Brickbats

Brickbat: Free to Be

|

A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit from a Christian photographer seeking to overturn a New York law that would require her to photograph gay weddings. Emilee Carpenter said the law violates her First and 14th Amendment rights. But Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. said the law simply seeks "to guarantee that businesses purporting to serve the public truly do serve the public."

NEXT: Deng Xiaoping and the Communist Party Don't Deserve Credit for Chinese Economic Power

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. The law only requires that she do a job in exchange for compensation. Like compulsory servitude. Or prostitution.

    It doesn’t require she perform the job well.

    She could use a little teeth on the problem, or take terrible photos.

    1. I've said this more than once, but if she deliberately does a poor job she can still be sued for discrimination, just as surely as if she refused to do the job in the first place.

      Just as, with other forms of compulsory servitude, like cotton-picking, the worker can be beaten for doing a bad job.

      1. Nothing in the law requires the photographer to show up on time or dress nicely. Nothing requires that the photos be in focus.

        “Sorry. I forgot to put the batteries in the flash.”

        The only problem is that the photographer made it publicly known how she feels about homos before the wedding. I would’ve kept that to myself.

        1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ..
          ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
          ¦¦¦¦F¦O¦L¦L¦O¦W¦¦M¦E¦¦¦¦¦ ..... Visit Here

          1. ═══════════════════════════════════════★☆★●
            Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ..
            ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
            ¦F¦O¦L¦L¦O¦W¦¦M¦E¦¦¦¦¦ ...... ­­­w­w­­­w.m­­­ax­­­p­­­r­­­o9.­c­­o­­­­m

        2. From the complaint: "Among other things, the human rights law prohibits “unlawful discriminatory practices … because of” sexual orientation in “any place of public accommodation.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.2(a)."

          Pretextual discrimination is just as illegal as any other kind. If you show up in time and do a professional job for the straights, you have to do so for the gays - irrespective if the concept of "gay marriage" is not only incoherent to you, but flat-out mistaken and wrong.

          1. I see the proponents of slavery are out in force today.

            1. Sorry read this as support before reading the rest of your commentary.

              There are separate issues between the marriage and the compelled services, but anyone who didn't see one leading inevitably to the other is a fool.

              1. I am Pro-Gay Marriage as well as Pro-Polyamorous Marriage and Anti-Slavery. I don't see why one cannot be all of those and I don't see why being Pro-Gay Marriage or Pro-Polyamorous Marriage would inexerably lead to Slavery.

                And if I were the marrying type of Polyamorous Pansexual, I wouldn't want anyone at my ceremony who wasn't 100 percent friendly to me and my spouse or spice (plural.) I sure as Hell wouldn't like some Fundamentalist Chistian or Muslim suing me for religious discrimination for wanting that.

                So, I wouldn't have sued the photographer, but she wouldn't have been hired or welcomed in the first place.

            2. If it is in the bible it must be true. You can beat them as long as they don't die in 3 days, exodus 21:20

              1. The resident retard is back.

                1. Whatever his mental infirmity, he is right on the quote. And aren't you glad the commandments and rules of The Holy Bible are not law in the United States?

          2. Cal, I’ll take your word on it since you seem to have read the full thing.

  2. Well, a Christian photographer was bound to end up in the crosshairs of that law. The LGBT community’s take seems to lack proper focus though. Viewed through their lens, does forcing exposure of their lifestyle on a disapproving photographer really outweigh the negatives of not giving their business to a LGBT-friendly photographer? Never mind violating constitutional rights which were written clearly in black and white.

    1. It's not about business it's about punishment. In their eyes anyone not actively engaging in telling them they are great people all the time is an enemy to them. This is what activists look like

      1. Lessons to be learned:
        (1) if you're in business and have strong opinions, keep'em to yourself (if various perverts don't know you disapprove of them, they can't target you to try to make an example of you).
        (2) keep your mouth shut except to smile at the customers (if you have a couple of perverts approach you for service, you can likely get away with suboptimal service if you haven't been braying your ideas about the neighborhood) [Pictures just a little out of focus? Centering of subjects a bit off-center? Undesirable backgrounds? "Gee, I did my best - shit happens!"]

        1. Or a slightly high quote.

        2. A third lesson is a quote from Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

      2. And on the flip-side, it's not only about Fundamentalist Christian businesses being set upon by the State.

        They also want to return to the days when LGBTQ+ individuals were second-class citizens and human beings and best left to live life in the closet, if at all.

        Perfect proof: I heard James Dobson on his "Focus On The Family" radio show Sunday night saying that the sight of two men dancing supposedly in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (I don't know, I didn't even notice when I seen it) should not only be kept from children, but even from adults(!)...presumably by Government censorship!

        And Dobson was still on that tired hook of boycotting Disney for having benefits packages that were friendly to LGBTQ+ employees! Funny, he won't boycott himself out of the Information Age, since virtually every Big Tech and IT business has similar policies friendly to LGBTQ+ individuals!

        There's a whole Helluva lot of people who need lives of their own and to stay out of others.

    2. Are Christian photographers ALSO required to take photos at nudist weddings?

      Fun factoid: At nudist weddings, the officiator does NOT say, "You may kiss the bride", he or she says, "You may FUCK the bride"!

      And at that point, the Christian photographer can videotape the whole affair, while also making money on the side, selling it on the internet!

      1. Nudity is not about sex.

        1. Southern Writer-Comedian Lewis Grizzard noted a subtle distinction here.

          The word "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on.

          The word "Nekkid" (spelled N-E-K-K-BY GOD-I-D) means you ain't got no clothes on and you're up to something! 😉

    3. Why would they want to help a LGBT-friendly business? That has nothing to do with their objective. Their objective is forced acceptance even if it has to be shoved down our throats with the force of law.

    4. In a flash, I seen the pun you developed in the dark room which is this unphotogenic subject. And as my post above indicates, our unfiltered positions look alike and are a double exposure of the libertarian stance.

      In the big picture, it's just best practice for everyone to not go where you're not wanted and don't invite others who don't want to go with you.

  3. Perhaps the libertarians who championed "same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality" should apologize to all these Christian photographers, florists, bakers, bed-and-breakfast owners, etc., etc., for giving libertarian cover to fundamentally anti-freedom policies?

    1. In fairness, libertarians generally supported removing the state from all marriages, so government is not involved at all in how adults defined their couplings.

      Marriage is a religious concept. Involving the state is illogical. Forcing others to take part in your religious ceremony is contrary to libertarianism.

      1. The argument *I* heard was that, sure, the government should de-recognize marriage (whatever that means), but since that can't be done, the second-best thing is just to give government recognition to same-sex unions.

      2. No, marriage is not a religious concept. No aspect of family is. Religions have accommodated the existing practice of marriage. It was an understood fact of life before any religion existed.

        1. ++ and the reason the religious were doomed to lose from the beginning.
          Marriage is a political/economic concept. That american atheists are just as pig ignorant as our christians, doesnt change that one iota.

        2. "It was an understood fact of life before any religion existed."

          The modern religions maybe. I very much doubt that there was ever a time that there were people and no religion no matter how far back you go.

          1. Check out any maternity ward. We're all born without religious ideas or any other ideas...until and unless we are "Carefully Taught."

            1. Hence the BBB push for "pre-K for all".

              1. T4ue, though 5hat would be for political, rather than religious reasons.

        3. Very correct. It's basically a mechanism of pooling resources and assuring any young are provisioned until they grow up and can provide for themselves.

    2. Perhaps those who think libertarians did champion state-sanctioned marriage, and did champion forcing photographers to work at weddings they didn't approve of, should apologize to libertarians for not understanding what they whine about.

      1. Have you told the Cato Institute they aren't True Scotsmen?

        https://reason.com/2012/02/23/catos-constitutional-case-for-gay-marria/

        Or Jonathan Rauch?

        "From experience, I can attest to the pain of losing on marriage ballot initiatives in every one of the 31 states that floated them prior to 2012. It was perhaps the most comprehensive political shellacking in American history. Yet those same defeats catalyzed the strategic reboot that finally broke through six years ago."

        https://reason.com/2018/11/24/legalizing-marijuana-and-gay-m/

        Add to this that reasonably-forseeable consequences are for all practical purposes intended, and ask who needs to apologize?

        1. You can't see the difference between allowing gays to marry and forcing bakers florists photogs and others to take part?

          1. ^

          2. I see the difference which could be articulated in a late-night dorm-session debate.

            I don't see the difference for political purposes.

            The libertarians knew that there were people who didn't see the difference, and that they'd use government recognition of SSM as the occasion to attack the private sector.

            If they didn't want that outcome they should have included specific, nonnegotiable, nonrepealable protections for private business in their same-sex marriage proposals.

            But of course, any concession in favor of governemnt-recognzied SSM would, regardless of nominal safeguards, have been used as the first step to...what we see today.

            1. Man, you wouldn't have been a fun dorm-mate in college. 🙂

              The real burden is upon Government to not violate the Life, Liberty, and Property of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or opinions on sexual orientation.

              What government does or doesn't do isn't on the shoulders of libertarians (at least not exclusively,) especially since ours is a minority position with even fewer persons in public office who hold to and practice the ideal.

          3. This 1000+ (I can't make that pointy-thingie on my keyboard.)

        2. Don'tcha know? There hasn't been True Scotsman Libertarians since Adam Smith and Thomas Paine. Even then, they weren't perfect at it.

    3. No, since most of the libertarians who support same-sex marriage also support freedom of association.

      1. ^

      2. I'm discussing practical politics. Get the government to recognize SSM, and attacks on the private sector logically follow.

        Maybe it wouldn't happen that way on Libertarian Puppy Island, but it happened that way here.

        1. No, Slavery in the form of forced accommodation does not logically follow from LGBTQ+ Marriage., even if we don't live on Libertarian Puppy Island.

          By the way, where is this Libertarian Puppy Island?

          Does it have a Mastiff and a Chihuahua as Mr. Roarke and Tattoo?

          Does it have a Paw Patrol with private Fire Fighters and Police with no "Qualified Immunity" who don't shoot the people of doggies?

          It sounds so enchanting! I'd love to go with all my lovers on a honeymoon there!

      3. This. 1000+

    4. No, I don't have to apologize for anything because I do not support anti-discrimination laws directed at private individuals who don't take government funds and I don't want anti-LGBTQ+ people involved with any wedding I have or of which I am a part.

      Again, being Pro-LGBTQ+ Marriage and Pro-Polyamorous Marriage does not mean being Pro-Slavery.

  4. Getting married solely to own a Christian. That's a solid foundation.

    1. But getting a Jew lawyer for the divorce--priceless!

      1. No, you have a bullet-proof pre-nup in advance allowing each party to only have what they brought in and nothing more. Also include a clause requiring arbitration by a mutually-selected arbiter.

        Meanwhile, you never go to bed angry, you stay up and fight it out. And if that doesn't solve problems, have a bug-out bag and a bug-out place ready in advance.

        I am an Equal Opportunity, Ecumenical lawyer starver. I care what a lawyer is religiously or ethnically, they can go pick bones from the trash and chase ambulances!

        1. Correction: I DON'T care what a lawyer is religiously or ethnically. I'm not Misek. 😉

    2. I don't want to own a Christian or anyone else.

      Damnit, you'd have to feed them, clothe them, house them, bathe them, flea-dip them, shave them,, pay their Vet bills, and with Christians you'd have to haul them to Church every Sunday and Wednesday for play-dates with Jesus and then to Panera Bread and Chik-Fil-A afterwards and get then chew toys shaped like the Host and pour wine (or grape juice if they're Baptist) into their watering bowl.

      Man, to Hell with all that! Life's too short! Give them to a loving home and/or let them go get their own! 🙂

  5. Wedding photos:
    $700 for first bridegroom, $8000 each additional bridegroom, and $700 first bride, $8000 each additional bride.

    Problem solved.

    1. Probably not, in NY.
      NY allows freaks to call themselves by the opposite gender, based on a whim.

      Surely, a queer couple will come along and say. “For the purposes of this deal, I’ll be the groom and my husband will be the bride.”

      1. Well, here's one person I won't have on my invitation list or gift registry, should I ever settle down.

  6. When can we expect the BLM bakers and LBGTQXYZ photographers to serve KKK marchers and "God Hates Fags" pep rallies? In the name of equity, of course.

    1. You could also ask if catholics have to bake a kkk cake, as the kkk is very anti catholic

    2. I'm waiting for the first gay couple to ask a Muslim photographer to photograph their wedding...

      1. Definitely not! There may be some extra-large "flash" with the camera!

  7. This one's an inversion of the previous litigations, in that the photographer was not asked to do a same-sex marriage, but sued pre-emptively to overturn the statute. She'll probably get a better look if someone sues to make her photograph theirs.

  8. Get the Communist Chinese Virus 2 days before the wedding.

    1. Definitely off the invite list and gift registry, as well as the list of prospective neighbors, co-workers, employees, and contractors.

  9. Anyone still living in that shithole deserves what they get.

  10. The vast, vast majority of photographers would happily serve a gay wedding. It seems like a fair question to ask what kind of people would seek out that tiny minority of objectors and try to force them to take the job.

  11. The solution is simple, show up at the event wearing a “Marriage is between a man and a woman” t-shirt, big old crucifix…maybe some stickers on the car etc. and when they start yelling and harassing her she can quit and probably file a lawsuit against them for harassment to boot. Don’t know why the need to make it complicated when you can use their weapons against them.

    1. Which is why I would never hire such a photographer in the first place. If I was a marrying type, I would want everyone and everything friendly, with no chance of breach by some hatemonger.

    2. Oh, and another person not on the invite list and gift registry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.