Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

[Stitch]

With all due respect, you have GOT to stop believing that protecting minorities impinges on some sort of personal freedom. I realize that you want to believe in the freedom of markets, but the world doesn't work this way, and we're better off for it.

You are NOT being oppressed because you can't discriminate against someone, and it's offensive to suggest that you are.

Of course it's an imposition on personal freedom. What else could it be? We sanction some forms of such oppression (I know I do) and we don't others. But it is oppression nonetheless. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I can't think of any other way to put it. I'm absolutely not sitting here saying I think it's a good thing that there are bigots out there. But I certainly think it's a good thing that there are at least some limits as to governmental action in response to their bigotry.

And just an aside, the patent office non-sequitur is pretty far afield. One is not required as a matter of law to avail oneself of patent protection. Indeed, patents being fairly infringe-a-ble, it is to one's advantage to not patent if one can keep the innovation a secret. You only patent that which you can't keep secret.

More government for me, less for thee.

 

[doctorquant]

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.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, really, this is all just about semantics and homophobic Christians being offended by the fact they don't get to dictate how the word marriage is defined in our evolving culture?

No, this is about a wedding photographer in New Mexico being forced, under penalty of law, to photograph a wedding that she finds gravely at odds with her beliefs.

No different than someone who runs a snack bar being required to serve gay people. If you run a business, it's open to everyone. So, too bad for the homophobic wedding photopgrapher.

I find this an unsettling argument, but I have to admit that it's largely consistent with other arguments we've had here. Basically you're saying that if you're involved in any economic activity, you have no realm of sovereignty (for lack of a better word). You do what government says, period. You don't have to take that notion very far to get into some pretty terrifying (to me) territory with respect to government.

With all due respect, you have GOT to stop believing that protecting minorities impinges on some sort of personal freedom. I realize that you want to believe in the freedom of markets, but the world doesn't work this way, and we're better off for it.

You are NOT being oppressed because you can't discriminate against someone, and it's offensive to suggest that you are.

But if you're concerned about the government interfering with economic sovereignty, then we'll get rid of the patent office and have a truly free market.

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'.

 

[Hokie_pokie]

So, really, this is all just about semantics and homophobic Christians being offended by the fact they don't get to dictate how the word marriage is defined in our evolving culture?

No, this is about a wedding photographer in New Mexico being forced, under penalty of law, to photograph a wedding that she finds gravely at odds with her beliefs.

No different than someone who runs a snack bar being required to serve gay people. If you run a business, it's open to everyone. So, too bad for the homophobic wedding photopgrapher.

I find this an unsettling argument, but I have to admit that it's largely consistent with other arguments we've had here. Basically you're saying that if you're involved in any economic activity, you have no realm of sovereignty (for lack of a better word). You do what government says, period. You don't have to take that notion very far to get into some pretty terrifying (to me) territory with respect to government.

With all due respect, you have GOT to stop believing that protecting minorities impinges on some sort of personal freedom. I realize that you want to believe in the freedom of markets, but the world doesn't work this way, and we're better off for it.

You are NOT being oppressed because you can't discriminate against someone, and it's offensive to suggest that you are.

But if you're concerned about the government interfering with economic sovereignty, then we'll get rid of the patent office and have a truly free market.

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.

 

[doctorquant]

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'.

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.

 

[cranberry]

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'.

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.

 

[doctorquant]

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.

That's pretty much what the link I posted said.

To use a restaurant analogy: A gay couple walking in and bigoted waiter refusing to serve them is different from the owner of the restaurant saying the gay couple can't even come in.

Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to protect from institutional discrimination, which this was if she was part owner of the company.

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.

 

[Stitch]

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.

That's pretty much what the link I posted said.

To use a restaurant analogy: A gay couple walking in and bigoted waiter refusing to serve them is different from the owner of the restaurant saying the gay couple can't even come in.

Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to protect from institutional discrimination, which this was if she was part owner of the company.

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.

 

[doctorquant]

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.

That's pretty much what the link I posted said.

To use a restaurant analogy: A gay couple walking in and bigoted waiter refusing to serve them is different from the owner of the restaurant saying the gay couple can't even come in.

Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to protect from institutional discrimination, which this was if she was part owner of the company.

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.

 

[Hokie_pokie]

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.

That's pretty much what the link I posted said.

To use a restaurant analogy: A gay couple walking in and bigoted waiter refusing to serve them is different from the owner of the restaurant saying the gay couple can't even come in.

Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to protect from institutional discrimination, which this was if she was part owner of the company.

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.

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

 

[imjustagirl]

A heck 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.

 

[doctorquant]

A heck 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?