Comments on: The photos the government compels you to make

By: Dennis Allshouse

Dennis Allshouse — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:28:59 +0000

Paul, couldn’t you require a release prior to evaluation that would absolve you in case you rejected a job?

By: Richard Ball

Richard Ball — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:24:18 +0000

Pornography is legal. Should a person be forced to film a pornographic event if it conflicts with their conscience or religion? Do person not have a moral right (and responsibility) to refuse to participate in activities they view as immoral?

Is “bigoted religious fanatic” the left’s only rejoinder to what is at essence a moral argument?

And, for the record, homosexuality is an inclination and a behavior, not an immutable characteristic such as skin colour or sex.

By: CMPatti

CMPatti — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:16:11 +0000

Corporations do have free speech rights. See First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).

That said, the legal question whether Elane Photography is exempt from antidiscrimination laws because of the expressive aspect of the service it provides is an interesting one. Let’s assume (because I think it’s true) that courts would reject the claim of a hair salon that it could refuse to serve customers on the basis of race because of the artistic or expresive nature of the services it provides. What factors permit drawing a principled line between that example and the wedding photographer?

By: Paul Butzi

Paul Butzi — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:10:50 +0000

Is there a distinction between the rights of the individual and the rights of a company?

The answer seems to be unclear, especially if the ‘company’ is a sole proprietorship or LLC. Perhaps some lawyerly reader will weigh in?

By: Martin Doonan

Martin Doonan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:59:07 +0000

All the talk of rights – it’s interesting. Is there a distinction between the rights of the individual and the rights of a company?

Remember (go read the judgement), Elaine Hugenin has not been fined. Her company, Elane Photographic, has. I believe there is a substantial difference there.

By: SF

SF — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:43:49 +0000

People should be free to do business with whomever they like. The reason is irrelevant. Fighting discrimination should not involve forced servitude.

By: Half Canadian

Half Canadian — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:09:48 +0000

Forget her rights as an artist, what about her rights as a citizen? I know my way around statistics. IF I, as a freelancer, refuse to do stats analysis for a gay-rights/ethnic/religious group because of my own POV (religious or not), can I refuse that work without getting sued (regardless of the court)? Or do I have to lie to these people about why I won’t take their work?

Assuming that I would have any problems with taking their money, of course.

By: mojo

mojo — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:07:50 +0000

Liberty is the ability to say “no, I will not” and make it stick.

By: Georgia Halloran

Georgia Halloran — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:17:00 +0000

Ms. Hugenin First Admendment rights have been trampled on and I am sure the fine will be appealed. She has chrsitian beliefs that do not believe in gay marriages or the homosexual lifestyle. These thoughts and her beliefs are protected by our constitution. Someone on earlier post spoke to discrimination on a black person is the same idea-Wrong-race is one thing and giving special priviledges to homosexuals is not the same.
This is where these commissions and so called “hate crimes” laws will lead us all. We won’t be able to utter a word in case it ‘offends” someone.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:56:21 +0000

“Sure, they can’t turn Jews away at the door, but what orthodox Jew would want to eat at a sushi restaurant?”

Hey, fundamentalist Moslems eat at Burger King:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/04/do0402.xml