…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
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.