Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

More government for me, less for thee.

 

I think the photographer -- a woman -- owned or co-owned a studio at which the two-woman couple wanted to have a commitment ceremony. The studio has been defined as a public accommodation and therefore it's subject to N.M.'s laws on anti-discrimination. I think the fine's in the $10,000 neighborhood.

 

Does it strike anybody else that much of this argument has been done before, in the segregated south of the 50s and 60s? White business owners didn't want to have to serve black customers, wanted to ensure that black people weren't allowed to do some of the things they were allowed to do. To me, this seems like exactly the same argument, just with 'gay' instead of 'black'.

 

Good luck selling that one to the NAACP, Rusty. Please let us know how it goes.

 

There's a flip side to that, which is that those laws restricted firms that wanted to not discriminate. So if you were a white business owner with your heart in the right place back then, those laws prevented you from acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs. You could be hauled into court for serving African-Americans.

 

Sure, the phrase "public accommodation" that Dr. Quant used a couple posts ago comes straight from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in fact was the phrase that the Southern Democrats most vehemently opposed.

 

I'm thinking company is awfully loosely applied here. I think a sole proprietorship (or small partnership) is what we're dealing with. She can't just make sure that the same-sex couple is served ... she's gotta do the serving.

 

Government isn't oppressing her into operating a business.

 

You're absolutely right. Per that line of reasoning, once she attempted to engage in economic activity, she was obliged to check her conscience at the door. You could apply that in lots of lines of work.

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this nonsense.

 

A hell of a reach, but as the only atheist/agnostic on my staff of four, I was the only one assigned to write the stories on the uber-religious driver and on the retiring MRO chaplain.

I expressed how uncomfortable I was, but the assignment stood. I wrote them. It wasn't my cup of tea, but I did it.

 

Not entirely a reach, but certainly a different paradigm. You weren't required to write them under penalty of law.

Suppose you were a Muslim and you practiced law here in the U.S. Suppose someone came into your office and requested your assistance in drawing up a loan contract. Further suppose you're one of the many, many Muslims with a deeply held conviction that the charging of interest is forbidden. For you to accommodate this potential client's request requires you to play a role in something that absolutely is against your conscience. Should you be required to do this work or face some governmental sanction?