Elane Photography in
Is religion an adequate excuse for discrimination? Under what circumstances? Should we allow bigotry to masquerade as religious freedom?
Would we want to see a plumber refuse services to a Muslim?
Can a gay-owned publishing company refuse to print pamphlets for a rabidly anti-gay organization?
What about a lesbian photographer at a homophobic church?
Will this ruling cause more of a backlash than it is worth? Obviously, the Right will claim the NM HRC is out to get them.
Might it have been a case the lesbians went to the photographer because they knew she wouldn't take the case and they could make a scene over it? Note: this is speculation. I have no evidence this may have happened. There have been other cases brought from both sides where it has.
Should anti-discrimination laws be applied to only government agencies? That's not where racial discrimination keeps rearing its ugly head.
Should the photographer be excused from the job because photography requires such a close involvement with the subjects? How about if the event has religious overtones (as a wedding does) that clash with her own?
What constitutes public accommodation (which is what this law is based on)? Is it a company that does business with all who walk through the door? Is a freelance writer, who only works for a few editors, required to be bound by public accommodation? Is there a difference in public accommodation between public and private businesses? What makes a business private?
Would there be an issue if the photographer simply said, "I'm sorry, my calendar is full," rather than making a point about disgusting lesbians? Weren't there issues of hotels in the south telling blacks that they just rented the last room?
Should it not be an issue because other photographers are available? In small towns are other photographers always available?
Does the size of the business matter?
Does it matter that the photographer was providing a luxury instead of a necessity, such as food or a bed?
Is the issue that the photographs are considered artistic expression and thus fall under free speech, including not making the kind of speech you don't want to endorse?
Is there a limit to how much discrimination the government can prevent?
Would it be better to drive change through capitalism to give your business to like-minded companies and away from those that discriminate against you? Does such a method have much of a chance of working?
For the record, here's my opinion: Yes, the photographer is a bigot and using religion to hide that bigotry. But I think this is an inappropriate place to have the government step in and I think the lesbian couple are doing more harm than good by bringing suit.
It seems to me that this is one of those cases that need to be addressed based on the merits of the religious claim. For instance, if the photographer had declared that it was against her religious beliefs to work on that day and there was proof of that, then she would be excluded from the fine. This is not the case, here, however.
ReplyDeleteThough this appears to be a case of bigotry hiding behind religious beliefs, it could be that the religious beliefs are the source of the bigotry. Some religions are very ugly when it comes to what they view as the "sin" of homosexuality. Which came first? So, I too am troubled by the lack of balance towards religious beliefs in the law or the way the NM HRC handled it. Or, perhaps, I just need more information.
Then there's the aspect of a private business owner choosing who s/he wants to work with or for. In this case the owner is not part of an emergency profession. For instance, she is not distributing emergency contraception nor providing abortions (other religious belief shields currently being argued these days) and she is not providing access to food or shelter. Nor was she turning away employment, but rather she was turning away money for a job. Does a person in such a business have a right to refuse to take money for a job from a client that she doesn't want to work with? Does a restaurant have the right to turn away people who are not dressed properly? Does a bar have a right to allow smokers inside? (Yes, that's a slightly different conundrum, but to my mind it strikes at the same core issue and I'd argue that the bar does have that right or should).
I think the business owner does have that right in this case. She's providing a non-essential service. She's maintaining a practice that does harm to her business and could do future harm to that business (as publicity gets around that she's a bigot). The couple would have been better off seeking the services of a more friendly business owner and promoting her good work than to demand that a hostile individual take the job. Think about it: say the photographer has now "learned her lesson" and doesn't want to be charged anymore by the HRC. Next lesbian or gay couple comes along to hire her, she accepts the job, and does a lousy set of photographs. She'll claim equipment failure and the next couple will be without their memories. What good does that do to further rights or bring about awareness and compassion? So, yes, I think the job matters.
Is this a small town and is another photographer readily available? I don't know, but unless they can prove that they cannot get anyone to travel to the town to provide the service or that such costs were exorbitant (which, when it comes to photographers, I doubt both scenarios since such work has plentiful practitioners), then I think they should lose the case and move on.