, a private photography club can pick and choose it’s members? You mean like a private country club can refuse membership to Jews and Blacks? Hold on. Am I reading your gist correctly?
My point is, simply, that “religious freedom” ends at the threshold of doing public business, but that protected groups, which I believe include religious groups, have rights that embrace the interaction of doing business in public. A company can’t refuse to do business with any protected class, even if other rights, like …
“Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person’s own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization.”
from Wikipedia
…are in contrast.
If that’s so, will there be lawsuits challenging this? Is the notion of protected classes that include aspect of the physical (race, natural origin), aspects of behavior (religious belief) and aspects that are still being argued ( is Gay a behavior or a condition from birth?), so entrenched in our society that it is beyond an effective challenge?
I’m sure there are explicit rules declaring what is a private club and what is not. Consider the following scenarios:
You own a restaurant but want to only serve white people
You own a private membership only club that only accepts whites as members
You own a house and only allow whites inside
Everyone is pretty much in agreement that #1 should not be allowed, no matter if its your own private business or not. We’re all in agreement that #3, though distasteful, should be allowed because its your own house. Where people differ is the whether #2 is closer to the restaurant or the house.
You’re jumping back and forth between two different questions: “Does this violate the law?” and “Could someone sue and try to make a case that this violates the law?” The second one has a much lower bar and I am sticking with the first. In your hypothetical, Abdul isn’t refusing to serve these people because they’re Christians. That’s not against the law.
Yes, of course. The law says public accommodations can’t discriminate against people based on their religion, sexual preference, race, and so on. The excuse for the business’ discrimination doesn’t matter.
No. Read the full sentence again: “Public accommodation” means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private." If they had a bona fide private club or some other component of their business that was private, yes, they could discriminate this way. But they can’t just create a membership club to do that.
Just to be clear, you do understand that this is the basis of this entire thread, right? This is precisely the issue that every single one of us is already debating. I only ask, because you seem to think you’ve come up with a novel concern, when in fact, all you’ve done is restate the premise of the thread in a slightly more confusing manner.
Yes, I’m sure we will continue to see lawsuits challenging both the existence and the implementation of anti-discrimination lawsuits. I don’t expect that to change any time soon. However, that also means that the existing case law on anti-discrimination laws is substantial, and in a system of law based on precedent, that makes it highly unlikely that such laws will be thrown out en masse. Specific implementations may be changed through legislation, particularly as it applies to gay rights, but the principle of anti-discrimination legislation is very well established in American law.
They can sue whoever they want, whenever they want. The big question is whether or not they can convince a judge/jury that Abdul is discriminating against Christians.
In this particular case, we have the provider saying “We don’t photograph gay weddings.” That would convince ME that the refusal was based on sexual orientation and not the brides poor choice of color, inconvenient shooting location or the shape of that there cloud.
McBubba is going to have to provide evidence. Something like Abdul saying “we don’t photograph Christians”, or perhaps Abdul being thrilled at the prospect of filming the Wild Hogs wedding until he found out it was a Christian affair instead of a Pastafarian wedding, at which point he concocted the pork excuse.
Thank you for your thoughtful and complete responses. The question I’m still not clear on:
“You mean like a private country club can refuse membership to Jews and Blacks? Hold on. Am I reading your gist correctly?”
Next …
Consider this: A Jewish photographer can refuse to shoot the Nazi wedding (with requisite Nazi flags and decorations) but a Nazi photographer can’t refuse to shoot a Jewish wedding. This seems to be because being Jewish is both a religious persuasion and an ethnicity, but being Nazi is just a political choice.
Here’s another thing, regarding one group being forced to do whatever … apparently, religious persuasion is a protected class, but “philosophical bent” is not. Is a Deity required for a religion to be protected? Could a group start a religion, like L. Ron Hubbard, and not claim allegiance to a Deity? Could some Nazis start a religion (call it Third Reichism, the Cult) and meet for prayer meetings/ meditation once a week, and then when Abe’s photography won’t video their “SS” themed wedding, claim discrimination?
That’s a good thing, right? That means I’m not highjacking the thread.
Is this Great Debates or General Questions?
" … you seem to think you’ve come up with a novel concern, when in fact, all you’ve done is restate the premise of the thread in a slightly more confusing manner."
Are you implying that the OP’s question has been asked and answered? Does that mean the thread is, for all practical purposes, closed, except for extended mutual agreement and congratulations regarding the outcome of the court’s verdict in this case?