…who refused to marry same sex couples on the grounds that it violated their religious freedom, defenders argued the dismissals were justified as commissioners are “agents” of the state.
You didn’t honestly believe it would end with that?
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane’s work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Thus, precedent has been established in New Mexico – owning a registered business now submits an artist’s individual liberty to state ordered servitude. Of course, they’re only following in our enlightened Canadian footsteps.
I wonder, though… if a Harley owner were to file a HRC complaint that I’d refused to paint two nudie nymphetes making out on his bike tank, would they accept the case?
(There’s more discussion here.)
h/t Sean McCormick
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. http://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 Isn’t that an outdated concept, banished by the PC crowd?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.