RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Pretending a photographer doing business with public is like Warhol making experimental art with his Factory pals

by Jeremy Hooper

Check out this delicious spin. This is Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell talking about the New Mexico small business owner who wanted to discriminate against a pair of potential clients on the basis of their sexual orientations:

“Every artist must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views,” he explained. “A government that can force anyone to promote messages against his or her will is a government out of control.”
FULL: Wedding Photographers Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court [FoTF Citizenlink]

Campbell might have a point if the photographer were simply a hobbyist with an artistic vision or even a paid artist with a commission to freely express her point of view. But she isn't. In this case, we are talking about a small business owner who does business with the public, photographing weddings and other events for the sake of commerce. Business owners must comply with local nondiscrimination ordinances—obviously!

I also "love" the idea that wedding photographers, by doing the job that they offer to the public, are somehow "promoting" that which they shoot. What absurd rationale! I would imagine that wedding photographers are constantly seeing things that they personally find distasteful or even outright objectionable, from the mild ("she chose that dress?!") to the more extreme ("she chose to pledge her love to both her husband and Satan?!"). To me, the truly dangerous precedent is one insisting that photographers are endorsing every event that they capture on film.

The other side's case is so unbelievably flimsy on this one that I actually hope the Supreme Court does move forward on it. Not that the affirmative ruling that I'm confident SCOTUS would deliver would do anything to quiet the other side, hellbent as they are to push both "activist judge" and "religious liberty victim" narratives. It might, however, allow people like me to stop caring about the bluster.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails