Christians sued for refusing to photograph lesbian wedding
April 18th, 2008PoliPundit reports on a Christian photographer who was sued because she declined to photograph a lesbian wedding. The court unbelievably sided with the plaintiff.
Hat tip: Lisa
I’ve been following this for the past few days on Eugene Volokh’s site. It seems that the New Mexico Human Rights Commission is an administrative agency, not a court. And thank goodness, given their breathtaking ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
If the photographer had merely told the inquiring lesbians, “sorry, but you’re so ugly you’ll break my camera” she would have been fine.
I might take flack for wondering this aloud, but if the photographer had been anything but Christian, would the couple still have sued?
“The court unbelievably sided with the plaintiff.”
It’s nice to know that at least one brave blogger at PoliPundit is willing to stand up for the constitutional rights of Christians to discriminate against lesbians. I wonder if they also stand up for the constitutional rights of Muslim cab drivers to refuse customers who drink alcohol for moral reasons. In Australia, they also refuse blind customers who have seeing eye dogs since dogs are unclean according to their religion. So, why is it alright for Christians to be bigoted against lesbians but not Muslims against alcohol? Can anyone explain the rational behind this apparent double standard? I think it would be “unbelievable” if the court had sided with the defendant.
By the way, just to inject some humor into this issue, here is the only threat I can ever see lesbians posing to Christianity.
It’s pretty simple, actually. Voluntary contracts need not preserve your religious freedoms. I can’t accept a job at a Muslim school and then complain about being made to teach from the Koran. In the case of the cabbies, their primary contract was with the airport, and refusing to take passengers violated the terms of the contract.
The photographer case is different because the state is forcing someone to enter into a contract. The religious freedom angle is only half of the problem.
I’m going go out on a limb here and say that the muslims in MSP are right to refuse service to whomever they like. Also, in this case, there isn’t any legal action being taken against the cabbies. There are policies in place but they are still free to leave their jobs.
“For Adan, the choice is clear.
“I would leave my job, instead of doing something that’s not allowed in my religion,” he said.”
This is basically what the photographer decided to do, the only difference is that the photographer is self employed.
One of the great things of a free market is that it leaves room for personal choices in emplyoment ans service providers. Wherever there is a market you find someone to fill it, who knows maybe this story inspired a new entrepeneur to start a new gay photography studio. For instance, there are financial planners who cater to Chiristians by advising them on which companies would be a morally sound investment and which companies are involved in immormal industries, like adult enterainment.
The free market will always respond.
I have entered into a contract in the past with a muslim to film his wedding and I would not have an issue with photographing a lesbian’s wedding day. I think it would be a great opportunity.
j razz
I suppose I should add that the photgraphers decision wasn’t necessarily right or wrong, but it was hers to make.
Unfortunately, this is only a mall portion of what
is to come for the Christians of this world. We are the only religion that can be ridiculed, cursed, and degraded by whomever chooses to do so. Just imagine what would have happened if Bill Mauer had made such comments against the religion of Islam.
“Just imagine what would have happened if Bill Mauer had made such comments against the religion of Islam.”
Bill actually had a Muslim “fashion show” in which he mocked Islams use of the Burka, or whatever it’s called. He is certainly ridiculing their culture but I think that it highlights the ridiculousness of a culture where if a woman doesn’t cover herself completely, then she is subjected to retribution and violence. The women have no freedom. Texas is clamping down on the Mormon sect as well because of child abuse and despite their protests, I think it’s fair to do so.
Cineaste, note that there is a difference between the Mormons and the Mormon Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists are the ones wrapped up in what is going on currently in TX due to the fact that they still hold to the polygynist doctrine which the mainstream church of latter day saints do not. So, they are not cracking down on the mormons, but on the fundamentalist, which is an entirely different branch of mormonism.
j razz
I’m wondering why the N.M. photographers couldn’t have simply said, “No,” when asked to shoot the wedding.
“Lorence said the Huenins, who are fervent evangelicals, politely declined the request because they did not want to use their art to disparage traditional heterosexual marriage.”
I don’t understand how taking pictures of lesbians disparages traditional heterosexual marriage. What exactly is the connection between the photography profession and the institution of marriage?
This sounds like an open and shut case of discrimination. I looked the term up in the dictionary to be specific…
Now, judging by the article, Elaine and Jon Huenins did just that. They object to lesbianism because it goes against their beliefs. Well fine, but that shouldn’t prevent them from doing their job and taking pictures. By legal definition, if one refuses service based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability, or in retaliation for a complaint made against the employer [whistleblower], then it’s discrimination. Well, thats what happened here. Thank goodness Elaine and Jon Huenins were not doctors or their lesbian patients might have died.
Cineaste - the essential difference here is that photography is a means of communication and expression of ideas, and the state can’t force someone to create art that they wouldn’t otherwise create. It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment.
The Huenins are described as fervent evangelical Christians so they probably voted for Bush & Dick Cheney. I have to wonder if they would take the same stand if they were asked to photograph Mary Cheney and her girlfriend Heather Poe. “Mr. Vice President, we respectfully decline to photograph your daughter because we not want to use our art to disparage traditional heterosexual marriage.”
“…and the state can’t force someone to create art that they wouldn’t otherwise create.”
Very true, but there is a difference between a company who snaps wedding pictures and Ansel Adams. That’s beside the point though. If a cab driver, who owns his own cab, refused service to someone based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability etc, then that cab driver is violating anti-discrimination laws. As Di pointed out, the Huenins would probably have been better off simply saying “No, thank you” instead of responding she “would not perform that photography session because it was a same-sex commitment ceremony.”
The argument Christians seem to be making in this case is that Anti-discrimination laws are a violation of the 1st amendment. The Huenins are basing their case on the premise that the 1st amendment grants them the right to discriminate against lesbians. I’m against discrimination in all it’s forms whether it’s against lesbians, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, etc. I may have my religious disagreements with some of these groups of people, and I’m free to voice them because of the first amendment, but I can’t refuse to photograph an evangelical couple at their wedding because I disagree with their beliefs. To do so would be against the law and a clear case of discrimination.
Very true, but there is a difference between a company who snaps wedding pictures and Ansel Adams.
Not as far as the Constitution is concerned. They’re both creating pictures. The fact that one is far more skilled at it is irrelevant. The state can’t compel Huenins to photograph a commitment ceremony any more than it could compel Adams to photograph a certain river or mountain.
“The state can’t compel Huenins to photograph a commitment ceremony any more than it could compel Adams to photograph a certain river or mountain.”
We already know this. I’m saying it’s beside the point. The Huenins are getting sued because they are discriminating. They would have been better off simply saying, “No, thanks.” Instead, they chose to make a statement about using the art of photography to disparage heterosexual marriage. You can’t refuse service based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability etc. That is discrimination and it’s against the law. And, I’m still clueless about how taking pictures of lesbians disparages traditional heterosexual marriage.
Actually Cineaste, this statement isn’t true: “You can’t refuse service based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability etc. That is discrimination and it’s against the law.”
There is no established law which claims this. In fact, even if it did, it would be opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which clearly states that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” BTW, this was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. Clearly, there is no compelling justification here, especially given that other photographers were available and willing to take pictures of the individuals.
The reason why the court must decide this case is precisely because there is no clear law which states this is discrimation. So while you feel it is clear to you, it is apparently not so to our justice system, which probably understands it a whole lot better than you or I.
“You can’t refuse service based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability etc. That is discrimination and it’s against the law.”
I’m not sure that is actually true Cineaste. The employment non discirmination act protects homosexual rights to employment, but it doesn’t mention services. This is where I admit that I didn’t do any real research, unless you count 2 minutes on google.
Also, your last post brings up a very interesting question. Does Huenin’s motive for refusing to produce her art subvert her right to do so? I wouldn’t think so, but I’m not a lawyer. If it did then would a pastor be legally obligated to perform the commitment ceremony if asked even though his religion experssly forbids homosexuality? That would be a service wouldn’t it?
I’m saying it’s beside the point. The Huenins are getting sued because they are discriminating.
Wrong on both counts. It’s precisely the point. And they aren’t getting sued, they had a complaint filed against them with an administrative injury. Lawsuits require proof of injury, and it’s doubtful that the lesbians could come up with any in this case. For better or worse, there’s no constitutional right not to have your feelings hurt.
Instead, they chose to make a statement about using the art of photography to disparage heterosexual marriage.
Right. They made a statement. And the state of New Mexico infringed upon their right to make a statement by fining them.
“The reason why the court must decide this case is precisely because there is no clear law which states this is discrimination. So while you feel it is clear to you, it is apparently not so to our justice system, which probably understands it a whole lot better than you or I.”
To be specific, they violated Section 21-1-7(F) of the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The complainants are entitled to recover attorney fees based on Section 28-1-11(E) of the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
Here is a little info about the law.
Now, I don’t know whether this is illegal in all States, but it is certainly illegal in New Mexico which is the focus of both the Polipundit article and my comments.
I should mention that the Muslim Cab drivers are in MN and I’m unclear about the law there. The cab drivers say, “This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to [transport alcohol]. This is a Koran issue. This came from heaven.” I have to wonder about how far they can take this. Today it’s refusing alcohol, next it’s seeing eye dogs for the blind, then it’s women, then it’s Christians. There has to be a point where we can’t sacrifice any more civil liberties for the religious sensibilities of Islam, or any other religion. The Muslims are also claiming their 1st amendment rights are being violated, but I have grave concerns about letting them discriminate against others based on what their religion says. I have the same concerns for Christianity and other religions. In my opinion, religion is matter between a person and their God. Don’t threaten people who you encounter on your job to comply with your religious beliefs else you refuse them service. This goes for Taxi Drivers, Wedding Photographers, and other professions.
“Does Huenin’s motive for refusing to produce her art subvert her right to do so?”
Again, I don’t think this has anything to do with art. It has everything to do with a business discriminating against people.
“Would a pastor be legally obligated to perform the commitment ceremony if asked even though his religion experssly forbids homosexuality?”
As far as I know the answer is No, he would not.
I believe churches and pastors would be protected by the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, also known as RFRA). The question is whether the New Mexico law violates the protected religious freedom of the photographer.
Personally, I think that a plaintiff only has a legitimate discrimination claim if their denial of service results in a hardship or identifiable loss. Simply going to the next photographer in the phone book and using them instead does not measure up in my estimation.
It will be interesting to follow the story.
Oh and real discrimination can be an ugly and hurtful thing. Discrimination lawsuits should be used to help alleviate real suffering and injustice.
This case diminishes that reality. It’s more like a child running to the teacher and crying, “Ms. Teacher, so-and-so said ‘na-na-na-boo-boo’ to me.”
It essentially was discrimination… but the issue is, isn’t the photographer allowed to discriminate? Aren’t I allowed to discriminate?
If you and I are NOT allowed to discriminate at all, you may as well say that I have to marry the first person that asks me to. Unless the photographer actually guaranteed his/her services, how is this really any different? The plaintiff had no contract with the photographer, it was simply a request and it was denied. The reason for which it was denied should be irrelevant for a private business.
One may as well claim that if a person walks into a store, the clerk requests that they find something to buy or whatever, person finds out its a Christian store, and leaves without buying anything… that’s discrimination as far as the word is concerned, but certainly not illegal.
At one time a business owner could post a sign in their store that they reserved the right to refuse service to anyone. I see no difference here. I am in sales and travel in a large geographic area and I am sure I have seen those signs in several business locations.
“The plaintiff had no contract with the photographer, it was simply a request and it was denied. The reason for which it was denied should be irrelevant for a private business.” — Paul E.
That was my point, earlier. The photographers would have been wiser to have responded with a simple, “No,” instead of providing their so-called reason for not shooting the same-sex commitment ceremony. Once they provided their reason, it seems they were offering proof that they were discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.
I’m with Cineaste regarding how shooting the ceremony would have, in any way, disparaged “traditional heterosexual marriage.” Does taking part — albeit from behind the lens of a camera — in something “non-traditional” inflict any kind of harm on the “traditional” events a person has photographed? Would their “traditional” wedding photos somehow be lessened in value because they had also shot a same-sex wedding?
Also, some have pointed out that the women who were seeking the Huenins’ photographic services weren’t harmed in any way. Well, what if the Huenins are, far and away, the best photographers around? What if these women were prepared to pay top dollar to get “the best”?
Let’s be honest: Each one of us has bought/paid for something — perhaps even spending more money than we really should have — because we wanted to have “the best” of whatever it happened to be.
Can we imagine this another way? Di is the best non-fiction ghost writer in the area and is offers this service to the public. I am a fundamentalist Christian who believes homosexual acts are sinful and I want to have someone to assist me in writing a book about how and why homosexuality is wrong. I don’t just want anyone. I like the way Di writes and I want Di to pen the book based on my ideas and supporting my position. I am not asking Di to agree with the position and may even be adamently against it. Since Di has offered this ghost writing service to the public, does Di have any right to refuse based on principle of her not agreeing the content in the book?
Good points, Richard … and I have to say that Di is in no way obligated to write something that she doesn’t believe in, even though she could, obviously, get away with doing so because she is a ghost writer and, as such, would not be identified. (This seems to fall into an ethical dilemma on the part of the ghost writer, particularly if she doesn’t happen to agree with the points of view of the author. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that many ghost writers have written many things with which they don’t agree … espec. if the paychecks happened to be big enough.)
If I were the ghost writer in this instance, I believe I would politely decline by saying, “No, thanks.”
Is this an example of me discriminating against a fundamentalist Christian who believes homosexual acts are sinful? Maybe; maybe not. There is no way to prove one way or the other because I have not indicated any bias, one way or the the other.
Is this an example of me discriminating against a fundamentalist Christian who believes homosexual acts are sinful? Maybe; maybe not. There is no way to prove one way or the other because I have not indicated any bias, one way or the the other.
Which is why the government should regulate actions rather than the thoughts behind them.
If your reasoning to deny service is because you have an ethical objection should you be required be silent as to why you are denying service? If the client asks why, should you not be able to provide the rationale for your decision without having the risk of being sued for taking a stand against what you believe to be wrong? Seems to me this is where you surrender your 1st amendment rights to keep from being sued. So whose civil liberties are being denied here, the vendor or the customer?
I think the best way people can gain perspective about cases of discrimination is to place yourself in a similar situation. Walk around in the other person’s shoes for a while and see if your thinking still holds true.
“At one time a business owner could post a sign in their store that they reserved the right to refuse service to anyone. I see no difference here.”
How would it make you feel if there was a store you wanted to buy something from that had this sign displayed in the window, only it said “Christians” instead of “Jews?” If the store sign said “lesbians” it would be the same discrimination, just a different group of people.
What if it was you and your spouse who asked the Huenins to take pictures at your wedding and they refused you because you were evangelical Christians. I find that refusal just as objectionable and discriminatory. It’s the exact same situation, only the roles are reversed. Instead of lesbians it’s evangelicals but it could just as easily have been Jews, Blacks, women, blind people, etc.
“I think that a plaintiff only has a legitimate discrimination claim if their denial of service results in a hardship or identifiable loss.”
In this picture, there is no apparent hardship or identifiable loss, the man still has access to the same water, even though he is denied drinking from the white fountain. He is separate but equal. However, everyones agrees this is gross discrimination of the worst sort. Replace the word “colored” with “Christian” or “lesbian” and you still have a case of discrimination even though no hardship or identifiable loss is taking place.
As I said earlier, the Huenins are basing their case on the premise that the 1st amendment grants them the right to discriminate against lesbians. I’m against discrimination in all it’s forms whether it’s against lesbians, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, etc. I’ll go out on a limb and state that I think others should be against discrimination as well. I don’t think the first amendment was ever intended to protect the right to discriminate against other people based on ace, color, religion, national origin, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. I believe it’s an ugly way to think.
We can be better than that.
“What if it was you and your spouse who asked the Huenins to take pictures at your wedding and they refused you because you were evangelical Christians.”
I would understand it. And I certainly wouldn’t want anyone shooting my wedding that didn’t really want the job.
Plus if you visit the link provided by Tim, it’s clear that this suit violates the constitutional rights of the Huenins–in several ways.
And how lame is it to file suit? That’s so 80’s. There are plenty of other ways to become active against something these days.
What if it was you and your spouse who asked the Huenins to take pictures at your wedding and they refused you because you were evangelical Christians. I find that refusal just as objectionable and discriminatory.
I would not expect the state to force a vendor to enter into a contract with me. The motivations of the vendor and my judgment of their rightness or wrongness are irrelevant.
As I said earlier, the Huenins are basing their case on the premise that the 1st amendment grants them the right to discriminate against lesbians.
Actually, they based it on New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents anti-discrimination laws from restricting freedom of religion. The Human Rights Commission ignored this law, which will no doubt be a major thrust of their appeal.
Cineaste, I think it’s a sign of moral immaturity not to discriminate between different instances of discrimination. Requiring nonagenarians to take a driving test more frequently than drivers in their thirties is a form of discrimination, but one that makes sense. It is, technically speaking, discrimination for a military draft to exclude people who are 4 years old or 94 years old, but this is also a form of discrimination that makes sense. It isn’t sensible to determine health insurance premiums as if men and women are equally likely to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or as if all races are equally likely to contract sickle cell anemia.
To say that you’re “against discrimination in all it’s forms” is to reveal a glib commitment to a slogan that leads to absurdity after absurdity.
But, beyond that, I think you should be more clear about when a wedding photographer is free to refuse a client, and when the state should coerce that photographer to document the ceremony.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume each of these scenarios are legal in the jurisdiction in question:
1) A 17-year-old girl wants to mary a 90-year-old man, and the photographer thinks it’s unseemly.
2-a) A father and his adult daughter want to have a commitment ceremony, and the photographer thinks it’s immoral for religious reasons.
2-b) … the photographer thinks it’s immoral for personal reasons that he can’t trace back to any specific religious belief.
3-a) Seventeen people want to have a polygamous ceremony expressing their love for each other, and the photographer thinks it’s immoral for religious reasons.
3-b) … the photographer thinks it’s immoral for personal reasons that he can’t trace back to any specific religious belief.
4-a) The photographer knows that the bride or groom has had multiple, public divorces, and the photographer thinks it’s immoral for religious reasons.
4-b) …the photographer simply thinks it’s bad for his business to be assoicated with one of these weddings.
5-a) The photographer knows that the man is marrying his coworker: they previously had an affair which caused the dissolution of his earlier marriage, and the photographer thinks it’s immoral for religious reasons.
5-b) …the photographer’s wife is close friends with the wife whose husband betrayed her.
6) The couple wants a literally Satanic ceremony, and the photographer objects on religious grounds.
7) The couple wants to have the ceremony in full Kligon regalia, and the photographer thinks it demeans the seriousness of the ceremony.
9-a) The couple wants to have the ceremony sky-diving, and the photographer thinks it demeans the seriousness of the ceremony.
9-b) …the photographer is incredibly acrophobic.
10-a) The couple wants to have the ceremony in a field, and the photographer thinks it demeans the seriousness of the ceremony.
10-b) …the photographer has serious allergies.
I’m curious in which situations you think the photographer is legally free to refuse a client, and why you make your distinctions.
If you make no distinctions whatsoever, I wonder what you would say to, say, a middle-aged Catholic stay-at-home mom who wants to start a part-time business as a wedding photographer since her kids are growing up. She wants to start a business to help cash-strapped Catholic couples document their traditional weddings in elegant but inexpensive albums.
Are you really saying that, for this woman to start her own business, she should be prepared to be required by law and coerced by the state to offer her services to incestuous couples, polygamous communes, unrepentant adulterers, Satanists, nudists, overenthusiastic Trekkies, and even skydivers?
If your position leads to this, you should be clear, just so we know exactly what sort of foolishness you advocate in your call for us to be “better” than to discriminate.
Are you really saying that, for this woman to start her own business, she should be prepared to be required by law and coerced by the state to offer her services to incestuous couples, polygamous communes, unrepentant adulterers, Satanists, nudists, overenthusiastic Trekkies, and even skydivers?
Welcome to life under President Barack.
Will they sue you if you are forced to do it and do a crappy job for whatever reason? I say don’t post price and bid the individual job and bid it high if you don’t want it.
We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them.
~Author Unknown
“Peter then said: Now I am certain that God treats all people alike.”
~Acts 10:34
“If you judge people you have no time to love them.”
~Mother Teresa
I still say, “I’m against discrimination.”
So, you’re for drafting 4-year-olds and 94-year-olds. Insurance companies should determine their customer’s premiums on the ridiculous assumption that both sexes contract ovarian cancer at the same rate, and that all races contract sickle cell anemia at the same rate.
And a photographer should have no legal right to have any say-so on the sort of ceremonies he wil or will not record.
I can only assume that’s what you mean by offering other people’s quotes and gaseous platitudes (”I’m against discrimination.”) rather than actually answer a few straight-forward questions.
–
For what it’s worth, it’s good to rise above prejudice, but not every distinction is prejudicial. Or would you like to argue that it’s prejudice to imprison only those who have been convicted of crimes — and that the noble thing is to rise above our society’s barbaric practice of imprisoning rapists and murderers?
And if you’re going to quote Peter, you should look at the context.
“Peter then said:Now I am certain that God treats all people alike. God is pleased with everyone who worships him and does right, no matter what nation they come from.” - Acts 10:34-35, emphasis mine
One thing that the Bible makes abundantly clear — even in Jesus’ own teachings — is that God is not pleased with everyone, only those who do right. The sheep and the goats will be separated; the weeds will be sifted from the wheat and thrown into the fire.
“So, you’re for drafting 4-year-olds and 94-year-olds.”
You lost me.
“The sheep and the goats will be separated”
Gays and Lesbians?
Cineaste, if you’re against discrimination in all its forms, surely you don’t support the idea that any military draft be limited to certain age groups, such as those from 18 to 35. Saying that a 24-year-old should be eligible for the draft but not 4-year-olds or 94-year-olds, why, that’s age-based discrimination, which you strongly oppose with no apparent qualifications.
Now, I neither said nor implied any connection between Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats and a person’s sexual orientation. I was simply pointing out that the Bible is clear that God doesn’t treat all people alike.
Even the context of the verse you cite shows that the verse doesn’t say what you think it does: Peter preached that God is pleased will all who worship Him regardless of race, but that doesn’t imply that He’s pleased with everyone regardless of their behavior.
–
But let me raise the question again, if you think it is noble to rise above prejudice, and if you think that all distinctions are prejudicial, do you think modern society is wrong to continue the ancient practice of imprisoning convicted criminals while the law-abiding is allowed to roam free?
You took and are taking my comments out of context. I provided examples. Go by those.
If you are truly committed to an unqualified opposition to discrimination, prejudice, and the simple act of making distinctions, then it shouldn’t matter what examples are used: you should be opposed to all of them. You should be opposed to making distinctions between convicted criminals and law-abiding citizens, not just the segregation in the era of Jim Crow.
But if you aren’t opposed to all forms of making distinctions — if, in fact, you make distinctions among distinctions — you should come out from behind your glib bumper-sticker slogans and elaborate on where you draw the line.
I will ask it again: Assuming that all of these are legal, which of these ceremonies should a private photographer be free to refuse to document? A wedding where there’s a 70-year age gap? A celebration of adult incest? A polygamous ceremony?
A ceremony involving someone who’s known to have had repeated divorces? One involving an adulterous couple who broke up a previous marriage or two?
A literally Satanic ceremony? A Klingon ceremony? A nude ceremony? A skydiving ceremony?
You wrote, “I’m against discrimination in all it’s forms whether it’s against lesbians, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, etc.”
You then wrote, “I still say, ‘I’m against discrimination.’”
Well then, if you’re not going to qualify those statements with any exceptions at all, you shouldn’t be upset that readers presume that you make no exceptions. If you want to stop someone like me from showing the absurdity of your position, clarify that position.
You can advocate discrimination all you please, but I still think it’s absurd to defend it.
I believe that the government should discriminate against convicted criminals by putting them in prison while the rest of us can move about freely. Do you believe that this position is absurd?
I believe that the government should discriminate on the basis of age in certain circumstances: toddlers should never be given drivers’ licenses, and the elderly should have to take vision tests more frequently than younger adults. Do you believe that this position is absurd?
Or do you recognize that discriminating — that is, the act of distinguishing between groups of people — is not always immoral and absurd? That we should, in fact, be discriminating when it comes to which forms of discrimination we should stigmatize and criminalize?
I do really want to believe that you really don’t think all forms of distinguishing between groups is immoral, but you make it impossible for me to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt when you refuse to move beyond platitudes.
Last year, Evan Sayet gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation that really got noticed throughout the right side of the blogosphere, and I keep going back to it. The transcript is here, but I recommend searching Youtube for one of several copies of the speech itself: Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals “Think”.
There are moments when I think Evan Sayet is surely, surely over the top, guilty of hyperbole to the point of being absurd, but Cineaste’s comments indicate that Sayet is right to a frightening degree.
There’s a brilliant book out there called The Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recognition, that they’d been raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. I paraphrase this in my own works: “In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”
I’ll give you an example. At the airports, in order not to discriminate, we have to intentionally make ourselves stupid. We have to pretend we don’t know things we do know, and we have to pretend that the next person who is likely to blow up an airplane is as much the 87-year-old Swedish great-great-grandmother as those four 27-year-old imams newly arrived from Syria screaming “Allahu Akbar!” just before they board the plane. In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.
The problem is, of course, that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options–as in “she’s a discriminating shopper”–is the essence of rational thought; thus, the whole of Western Europe and today’s Democratic Party, dominated as it is by this philosophy, rejects rational thought as a hate crime.
The ability to discriminate is essential to rational thought, which may explain why Cineaste’s apparently total opposition to the act of discriminating must be defended through slogans and platitudes. The logical consequences of such a blanket condemnation of the simple act of making informed choices must never be addressed.
“I believe that the government should discriminate against convicted criminals by putting them in prison while the rest of us can move about freely. Do you believe that this position is absurd?”
Now you’re just being silly.
I think most of us have discriminated against someone or some group or something at some point in our lives. For whatever reason(s): Our upbringing, past experience, lack of experience, ignorance, enlightenment, whatever.
I think it’s too easy to say that the government “discriminates” against criminals by putting them in prison. That’s a completely different subject matter, and I don’t really see how it defends a position that “discrimination is a good thing.”
I think there is a real danger in singling out a group of people and deciding, “Hey, it’s OK to discriminate against them.”
Cineaste, that isn’t the only example I gave. I also mentioned more clear-cut forms of making distinctions based on age, sex, and race. You have not said whether you think it’s immoral to refuse to give toddlers drivers licenses, or whether it’s immoral for insurance companies to issue their premiums in full recognition that women get pregnant more often than men and that not all races are equally succeptible to sickle cell anemial.
And, I twice asked if there were other circumstances were a wedding photographer should not be required by law to accept a client. You’ve yet to actually address that question.
–
Di, my position is not that discrimination is always a good thing. My position is that one can be discriminate in considering different acts in which people discriminate. Some acts are immoral and should be illegal; some acts are immoral but should remain legal; and some acts are both moral and even sensible.
If a country has a military draft it is both moral and sensible to exclude the very young and the very old: there’s no need even to ask nonagenarians to submit to a physical.
Some organizations use bases of sex, age, or race to determine who’s qualified to receive awards or scholarships, but I don’t think the United Negro College Fund should be legally required to be color-blind in its scholarships.
And the fact is the vast majority of people discriminate on the basis of sex, age, and sometimes race in determining who they ask out on dates, but there is no way that the government should intervene and require people to do otherwise.
It’s simply glib to say that every form of discrimination “is a bad thing” that should furthermore be criminalized by the state.
Bottom line, if you judge people based on group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit, then I’m against that. That’s discrimination defined. Don’t threaten people who you encounter on your job to comply with your religious beliefs else you refuse them service. This goes for Taxi Drivers, Wedding Photographers, pharmacists and other professions.
As Di said, “I think there is a real danger in singling out a group of people and deciding, “Hey, it’s OK to discriminate against them.””
…and sometimes race in determining who they ask out on dates, but there is no way that the government should intervene and require people to do otherwise.
If a person judges their date based on their race, it’s their constitutional right to be a bigot. The government has no right to intervene. I think the government does have a right to intervene if it’s a business judging employees and clients based on race. These are the fruits born of the Civil Rights Act that Dr. Martin Luther King fought so hard for.
Finally — finally! — you make a distinction between different acts of discrimination: you think people should be free to limit their choices of dates based on sex and even race (those bigots!), but not their business decisions.
On the question of dating, I doubt you really mean what you say here:
Bottom line, if you judge people based on group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit, then I’m against that. That’s discrimination defined.
Unless you’re a bisexual who’s equally apt to date teenagers and retirees, you do let factors other than individual merit play a part in how you live, too. That’s not to damn you as a bigot, but to point out that not every instance of being selective is an instance of bigotry. Sometimes, such selection is imminently sensible.
My primary point is that blanket condemnations of discrimination are like blanket condemnations of censorship: it may make the person feel morally superior, but if he opposes the broadcasting of snuff films and child pornography, his supposedly principled stand against censorship in all its forms is profoundly hypocritical.
If you’re really only opposed to particular instances of discrimination, you should get off your high horse about being opposed to it in all its forms.
Again, your knocking down a straw man, NOT what I’ve actually said. You fixate on the words “all forms” and misleadingly define that as meaning “every instance of being selective” but you ignore the rest of that sentence “against lesbians, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, etc.” What’s the pattern in those examples? The context is certainly not “every instance of being selective.” So, what does “all forms” mean? Read the rest of the sentence. Read my posts. All forms of discrimination as in the Huenin’s case, as in Muslim taxi drivers refusing fares from blind people with seeing eye dogs, as in Jim Crow laws, as in the Nazi boycott of Jewish stores. It’s not discrimination as in toddlers getting drivers licenses, as in criminals getting thrown in jail, as in fathers marrying daughters, etc. Those are your constructions, not mine. That’s why you are knocking down a straw man that has nothing to do with my actual position.
Fallacy: Straw Man
“That’s not to damn you as a bigot, but to point out that not every instance of being selective is an instance of bigotry.”
No problem. You haven’t yet touched upon my arguments at all.
If you want to explain exactly which instances of being selective you believe is immoral, please do so.
When you trot out platitudes like your misuse of Acts 10, you invite my conclusion that your criticism of being selective is overly broad. Clarify your actual position, and I wouldn’t have to guess at it and introduce conclusions that you think are straw men.
Since the subject is when wedding photographers should be legally permitted to refuse a client, I will raise — for the fourth time — the question, in what other circumstances do you believe that a photographer ought to be legally required to accept a client?
One of my examples was adult incest, but if it’s not illegal in that particular circumstance, should the wedding photographer be free to refuse those clients or not?
Assuming that all of these are legal, which of these ceremonies should a private photographer be free to refuse to document? A wedding where there’s a 70-year age gap? A celebration of adult incest? A polygamous ceremony?
A ceremony involving someone who’s known to have had repeated divorces? One involving an adulterous couple who broke up a previous marriage or two?
A literally Satanic ceremony? A Klingon ceremony? A nude ceremony? A skydiving ceremony?
You wrote, “I’m against discrimination in all it’s forms whether it’s against lesbians, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, etc.”
Okay: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “ETC.”?
Does that refer to those who want Satanic ceremonies? Klingon ceremonies? Skydiving ceremonies?
If it’s wrong to discriminate against a lesbian ceremony in this case, why is adult incest not also protected? Or a ceremony between known adulterers? Or polygamists?
If you’re not going to clarify your position, you should accept that your position runs the risk of being misunderstood.
If some left-wing, liberal, whacko organization exerts its rights (ie abortion-rights goofballs, or some various tree-hugging, save-the-planet group), they’re branded as heroes.
If evangelical Christians seek to do the same, they are considered closed-minded and discriminatory.
Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here?
This is rather interesting. equality rights vs. personal rights. After reading some more about it, I think the only way you can discriminate legally is to show that it would be injurious to your business if you served the clients you are refusing.
Had they just said “no thanks”. That would have been the end of it and I don’t think there would have been any legal recourse. You still can refuse anyone service, just not for discriminatory purposes.