Althouse: "Imagine a photographer, who instead of being a conservative Christian, is a whole-earth hippie type."

April 9, 2014

"Imagine a photographer, who instead of being a conservative Christian, is a whole-earth hippie type."

"He tries to run his business consistent with his moral views. Among those views is his belief that circumcision is a violation of a child’s human rights. He has Jewish clients, but when one of them asked him to photograph his son’s brit milah (circumcision) ceremony, the photographer declined, stating that he won’t photograph circumcision celebrations...."

35 comments:

rhhardin said...: Epstein is good on it, podcast Macrh 3, 2014; 4/9/14, 9:32 AM
Wince said...: the photographer declined, stating that he won’t photograph circumcision celebrations.

I suppose this is one circumstance where offering the photographer a tip wouldn't change his mind.; 4/9/14, 9:40 AM
madAsHell said...: This is contrived noise.
Unfortunately, it will be repeated as breaking news, and require a national conversation.

The only person interested in reviewing such photographs is Harry Reid.; 4/9/14, 9:43 AM
Krumhorn said...: The only relevant question here is who wants to looks at a photo of a baby getting his twig and berries trimmed?

"...it puts the lotion on its skin"

- Krumhorn; 4/9/14, 9:46 AM
Bob Boyd said...: When it comes to dicks and the things that are done with them, people get squeamish. And its understandable to some degree.
A dick is an awful thing and there are a lot of them out there. Its amazing we don't have even more dick related problems than we do when you stop and think about it.; 4/9/14, 9:48 AM
chickelit said...: I'm OK with it -- it's discriminatory but I think the parents could find another photographer. Suppose there was a photographer who refused to photograph blondes. The correct response is to find one who does and use their services. That's how the "invisible hand" works. But these days, uppity people are more into using the courts to express the "invisible finger" towards people with whom they disagree.

The only problem is that if the entire business community organizes to discriminate. This leads to things like Jim Crow which are terrible.; 4/9/14, 9:49 AM
Chris said...: So, you go find another photographer. Problem solved!; 4/9/14, 9:51 AM
Col Mustard said...: Is photography an art? Are photographs created by the unique talents and views of the creator? Can photography be protected by copyright?

Can the law compel a photographer to create an image any more than a painter can be compelled to create a portrait? Even if an artist agrees to create an image, can he be compelled to sell that image if he doesn't believe it represents his views or talents?

Same for the baker of cakes (or song writers or producers of movies). If the baker has generic cakes available for sale, I believe the law compels him to sell them to anyone without discrimination but does the law compel him to create a unique cake for any reason?; 4/9/14, 9:59 AM
Monkeyboy said...: Well I took a deep breath and waded through the comments. Dissapointed but not surprised.
I like the argument that religion, like speech, is a group right and not an individual one, so you can't say it's a religious stand since "Cristian consensus" isn't totally against gay marriage.

So no conditional surrender for social cons, they now have to fight tooth and nail because all the slippery slope arguments are comming true.
I am for gay marriage because I am for more individual liberty, but apparently I have to choose one or the other...so individual liberty it is.; 4/9/14, 10:07 AM
Levi Starks said...: The law can see only one possibility for why the photographer would refuse this job. It's obvious that he wants to hurt the feelings of those being deprived of his services.
The law cannot allow someone to have their feelings hurt merely on the account of someones supposed moral objections.
To point out that there are other photographers who would be happy for the business is insufficient.
People have been offended, and the law must step in and remedy the situation.; 4/9/14, 10:08 AM
Michael The Magnificent said...: On Monday, I commented in another thread:

Thought experiment: A woman calls Elane Photography, informs them that her and her girlfriend, though both 100% certified heterosexual, would like to hire Elane Photography to photograph their wedding-style ceremony.

Do you think that Elane Photography would have then been willing to photograph the event because they were straight?; 4/9/14, 10:11 AM
RecChief said...: That is preceisely the argument many of us have been making, although not articulated as well. But it won't matter unless and until there is an actual situation as Bernstein describes, then the left will find some reason to justify the photographer's refusal to photograph a brit milah.; 4/9/14, 10:12 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Are his prospective Jewish clients gay? Is he? Cultural pissing matches rarely play out on a single bullet point.; 4/9/14, 10:16 AM
Hagar said...: A wedding photographer also has to interact with the client and guests in order to pose the photographs, etc., and do so with a smile so as not to detract from the "joyous occasion," which is unlike just the "artistic expression" required by the cake decorating bakery.

Should not that make a difference?; 4/9/14, 10:33 AM
rhhardin said...: The only problem is that if the entire business community organizes to discriminate.

It doesn't happen without private violence.

There's money to be made serving the excluded, and the more businesses do it, the more money there is to be made.

Unless your store burns down.; 4/9/14, 10:53 AM
Hagar said...: These cases are about schoolyard bullying by Kos-Kids rather than rectifying any actual discrimination.; 4/9/14, 11:08 AM
paul a'barge said...: Imagine a feminist photographer invited to photograph rough, bondage sex between a man and a bound woman.

Wait. Skip that.

Imagine rough, bondage sex between a man and a bound woman.; 4/9/14, 11:12 AM
KCFleming said...: Gosh, permit SSM and then there's a loss of liberty, coerced by the courts.

I mean, whoda guessed that would happen?

But it won't get any worse than forcing people to take photos unwillingly.
Right?; 4/9/14, 11:17 AM
Brando said...: I prefer the "let the free market fix this problem" approach, as it generally will enable the needs of the party that was discriminated against to find an alternate vendor (or employer, or customer, etc.). Generally speaking, that's the best approach to deal with discrimination while still allowing freedom of association and freedom of contract.

We ought to recognize that in the context of the anti-black discrimination which led to the Civil Rights Act, the justification for that legislation was that for all practical purposes, most blacks simply had no choices (or very limited choices) for vendors (or employers, etc.). The free market approach would have been preferable, but it wasn't working out that way.

Today, however, are gays finding it impossible to find vendors, or restaurants that will serve them, or employers that will hire them? Unless that's the case, I'd say let the market do its work. It usually works better than any laws.; 4/9/14, 11:19 AM
Bob Boyd said...: @ paul a'barge

That is funny.; 4/9/14, 11:22 AM
Malesch Morocco said...: Brando:

The"Free Market" wasn't allowed to "work" because of the heavy hand of government and it's discriminatory laws.; 4/9/14, 11:41 AM
Jane the Actuary said...: wasn't too impressed with the original article -- it had a lot of "because I said so" in it.

The issue of whether the photographer would turn down two women who say, "we're as heterosexual as they come, but we're getting married; please photograph us"? Not plausible: either they're lying, or they're still obliging the photographer to violate her convictions, since any scenario that I can think of involves fraud (e.g., wanting to get benefits).

But what about a photographer being asked to photograph an Islamic marriage? The sort where the sexes are separated the whole time. Let's further stipulate that this involves photographing fully-veiled women, and that some element of the ceremony makes it clear that the father's "giving away" the bride is not just symbolic. Given protections against religious discrimination, can a photographer say, "the nature of this wedding ceremony violates my deeply-held belief in the equality of women"?; 4/9/14, 11:53 AM
jr565 said...: I think that gays and gay marriage pushers NEED to respond to questions like these and provide us with detailed descriptions of what the law should allow for photographers like those in the example.
Those pushing for gay marriage HATE when you bring up other restricted marriage types. How DARE you compare gay marriage to incestual marriages!
How dare you compare someone refusing to take a picture of a circumsion with refusing to take a picture of a gay marriage!
Only, both questions are merely attempts to get those who are pushing for gay marriage and calling people bigots if they don't agree to explain their logic and moral stance as a principle.; 4/9/14, 11:59 AM
jr565 said...: From the article, and a point I made yesterday:
"Did the New Mexico legislature intend to ban discrimination by “public accommodations” in the provision of services to same-sex weddings? It’s unlikely, given that when the relevant statute was amended to include sexual orientation discrimination in 2003, New Mexico did not recognize same-sex marriage, and thus was itself discriminating against same-sex couples with regard to weddings. Indeed, the New Mexico legislature never did recognize same-sex marriage, though the state supreme court stepped in last year."
I ask this seriously - how could a state hold someone accountable for discrimination when the state itself disriminates against the marriage?
It's still not legal to gay marry in New Mexico.
How could New Mexico then have a problem if a christian said they think marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what the state also thinks. That's the definition of marriage. It's kind of weird that the state is telling people they will be punished for essentially believing in marriage as defined by that state.; 4/9/14, 12:12 PM
jr565 said...: Levi Starks wrote:
The law cannot allow someone to have their feelings hurt merely on the account of someones supposed moral objections.

Except it does exactly that when it says gay marriage is illegal.
How can there be discrimination if the behavior is not even legal? That woudl be like saying it would be illegal for a bar to not serve someone who was underage, even though there are laws in the books that you can't sell people booze if they are underage.; 4/9/14, 12:16 PM
jr565 said...: jane the actuary wrote:
But what about a photographer being asked to photograph an Islamic marriage? The sort where the sexes are separated the whole time. Let's further stipulate that this involves photographing fully-veiled women, and that some element of the ceremony makes it clear that the father's "giving away" the bride is not just symbolic. Given protections against religious discrimination, can a photographer say, "the nature of this wedding ceremony violates my deeply-held belief in the equality of women"?

An even simpler hypothetical. How about if Warren Jeffs called a baker and asked if they would bake a cake for his wedding to his child bride. Polygamy is illegal, marrying child brides is illegal. BUT you can't disrminate against someone who wants you to take a picture of that illegal marriage? What?
Or is it just that it's religious objection? What if you were not religious and simply said "I don't want to take a picture of you marrying a kid. It's illegal, and I have a moral objection to it, and I'm not going be the one filming an illegal marriage to a kid." If your objection wasn't based on your christian morality could you then object?; 4/9/14, 12:21 PM
jr565 said...: michael the magnificent wrote:
Thought experiment: A woman calls Elane Photography, informs them that her and her girlfriend, though both 100% certified heterosexual, would like to hire Elane Photography to photograph their wedding-style ceremony.

Do you think that Elane Photography would have then been willing to photograph the event because they were straight?

So they'd be marrying into a gay marriage, even though they were straight?
My guess is she'd say, you couldn't do that because marriages is a marriage between a man and a woman whatever the sexual orientation of the people in the marriage are.; 4/9/14, 12:24 PM
jr565 said...: Would it be ok for a gay baker to not bake a cake for a guy who dontated a thousand dollars to Promote PROP 8 if he decided to marry his wife.; 4/9/14, 12:26 PM
Lucien said...: What question really belongs at the end of this hypothetical? If the questions is whether the RFRA applies, then isn't it an easy "no", since it doesn't protect secular objections to circumcision? If the question is whether that constitutes religious discrimination, then it's a question of state or federal law. While the objection may be based on opposition to circumcision whether done for secular or religious reasons, the practice would burden religious practices more than secular.; 4/9/14, 12:56 PM
Unknown said...: Monkeyboy says "I am for gay marriage because I am for more individual liberty, but apparently I have to choose one or the other...so individual liberty it is."

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be ironic or not. Unless individual liberty defined as being forced to expend your time and resources in effort which is fundamentally against your religious beliefs.; 4/9/14, 1:23 PM
Rusty said...: Its amazing we don't have even more dick related problems

Durbin is running to keep his seat.; 4/9/14, 2:24 PM
Monkeyboy said...: Unknown said: "I'm not sure if this is supposed to be ironic or not."

Not ironic just badly worded. Since supporting marraige for some now means violating the rights of many, I will not be supporting the gay marraige movement. Like I am pro-life until lifers demand people who donate to Planned PArenthood should be outed and fired.; 4/9/14, 3:04 PM
jr565 said...: "I am for gay marriage because I am for more individual liberty, but apparently I have to choose one or the other...so individual liberty it is."

"How many outs Brian?" "GRAPE! I'm gonna get grape, or cherry. They're both... favorites, so either one is good, but if they have both, I'll get grape, because grape is a little more favorite. But if they don't have grape it's like alright its fine, cause cherry's favorite anyway. It's like another favorite, but not as much. Not as much favorite. But they're both good. They're both good."; 4/9/14, 3:14 PM
yetanotherjohn said...: Let's take an example the left may feel more empathy with. Westboro Baptist church decides to hire a gay photographer to photograph a rally denouncing gays. The photographer will have to hear four hours of anti-gay rhetoric as part of the job.
Or a klu klux klan decides to hire a Black photographer to photograph one of their rallies.
Now these examples are ones where the group isn't likely to hire the photographer because some aspect of the photographer is not in alignment with the groups ideas. But once they see that they can force the people they don't like to jump through hoops of the groups choosing, let the games begin.

Side question. What is there to stop the Christian/Hippie/Gay/Black photographer from doing a really bad job? Or maybe just a little sub-par job. If they write the contract such that they get paid no matter what, then why not "ruin" the event for the pushy group that is hiring you against your beliefs.; 4/10/14, 7:48 AM
Fernandinande said...: I ask this seriously - how could a state hold someone accountable for discrimination when the state itself disriminates against the marriage?

Hypocrisy.; 4/10/14, 9:49 AM