When
I first heard about the Arizona bill that is aimed at protecting religious
rights, I initially thought it was more of the same narrow minded ideas that
surrounded the immigration debate. For most part, the debate is, in fact, narrow-minded,
but, on both sides. Obviously, the zealots screaming about their religious
rights being violated have a narrow view
and don’t realize the damage they could do, both socially and economically.
Less obvious is the damage to certain business owners’ rights due to the New Mexico
(Yes, New Mexico, not Arizona) lawsuit that launched this madness, Elane
Photography v. Willock. Here is an excerpt from the New Mexico Supreme Court
decision that went against Elane Photography:
"The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses
offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected
classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that
the First Amendment permits such regulation by state. Businesses that choose to
be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses
retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political
beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their
studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with
applicable anti-discrimination laws."
For
those who do not know the story, in short, Elane Photography refused to do a
commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. The couple sued Elane Photography,
and won, all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court for violating the New Mexico
Human Rights Act (NMRHA). This series of events inspired what is currently
known as Senate Bill 1062 in Arizona. After learning these facts, this issue,
in my view, became a double edged sword. The majority went on to say this:
“The reality is that because it is a public accommodation,
its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include
artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own
time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did
not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane
Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the
present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA
are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course
of its business as a public accommodation. This determination has no relation
to the artistic merit of photographs produced by Elane Photography.”
Here’s
the double edged sword and the flaw in the Court’s opinion. The majority
opinion states, ”If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time…,or if
it was hired by certain clients and did not offer its services to the general
public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to
photograph or not.” If I am not mistaken, that is exactly what photographers
do. It’s not a public accommodation, because no one walks into a photographer’s
studio and walks out with their picture on the same day. You hire a photographer. It’s not like
going to McDonalds to get a burger, going to the Gap to get jeans or
to Walgreen’s to get a Coke. You walk into the studio, look at the photographer’s
work, ask about prices, see their packages and compare them to others you have
looked at, negotiate a little and then hire
the one that works best for you. It’s exactly what the majority argued it isn’t.
Elane Photography basically told the couple that she did not wish to be hired by them. You cannot make
someone accept a job they do not wish to take. If a photographer would rather
not work with you because you are a same sex couple, then choose a different photographer.
You don’t have to hire that
one, because obviously it isn’t going to work best for you. SMH.
I have yet to figure
out how or why Arizona managed
to interject themselves into this matter, other than they are bored, backwards
and behind. They didn’t want to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, they
wanted to require immigrants to carry papers at all times a la Nazi Germany,
and now they want to give business owners the right to discriminate, citing
religious beliefs because of something that happened in another state. I almost
want them to pass it, so that the business owners insipid enough to actually use
this law to deny service can lose the company that they do not deserve to have.
After the research I have done on this matter, it amazes me how such a bad
piece of legislation can be written and passed all of the way to the Governor’s
desk, and be based on a completely flawed ruling by a State Supreme Court. All of the
wrong decisions are being made by the people responsible for making and
interpreting the laws, and they are on opposite sides of the issue. How often
does that happen?
Lord, help this country and the lost people running it.
No comments:
Post a Comment