New Mexico

Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Photograph Your Wedding?

|

Memories we'll cherish forever!

A photo studio in New Mexico cannot refuse to shoot gay weddings for religious reasons, said the state's court of appeals Tuesday, and doing so violates their Human Rights Act. This is the third ruling against Elane Photography. Via the Albuquerque Journal:

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.

Malott found the studio is a "public accommodation" — an establishment that provides services to the public — and as such may not refuse its services on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical or mental handicap.

Elane Photography argued that as a provider of discretionary, unique and expressive services, it was not a public accommodation within the meaning of the act.

New Mexico's legal definition of a "public accommodation" is very vague. Pretty much anybody engaging in any act of capitalism that touches the public applies.

It's a victory for … nobody really. Meaningless gestures, maybe? It's not a victory for anybody trying to convince religious conservatives that the government recognizing gay marriage won't interfere with their own religious practices. It's certainly not a victory for the Freedom of Association accorded by the First Amendment.

Who wants a wedding photographer who is repulsed by their union and is forced to be there by law? What sort of outcome is going to be produced here that is going to make anybody involved happy (besides the lawyers, of course)?

The natural rejoinder is typically, "Should they be allowed to discriminate against black couples?" The appropriate volley is, "What black couple would want racists shooting their wedding?" While it might make somebody feel smug or superior to use the law to demand service from people who don't like them for whatever stupid reasons, perhaps an outcome-based analysis is preferable when hiring somebody to produce images from your special day that you hope to hang in your living room for the rest of your life.

In any event, aren't there good market-based solutions to this sort of discrimination? Punching in "photographers" and "New Mexico" at gayweddings.com brings up two pages worth of matches. Let somebody who actually supports the gay community get the money rather than browbeating some homophobe into working for it. Don't help keep them in business!

Here's a better idea: Find a dating service that actually wants your business.

The wedding suit pales compared to the absurdity of what dating site eHarmony has faced over public accommodations and gay customers.  The dating site was sued back in 2008 for only serving heterosexual couples, claiming their matching programming was not designed for gay couples. That the site was at the time primarily marketed toward Christians through Focus on the Family was probably a good indicator of some additional not-so-hidden motives.

Eventually eHarmony agreed to create a site for lovelorn gays to seek matches, but even that wasn't enough for some folks. They were sued again because the matchmaking services were too separate. As Mashable reported in January, 2010:

Dating site eHarmony has settled a lawsuit in California by agreeing to end the separation of its homosexual and heterosexual matchmaking services.

eHarmony agreed to open a site for gay and lesbian customers after another lawsuit in 2008, but it did not cross-promote or even link between the two sites, and it kept subscriptions separate. …

eHarmony will add its name to Compatible Partners, link it from the main eHarmony website alongside its Jewish, black, Christian and senior portals, and unify subscriptions. The company will also pay out $500,000 to around 150 Californians to settle. That's in addition to the $1.5 million it has spent defending itself in court.

How dare eHarmony design its matchmaking services to keep its gay clientele from dating its straight clientele? It's exactly like the drinking fountains again!

And of course, the marketplace is absolutely freaking flooded with matchmaking services, making all of this pointless and stupid. Rival Chemistry.com even used eHarmony's restrictive matching system in an advertising campaign competing against them. The LGBT community doesn't need eHarmony's crap. Does anybody even use its Compatible Partners site? Why would they?

I can press a button on my iPhone right now to find gay dudes. Not a single gay person is being denied matchmaking services by eHarmony's absence in the marketplace.

The purpose of these lawsuits is not to fight for equal rights but to punish religious jerks. It is an absurd battle for stupid reasons whose victories are utterly hollow.

(Hat tip to Hit and Run commenter Mo' Sparky for the lead)

NEXT: Nick Gillespie Talks Plastic Bag Bans on NPR's Tell Me More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hope that gay couple is ready for some ugly shots, you know, with heads cut off and out of focus and such.

    A business shouldn’t be forced to contract someone their service for the same reason that a customer shouldn’t be forced to patronize a business: it violates their autonomy as free individuals, which is a pretty essential “human right” if you ask me.

    1. Oh, worse than that. Head shots showing grimaces, camera angles deliberately designed to make the couple look as bad as possible, any inadvertent good shots deleted — how could anyone not see that this could end badly?

  2. Fuck that. I’d shutter my doors and say sorry, out of business.

    1. Malott found the studio is a “public accommodation” ? an establishment that provides services to the public

      This concept needs to die a fiery and painful death.

      It’s Private. Fucking. Property.

      1. How much longer until doctors are forced to provide their services to all at the government rate if they offer any services at all?

    2. Another law that pushes people around and gives me reason to hate my friends and neighbors who believe that the U.S.A. is the best country in the world.

  3. Not this old right-wing meme. State-licensed gay marriage would never lead to this sort of thing.

    1. No one could possibly support one and not the other. NOBODY.

      1. SIV’s love affair with Marcus Bachmann causes some serious psychological projection issues.

        1. Says the guy who’s proudest possession is his cast of Nathaniel Branden’s wang.

  4. ASM: I would expect that a photographer forced to provide services in this context would produce the minimum quality that he could which would allow him to avoid a lawsuit because the subjects were unhappy with the product.

  5. No good. This is like saying a speechwriter is a “public accomodation.”

  6. Crotch shots. Nothing but zoomed in crotch shots.

  7. Half the fun of being gay is forcing yourself on people who don’t like you.

    1. Yes, John, all homos are activists who want to fuck with other people for being homophobic. There are no homos who just want to be left alone and live their lives and extend the same courtesy to others. Because as we all know, all homos are one collectively guilty group who all think and act alike. I mean, they’re homos, right? Not regular people, oh no.

      1. People who want to be left alone are asexual. Homos just want to be left mostly alone.

      2. Get a sense of humor. And if there are all these normal homos out there, I am sure they will be ostracizing the people who filed this law suit any minute. I mean I bet these guys cant’ even visit their favorite gay bar anymore because people are so angry at them over this.

        1. Ah yes, I need a sense of humor. Because…what you posted was supposed to be funny? It just sounded really fucking stupid to me.

          You’re particularly homophobic and collectivist today, John. Did your wife leave you for another woman or something?

          1. You are so easy to fuck with it is not even funny. And when my wife leaves me for another woman, at least she will let me watch, as opposed to yours who no doubt closed the door and told you to stay down stairs.

            1. Don’t be angry about your wife leaving you, John. You just probably bored the shit out of her like you do to the rest of us.

              1. Someone has got to entertain you while your wife is upstairs with anyone and every one there Epi. I am just trying to do my part.

                1. How do you know about Episiarch’s secret marriage? You’re not stalking him or anything, right?

                  1. No Pro. I just met her on a trip to Seattle once.

                  2. How do you know about my secret marriage? The Satanic Priest said the records would be kept completely confidential!

                    1. Everyone forgets the notary.

                    2. I knew I should have tipped that guy!

                      It’s all right, though; being married to a demon is kind of cramping my style. I think I might want a divorce.

              2. Don’t be angry about your wife leaving you, John. You just probably bored the shit out of her like you do to the rest of us.

                Having established that John is actually Mitch Daniels, so much of the rest of the world makes more sense now.

                1. lol

                2. lol

          2. Most people find sarcasm to be pretty funny. Usually you do as well. I thought you would WELCOME mocking people who think gay people have horrible hidden agendas, but apparently you only like it when it comes from someone other than John.

            1. John’s not mocking people like that, he is like that. You might want to read further down for other comments from him.

              1. How do you know I am not gay dipshit? For all you know I love taking it up the ass. It is not like being married prevents that.

                You really are the most pathetic person on here. And that includes Mary Stack.

            2. darius you must be new here…..

            3. Yeah, their agenda isn’t hidden anymore. They want to add sexual perverts as another group that citizens aren’t allowed to discriminate against, which is fine with me since I’ve spent my entire life being treated like a sicko because I can only be turned on when my mother shits on me.

              Next week I’m giving a speech to a group of local 4th graders. I’m going to describe my fetish to them in detail and then let them know that if any of them like to get shit on, they should ignore the revulsion of their classmates because “it gets better”. Anyone who disagrees with me is only doing so because they want scat kids to kill themselves.

              1. Sorry Ep, still nothing. The only post from John below is his comment that the gay rights movement has been taken over by leftists, which isn’t the same thing as being homophobic, or whatever you mean by “he is like that.” If anyone is reading his comment oddly, it’s you.

    2. Everyone knows that the demographic for Human Rights Commission is a black women with at least one hyphen in her name and several vowels, mostly ‘i’s and soft consonants that adds up to something vaguely African with a PHD in a meaningless subject, so why are you blaming the gays for this one?

      1. Commission is a black women in my defense, I was visualizing multiple titties at the time. Yes, two is a multiple, you know what I mean, it’s like you are a word sorcerer or something, using words against me.

        1. No, you should just run with it – say that you meant she was one of those bodies with multiple people inhabiting it.

          1. I can’t imagine two personalities in one head ever making me as happy as two of these on one body:

            http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-conten…..a-wrap.gif

      2. She-qan-iqwa-swahili.

  8. I say this as a supporter of gay marriage: this is an outrage. I could see it coming (for the same reason you can’t openly decline to serve someone because they’re black), but it’s stupid and wrong.

    I’ll really be shocked, and admit that I was dead wrong, if they wind up forcing a church to do a gay wedding.

    1. Damn those totally foreseeable unintended consequences!

      1. I admitted this was foreseeable (as regards private businesses). I’m amazed it took as long as it did, since this actually doesn’t hinge on gay marriage at all (which isn’t recognized in NM). Rather, it’s a civil rights/equal protection issue. I don’t agree with it, the same way I don’t agree with being forced to serve white, black, or any other type of person. But it isn’t surprising in the least.

        The church thing is really going to be the test. Assuming someday NM does recognize gay marriage, what will their courts do then? If they go down the road of forcing the churches to perform the ceremony, then the whole cause is dead to me (in that state at least).

        1. They will absolutely force Churches to recognize gay marriage if they get the chance. They have no problems forcing churches to pay for contraception. Same thing here.

          1. And if they do, I’ll turn completely against them. I have no problem telling people that just because I agree with them somewhat, or about one aspect of a problem, that doesn’t mean I’m on board for everything that they say or do. That’s what the Teams are for.

            1. The gay rights agenda has been taken over by leftists. And they are totalitarian. That means in their eyes no one can be on the sidelines. You are either with them or against them. Everyone must submit or be considered an enemy.

              1. Well maybe if the right wasn’t so overtly hostile to homosexuals, they wouldn’t be so left-leaning.

            2. In British Columbia, a “Human Rights” Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus hall for not renting to a lesbian wedding.

              1. Yeah well call me when it happens in a real country.

                ^_^

                1. Yeah well call me when it happens in a real country.

                  I don’t know if you consider Illinois “real,” but two gay guys sued a couple of BBs; for refusing to host their wedding.

                  1. Again, understandable coming from a private business due to Civil Rights bullshit. Were the BBs also churches? And if so, how was the fried chicken *rimshot*? What was the result of the lawsuit?

                    As a general opponent of Big Gov’t, I’m all too aware that Illinois exists. I’m from there originally *hangs head*.

                    1. Does this count? (I’ve mentioned this case before)

                      http://www.religioustolerance……grove1.htm

                    2. (Would New Jersey qualify as a real country?)

                    3. Again, understandable coming from a private business due to Civil Rights bullshit. Were the BBs also churches? And if so, how was the fried chicken *rimshot*? What was the result of the lawsuit?

                      No, they weren’t churches, but their owners are practicing Christians. That said, should it matter, “civil rights” laws or no?

                      I’m not sure what the disposition of the cases are.

          2. And I say this as an athiest who has no problem whatsoever with anybody practicing any religion that doesn’t fuck with me or my family.

          3. In everything, there are basically two concerns: the concern that some minority group or individual will abuse their power to do something terrible, and the concern that the majority will force the minority to do something against their will.

            The vast majority of people worry far more about the first category. They only care about the second category so far as they personally end up being in the minority in question.

            It is the mark of being libertarian to be concerned about the majority imposing on the few, or the one, and to be willing to live with the results of the few, or the one, abusing their freedom.

            1. Nicely put.

            2. Of the libertarian?

              So, my freedom to associate with whom I wish, to use my property as I see fit, to enjoy my personal liberty, must be placed second to ensuring that the majority does not impose something on the minority that the minority doesn’t like?

              That stance is an example of a minority group or individual abusing their power. That gives all power to the minority group. That gives the minority group the power to impose things on the majority that the majority doesn’t like.

              I suspect this is a more liberal than libertarian stance.

        2. Ok. So you’re only going to speak out when they come for you?

      2. Team Politics is thisaway, SIV:

        ?

        (right or left, you choose, but get the fuck out)

    2. I’ll really be shocked, and admit that I was dead wrong, if they wind up forcing a church to do a gay wedding.

      I’m guessing there are some people who want to force openly homophobic organizations like the Mormon church to wed gays in their temples.

      I’m guessing pushing that agenda that would turn out badly for anyone in favor of marriage equality — backlash city.

  9. Anyone who forces their family and friends to show up with presents to celebrate some official entanglement exercise in the first place deserves to have out-of-focus reminders of how things were before the divorce.

    1. The presents were nothing I wanted. I was just going along with her sick societal normalization agenda to get along.

      1. So you woke up early one Saturday morning, walked the dog, changed the battery in the living room clock, wrote a check to the electric company, and threw the punch-bowl in the trash.

  10. “Sorry, we have no photograpers available on your wedding day. When is it, again?”

  11. The purpose of these lawsuits is not to fight for equal rights but to punish religious jerks. It is an absurd battle for stupid reasons whose victories are utterly hollow.

    Progressive: But it feels soooooo good.

    1. I’d potentially quibble here and say the victories are Pyrrhic, not hollow. A hollow victory would have no effect. These victories actually reduce freedom for everyone and set precedents.

      1. The problem with this crap is that it keeps assaulting freedoms that are supposed to be absolute. Like freedom of association and freedom of speech.

        1. Freedom of association went out the window with the Civil Rights Act. But don’t let anybody hear you say that, because it’s a dog whistle for crypto-neo-confederates, klansmen, and nazi die-hards.

          1. Geez Gojira, you must be the most bigoted atheist gay marriage supporter EVER.

            1. I’m also the most bigoted gay porn star and scat-fiend ever. I am a man of many hats.

        2. There seem to be plenty of people who don’t think 1st amendment protections are or should be absolute, sadly. I have seen a number of people say on this issue in other forums that 1st amendment issues cannot be allowed to trump anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately, they think mere statutes should trump civil rights.

  12. He who fights with monsters must see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself.

  13. Should they be allowed to discriminate against black couples? Of course. People have the right to hold irrational beliefs. Of course, such a person wouldnt be my friend, but the issue here is that anti discrimination laws can be contraditory to individual rights in some cases. Barry Goldwater recognized this and opposed some antidiscrimination measures of the civil rights acts.

  14. Just waiting for some hardcore SoCons to figure out a way to force a gay photographer to take pictures of something that offends them.

    1. I was thinking the exact same thing. Tit for tat.

      1. Hmmm. Well, there’s still freedom of speech, I think. So an anti-gay photographer could post anti-gay pictures and comments on his website. He could also take the pictures and include captions with anti-gay comments . There’s actually no limit to what he could do, seeing as how speech is supposedly protected in this country.

        1. Recall what happened to Travis Corcoran in Bastan. He exercised his 1st Amendment rights and had his 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights completely violated.

          I can easily foresee local authorities conducting many, many “surprise” inspections of their business and property.

        2. So (just thinking out loud), could someone call his business the “I Hate Gays Photo Studio”? (Or, for that matter, the “I Hate Jews Photo Studio” or the “I Hate Negroes Photo Studio”?)

          “We will serve you, but we do hate you.”

          1. Yes, of course. And then everyone else has the right to shun your sorry ass and (by their refusal of patronage) to drive you out of business.

      2. This is a very interesting thought experiment, but when have real-world socons sought to use government force to second-guess the decisions of private businesses? They often rely on the boycott weapon, but when did they want to fine any business for providing same-sex benefits or photographing gay weddings?

        When did they try and take away the tax exemption for the Episcopelians or MCC for hosting same-sex weddings in pavillions they owned?

        When did they call in the government against landlords and bed and breakfast owners for renting to gay couples?

        Moral equivalence may seem tempting, but it should be buttressed with some examples.

        1. Here’s an example: http://realestate.aol.com/blog…..imination/

          1. I was looking more for a gay kind of case. The link is to a pacifist landlady allegedly refusing to rent to a veteran. Nothing gay about it that I could see.

            But sure, we can call it socon.

            1. I first read the story on some conservative website with people complaining about discrimination against veterans. Sure socons are less likely to pull this shit but veterans are an example of a protected class for them.

              And of course what you said was more general:

              but when have real-world socons sought to use government force to second-guess the decisions of private businesses?

              They do that shit all the time but I assume you were limiting that statement to the topic at hand and not interfering with private businesses in general.

              1. If they ‘do that shit all the time’, why do you only have this one, poor example of a situation that isn’t quite the same?

    2. Why would they bother? It’s totally not their style and even if they did no “Human Rights Commission” would give a shit.

      1. I really do hate Human Rights Commissions. Their pronouncements sound like they originate out of foreign satraps imposing their will on conquered and occupied lands.

        1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satrap

          Middle English, from Latin satrapes, from Greek satrap?s, from Old Persian khshathrap?van, literally, protector of the dominion
          First Known Use: 14th century

          Last Known Use: Killzontherun, 21st century.

    3. They NEVER understand that the door swings both ways.

      What you can do to me today, I can do to you tomorrow is something that they will go out of their way to deny or minimize.

      1. It’s almost like some kind of unavoidable law.

      2. Here in STL, it actually swung the other way first. Back in the 1990s, a straight guy sued a lesbian bar when they wouldn’t hire him as their bartender. The bar closed as a result, leaving the lesbians without a hangout and some asswipe still without a bartending gig.

        1. Was he a socon bartender?

          1. I don’t know, but it wouldn’t shock me.

          2. I’m trying to imagine what a socon bar would be like. I guess it’d all be a matter of how traditionalist they want the atm., because to “conservatives”, those who are much more “conservative” come off as weird. And vice versa.

            1. Many socons don’t drink. I imagine a socon bar would be more like a soda fountain.

              1. They drink all right – or at least most of the men do. They just don’t want anybody to know they drink.

      3. “They NEVER understand that the door swings both ways.”

        No, that’s for bisexuals, not gays

    4. Well, a SoCon could hire a gay wedding photographer and have the theme of his or her wedding as “Gays will burn in Hell, but we won’t.”

  15. I saw that “Compatible Partners” and thought Adblock had sold me out again.

  16. Well, that’s just great, but what about those who are cisgendered, transabled, pansexual, aromantic, asensual, and demiplatonic? WHAT ABOUT THEM?

    1. If they can’t figure it out, what chance do we have?

  17. Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Photograph Your Wedding?

    “Because people do not hate us enough already?” for the win, Alex?

    Malott [the self-righteous bureaucratic asshole] found the studio is a “public accommodation”[…]

    Which ipso facto means it is not. As long as Malott is alive, of course.

    The purpose of these lawsuits is not to fight for equal rights but to punish religious jerks.

    Sure, Scott – it’s all about revenge. NOTHING to do with increasing attorneys’ hunting grounds.

    It is an absurd battle for stupid reasons whose victories are utterly hollow.

    On that, we agree completely – there’s NOT A SINGLE GOOD REASON to undermine and stamp on people’s rights. No matter what MNG would say.

  18. What the court decided is that if you run a business you have no right to refuse a job. You have a privilege to refuse that is revocable if your reason offends a protected class. These type anti-discrimination laws are unequal treatment under law as they give greater rights to their pet classes.

  19. I’ve had long discussions with gay friends. When I’ve touched on the fact that I’m in support of same sex marriage, but on freedom of contract/association grounds rather than equal protection grounds (citing the but a heterosexual man is forbidden from marrying another heterosexual man, so it’s not technically discriminatory towards gays per se), they look at me like I’m a monster.

    For a considerable portion of the gay community, same sex marriage was about legitimating their sexual preference and getting the official stamp of societal approval. All of ths tertiary stuff was bound to arise given that the goal is less equal rights and more social acceptance (failing to realize though that acceptance through coercion is not true acceptance and may very well produce significant backlash instead).

    1. I’ve wondered about this. I’m not an accountant, so this might be a dumb question, but isn’t it only a matter of time before some enterprising business men or women decide to use gay marriage as a way of transferring or sheltering their wealth under some type of husband/wife gift exemption?

      1. The Chinese in Southern California rent safe deposit boxes at Chinese banks, stock them with gold coins and an assortment of paper currencies, and give their children the key.

      2. Things like that already happenw with marriage and adoption, gay marriage will just widen the pool.

        Heteros marry to help people obtain citizenship, or to extend benefits. Before i married my wife, we claimed to be “domestic partners” so i could use her employer’s gym for free.

    2. I’ve had the same issue.

      The problem is that gays do not want marriage equality or freedom, they just want their piece of the pie.

      See if you make the argument from a freedom of association standpoint then you are forced to admit that group and incestuious (obviously consentual of legal age) marriage must also be allowed. However most homosexuals are just as uncomfortable with these ideas as the general public is and even where they are not they recognize that this realization would significantly if not permanently delay their getting what they want.

      There is also the issue that putting forth the freedom of association issue would put them directly at odds with their anti discrimination agenda because that same right is exactly what should have prevented this very case from occurring.

      Basically gay rights activists and other progressives HATE the freedom of association and barely tolerate freedom of speech because they stand as barriers to their goals of remaking society in their image.

      Oh and the payback for this will be a gay couple adopting a child, trying to hire a nanny and a Fundamentalist Christian applying for the job, then suing when not hired because of her religious beliefs.

      In fact if I were a Fundamentlist Christian activist in New Mexico I would be doing everything I could to bring about this situation today using this ruling as precident.

  20. OK, I clicked on the gaywedding.com link and felt something strange. What’s next for me?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVUXPjFWfX4

  21. This may explain why all those lesbian pr0n sites are now showing guys getting it on. The worst $9.99 I ever spent…

  22. No offense to Mo’ Sparky, but I’ve been pimping this case before he did. Not that I begrudge him his hat tip or anything.

    But be that as it may, the *Reason* folks are finally rubbing the sleep from their eyes and awakening from their dream of a paradise of marital deregulation, in order to find out the kind of world in which the SSM advocates wish us to live.

    1. It’s the world we already live in, it’s just that gays are adding their label to the list of the permanently aggrieved.

      1. Sure, but why does it take so long for some folks to realize this plain fact?

        1. Sorry! You might do something incredibly stupid with that right, so it’s right off. Now, get back in the back of the bus and do as you’re told.

          The better solution is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, but until that happens we’ll have the KULTUR WARRIORS to entertain us.

    2. Sorry, Mo’s was the one I saw. I’m actually familiar with the case from the previous rulings, but didn’t realize they were still fighting it.

      1. It’s OK, I’m still dining out on my previous hat tips. I can afford to share.

    3. You know, it is possible to get marital deregulation without a bunch of bullshit like this right? I mean I know a good libertarian fellow such as yourself would never assign collective guilt to an entire group of people because some gay dudes are assholes.

  23. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.

  24. The whole concept of public accommodation may be the worst idea the US court system has come up with.

  25. I think there is an Iron Law that covers this.

  26. New Mexico:

    Fuck off, slavers!

    And that is exactly what this is, slavery. The state is forcing the photographer to work against his will.

    1. I wonder when they will allow the use of a whip to make sure he does an acceptable job?

    2. Don’t exaggerate. Slavery is forcing someone to work without pay. The slaver needs to provide some food and water to the slave to keep him going like a machine, but nothing more. The photographer is being subjected to serfdom. He will be payed to do what his lord desires.

      1. I guess the notion of slaves eventually being able to purchase their freedom is a myth?

  27. This is the kind of non-essential fight that turns people off libertarianism. What’s lost in losing the fight against public accommodation? People are forced to accept other people’s dignity? Libertarians like to think they’re outside of the tribes, and above Team Red and Team Blue, but stuff like this is an Achilles Heel that cripples and renders the flock little different than the duopoly in ideological rigidity.

    1. What’s lost in losing the fight against public accommodation?

      What’s gained? Lifestyle accommodation at the point of a gun? Be careful what you wish for.

      People are forced to accept other people’s dignity?

      What the fuck does that even mean? Shouldn’t you rather want to give your money to someone whose values you share, instead of someone who finds your repugnant? What’s to be gained from enriching bigots?

      ideological rigidity

      Principles matters, not that a utilitarian TEAM member would understand that. That’s like trying to explain baseball to a goat.

    2. What’s lost? Time and money and energy that is spent building up a righteous rage just so you can end up with the result of punishing someone for something which society would have imposed its own punishment (if it cared) for free.

      And you STILL don’t get your wedding pictures, as the article above illustrates.

      What’s lost? In this example: the business, the wedding pictures, and any chance to try to get people to understand each other (the foundation of learning to accept people’s dignity) instead of reacting (properly) angrily to being sued.

  28. These laws are a sort of socialism, turning every private business into a public utility. In addition, if a business turns away good business over an irrational bias, other businesses will eat their lunch.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.