The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[Jimmy Higgins]

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

Let me ask you a question:

Imagine you are a gay man, and every photographer within 50 miles hates gay marriage. Under the law, however, let's say they are compelled to photograph weddings.

Would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

So your response to the question is ‘the market will handle it’? Seems like Jim Crowesque defense has adapted to include ‘free market’ voodoo.

 

[Metaphor]

Jimmy Higgins, you haven't answered my question:

If you were a gay man, would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

I really don't think it's that hard a question to answer.

 

[Politesse]

I am a gay man, and though I do indeed prefer to do business where the rainbow flag overtly flies, it isn't always that obvious. Until someone outright turns you down, the legality of which exchange is what's under question.

 

[Metaphor]

I am a gay man, and though I do indeed prefer to do business where the rainbow flag overtly flies, it isn't always that obvious. Until someone outright turns you down, the legality of which exchange is what's under question.

Well, perhaps you can answer my question:

If you were getting married, would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

Jimmy Higgins hasn't answered this question so I feel like I should throw it open to everybody.

I've answered it already upthread, but my answer is 'no'. It's a plain 'no'. There's no caveats on that. Even if they were the only professional photographer within 1,000km, my answer is 'no'.

 

[Politesse]

I am a gay man, and though I do indeed prefer to do business where the rainbow flag overtly flies, it isn't always that obvious. Until someone outright turns you down, the legality of which exchange is what's under question.

Well, perhaps you can answer my question:

If you were getting married, would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

Jimmy Higgins hasn't answered this question so I feel like I should throw it open to everybody.

I've answered it already upthread, but my answer is 'no'. It's a plain 'no'. There's no caveats on that. Even if they were the only professional photographer within 1,000km, my answer is 'no'.

If I had a choice, and I knew in advance of my selection what the religious convictions of various photographers in the area were? No. But that is not as likely a scenario as you seem to think it is. And frankly I would prefer to hire a photographer who, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be a goddamn professional about it. I hate the ever-living fuck out of rich assholes and their twatty faux-gilded aesthetics, but if I were a photographer that would not result in me turning down contracts for extravagant weddings. My personal prejudices, be they earned or unearned shouldn't have anything to do with whether I turn up and do my job or not. What the hell ever happened to growing up and growing a pair?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am a gay man, and though I do indeed prefer to do business where the rainbow flag overtly flies, it isn't always that obvious. Until someone outright turns you down, the legality of which exchange is what's under question.

Well, perhaps you can answer my question:

If you were getting married, would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

Jimmy Higgins hasn't answered this question so I feel like I should throw it open to everybody.

I've answered it already upthread, but my answer is 'no'. It's a plain 'no'. There's no caveats on that. Even if they were the only professional photographer within 1,000km, my answer is 'no'.

Blacks in the south regularly gave their money to white people's businesses. When Civil Rights arrived via MLK and others, blacks began to boycott those same businesses, successfully. They simply had decided that enough Jim Crow was enough.

So to answer your question, yes, I could very easily see myself doing business with a business that discriminated against me if for no other reason than simply because there were no other options.

Earlier I compared it to the simple act of obtaining food. Certainly I would prefer to not support any business that discriminates against me but that is not always possible, if even imagined. Also, you are anachronizing. I don't think your question is a good one considering that the very thing you find so despicable actually occurred for decades, lifetimes, for many people. It is perhaps not as prevalent today but it most definitely was after Plessy Ferguson. You are acting as if southern blacks actually had options. They didn't. If they wanted to live they had to do business with their white overlords. Lynchings were common enough and the KKK was powerful.

I lived in the U.S. south for many years and experienced the culture. The KKK would solicit and advertise at exists from the interstates in their KKK outfits. Do you know anything about this? Do you have any experience with the culture? Your question betrays a rather juvenile lack of appreciation and understanding of the subject imho.

 

[Metaphor]

If I had a choice, and I knew in advance of my selection what the religious convictions of various photographers in the area were? No.

Let me be more specific. You live in an area with three wedding photographers who could conceivably provide services. Everyone else is already booked.

Let's also say you live in a place where photographers are legally allowed to discriminate in the manner being discussed.

You ring person A who is available but says 'and is this a traditional wedding?' and after a small amount of discussion, the photographer says 'I don't photograph gay weddings, personal policy'.

You ring persons B and C and they do not appear to have any problem with a same-sex marriage and you discuss services and prices.

Now imagine the same scenario, but A, B and C are all compelled to not discriminate. A still asks if it's a 'traditional wedding'--he still doesn't like doing gay weddings--and you can tell he is not keen to take this on. But he's already indicated he's available.

Would you want to hire A in either scenario?

But that is not as likely a scenario as you seem to think it is. And frankly I would prefer to hire a photographer who, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be a goddamn professional about it. I hate the ever-living fuck out of rich assholes and their twatty faux-gilded aesthetics, but if I were a photographer that would not result in me turning down contracts for extravagant weddings. My personal prejudices, be they earned or unearned shouldn't have anything to do with whether I turn up and do my job or not. What the hell ever happened to growing up and growing a pair?

If you've been paid to do a job, then absolutely you need to turn up and do it.

But some people who are wedding photographers may have other jobs or other independent sources of income, and it's a semi-professional 'hobby'. Even when it isn't a hobby, not everybody works full time or wants to, and some times somebody might just want a Saturday off. And sometimes people don't like gay weddings and they don't think it's worth the effort.

I'm continually amazed by the posters on here who appear to agree with me that no gay person would actually want to hire such a photographer. What I don't get is why it's so hard for people to actually say it.

And what I also don't understand is the references to Jim Crow - which were state and local laws that enforced segregation and were not a reflection, therefore, of individual prejudice.

And what I also don't understand is the denial that specialist services will spring up as soon as there is a market gap. laughing dog called this a frothing libertarian wet dream (or words to that effect).

I sometimes wonder if laughing dog lives in the same universe as I do, or perhaps, because he isn't gay, he doesn't notice the endless chasing of the pink dollar.

But all you have to do is google 'gay wedding services' or 'gay wedding photography' to get long lists of people who specialize in gay weddings. And just browsing ordinary photography services, many list their LGBT+ friendly status.

But even if I'm wrong (and I'm not wrong), I still don't know why you would engage a wedding photographer who hated your union, and I don't know why they want the State to compel them to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

So to answer your question, yes, I could very easily see myself doing business with a business that discriminated against me if for no other reason than simply because there were no other options.

No, please answer the question I posed, not a different question that I did not pose.

If you were a gay man, would you pay money to a photographer who hated gay weddings to photograph your own wedding, even if you could find no other photographer to do it?

 

[laughing dog]

I see you've cut out most of my response in your response.

I have the cognitive werewithall to recognize verbal diarrhea.

You evidently do not have the cognitive werewithall to see that my response of "Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?" is my answer to your question "why not let the market decide". The answer is "forcing people to provide services is not "letting the market decide"". That answer In fact, it seems nearly the opposite of what is usually meant by "letting the market decide". "Letting the market decide" usually means "customers will decide whether a certain business or product will survive and the government will stay out of it".

Only in liberdopia do markets exist outside of social and legal norms that may force people to provide services. For example, most legal systems can be used to force a domeone to fulfill a contractual obligation.

What's pathetic, laughing dog, is that in cutting out most of my post in your 'reply', you are signaling to me you can't actually respond to it.

You are free to draw whatever conclusion you wish. You did stumble on it this time. You are correct, I am unwilling to respond to verbal diarrhea.

Since you routinely do not respond to entire posts, I find your snit rather ironic.

But, I will lay it out for you plainly: I stand up for the right of people to buy and sell services and goods to whom they want.

At least you are honest about standing up for bigots.

You support bigotry too, but only selectively. You support the right of people to boycott restaurants based on the chef's or owner's ethnicity.

I didn’t know that at all. Where did I say that?

 

[Politesse]

If I had a choice, and I knew in advance of my selection what the religious convictions of various photographers in the area were? No.

Let me be more specific. You live in an area with three wedding photographers who could conceivably provide services. Everyone else is already booked.

Let's also say you live in a place where photographers are legally allowed to discriminate in the manner being discussed.

You ring person A who is available but says 'and is this a traditional wedding?' and after a small amount of discussion, the photographer says 'I don't photograph gay weddings, personal policy'.

You ring persons B and C and they do not appear to have any problem with a same-sex marriage and you discuss services and prices.

Now imagine the same scenario, but A, B and C are all compelled to not discriminate. A still asks if it's a 'traditional wedding'--he still doesn't like doing gay weddings--and you can tell he is not keen to take this on. But he's already indicated he's available.

Would you want to hire A in either scenario?

But that is not as likely a scenario as you seem to think it is. And frankly I would prefer to hire a photographer who, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be a goddamn professional about it. I hate the ever-living fuck out of rich assholes and their twatty faux-gilded aesthetics, but if I were a photographer that would not result in me turning down contracts for extravagant weddings. My personal prejudices, be they earned or unearned shouldn't have anything to do with whether I turn up and do my job or not. What the hell ever happened to growing up and growing a pair?

If you've been paid to do a job, then absolutely you need to turn up and do it.

But some people who are wedding photographers may have other jobs or other independent sources of income, and it's a semi-professional 'hobby'. Even when it isn't a hobby, not everybody works full time or wants to, and some times somebody might just want a Saturday off. And sometimes people don't like gay weddings and they don't think it's worth the effort.

I'm continually amazed by the posters on here who appear to agree with me that no gay person would actually want to hire such a photographer. What I don't get is why it's so hard for people to actually say it.

And what I also don't understand is the references to Jim Crow - which were state and local laws that enforced segregation and were not a reflection, therefore, of individual prejudice.

And what I also don't understand is the denial that specialist services will spring up as soon as there is a market gap. laughing dog called this a frothing libertarian wet dream (or words to that effect).

I sometimes wonder if laughing dog lives in the same universe as I do, or perhaps, because he isn't gay, he doesn't notice the endless chasing of the pink dollar.

But all you have to do is google 'gay wedding services' or 'gay wedding photography' to get long lists of people who specialize in gay weddings. And just browsing ordinary photography services, many list their LGBT+ friendly status.

But even if I'm wrong (and I'm not wrong), I still don't know why you would engage a wedding photographer who hated your union, and I don't know why they want the State to compel them to do so.

Of course not. Why would I knowingly hire a bigot? I would be happy if you all starved to death for lack of business due popular reaction to your cruel and idiotic philosophies. God knows you'd happily do the same to us. But the real world is not that simple.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So to answer your question, yes, I could very easily see myself doing business with a business that discriminated against me if for no other reason than simply because there were no other options.

No, please answer the question I posed, not a different question that I did not pose.

If you were a gay man, would you pay money to a photographer who hated gay weddings to photograph your own wedding, even if you could find no other photographer to do it?

I could most definitely see myself doing that. No different from buying food from the same person. I wouldn't like it but I could definitely see myself having to do it.

 

[Metaphor]

So to answer your question, yes, I could very easily see myself doing business with a business that discriminated against me if for no other reason than simply because there were no other options.

No, please answer the question I posed, not a different question that I did not pose.

If you were a gay man, would you pay money to a photographer who hated gay weddings to photograph your own wedding, even if you could find no other photographer to do it?

I could most definitely see myself doing that. No different from buying food from the same person. I wouldn't like it but I could definitely see myself having to do it.

I wouldn't. A wedding photographer isn't food. A wedding photographer does not have any bearing on survival.

I would enlist an amateur or friend to do the photography instead. I would encourage guests to take photos. But I wouldn't hand over money for somebody who didn't actually want to do it.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course not. Why would I knowingly hire a bigot?

Well, I wouldn't either. So I'm confused as to why many people on here can't admit they wouldn't hire a bigot to photograph their wedding. It's like they're admitting to a crime of some kind.

I would be happy if you all starved to death for lack of business due popular reaction to your cruel and idiotic philosophies. God knows you'd happily do the same to us. But the real world is not that simple.

Whoa, that's a bit personal. I haven't denied anyone wedding photography services. I'm not even a photographer.

But also I don't wish 'starving to death' on anyone, no matter how bigoted they are.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn’t know that at all. Where did I say that?

Oh, I may have made an ass out of u and me.

So, you don't support the right of people to boycott restaurants based on the chef's or owner's ethnicity?

 

[Politesse]

Of course not. Why would I knowingly hire a bigot?

Well, I wouldn't either. So I'm confused as to why many people on here can't admit they wouldn't hire a bigot to photograph their wedding. It's like they're admitting to a crime of some kind.

I would be happy if you all starved to death for lack of business due popular reaction to your cruel and idiotic philosophies. God knows you'd happily do the same to us. But the real world is not that simple.

Whoa, that's a bit personal. I haven't denied anyone wedding photography services. I'm not even a photographer.

But also I don't wish 'starving to death' on anyone, no matter how bigoted they are.

You're defending bigotry, what's the difference?

I don't want people to starve to death on general principle. Just specifically those whose bigotry turns the "invisible hand"of the free market against them.

 

[Metaphor]

You're defending bigotry, what's the difference?

What's the difference between being a bigot and not supporting that the State compel people to provide commercial services against their will? I think there's a great deal of difference.

I don't want people to starve to death on general principle. Just specifically those whose bigotry turns the "invisible hand"of the free market against them.

I don't even want bigots to starve to death. I don't want child molesters and killers in jail to starve to death. That's an unhuman and inhumane thing to want.

 

[Bomb#20]

I keep seeing variations on that argument. It's a puzzling argument -- its theory appears to be that the thing about compelled speech that makes it bad is that somebody hearing it might think you agree with what you're being made to say.

When I was a little kid I lived in a country with no First Amendment. The government there made me learn and recite this weird piece of literature that started out "Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", and meandered around until it finished up with "... forever and ever, Amen". It sounds like, according to you guys' concept of free speech, that this would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for the government there to make me do, if only I'd been allowed to stand in front and cross my fingers behind my back where everybody could see it while I was reciting that government's propaganda for it.

That conflates the idea of a government making you get gay married with a government making you sell your product to gay marriages.

Huh? I didn't conflate anything; I simply pointed out that a particular argument was unreasonable. The government ordering me to pray was a bad thing. Do you disagree with that? The reason it was a bad thing is not that it made me run the risk of people thinking I meant it. Do you disagree with that? If your government ordered you to pray, would you be okay with that?

Similar to a lunch counter, right? We can’t force a lunch counter to serve gay people because we’d be forcing them to cross their fingers behind their backs while people gay eat.

Oh for the love of god. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just keyword search it? You appear to have decided that my post means the exact opposite of what it says. We can’t force a child to pray, and it's *** NOT *** because we’d be forcing them to cross their fingers behind their backs while they pray. Comprendes? So do not paint me as having said we can’t force a child to pray because we’d be forcing them to cross their fingers behind their backs while they pray.

Think of any product or service that any business gives or does anywhere. And is your argument that they can say, “yeah, but not to gays.”

No. Of course that's not my argument, and if you imagine it is then you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Is compelling businesses to provide services in a non-discriminatory way "the market"?

Yes.

Do you think these people should be compelled to offer their patronage in a non-discriminatory way?

It is as you suspect; I don't. I don't support the discrimination, but I think the difference between the two roles is different enough that the identical considerations cannot be applied to both.

I suspect you don't. But while I accept that "buying a product or service" is different to "selling a product or service", the difference does not seem to me enough to compel somebody to do so in one case but not the other.

What does it mean to compel a customer to patronize a business? I don't think there is a mechanism to compel customers to spend unless they had a contractual agreement, or if they had already acquired the service or product they tried to refuse to pay on some discriminatory basis. Discriminatory reasoning for violating the agreement or breaking the contract should never be recognized as lawful.

Wouldn't the above scenario be far closer to "testing the market" than compelling people to provide services in a non-discriminatory manner?

I don't suspect it would. Being against same-sex marriage isn't part of a photography service, ordinarily, but let's say that it was. Josephine's Wedding Photography: Our images express that the only good marriage is a traditional one. In a scenario where Josephine's can't discriminate, customers are free to choose or not choose her service. Photographers can still choose to specialize in 'rainbow' weddings, and if that matters to customers, they can choose. In a scenario where Josephine's can discriminate, only some customers can choose to patronize or not patronize the business.

Whether businesses have the right to discriminate or not, it's really circumstantial whether their private views will be made known to the public. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, my understanding is that they had refused other same-sex couples previously, but 'the market' didn't really follow your hypothetical. I'm not sure (m)any LGBT+ people buying other baked goods actually knew they refused to make cakes for same-sex unions. I'm sure things could play out the way you said. Maybe they have in other scenarios without the attention of a lawsuit or human rights complaint.

 

[Bomb#20]

Another consideration. If one type of business, like photographer, is allowed to discriminate because some feel you can live without it, how long until other types of businesses start to complain about being singled out?

But "some feel you can live without it" isn't why she's allowed to discriminate. She's allowed to discriminate (assuming she wins her case, which seems likely from precedent) because she has a First Amendment right not to create pro-(position X) artwork.

About not getting the same right to discriminate as the other businesses? Lawsuits start flying, and BS arguments about fair and equal treatment to allow discrimination until they find some federal judge to rule it is ok to discriminate.

Start? Lawsuits and arguments like that have been flying for hundreds of years. If some stupid federal judge rules that renting out a motel room is artistic it'll get overturned on appeal, same old same old.

Then even necessities may not be available in areas.

Necessities tend not to be subject to First Amendment protection. People rarely die of being disagreed with.

 

[Metaphor]

What does it mean to compel a customer to patronize a business? I don't think there is a mechanism to compel customers to spend unless they had a contractual agreement, or if they had already acquired the service or product they tried to refuse to pay on some discriminatory basis. Discriminatory reasoning for violating the agreement or breaking the contract should never be recognized as lawful.

That means only that there's no practical way to enforce non-discrimination by consumers, not that there's a moral difference.

Tell me, what do you think of people who refuse to patronise a restaurant because the chef/owners ethnicity does not match the 'cultural' background of the food in the restaurant they serve? Do you think they are bigots?