The problem is there are so many distinctions with meaningful differences between the two cases Daily PUMA is somewhat surprised no one is digging deeper to explain the distinctions and the differences, therefore Daily PUMA will.
In the case of not being photographed at a public event, I think the Supreme Court was right in ruling 30 years ago that the couple's rights were violated. This was a public event, publicly sanctioned, and the members who were denied their photo had standing since one of the two was directly connected to the event. For the photographer to have the right to not film them, the photographer would have needed to print a warning ON EVERY SINGLE piece of company related printing that they do not film gay couples under any circumstance. This would give the photographer standing, but most likely, would have resulted in a significant drop in overall business and most likely they would NOT have landed this particular gig.
In the case of the web designer not wanting to design a web space for a gay couple, this is electronic work, it is not work in the physical world, and that is a distinction with a difference. In what universe do we allow someone to be FORCED to do work in THEIR OWN WORK SPACE that goes against their beliefs? The answer is, we don't.
What about the wedding cake designer who refused to design a cake for a gay couple? Again, in a person's own private work space, they have the right to refuse service of their own personal work skills if they choose to do so, to anyone. However, they should make such a notice presently visible in their work space, or, at the very least, be required to make such a posting upon their first enforcement of their rule.
When it comes to the sale of refrigerators, appliances, food, I do not think the provider of those goods can discriminate against someone who has different beliefs because this goes beyond the scope of their own work space. What about a repair shop, can they discriminate? ONLY IF they have it visibly posted on their site and also on all of their advertisements. The prevailing hope would while a small percentage would support this decision, the vast majority would be disgusted and the loss of business would allow competing businesses who do not discriminate, to thrive.
Both Progressive and Conservatives have tried to own the "303 Creative vs Elenis Ruling" for their own political gain, and lost in all of this political gain posturing is the Supreme Court has ruled correctly in all three instances. Those accusing the Supreme Court of politicizing gay rights issues based on these three cases are the ones who are politicizing the issue for their own agenda.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment