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!
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.