On his podcast, Penn Jillette suggested that anyone who doesn’t want to serve gays, atheists, etc. put up a sign in their window. The suggested design is a cross within a crown of thorns. Then, people who only want to patronize establishments where the owners think the same as they do can, and those who do not want “bigot cake” can avoid them.
It’s not a bad idea, really.
But what about those first mediocre photo same sex victims? Sure, eventually word will get around, but for something as expensive, important, and one-time as wedding photos, I’d want to know up front that the guy isn’t going to give it his all.
That’s why you talk to the photographer before you book him. Someone who shows actual support and enthusiasm for same-sex couples is more likely to get the job than someone who doesn’t.
So without the law, a photographer can just say “I’m sorry, I don’t photograph same sex weddings.” With the law, he can’t say that, but can hem and haw and try to let the couple know he’s not the photographer for them without coming out and saying so, but its up to the couple to figure out that’s what he means? And you think that’s better?
Missed the edit window:
I realize the above makes it sounds like I’m opposed to equal protection & access under the law, and I’m not. But I’m just trying to point out that it’s not necessarily as clear-cut as it seems, and having an unambiguous way to identify someone who doesn’t want your business isn’t a bad thing.
I’m not talking about hemming and hawing. I’m saying people who really want to support same-sex couples will make that clear, and those who don’t will fail to do so and the market will handle the rest. It’s an improvement because the most likely outcome is that these people will follow the money and choose to do the jobs they’re paid to do instead of pissing and moaning or doing a bad job on purpose. Your sexual orientation shouldn’t affect your ability to hire a photographer or get a cake any more than your race, religion, age, or gender should.
Bullshit. Each party is free in our capitalist system. This is a private contract, and both parties have to agree or there is no contract. If you choose to go to one store and not another, can the store that you choose *not *to patronize sue you? NO!
I have not eaten there since they made their position known, but it has been kind of hard as their chicken sandwiches are so good.
If a stubborn person wanted to patronise them anyway, does Penn think the government should compel them to? My guess is that his libertarian views lead him to say “no”.
We recently got a law passed in my city banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. It was a huge, controversial battle involving waffling City Council members and all kinds of intrigue with masses of citizenry speaking out on both sides. There were a number of businesses that spoke out against the law, and I suggested on Facebook that those of us who supported gay rights should not forget who was against us. This was a controversial position within the movement as some wanted to focus more on staying positive rather than “blackballing” anyone.
Ultimately the compromise that emerged was to make up a sticker that businesses could post in their windows as a symbol of their support for our cause. In conjunction with this, the Facebook page keeps a list of businesses that are supportive to share with people new to the community (this will be especially relevant to college students). So, no “blackball list”, but certain places are hopefully conspicuous by their absence.
A quick glance at any number of laws would tell you that this is wrong. We don’t have a pure capitalist system, and thank goodness for that.
Utter nonsense! It’s a matter of free choice.
If I don’t like the way a store looks or smells, or the prices, I can go elsewhere for any reason I choose.
That’s what ‘freedom’ means!
Who said you can’t?
I’m not sure you grasp how freedom works in our society. It’s not a magic word that you yell that means you can do whatever you want.
We should, that’s what is wrong with this country.
It’s not a one-way street. It takes two parties to make an agreement.
It’s much less wrong than the alternative, which was rampant discrimination that permeated almost every corner of society.
It cannot be such that only *one *party is free to choose to business or not with the other party. That’s unjust.
Melchior, as **Marley **says it is fortunate that we don’t have pure capitalism. That also entails a pure caveat emptor mentality where workplaces are not inspected for safety, and food is not inspected for rat turds (or the fingers of workers).
Muldoon, I wonder if a photographer would be allowed to say something like “My strongly held religious belief is that gay marriage is immoral, and I would prefer it if you patronized another photographer; however, the law requires that I provide services to you if you insist”.
The business does have a choice, it just can’t discriminate against classes of people. And no, that’s not unjust.
What are you talking about? Buying a cake is not a ‘civil’ right! Do you know what ‘civil’ means in the expression ‘civil rights’? Apparently not.
What ‘class’ is that? He can simply refuse for no reason at all! that’s what I would do if I were in his shoes.
It’s not ‘immoral’; it’s not marriage at all! I could not care less what sexual activities consenting adults engage in. This has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Welp, the thread’s borked now.