Hell Kate, we've long since been there already.

Remember the Scott Brockie business? Cost him ~$250k for asking nicely if the nice gay men could possibly find another printer for -one- of the posters they wanted run up. He ran up the other ones no problem.

The OHRC statement doesn't mention that part. www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/NewsRelease.2006-06-08.9609896953/view

So far no complaint has been heard of -any- visible minority proprietor refusing service of any kind to gays. I note that this does not mean there have been no complaints, just that any complaints there may be aren't being heard by the OHRC.

I wonder if they can sue me for that?

Kate don't you know you are not allowed to disapprove of anyone's lifestyle unless of course it is politically correct to do so?

Next up on the docket, we will have Catholic priests being forced to perform same sex marriages even when it may be against their faith.

Freedom of conscience, what the hell is that? Isn't that an outdated concept, banished by the PC crowd?

The pc imbeciles, find it offensive that anyone has thoughts beliefs, opinions, expression that are in any way contrary to their own.

These clowns are all too ready to use the power of the state to demand assent to pc orthodoxy.

Vee haf vays of securing your compliance!!

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

I suppose the answer lies in accepting the job and taking shitty photos.

John B You have the right idea and I would demand payment in advance .

While recognizing this happened in the US, it's a repeat of the same PC nonsense we're dealing with in Canada. I'm at a complete loss to imagine what a charter right (or US constitutional right) to freedom of religion could possibly mean if not the ability to decline to violate your own religious precepts. Could a muslim be compelled to print the Mohammed cartoons? Could a kosher eatery be compelled to cater pork? According to HRCs -- apparently they could. But we know they won't. For as we know from Orwell's "Animal Farm", some are more equal than others.

The gay movement has succeeded in equating itself with the civil rights movement. So now, to tell a same-sex couple you won't photograph their wedding because you object to gay marriage is the same (to "right-thinkers") as telling an African-American couple that you won't let them rent a room in your building.

Quite clever of the gay movement, actually. They've got it all sown up. Religious freedom, we hardly knew ye.

I think the discussion at the site are relevant. The issue is not about freedom of thought and speech but about the provision of services to all members of the public.

If she had simply declined the request to photograph their marriage, and not given any reason, then I think she'd be OK. Presumably she must have given a reason- her objection to the nature of their marriage.

Compare other cases we've heard in the news, ie, the refusal of a Muslim taxi-driver to accept someone with a dog. The refusal of a Muslim store clerk to ring up alcohol, or someone's purchase of pork chops. The refusal of a Muslim store clerk to put through the purchase of a bible. Same thing. These are happening in the UK and the USA. BUT, in that case, the UK is allowing these store clerks to opt out of ringing up those items!

So, I think the issue has to be focused around service. If you are providing a service to the public, then, you can't 'differentiate' that public into those you'll serve and those you'll not serve.

Well John B. you could do it that way I suppose, thereby damaging your own reputation and giving up the entire idea of personal freedom. Which, distressingly, is certainly the option most people choose.

Or you could defy the sons of bitches to do their worst and make them work for it. Fight them on every beach and bridge head. Ezra style.

I believe the operative phrase is "not a penny for tribute".

Interesting choices the retards force upon us, yes? All depends if one has hostages to fortune. Some duties are more important than others.

Yup, some people are more equal than others, that's for sure.

(Disclaimer: I have dear friends who are gay. They're welcome in my home. I've cared for a friend with AIDS. And Kyla’s a very welcome addition here. And I shouldn't even have to say this!!)

Live and let live, but I don't go along with "normalizing" homosexuality: as Christianity and living, breathing, law abiding Christians are being shoved into the closet—all in the name of “inclusivity, diversity, fairness, and equality”—homosexuality, in theory and in practice, is being forced on all of us by the jackboot of state enforcers. "The love that dared not speak its name" is now screeching at the top of its lungs (sort of like the imams from the mosque) and we're all compelled to bow the knee—or else . . .

E.g., 1) In Ontario, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has produced a poster: above an inverted rainbow coloured triangle is the title, “POSITIVE SPACE”. These posters have had wide distribution to Ontario public schools, obviously with the blessing of the ministry and boards.

Underneath the triangle are the words, “This is a place where human rights are respected, and where lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people AND THEIR FRIENDS AND ALLIES [emphasis mine] are welcomed and supported.”

The corollary, of course, is that religious traditionalists, who object to the gay agenda, are NOT welcome. Some respect and inclusion!

It’s also been observed that while these posters are often visible just about everywhere, including primary (kindergarten to grade three) classrooms in certain middle class schools, the posters appear to be absent from schools with high Muslim populations, even where the staff is very gay positive. Interesting . . .

2) Google Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” (1961), a hilarious, black humour short story about an equality seeking, equality of outcome society. (Hey, doesn’t that describe Kanadistan?)

The tale begins: “The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way.”

Read on to learn just how draconian the state measures had to be, under the iron fist of Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, in order to enforce true equality. (Barbara Hall, are you listening?)

As an observant Christian, I’m sick and tired of being bullied by “official, compassionate, equality seeking” Canada: I’m censored at every turn and self-censor. If not, I’m threatened with HRC actions or worse—like losing my job. (Google Chris Kempling. Read his excellent op-ed in last week’s National Post.)

Pastor Martin Neimoeller wrote, “In Germany, first they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. By the time they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."

IMO, observant Christians are the present-day canaries in the mine in this country. I, like most others here, say “ENOUGH!”

So this opens another door for anyone to make a few bucks from business people....as long as the basis for suing is a HRC pet project!

btw, getting back to crass commercialism, how much does it cost to have two nudie nymphettes painted on a motorcycle tank?

Why would you want to hire a photographer that doesnt want to take your picture, typical lefty

That is the only way to combat this. Services rendered will be of the lowest possible quality, prices will be far above reasonable, and delivery will be excessive. If gays, empowered by the state were trying to force me to do their bidding, I would go along and I would make sure they paid dearly for their stupidity.

I will handle the painting of the nudies on the bike's gas tank for you too. I will need a roller, some tremclad and 8 months to complete the work. My rates are also double yours...but such inconvenience is the price to pay for an inspired artist such as myself.

:)

ET makes a reasonable point -- if you're offering a service to the public, you should offer it to all. But many people will not give up their principles. Many people. ET's solution will, in the end, force multitudes of service providers drop out of the service sector, just to avoid these persecution-type lawsuits. And not just the service sector. Didn't the Salvation Army as one time (and some Catholic charities) have to withdraw their very-needed services to the poor because of political correctness?

I think the answer is: no ridiculous lawsuits. If a religious person won't serve you, go somewhere else. If a Muslim won't ring through a Bible for me, fine -- I'll go to another till. No big deal.

I think we are mixing situations here. Education and economic service are not the same thing.

I'm strongly against the brainwashing of children with regard to ethnicity, gender, etc etc in schools. I think that schools should focus on the basic structural components that empower children with the capacity-to-reason. Reading, math, critical thinking (never taught); history without editorializing, science, geography. Stop the terrible social engineering brainwashing. I agree with lookout; that's a dreadful poster.

I've been recently in OISE (ontario institute for studies in education) and was overwhelmed, smothered, stunned by the social engineering anti-reasoning, anti-critical thinking morass that it is.

However, in the economic world of goods and services, I don't think that the provision of those services should depend on your individual beliefs. At least - not openly. If you offer a private service, then you can pick and choose your jobs and your customers. You need give no reason. Rejecting someone's beliefs/behaviour can be done another way.

But if you are employed in a general capacity, as a clerk in a store or whatever, I don't think that you, the individual, can refuse the economic service because of your personal beliefs.

Any real marrage is between one man and one woman and if these screwball liberals cant get that through their thick heads then they should all GO TAKE A HIKE

If the answer that was given was that she didn't want to do photographs of a same-sex wedding, then yes, I think that's wrong. It's no different than saying "I'm sorry, I don't take pictures of black/native/jewish/heterosexual, etc. weddings."

If she simply said that she was booked and didn't have time, hey, no hard feelings on anyone's account.

So yeah, roundabout and dishonest as it seems, go ahead and lie if you can't handle seeing or wanting to be part of an expression of love. Everyone wins.

What annoys me to the max is why is it okay for some Homosexuals to force their "Anything goes" mantra down my throat but I'm not allowed to murmur a peep in protest. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, including gays but what the hell does homosexuality have to do with Education outside of Health Class? Forcing religious people to accept homosexuality as the norm is assine, Christians are not allowed to freely express their beliefs but it's okay to Indoctorine children into Homosexuality by Educators. Where and when did this happen, my beliefs are just that mine I have no compulsion to shove them by force or lawfair down anothers' throat. Why is the left so intolerant of other beliefs that don't mirror theirs? They believe they are the poster child of Tolerance but their policy of "Absolute Tolerance" or else you'll be called horrible names or sued or hauled before the HRCs and persecuted and have your life distroyed in the name of Tolerance Enforcement. I don't like the left's apparent obsession with gay sex or racism, they are fixated on issues that are so minor in reality but they've morphed them into sociatal issues of great magnitude but they aren't--well in their minds great harm is being done to both groups but in reality Racism and Homophobia is not rampant.

Does it scare anyone else how easily we've come to accept the word STATE, phrases like "Arms of the State (HRC)" or "State Enforcement" when did we stop being a country and when was Canada declaired a state of Communism or Socialism. The socialist leftards are quietly desensitizing us to the word state, that in it's self is a dangerous win for people who value Democracy over Communism/Socialism.

ET said: "The issue is not about freedom of thought and speech but about the provision of services to all members of the public."

Regretfully ma'am I must disagree. This is exactly about freedom of association and speech. (Luckily, so far our thoughts are our own.)

Freedom of association includes the freedom NOT to associate. Meaning I'm free to be a d1ck about things if I want.

I agree with you this far, a store that is open to the public must serve The Public, meaning all comers. You open a store, you have that unspoken agreement with society.

However, the store -clerk- has a choice. Their choice is to serve all customers equally, or to not work there. What you are saying is that they can't quit because they don't like serving pork to Christians, or if they do quit they can't give a reason.

Meaning if they want to get by in life they have to knuckle under, lie or remain silent. This is not freedom.

As a painting contractor I have the right to chose my clients based on my own preconceptions, prejudices, assessments, judgments, capabilities, schedule or the phase of the bloody moon should I so desire. I can turn down a job if I don't like the colour they pick. I've done that. People who pick stupid colours are often reluctant to pay up once the colour is on the wall.

I'm a bigot with where I do my advertising. I advertise where people that have money live. Imagine that. I'm even a bigot with how I price my work. Big house, nice car = higher quote.

If the government can FORCE me to take a particular client, am I a free man? If I am not free to answer honestly if asked why I refused a job or set a price, am I a free man?

I think not.

Notice how this is different than a store with a "no (name of group here)" policy. Individuals have rights. Stores and companies aren't individuals, they don't have rights.

Respectfully ET, I can't entirely agree. Photography should be considered "professional services" as opposed to "retail". As a professional, I choose which projects I wish to work on...I am NOT required to bid on them all. I may withold my services for whatever reason I so wish.

When you are selling retail, you are selling a product NOT yourself and there should be NO REASON why service should be refused...although I've seen many stores with the sign "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service".

The difference is slight, admittedly. But as a professional, you are hiring ME...not buying a product...so I get to say whether or not I will do the work.

If I don't want to photograph dogs, I don't have to. If I don't want to photograph park benches, I don't have to. If I don't want to photograph "X", I don't have to.

If I'm a plumber and don't like the smell of your house, I will refuse to provide you my service...or charge you an arm-and-a-leg to do so.

ET, I think I would put it somewhat differently. I would offer that if you are employed in a general capacity (like the store clerk example), it is up to the employer, the owner of the business, if you can reasonably refuse the service.

One of the big issues I have with this case is that the government is essentially mandating who business owners must accept as clients and what type of work they must do (it's much like the Scott Brockie case in this way).

On another point, unfortunately Todd is correct, dishonesty would likely mitigate being the target of government action in many of these cases. However, this is an incredibly poor solution, even if you disagree with someone you shouldn't punish them for their integrity to be honest about a situation.

"It's no different than saying 'I'm sorry, I don't take pictures of black/native/jewish/heterosexual, etc. weddings.'"

Todd -- how about a man-child commitment ceremony -- just another gig?

Sexual behaviour and race are not comparable categories.

"if you're offering a service to the public, you should offer it to all"

Why? No business offers a service to "the public". They offer services or goods to individual companies or persons with whom they choose to strike a bargain. Stuff your public.

ET: " ... If you are providing a service to the public, then, you can't 'differentiate' that public into those you'll serve and those you'll not serve."

Nonsense. Almost all companies exist because they differentiate the public ... it's called finding a niche.

homosexuality will cease to exist when the muzzies take over don't ya know.

homosexuality will cease to exist when the muzzies take over don't ya know. so will art and photography.

RE: your points, lookout

(maybe a tad off-topic) You are - again - absolutely right. Everyone's agenda is okay in schools, except the Christian one.

In my school district in the lower mainland of Vancouver, there is a new technique being researched in a few primary classes in Coquitlam to help kids with focussing in school. It seems this 'technique' is a breathing technique based in Buddism. Goldie Hawn (woo, hoo) herself came to work with the students as she was raised Jewish but is now a practicing Buddist! (so inclusive, no???)

No religion in schools except the ones deemed 'socially acceptable'. What a laugh!!!

The education system....in it's finest form out here in Lotusland - sarc off

For this photographer, refusing to provide her services for a lesbian ceremony was the ethical thing to do. An artist, or any contractor, for that matter, cannot be expected to do a high standard of work if they are repulsed by the nature of the work they have been tasked with.

Sure, she could have taken the job, and shot the entire ceremony with the lens cap on. But that would have been unethical, and truly hurtful to the lesbian couple involved. By refusing to take the job, she gave them the opportunity to find another photographer who was more at ease with their lifestyle.

What I'd like to know here is the back story: did this lesbian couple just pick her name out of the Yellow Pages, or did they have prior knowledge of her beliefs, and approached her KNOWING they'd be refused? Were they trolling for an HRC case?

occam's carbuncle. No, I don't think that a business or service can do business with the attitude of 'stuff your public'. Their services must be open to all.

Do you really think that, let's say, a Muslim clerk should refuse to put through the purchases of someone because he doesn't like what they are purchasing?

phantom - freedom of association and speech doesn't operate in the business world in these sense of 'association between owner-client'.

If I am a store clerk selling shoes, and don't wish to associate with gays/other religions/ etc..can I operate that way if one of my customers is in that category? Or one of my co-workers? Or my boss?

I agree - and I think I made my point with regard to the photographer who could simply refuse the job. No reason. Just refuse. The store clerk who refused to handle pork could simply not work there. Find another job.

As a painting contractor, like the photographer, you are free to choose your customers. But, if you reject a job, you don't have to tell them that it's because of their religion or ideas.

eeyore - I agree with your points. I thought my post had made that clear. As a private service, absolutely - you don't have to provide a service to a customer if you don't want to. But you don't need to give reasons - such as "I only paint houses for Muslims not Christians".

Paul has an excellent follow-up post called "Consequences":

http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/consequences/

Long story made short: Paul used to offer a custom, highly customized, large print creation service for other artists. This kind of service is wonderful to have, but hard to find. He used to reserve the right to refuse to create any particular print for any particular reason. In light of the New Mexico decision this is no longer legally feasible. So he has discontinued the service.

ural- for heaven's sake, don't slither out of critical analysis by changing the meaning of the word of 'differentiate'.

When a company develops a niche-product for a clientele, eg, 'organic jeans' or 'fat-free butter' - that has NOTHING to do with a refusal to sell that product to anyone who chooses to purchase it.

Photographers are artists. Artists can't produce good work unless they are inspired by the subject matter and have a "connection" to it. So if you hire a wedding photographer that is absolutely repulsed by you, it's going to show in her photos, which are guaranteed to be unsatisfactory. No one in their right mind would hire a hostile wedding photographer.

Unless, of course, your intent was not to hire the photographer, but to use her well-publicized views to trigger an incident that could be turned into a legal precedent. Mission accomplished, apparently.

No business offers a service to "the public". They offer services or goods to individual companies or persons with whom they choose to strike a bargain. Stuff your public.

Exactly. Freedom of association is for all, not some.

Richard, last time I checked, a man-child relationship is illegal whereas a same-sex/Jewish/Native/Heterosexual one is not.

*
"richard says... how about a man-child commitment ceremony -- just another gig?
Sexual behaviour and race are not comparable categories."

oh, no richard... apparently we're not allowed to use "slippery slope" analogies any more...
that's one of the new leftbot laws.

stand by for state approved art.

*

"ET makes a reasonable point -- if you're offering a service to the public, you should offer it to all."

I repair computers for a living. I don't fix them for people who can't afford to pay me for my work. Am I going to be accused of discriminating on socio-economic grounds? Because that's where this is heading.

Wake up, people.

I wonder if an Islamic fundamentalist who's a state-employed marriage commissioner would get into the same kind of trouble for refusing to conduct a commitment ceremony for Ernie and Bert...

Todd: How about a mother-son commitment service. OK with that?

"No, I don't think that a business or service can do business with the attitude of 'stuff your public'. Their services must be open to all."

Two years ago I inadvertently put myself in a spot where a Korean business owner had grounds to file an HRC complaint against me.

Why?

I refused him further service as a customer after a horrible experience trying to service his machine. I did not refuse him service on the basis of his race. I refused the service for the following reasons:

1. The machine ran the Korean version of Windows.

2. The majority of the applications loaded on the machine were Korean.

3. I am unable to read Korean.

4. The machine's owner had such fractured English that he was not able to translate the characters on the screen for me to the extent that I could service the system.

I simply couldn't do the job I was being paid to do under the circumstances, and I was not providing good value to the customer. I regret that I was not able to help him as I take pride in being able to solve most any problem thrown at me. Many of my other customers come in all shapes, sizes, and colours, and I'm happy to do what I can for them so long as they speak either English or French. Those are the two languages that I can work in.

Should I be dragged before the AHRC for this? For not being able to read Korean?

Phantom:

Re: "Well John B. you could do it that way I suppose, thereby damaging your own reputation and giving up the entire idea of personal freedom. Which, distressingly, is certainly the option most people choose."

"Or you could defy the sons of bitches to do their worst and make them work for it. Fight them on every beach and bridge head. Ezra style."

What I mean is take REALLY shitty photos. Thumb over the lens, that sort of thing and offer a refund. I think people will get the picture (sorry about the pun). Think of it as civil disobedience.

Has there been a single defendant from either HRC section 13 (or provincial equivelent) or the "hate crimes" laws that wasn't White Male and of Christian background (even if not chritian in beleive)?

I would guess not. I'm sure we'd have heard if even a single Muslim was prosecuted for screeching "kill the jews and infidels" as so many of them are wont to do.

On the same train of thought,what about an Islamic fundamentalist photographer being asked to do a wedding where say pork was served on the dinner menu?
The possibilities are many !

"I suppose the answer lies in accepting the job and taking shitty photos."

You guys have it all wrong. What you have to do is hire a devout Muslim radical to do your work for you. At that point he will refuse to do the work and that will be okay because the left are rather afraid of taking them on. Its already been proven that the left will throw a homosexual under the bus to please the mussies.

"What I mean is take REALLY shitty photos. Thumb over the lens, that sort of thing and offer a refund."

Speaking as a dedicated fine-art photographer, the only proper response to that is "@#$% YOU". The *real* photographers know where I'm coming from here. The snapshooters may not get it, but I don't give a @#$% about their opinions, either.

Lookout, you don't have to put in disclaimers for me.

I think there is a difference between selling a product and selling your own time and services. If a store refused to sell a wedding dress to a lesbian, I'd have a problem with that.

I had a printer refuse to make copies that I had dropped off for a workshop that had a sexual theme. It was a heterosexual theme and >90% of the participants were married heterosexuals. So this was a workshop for married couples on sexual intimacy to strengthen their marital bond.

I simply retrieved the original materials, wished the men a great day, and went to another print shop.

Unless there is no other service provider available, why would you want someone who doesn't want to be there? I was married by a Christian minister, who definitely approved. I would have never considered forcing someone who didn't approve to participate in my wedding.

Never would I advocate lying as a reason not to give the service. The photographer could have booked the day off and then quite truthfully said, "I will not be available that day."

That would have been the end of the story, and no discrimination complaint could have been filed.

"Richard, last time I checked, a man-child relationship is illegal whereas a same-sex/Jewish/Native/Heterosexual one is not"

Todd your point about legality is moot; therefore I counter your moot point with this: homosexuality and pedophilia by scientific definition are the same thing. This is also a moot point and irrelevant to the conversation about the aforementioned artists right to exercise freedom of choice, or freedom of religion which ever fits better.

John B., your proposal would be appropriate -after- being fined and forced to do the job by the HRC court. Expected, even. The Soviets had a saying for that. "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

ET, my dear you are missing my point. Freedom of speech and freedom of association operate in business as they do in "normal life" or they don't exist.

The Muslim girl does not HAVE to work for the chicken 'n ribs joint. If she takes the job she agrees to sling that pork and say its yummy if asked. That's freedom of association and speech in a commercial relationship. If you take the money, you do the job.

Likewise as an independent contractor, you have no contract, stated or unstated, with anyone, unless you take the job. Joe's Pizzeria can't phone me up and then sue me if I won't paint his bathrooms because I said I didn't like the cut of his jib. That's what we're talking about here.

Personally I won't work for people who annoy me. They tend to be middle aged psycho European (ok, Dutch) women who are afraid to let me inside the house to take a leak. Call me a racist/sexist/bigot if you must, I just can't work like that. Down tools, refund money and walk away like a man.

Should some government a-holes decide that The Phantom SHALL paint the idiot Dutch lady's house, I'd be sure to "accidentally" kick over a gallon of oil paint on her friggin' shingles.

Kyla, meaning no disrespect but this is beside the point. The court has declared the photographer is -not free- to do business in a manner consistent with her views, religion, what have you. She can hide her views to escape retribution, but this is not freedom.

This is the exact same as a court saying you are not free to be gay. Which they used to do. People hid their preference to escape retribution, which was sufficiently annoying they had a big uproar for the past 30 years and we don't do that anymore.

So pretty much the court is doing what it has always done, they merely changed the target group. Same pile of horse poo, same guy shoveling. Just a different bunch standing in front of the fan.

They could change it back. Which would suck bigtime for all those people who came out of the closet in the last 30 years, eh?

I'm saying, pull the plug and fire the guy with the shovel. Maybe kick his ass a time or two as well.

sean - most of us are agreeing that an individual contractor has the right to accept and refuse work. No reason needs to be given. End of story.

That includes your assessment of whether they are the same mindset as you, and whether/not they can afford to pay you.
Your example of the Korean has nothing to do with this discussion. It was a case where you didn't have the skills (knowledge of language) to repair the machine.

No, phantom, I don't think I'm missing the point. I fully agree with you; the Muslim girl, if she accepts working in the pork spareribs restaurant, has to serve the goods! And I agree with you that the independent contractor is free to accept or not accept the job. So?

You are saying that you are 'free to not take the job' if it requires 'freedom of association'. I get your point. It's convoluted but maybe my reasoning was also. I think I'm trying to say that an independent contractor has far more freedom to interact with a client than an employee.

What people seem to be missing is that this is mainly a question of freedom of expression.

As a musician I would not be legally compelled to play hip hop music at the request of a black person.

As a cook I would not be legally compelled to make sushi at the request of a Japanese person.

As a fashion designer I would not be compelled to design a white wedding dress at the request of a Christian.

By the same reasoning a photographer should not be compelled to photograph a union she does not wish to depict for *any* reason.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing? How can I even begin to discuss that with someone who would type that? I can't, so won't.

"Do you really think that, let's say, a Muslim clerk should refuse to put through the purchases of someone because he doesn't like what they are purchasing?"

If he's a clerk who happens to own the business, sure. Otherwise he's liable to get his ass fired unless the boss agrees with him.

"Their services must be open to all."

Again, why? Repeating the assertion doesn't make it so. It just makes it a bromide.

Their goods and services must be marketable to a degree sufficient to turn a profit. That is all, kumbayas, cries de coeur and tears notwithstanding.

There is a huge difference between an employee of a shop refusing to ring up a sale and the owner of the shop refusing to carry a product. If I wish to purchase pork, should I demand that all butchers carry pork? Of course not. However, if I go to a butcher who is not Halal or Kosher, order my pork chops and then find that the cashier refuses to ring up my purchase, we are in a different realm. The person working for the butcher also must make choices. Find work with a butcher who doesn't carry pork, or suck it up and do the job they are paid to do. It is up to the owner of the business to decide which products to carry and which not to. But the person who works for that owner does not have that choice. They have no stake in the business other than doing the job they were hired for.

The photographer who refused her services has every right to do so. That she told the customer the real reason she was refusing service is called honesty, something that is, sadly, out of vogue these days. One can't possibly be PC and fully honest, so just lie! But this sort of lying just contributes to the problem. It is certainly easier to lie in these circumstances, but this is what created this politically correct nonsense in the first place. More lying just compounds the problem, and turns those with the gumption to be honest into the bad guy.

When I read this story, I wondered if the same rules would be applied in this scenario. I own an abattoir, and am so proud of my work that I have decided to have every stage of the process photographed for posterity. After researching and viewing the work of all the local photographers in my town, I decide to hire the photographer who bills him/herself as the "Artful Vegan." The photographer rings me back asking for some details about what I want photographed. After hearing my request the photographer refuses, and tells me that the killing and eating of animals is against his/her beliefs. I now have two choices. I can accept this person's reason (despite the fact that I do not share his/her beliefs and values) and find another photographer, or I can demand that he/she do the job anyway, and if he/she still refuses head straight over to my local human rights theatre of the absurd and file a complaint. Would that HRC apply the same rules as it did with the photographer, or would the lie of political correctness trump all? As things stand now, we know the answer to that question. All those people using human rights complaints as a means to force their political views on others should be wary of what they wish for. As sure as the rising and setting of the sun, political values of societies change. For this reason, freedom should never be politicised. The precedents being set may favour the "left" at this stage, but history shows us that this can change almost overnight.

Todd:

If you think for one moment that there is no such thing as a Homosexual-Pedophile then you're right that the issue isn't worth going into because either the Catholic Priests were Gay before they joined or they proved that men can Choose to want sex with same gender humans .

But this is Canada and telling the truth can get you jailed .

BTW , I just heard about Liberal MP Bill Graham
and his fling with a 15 year old and now it makes sense for why the Liberals refused to raise the age for rape to 16 .
Billy Boy would be doing time with Bubba and a Soap-on-a-rope wouldn't protect him during shower time.

Excellent post, JBS

"If he's a clerk who happens to own the business, sure. Otherwise he's liable to get his ass fired unless the boss agrees with him."

If that clerk is a muslim and they refuse to serve "unclean" infidels, the HRC's are there to uphold their sacred rights to treat the rest of us like rats.

You would be committing a diversity crime for firing a muslim for discriminating agaisnt everyone else.

I mentioned that story about the New Mexico human rights court twice
and in bold characters
here on SDA and no one cared,

and now there are about 60 comments in reaction to it...

Strange...really strange...

Homosexuality is related to pedophilia as are conservatives to idiots. Some conservatives are idiots but to say all are would be... well, idiotic.

There are just as many pedophiles that are hetero as there are gay pedophiles. To equate the two is just plain stupid.

ET said: "I'm trying to say that an independent contractor has far more freedom to interact with a client than an employee."

Yes. ~:D That's why cranky, contrary people like myself are self employed. We can tell people to p1ss off if we like.

Except not in Canada or New Mexico any more, it seems. Now we have to assume the walls have ears. That's another goldy oldie from the Iron Curtain, eh?

BTW, how the hell do you keep your tenure ET? It must be a full time job just fending off the faculty attack machine. I'd sooner work in a bear trap factory, it'd be safer.

Roger, where are the news reports or police reports about Bill Graham? Sounds like another potential libel case to me.

So what do you think would happen if two gay people decided to get married in a Mosque?

I wouldn't mind seeing the results of that one ...

Sorry, strike the police reports portion of my last comment. But I'm not willing to believe anything without evidence.

Really April, are you telling me that there is no such thing as a heterosexual pedophile??

Telling the truth like that can get you jailed in Canada....oh god, woo me, the right wing and religion, such a juicy topic. I am sure many are bemoaning the good ole days under the curse of ham, back before the bible was polluted by these PC individuals. Back when a man could speak the truth about the bible without fear of reprisal from the "state".

I altogether agree with Phantom, who wrote, "If the government can FORCE me to take a particular client, am I a free man? If I am not free to answer honestly if asked why I refused a job or set a price, am I a free man?

"I think not."

JBS, fine post. And, Kyla, I already knew you wouldn't expect a disclaimer.

Let's look at the employee issue from the HRC's point of view (CRAZY!): Ezra Levant has reported about a case in one of the northern Kanadistan territories. A young pizza deliverywoman has taken her employer, Boston Pizza, I think, to the local HRC because she's offended by the grungy music (misogynist, gangsta rap, I think) she's "forced" to listen to when she stops by the shop to pick up the pizzas.

In the real world, not PC Never Never Land, the complaint would have been tossed as soon as it was mentioned. I believe that the particular HRC has actually boasted about this case as an example of its "sensitivity".

Friend of the USA, I hear you. E.g., Has anyone read “Harrison Bergeron” yet? It’s a total hoot: one of the best quarter of an hours I’ve EVER spent. (I read it on a plane on my way home from Vancouver: unfortunately, at one point—which one, I can't remember, there are so many—I spewed red wine all over everything, I was laughing so hard.) But, people here make up their own minds. Thank God.

phantom - my god yes, a bear trap would be safer than an academic environment for someone who thinks like me.

I'm retired now but I assure you, it was sheer hell - the feminists, the sophist leftists, the knee-jerk anti-Americans, the union types etc. The only thing, I humbly submit, is that I was always able to outargue them with facts. Facts, data, logical connections etc are utterly, totally, irrelevant to the left. When you confront them with such - they go silent. Seething, viciously silent. Their tactics are always behind-the-scenes, and always via 'friends and favours'. Never, ever, do they deal with the issues. Never.

I could tell you stories..ah well. I simply don't care about them and their vacuous hatreds. The thing is - they are dominant in our academia, in our government bureaucracy. The HRC bureaucrats exemplify them 'to a T'.

Consider the fact that Barbara Hall, the head of the Ontario HRC admitted that the OHRC had no mandate to hear the case against Macleans, but then, in a public statement, gave her judgment of the case As If it had been heard! Absolutely incredible. She judged Macleans as 'Islamophobic' despite not having heard a word of defence from Macleans, despite not having any legal right to judge the case. Yet - the OHRC judged the case, at the same time as it admitted it had no right to do so. It's absolutely mindboggling.

Macleans should sue for libel and violation of due process.

What's funny is New Mexico doesn't recognize same sex marriage. So in a sense they fined her for not recognizing something that even the state won't recognize.

I suppose in Canada, it would be like refusing to photograph a Tamil Tigers get together and being fined by the government for not recognizing a group they won't recognize.

I see the point continues to elude Tedd, as he attempts to evade in a cloud of homophobia squid ink.

Simple analogy Todd. Would you take pictures at the wedding of a nine year old to a 75 year old man who's already got ten wives? How about a wedding where the "bride" is a pony?

You don't get to say no Todd, as soon as those things become legal, you're up! Precedent's been set, your personal beliefs, desires, religion, etc. are of no importance. All that remains is legal technicality.

If a man can marry a man, how long before he can marry a pony, or two women, or two men, or two men, a pony, a Buick and a nine year old. Why not, Todd? Tradition? Religion? They don't count! How dare you stand between a man and his pony?!!! Racist!

Slippery slope Todd. Y'dig? We all slide into the poo together.

it seems to me, that one should be able to refuse a business transaction, with no further commentary.
no if, no but, no nada.
And this can be based on my desire to not do a business transacton with you today.
So I am free to take my money elsewhere, to conduct business with someone else, for example, with someone that wants my business.

I quite disagree with anyone telling me, they have a "right" to any of my private service. (a plumber in this example)
and before anyone takes my commentary to indicate racisim or whatever your soapbox is standing nearest today, I intend that it it is only the choice of freedom that I hold dear, there isn't anything more to it.

I don't like my freedoms, being incrementally eroded. Sometimes I think the governments of the day, are close to running out of things to regulate and that at some point in the future, they will realize they have run out of things to control, and thusly they will turn their sights to what legislation they can repeal, and so for the next 100 or so years, they will only repeal legislation until we are left with the simple BNA act and a few others... like good plumbing, gas, and electrical code for example...!

yes, I know I am dreaming here.

A key point in the distinction between refusing to take photos of a lesbian commitment ceremony and refusing to serve someone at the lunch counter because they are black lies in the difference between an innate aspect of one's humanity vs a behaviour. A black is black (without getting into a long winded discusssion of 'can one offer a valid definition of race?') but only because we choose to so define him or her based on melanin content of the skin. One is born that way as a result of genetics; it's not a behaviour. One can argue about wether or not being gay or lesbian constitutes an innate aspect of sexuality or a choice of behaviour, but lets accept that it's an innate aspect of one's makeup.
Now what did Elaine decline on the basis of her religious beliefs? As best we can tell, she didn't decline to photograph the pair for being lesbian. She declined to photograph them because she objects to the commitment ceremony, which is , after all, a behaviour. It's a legal behaviour; so is eating pork or putting on a strip show; but it's contrary to many people's religious beliefs to engage in such behaviours. Equally, it's contrary to their religious beliefs to endorse, participate in, or further such behaviours. Even though no Jew would attend, we couldn't blame them for not renting out part of the synagogue for a pork rib BBQ.

ET, I wish the owner of Macleans could give Barbara Hall a huge head-but on nationwide TV, knock her flat on her ass, and that would be the end of it. Instead we will be treated to a vast spectacle of lawyers arguing abstruse stupidities at each other, for a combined price of ten thousand bucks an hour.

The older I get the more I think medieval Europe had it right, and these kind of things should be settled by personal combat. No pinch hitters, last one standing wins and may God uphold the right.

You've got it, Phantom, re the slippery slope. With all due respect, gay marriage overturned biological imperative and millennia of tradition, all on self-identification: we, as an identifiable group, WANT to do this, so we have a right to do this.

And millennia of common law and sense became dust. (Kanadistan's activist judges, most appointed by the Liberals, are an utter disgrace: dangerous, subversive idiots too.) So, there is now nothing between the “self-identifiers” of all stripes—e.g., polygamy, anyone?—getting their “rights”.

‘NOT such a good idea. (And not the kind of idea that the Todds of this world are able to discern—not unless they're hit over the head: and often, not even then.)

Phantom, I think some of these things would resolve themselves with pure politeness. Seriously, I do not jest.

If you say that you otherwise occupied and cannot take a commission, everyone is spared hurt to their feelings. But the moment you bring race, sexual orientation or religion into the mix as the reason for refusing a service, it's a toxic mix.

Personally, unless it was a publically provided service, I would take my business elsewhere rather than complain. I would never *make* someone do something against their will. But I also would do my best to publicize businesses and people that refused to do business with me as well. But as being part of a minority, I understand the hurt and upset that comes with being treated as less than equal. We always just assume that the refusal of service is done by a polite person with polite language. I am doubting this is always the case, which leads to more hurt feelings and more desire to 'make someone pay'.

Politeness -- let's all try it on both sides of the issue.

And Phantom, society evolves. At one time we thought slavery was good. At one time we thought women shouldn't vote. At one time blacks belonged on the back of the bus. At one time witches were burned at the stake. I take it you are still for all of these practices?

When each was abolished, I can guarantee there was a sizeable part of the population that still believed in them and there is probably a few today that still do. But that doesn't mean that society doesn't change over time and the mores and values do as well.

See my comment to Kyla, Todd.

Freedom means you're free to be rude. I really don't want people being polite out of fear that Big Brother is going to take their worldly goods away. I'd rather they were polite out of respect for the person they are dealing with, if only because if they're rude he/she might bash them.

Fear makes for ugly deeds.

"If you say that you otherwise occupied and cannot take a commission, everyone is spared hurt to their feelings."

So dishonesty is to be our new virtue while honesty & integrity become a vice?

Denis, didn't your mother ever say that if you didn't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? There is something called tact and there is something called politeness. If you want to go ahead and advocate your opinions on religion or any sexual practice, do so in a public forum. But sometimes it is just better to tell a white lie that makes everyone feel better than to dig the knife in.

I am tired of politeness. I am tired of accommodating everyone else but never being accommodated myself.

We have given over to much in our daily lives to faceless bureaucrats and expecting them to look out for us. I will speak up. I will not back down and be browbeaten. Civil society goes both ways and when the men prancing down the street in buttless chaps can flash their pale asses in front of my children in public, civil society is no more.

So. You don't like it, fine. I am not pleased either and I will make it known. I will not be quiet anymore. Not to make you happy Todd. Deal with it.

I don't believe what you are advocating is as innocuous as you suggest.

There are multiple scenarios, but what if they try giving you alternate dates? Or what if they haven't yet set the time but want to agree in principle dependant on availability - do you waste their time & yours ironing out pricing and other details?

Then, if you have a popular business in town, what happens when the group you don't wish to work with starts noticing you don't accept any of their jobs? Ever hear of people getting punished for "unspoken" rules based determined by their behaviour.

Society functions much better when we can be honest and open with each other instead of hiding behind false veneers.

The root of the problem is intolerance of those who hold differing viewpoints. We should focus on this, not on trying safeguard the feelings of the general populace.

ET:

"That includes your assessment of whether they are the same mindset as you, and whether/not they can afford to pay you."

I would like to refer you to the 2007 Annual Report of the CHRC:

Social Condition

-- The visible rise of social inequalities in Canada has sparked renewed debate over whether "social condition" should be added as the twelfth prohibited ground of discrimination within section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In 2007, the Commission began research to better understand the larger social and institutional implications of such an amendment.

So, ET, what exactly do you think will happen if Social Condition becomes the "twelfth prohibited ground of discrimination"? --

Run that one around your noodle a few times.

"Your example of the Korean has nothing to do with this discussion. It was a case where you didn't have the skills (knowledge of language) to repair the machine."

I can make that distinction as can you, but I don't trust the HRC commissars to display the same level of aptitude. Do you honestly think they'll see anything beyond the race of the complainant and the fact that I refused service? And even if the case makes it to the tribunal and is dismissed once I can explain my side, I still bear the brunt of my legal costs. So I still get punished.

*
"et says... the Muslim girl, if she accepts working in the
pork spareribs restaurant, has to serve the goods!"

hey, et... read slower.

*

sean - what's your point?

As for 'social condition' that's so amorphous a category that it's dysfunctional as one. Does that mean that a builder can't refuse to build a new roof for someone, even when the 'social condition' (what the heck does that mean??) suggests that the customer can't pay for it? Of course not.

Denis - nonsense. If I have a different viewpoint, it doesn't mean I'm 'intolerant'. It means I have a different viewpoint, and I'm entitled to that; there's absolutely no reason for everyone to accept all viewpoints in this world. Don't you realize that if you accept all, then you've rendered them each without value? They are all similar; there's no choice between them. Pick a small car, a large car, a new car..who cares.

Our species has the unique capacity to think, to reason, to evaluate. This means differentiation, it means making choices. To reject this action and call it 'intolerance' rejects the right of thinking and evaluating in our species.

An individual contractor has the right to accept/reject a customer, for his own reason. But, he doesn't have to tell the customer.

ET,

He doesn't HAVE TO tell the customer, but he should be able to and not have to fear the wrath of the likes of Lucy and Warnout. Therein lies the problem of true free speech vs. an almost censored version of 'free' speech.

"As for 'social condition' that's so amorphous a category that it's dysfunctional as one. Does that mean that a builder can't refuse to build a new roof for someone, even when the 'social condition' (what the heck does that mean??) suggests that the customer can't pay for it? Of course not."

ET, I don't know what the hell it means, and that scares me. No one thought when they were creating HRCs that they would evolve into their present form. However, I've seen enough anti-business rhetoric from the left and the anti-poverty activists to bloody well know that they feel I should be handing out free services and hardware like candy. God help us all of they get some sort of legal framework to back their absurd demands.

"Our species has the unique capacity to think, to reason, to evaluate. This means differentiation, it means making choices. To reject this action and call it 'intolerance' rejects the right of thinking and evaluating in our species."

Just because we have the capacity to do something doesn't mean that we will. Many people who can think, don't (else the NDP wouldn't get a single friggin' vote).

Speaking for myself, as a computer tech, I've learned that you can rarely go wrong by betting on the utter stupidity of your fellow man.

I'm staying out of this, except to say that the slippery slope folks look like babboons. Really, now, equating a homosexual couple to a pedophile, incestuous or even a freaking bestiality-based relationship?

Give your heads a shake. This is the stuff that gets all conservatives tarred ignorant bozos.

The item about MP Graham states that I just heard about it , I did not say the MSM just reported it.

maybe this is why so many FemiNazis and Gay-Stapo militants have hissy-fits and run to the HRC for the slightest perception of being offended , they just don't listen or they read-into every comment to find an offence .

For a couple of years now I didn't understand why Media members refused to go into details over Graham because of CRTC guidelines that forbid attacking someones sexual preference or to mention a trans-gender person by their previous title .
So it was last week on a Radio show that i heard a comment about same-gender marriage and Poligamy which cited the age of conscent for sex and asked about how the caller viewed MP Grahams fling with a 15 year old if it was a girl rather than a boy.
You just proved how dangerous it is in canada to tell the truth because of a Libel suit . But as for Slavery voted out by Judges , did it put slave owners off the hook for their actions prior to the law change?
I ask this because the Courts keep making Moral Judgements but they only pick the ones they agree with to deem either wrong or right , Judges can make mistakes just like the ones that allowed Slavery and forced other Judges to later on strike it down as wrong.
And if a future generation deems abortion wrong will that absolve all the Abortionists who got rich from the Health care dollars but now are free to find another line of work.
If you don't stand for anything you end up falling for everything , even the Global Warming scam has yet to produce one solid piece of Evidence outside of a Computer Model that was skewed from the start and 2400 Government workers
who met to agree that their jobs were important enough to continue the lie so they picked out the Scientists comments they agree with and then honed it down to about 40 sound bites after many of them refused to endorse the whole IPCC reports based on one line from their opinion piece.
There's now Oil on Titan to disprove years of claiming it came from trees and animals as taught in Schools by the Flat-Earth people still existing , and today the Schools even insult African students by teaching them that they are linked to Apes and not God as a creation in a Human Form.

Kate, one of these days I'm going to buy a Harley and get you to paint two nudie nymphettes making out on it. That would be way awesome.

ET: " ... that has NOTHING to do with a refusal to sell that product to anyone who chooses to purchase it."

Thanks for missing the point. BTW: I don't have to enter into a contract to sell anything to anyone, and every sale or buy is a contract.

If my thing was to raise pet goats, and sell goats as pets (business), am I obligated to sell my goats to anyone that shows up at my door? Should I be?

Jay, that's fine if you don't want to be polite. But if you're not going to be polite to me, don't f'ing expect kindness in return. That's the way of the world.

New Mexico has a Canadian style human rights commission?! What other states have similar commissions? I'm amazed by this. There is an absolute mountain of case-law on similar issues, and it is VERY clear that the Constitution grants the right for a private business to refuse to provide service on religious belief grounds.

Yukon Gold, read what I said about the slippery slope: I didn't suggest what you imply at all.

I'll be even clearer: after the homosexual mantra, "We [activists] want to turn the institution of marriage in the West upside down because it's our right" became the precedent for who can marry whom in this country, on what grounds can we deny this "right" to any other self-interested group?

I suggest the next "non traditional" group to step up to the plate will be the polygamists. Having tossed off the old in Kanadistan—“Hey, look at us: aren’t we cool?”—there will be no defence for saying “no” to them or, indeed, as we all get softened up and accept the abnormal as just another norm, to other non traditional couplings.

To suggest this isn’t going to happen is pretty short sighted, IMO.

"If I have a different viewpoint, it doesn't mean I'm 'intolerant'"

Sorry, ET, based on your response I think I was unclear.

The intolerance I was referring to was those who would punish another for holding a contrary viewpoint. It wasn't my intention to back some sort of relativistic notion that all viewpoints are equal.

Re my earlier post: this reminds me of an exchange between Thomas More and his son-in-law, Will Roper, in the movie, “A Man for All Seasons”.

“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

“Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

“William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

“Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

On a whim, our lefty, Liberal appointed judges are so busy “flattening” sound, common law statutes, which have stood the test of time, and enacting new, trendy ones, where “I FEEL I need this” is the quicksand on which they rest, I believe OUR safety’s at stake.

Tried to post this yesterday, but it apparently got lost in the cloud:

At my local grocery, I saw a sign up sheet for a recreational soccer league - for Muslims only. From what I could gather, they consider our children "unclean" and not fit to share a field with theirs.

Since they will be using community built soccer fields, I wonder if I should be filing a complaint with an HRC near me?

Rligion is crap. This is just another reason why people are turning away from religion.

Kate: Well, I dunno - you wouldn't happen to have a picture of the bike tank in question, would you?

This, as it seems many of the CHRC cases, is mostly about laws that enable 'gotcha' lawsuits.

I've a MFA and can assure everyone that there is no shortage whatsoever of photographers who are of a like mind as this same-sex couple. Why weren't any of them hired to perform this service?

Answer: because there would be no basis for a lawsuit.

The correct way to mitigate these sorts of suits from happening is to do the job but in the contract, specify that you will charge nothing and will preform the task drunk with a bunch of disposable cameras.