Smile
Interesting discrimination case in New Mexico. A photography company run by a "young Christian husband and wife" refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Civil Rights Commission found them to be discriminating based on sexual orientation. The photographers say they didn't want to be supporting same-sex marriage. There's an appeal being filed.
We've got a clear tradition of people who provide services not being allowed to pick and choose their customers along certain dividing lines--race, sex, etc., and, in New Mexico, apparently, sexual orientation. To many, it would seem an open and shut case of illegal discrimination.
I'm not certain what defense they're going with. Perhaps they feel there's a religious exception that allows them to make decisions against sexual orientation, just as religions can. Or that they shouldn't be identified as a public accommodation, but rather a private business that can refuse service to anyone, based on freedom of association and the free exercise of religion. Perhaps they'll claim how can it be illegal for them to take actions against supporting same-sex marriage (or commitment, for that matter) when it's not allowed or recognized in the state of New Mexico?
Or perhaps their claim is as photographers, what they're doing has expressive content. Therefore, they've have a First Amendment right to take sides. A newspaper can editorialize against gay marriage, or in favor of slavery, for that matter, and the state can't force it to change its mind or run editorials on the opposing side.
I'm not sure how far this case has gone, but I can see it going all the way to the top.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:01 AM
2 Comments:
I hope it does. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to be as stupid and mean as they want - it's sort of the meaning of liberty, for me. Government, I 100% agree, cannot, but individuals should be able to do what they want. I believe this because I also think the market will sort out irrational, counter-productive practices. Imagine a company that refused to higher or promote women to executive positions - eventually, that company will fail, especially if they count women among their customers.
I should say, though, that I don't have a problem with the government creating incentives for individuals to act appropriately (appropriateness measured by whom the electorate puts in office). So if a real estate broker wants to serve only whites (or blacks), fine, but the gov't can then also refuse to make FHA loans available through that broker. People should be free to behave the way they want, though they may suffer consequences from the general public and especially the government if they need support or benefits from those sources.
You may prefer it that way, but the question for the Court is what does the law say, and it's now a long-settled principle that the government can, in fact, tell you how to run your business. Furthermore, with a growing government, having them decide whether to support you or not prevents the market from sorting things out.
Post a Comment
<< Home