-
Not sure how to bring it up exactly…is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
-
[Mitch Ives] “[Bill Davis] “The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of “religious groups” ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation.”
That’s a rather subjective opinion. Having read the Law, I didn’t come to that conclusion.”
Not to beat a dead horse …
I can understand the desire to have a law that allows anyone to chose who to serve and who not to serve, who to work for and who to studiously avoid, especially in a non-public, non-essential (meaning not food, clothing, shelter, health or educational)environment. What I can’t understand is using religion as the metric to advance that basic right of self determination. Does this mean catholic florists don’t have to serve lesbians but atheist photographers have to take pictures of republicans? Either individuals have the right to work with whom they chose or they don’t, trying to wrap this issue up with religious rights IS the problem. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with this issue, and hiding behind the first amendment just exposes the bigotry behind the law.
Personally I think those litigating their rights to have pictures taken of their wedding are a*holes of the first order but the stupidity of the justices in New Mexico is not provocation for the creation of even dumber laws in Arizona. Sometimes people just do crazy sh*t and you can’t run around trying to create a new law anytime someone acts like a jerk. Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it.”
Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest ones. lol
-
[TImothy Auld] “Photography is not protected as speech as I understand it.”
Many think it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.htmlI think this is another part of the issue that may not be clear-cut. What if the couple tried to hire a poet to write their vows?
Has the idea of free speech become a “get out of civil rights free” card, with expression-based businesses held to a different standard of public accommodation than others? That doesn’t seem right.
On the other side, do you automatically give up your own right to free speech (or submit to compelled speech) by offering expression-related services commercially? That doesn’t seem right, either.
It’s a complicated issue. I assume that’s why it’s being petitioned to the Supreme Court.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Free speech is about just that: Speech. Not actions. The NM photographer in question is free to oppose – with speech – whatever she thinks is wrong. She is not free to take an action based on that speech to deny services to anyone. She is free to tell the couple in question that she thinks they are immoral, ungodly, or whatever. And then the client (and that word is crucial here) is free to use her services or not. What that businessperson may not do is tell the potential client that she simply will not do the job based only on her belief that the lifestyle of that potential client is goes against her moral view. In these terms this is nothing more than a business transaction. No “Art” is taking place here.
The nonsense in the Times article about artists being forced to accept commissions that they do not agree with is just the worst sort of obfuscation and nonsense. Cite me one time in the last 100 years that anyone has been able to force an artist who is the originator and owner of said art, to toe to any line whatever.
If am am making my own film, I am an artist. If I am working on someone else’s film, I am an employee.
Tim
-
[TImothy Auld] “What that businessperson may not do is tell the potential client that she simply will not do the job based only on her belief that the lifestyle of that potential client is goes against her moral view.”
I don’t know about the law here, but as far as I’m concerned anyone not in essential services (food, shelter, health etc.) should be free to be as bigoted as they want and work with whomever they want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include a “right” to flowers, wedding videos, or birthday cakes. A client-customer relationship is not the same as an employer-employee relationship and should not be held to the same standards. In the latter the employee is at the economic mercy of the employer and needs protection, in the former the customer wields the economic power and, except in essential services, does not need protection. And none of this has anything to do with religious freedom which is what made the AZ law so obnoxious.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Having grown up seeing so many people I cared about being denied, as you say, flowers, wedding videos, birthday cakes – and basic human rights, I have to disagree with you here. As for the employee/employer vs provider/client relationship – when push comes to shove it is always the one who has enough money to outlast the other who comes out on top. And, sadly, if anyone wants to be bigoted in any relationship, all one needs to do is choose one set of words over another.
Tim
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Shame you ended a decent post with an ignorant character attack. Where did I say I hated Capitalism?”
Seriously? That whole post came across as an indictment of big business. I’ve shown your post to four other people to get a second read and they all made the same comment on their own. Now, if you didn’t mean it that way, that’s another discussion.
[Andrew Kimery] “Since apparently the schooling you received didn’t teach you how to Google things here’s a link to the problem in Silicon Valley I mentioned. ;)”
Andrew, I didn’t to Google it. First, I mistakenly accepted your explanation of it. Second, I don’t live in CA, so I don’t feel the need to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Too damn bad Arizona doesn’t get the same courtesy, isn’t it?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
[Herb Sevush] “I can understand the desire to have a law that allows anyone to chose who to serve and who not to serve, who to work for and who to studiously avoid, especially in a non-public, non-essential (meaning not food, clothing, shelter, health or educational)environment. What I can’t understand is using religion as the metric to advance that basic right of self determination. Does this mean catholic florists don’t have to serve lesbians but atheist photographers have to take pictures of republicans? Either individuals have the right to work with whom they chose or they don’t, trying to wrap this issue up with religious rights IS the problem. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with this issue, and hiding behind the first amendment just exposes the bigotry behind the law.”
I’d sure like to argue with about this, but I can’t. One, it makes sense, and two, I’m not a religious person, so I wouldn’t be arguing for that. This is why in a previous I said the law should simply give me the rights that you’ve outlined. Where in the Constitution does it say that everyone has the right to force everyone to do business with them?
[Herb Sevush] “Personally I think those litigating their rights to have pictures taken of their wedding are a*holes of the first order but the stupidity of the justices in New Mexico is not provocation for the creation of even dumber laws in Arizona. Sometimes people just do crazy sh*t and you can’t run around trying to create a new law anytime someone acts like a jerk. Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it.”
I don’t want a new law, but we keep passing more laws granting superior rights to small select groups, exposing the rest of us to liability. Can you say “tail wagging the dog”? I mean the group that’s causing all these issues are what, less than three percent of the population? As it stands, closing your business is the only option available if you find yourself exposed to opportunistic lawsuits, because in the process of trying to”do some good” we created a bigger problem. If I understand your position, we’re just supposed to let the abuse go unchecked?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
[Mitch Ives] ” I mean the group that’s causing all these issues are what, less than three percent of the population?”
No, I would guess A*holes come in at around 30% of the population, give or take. What group are you talking about?
[Mitch Ives] ” As it stands, closing your business is the only option available if you find yourself exposed to opportunistic lawsuits”
It’s not the only option, I doubt it’s the best option, but I do realize it is an option, although I personally haven’t come in contact with a single individual or company that has used it. I own a business and this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up late at night. I’m more apt to be worried about volcanos, and I live in NY.
[Mitch Ives] “If I understand your position, we’re just supposed to let the abuse go unchecked?”
That’s the exact sort of thinking that started the trouble in the first place. First you have to understand that both sides are feeling abused, then you have to get over it and stop trying to legislate good behavior. If it’s life and death, yes go call your congressman, if it’s flowers, work it out for yourself.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[TImothy Auld] “Having grown up seeing so many people I cared about being denied, as you say, flowers, wedding videos, birthday cakes – and basic human rights, I have to disagree with you here.”
The problem is every human interaction consists of two sets of often diverging human rights. In that situation I think it prudent to involve the law only in essential services – equality before the florist will follow if you have equality before the law.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up