As a friend who runs a business would say, " The customer is always right?! Ha, 10% of them are complete lunatics, with crazy ass demands that no matter what, will never be satisfied. They will insult and argue with the staff, cause a scene, drive others away, and then will demand their service should be free."

A good business knows when to not take a customer. They deserve the right to refuse customers.

How do you differentiate between this, and common behavior in the last century not to rent hotel rooms to blacks, not to sell them homes, not to let them come in to your restaurant?

Also, do you think a community has the right to regulate the behaviors of the businesses that operate in that community? (Not a lawyer, but that would seem to be an expression of a community to freedom of association.) If a community does have the right to regulate the behaviors of businesses, what is unconstitutional about their doing so through their elected officials?

If a business is told you must serve various groups regardless of the owners personal beliefs, what right does that thwart? It's not regulating the owner's private behavior, for instance his right to freedom of association.

Do businesses have a legal right of freedom of association?

Ah, now HERE's the Amy I know and love. :-)

Be sure to read this Popehat article on the subject of discrimination in businesses. It is by far the best explanation I have come across.

I don't understand. If the law prohibits a "public accommodation" from discriminating, I'm on board with that. But what does a privately-owned photography business have to do with public accommodations?

I also don't believe that a private photography business should be forced to photograph gay weddings...or interracial weddings, or Jewish weddings, or black weddings, or whatever.

They have the right to discriminate however they wish. And I have the right to decide for myself, and say openly, that I am disgusted by their bigotry and refuse to do business with them. And if enough people feel the same way I do, it will either force them to adjust their attitudes or go out of business. Or possibly rely upon charitable support from like-minded individuals.

But forcing people to photograph gay weddings against their wishes will not encourage them to become more open-minded. On the contrary, it will more likely increase their resentment.

This is a mistake.

I would walk into that photography shop and say, "Don't make me assume my ultimate form!"

I enjoyed and agree with the article that a random guy posted. Here in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I see this discrimination blossoming, not because of any strong personal belief, but rather from pressure from customers who refuse to use an "immoral" photographer. Yes, in other parts of the country, it could cost money when indignant customers refuse to support a close-minded business, but there are still places with the opposite conditions.

I'm sure many of the restauranteers in the past would have "liked" to serve African Americans, but didn't want to rock the boat and risk losing their customer base.

As a practical matter, how good do you think those photographs produced under duress are going to be? And would you really eat that cake?

It is tough enough getting willing people to do good work.

"But forcing people to photograph gay weddings against their wishes will not encourage them to become more open-minded. On the contrary, it will more likely increase their resentment."

"I'm sure many of the restauranteers in the past would have "liked" to serve African Americans, but didn't want to rock the boat and risk losing their customer base."

"It is tough enough getting willing people to do good work." (HA!)

All good points.

What bothers me most about this scenario though, is the ridiculous bullshit being carried out in the name of Jesus.

I would really like to discriminate against Christians. Raised Roman Catholic, and having dealt with the blowback arising from the *criminal* negligence (at the very least) resulting from attitudes originating from the Vatican and trickling down to local parishes, I can tell you that *Christians* are one of if not THE most hypocritical religion in the world today. Unfortunately, that would just be bad business.

Can you imagine the outcry if I refused to open the doors of my *home based* business to Catholics based on attitudes derived from proven criminal acts committed by the Church?

People would be rioting in the streets!!!

I can prove the heinousness of the Catholic Church. What can the Church prove against Gays?

Atheists?

Pagans?

Sun-worshipers?

I'm on the side of the business owner making a choice.

Think about trying to force a Christian ob/gyn to be an abortionist. Are you going put a woman's reproductive, let alone general, health at risk because the doctor botched up something they didn't want to do in the first place?

Paganism has a much longer much more violent history than Christianity. Human sacrifice, 'exposure' of newborns, there is no shortage of horror in the annals of pagan history.

And atheism...do we really want to get into the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others?

No, the truth is that no segment of human belief is free of bloodshed.

However, this isn't a question of history, but of liberty.

Does anyone have a right to force someone to perform a job against their will? Can you MAKE a person do something they do not wish to, whatever the reason. Perhaps it is conscience, perhaps it is bigotry, perhaps it is a fear of offending a larger customer base, it could be any number of reasons...

But while 'public' services should never be restrictive upon any member of the public, demanding that every privately owned enterprise which does not accept money from state, federal, or local government, behave in ways it deems contrary to conscience or belief, is the very opposite of believing in a free society.

Your right to live as you choose, does not entitle you to my business, my approval, or my support.

I don't care if someone is LBTG, Nazi, Black, black nazi, polka dotted, or space alien, but I do care that the basic fundamental rights of the people, ALL people, are protected, and it is a fundamental right to act in accordance with your conscience as long as you do not do any physical or financial harm to somebody else in the course of exercising that conscience.

They can use another photographer if they choose. Why they'd want to use a photographer that didn't like them in the first place, I cannot imagine. Just how good a job do they think the photographer will do if 'forced' to work?

Popehat's column on this topic makes it clear that the photography business,since it advertises itself to the public, is a "public accomodation" in the eyes of the law. Where I part ays is with a law that forces any private business-owner to do business with anyone with whom s/he doesn't wish to do business, no matter how stupid or bigoted the reason might be. That sort of behavior carries its own reward, eventually. It might take longer, but it also prevents a lot of resentment and lasting animosity.

People would be rioting in the streets!!!

You're talking about Catholics, not Muslims.

Big difference. No one minds pissing off a Catholic, or a Jew, or any of the Protestant denominations. They tend to shrug their shoulders and move on.

Riot in the streets? please. Thou doth protest too much.

The other awful thing is how much this works against gay folks who want to get their marriages legally recognized. For I don't know how long I've been telling my family "no one is going to force your church to perform gay marriages. No one is going to force you to do something you find immoral. They just want legal recognition." And then this happens. They've dug in even further against it because *clearly* it's just a little further down the slippery slope before the government is mandating that their churches bless these unions.

Way to fucking go New Mexico.

How do you differentiate between this, and common behavior in the last century not to rent hotel rooms to blacks, not to sell them homes, not to let them come in to your restaurant?

Jerry, what many including you seem to not understand is Jim Crow laws were FORCED on businesses from the state. They could not serve blacks under the force of law, not their own choice.

Elle, That is the way lawyers, politicians, and social changers operate. It's all domino theory in practice, with them denying it is.
Politicians will claim no one is trying to ban all guns, then will give a speech to their constituents saying they will ban all guns.

Why? because we are human, some people on all sides of an issue have goals that are extreme. Sometimes movements have those goals.
Politicians try to manipulate things to implement those goals, often the more radical ones, but they do it in stages.

My question is if the wedding photographer refuses to do your wedding for whatever reason, why would you want to force them to serve you? They could very easily do a terrible job, or even worse, claim that all the digital photos got irretrievably wiped out.

I, for one, would much rather businesses (and people) be forced to show their cards instead of being forced to hide them.

What I mean is this - wouldn't it be better to know that a person or a business is a bigot rather than the law or the PC crowd causing them to hide their true feelings?

Let's say for example that a photographer is forced by law to do a photoshoot at a wedding of people he would much rather not do. (it could be because their gay or any other reason) Just how good will those photographs be? Maybe they will be okay; but not his best work.

More importantly, if someone doesn't want to do business with me (for whatever reason) I would much rather NOT do business with him. Why give him my hard-earned money - he doesn't deserve it!

Lastly, for whatever it's worth; in my opinion (not a lawyer, not even one on tv!) I never considered something as personal as the services provided by a photographer to be "public accommodation." Walking into a 7-11 or some such establishment, yea, sure, that's the type of place that should be open to all (with the exception of prohibiting unwanted behaviour - no shirts, no shoes, no service). But a wedding photographer? That's something that is a little less "public accommodation" than I would have normally thought.

... if the wedding photographer refuses to do your wedding for whatever reason, why would you want to force them to serve you?

Exactly this. Isn't it better to find someone who wants to work with you??

Common sense. Yeah, not so much anymore...

Paganism has a much longer much more violent history than Christianity. Human sacrifice, 'exposure' of newborns, there is no shortage of horror in the annals of pagan history.

Given Paganism technically includes EVERYTHING that isnt christianity that statement may be technically true, and technically meaningless

With the New Mexico population covering nearly every part of the political spectrum on almost every issue there is, it's surprising to me that this had enough support to pass. When I lived there it was common for the legislature to put out some pretty oddball stuff, glad to see that the tradition continues.

Legally this decision in on shaky ground but if Elane Photography appeals to Federal courts, it will probably be upheld. Judges are not stupid and realize that, as long as gays are a protected class, there is no way to attack anti-discrimination laws with regard to gays without attacking those laws with regards other protected class. The only way under current law is to revoke the "protected class" designation for gays or to eliminate the whole idea of a protected class entirely. Good luck with either of those.

What Robert and IRA Darth Aggie said.

And again, having said that, mucho credito to Amy for being so mature-minded and wise about this issue. IMHO any Christian or other person who would discriminate against her for being pro-gay or an atheist is a closed-minded, ignorant fool, and I as a Christian and a person would far rather do business and have relationships with people like Amy than with bigots of any background.

Obviously we disagree strongly about a lot of stuff (like life in the suburbs, cough cough) but I'm always happy to acknowledge when someone I disagree with on one topic is so absolutely right about another.

My question is if the wedding photographer refuses to do your wedding for whatever reason, why would you want to force them to serve you? They could very easily do a terrible job, or even worse, claim that all the digital photos got irretrievably wiped out.

I just got back from photographing a wedding. It's not difficult to mess up photographing one.

You really want to have a photographer who's in sync with you.

"Oops, left the lens cap on for that one."

"Your Aunt Mabel was always standing up just as I would take the shot. You've got some nice ones of the back of her head in here."

"Forgot to focus on that one."

"Uh oh, moved the camera and blurred that one."

"Did you know that your eyes close every time someone tries to take your picture?"

"I thought the guy in the gray suit was your dad. Well, you've got lots of pictures of that guy."

"You didn't want pictures of the vomiting groomsmen?"

"Wait, there was a cake cutting? I must have been outside smoking then."

==============================

Walking into a 7-11 or some such establishment, yea, sure, that's the type of place that should be open to all (with the exception of prohibiting unwanted behaviour - no shirts, no shoes, no service). But a wedding photographer? That's something that is a little less "public accommodation" than I would have normally thought.

There needs to be a better legal definition of "public accommodation" than "a business that does something I can sue them for doing."

And, in other news . . .

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

I feel most businesses should be open for all. But I have a hard time with forcing artistic type services. It could be decorating a cake or emceeing or photographing being forced to perform where they do not want. Yes, you must sell the gay couple dinner rolls when they walk into the bakery. No you do not have to decorate their wedding cake. Yes the gay couple may walk into a florist and buy a bouquet, not you are not forced to creatively assemble flowers for their wedding.

In this economy, most businesses, even small artsy ones are more than willing to perform. Make a list. Pass it around. Put it online. Problem solved.

Lawsuits are not the answer.

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop -- mpetrie98 at September 3, 2013 2:29 PM

That is disgusting.

I support equal rights under the law. This is a case of preferred rights and their abuse.

LauraGr has the attitude I think most middle Americans have:

In this economy, most businesses, even small artsy ones are more than willing to perform. Make a list. Pass it around. Put it online. Problem solved.

When the gay rights advocates act as if they have special rights, all it causes is harm to their side.

"Obviously we disagree strongly about a lot of stuff (like life in the suburbs, cough cough) but I'm always happy to acknowledge when someone I disagree with on one topic is so absolutely right about another.

I love that, too, about you and a number of people -- even many people -- who comment here. Momof4 is another. We disagree on some things and agree on others and give each other props for stuff we respect/admire."

If you don't mind my joining the hugfest, this aspect of your blog and of you makes your blog and you one of my absolute favorites.

Feminists go on and on about creating "safe spaces" and invariably I've found, "safe space" forums involve a terrible amount of bullying. So do most of the various partisan left or right blogs.

Your free speech blog is one of the safest places I know on the net.