George Will: "Advocates of Gay Rights Should Begin to Restrain The Bullies in Their Ranks"
September 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Columnist George Will writes about the case of the New Mexico photographer fined for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony:
"... New Mexico, whose marriage laws discriminate against same-sex unions, has a “compelling interest” in compelling Huguenin to provide a service she finds repugnant and others would provide? Strange.
... The Huguenin case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical. First, a disputed behavior, such as sexual activities between people of the same sex, is declared so personal and intimate that government should have no jurisdiction over it. Then, having won recognition of what Louis Brandeis, a pioneer of the privacy right, called “the right to be let alone,” some who have benefited from this achievement assert a right not to let other people alone. It is the right to coerce anyone who disapproves of the now-protected behavior into acting as though they approve of it, or at least into not acting on their disapproval.
So, in the name of tolerance, government declares intolerable individuals such as the Huguenins, who disapprove of a certain behavior but ask only to be let alone in their quiet disapproval. Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks."
16 Comments
I try not to view too many things in a black and white fashion, BUT I find the "right" of people in business to deny service to homosexual customers specious.
Many people don't believe that non-Christians, for example, are not truly married in the eyes of God. Does a Christian photographer who has that belief have a right to deny his services to a couple having a Shinto ceremony? A Jewish couple?
Excellent piece. Hopefully the NM Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Huguenins.
I definitely don't want people to suffer at the hands of intolerant bullies, such as the same-sex couple in the above case. But I do believe that such intolerance helps the pro-marriage side by showing SSMers to be the tyrannical bunch that they are.
I am with you Ash on this one. Next to Thomas Sowell, George Will writes the best conservative pieces on this material.
The bullys in the ranks of the marriage redefinition movement foreshadow one possible future.
I hope people realize that they can influence the future during the next seven weeks -- and if they don't, THAT will influence the future.
Gregor wrote,
>
> I try not to view too many things in a black and white fashion, BUT I find the "right" of people in business to deny service to homosexual customers specious.<
Gregor, the photographer is not denying service to homosexuals. S/he is refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding, something s/he doesn't believe in. The photographer would presumably refuse to photograph two heterosexuals' same-sex "marriage", but you can spin it any way you like.
Gregor,
Most states, though their courts, legislatures, and referenda have found the claimed “right” to redefine marriage to be specious.
At what point does an artist’s work become a public accommodation? Does a videographer have the right to refuse to make an X-rated video? Can a Muslim photographer refuse to film the burning of a Koran? Can a Jewish filmmaker refuse to make an anti-Semitic film?
I have never met anyone who believes only Christians can get married or that interfaith marriages aren’t real marriages. Many faith traditions discourage interfaith marriages because of potential strains in the marriage, such as questions about which tradition the children will be raised in, but these are discouraged precisely because they are seen as marriages. Nor have I seen a claim by a church that Justice of the Peace or other civil magistrate does not have the right to officiate at a wedding.
Can you name a case where a Christian photographer refused to film a Shinto or Jewish ceremony? Or a Jewish or Shinto photographer refused to film a Christian ceremony?
Just read the entire article and it is great as I hope the rest of the NOM followers do the same. Their rights on private property are being violated.
In Americia you are supposed to have the right to private property and to decide which conduct is appropriate on your property. Here is hoping the NM Supreme Court will get this as these phony so called Human Rights Commisions have been taken over by homosexuals and are now denying human rights to others.
I'm a little put off by the comparison of a celebration of love and commitment being compared to a Nazi rally or the provocative burning of a religion's sacred text. I find that in itself telling re: NOM supporters' mind set.
But to answer your question as to whether Christian photographers have ever refused their services to couples seeking a non-Christian ceremony, I say , "Yes, that's it exactly. They do their job as professionally and thoroughly as they should do it when their clients are gay." Keep in mind that some (not all) Christians believe that non-Christians of ANY faith or no faith at all are DOOMED to Hell. But do they bring that conviction into their professional life. Very few do apparently.
But my point is largely rhetorical, if the law is really on the side of professionals who choose to limit their services to select groups at select events, I'd say, "Just put up the signage." Spare prospective gay customers the humiliation of being told they're not good enough (in whatever sense of the word) and have done with it.
A cross in the window would serve as sufficient enough notice, I think.
And ultimately, that's better than having a disgruntled photographer deliberately sabotaging your wedding shots. Or a baker spitting in the batter.
Doesn't the KKK still have the right to march in publicly-funded parades despite the fact that their beliefs are contrary to our laws?
So, shouldn't more so a private individual be permitted to make a statement of free speech by denying his services to individuals whose behavior he disagrees with, especially when those services are available in abundance elsewhere?
Gregor:
As a Jew, I can tell you that yes, I would find it perfectly fine if a Christian photographer refused to do my wedding.
Gregor wrote, "I'm a little put off by the comparison of a celebration of love and commitment..."
Oh you do know the buzz words don't you? Of course, we know they're just your movement's new soundbites too.
Gregor wrote, "They do their job as professionally and thoroughly as they should do it when their clients are gay."
You've deliberately ignored my point.
I wrote, "Gregor, the photographer is not denying service to homosexuals. S/he is refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding, something s/he doesn't believe in. The photographer would presumably refuse to photograph two heterosexuals' same-sex 'marriage', but you can spin it any way you like."
Gregor wrote, "I'd say, 'Just put up the signage.' Spare prospective gay customers the humiliation of being told they're not good enough."
You spin things to the point of deceit.
The photographer photographs weddings (man+woman).
Heterosexuals that wanted their same-sex "wedding" photographed would get the same answer, and it's not that "they're not good enough." It's that the photographer supports marriage, and presumably opposes its redefinition.
The photographer is a victim of same-sex "marriage" activism's intolerance.
>>Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks."
While that would be nice, it's doubtful to ever happen as we've seen, time and time again, how their bullies relish in being a public nuisance.
Gregor gets so much wrong:
1) "Spare prospective gay customers the humiliation of being told they're not good enough (in whatever sense of the word) and have done with it."
The same-sex commitment ceremony is not a wedding ceremony. This is explicit in the law of New Mexico.
It is obvious on its face since a wedding ceremony entails the participation of a bride and groom uniting together. The lack of either a bride or a groom signifies, both in law and in common sense, the lack of a wedding.
If you think that belittles the non-wedding ceremony, then, you are inviting humiliation upon yourself and others who would follow your thinking on this. And you just said that it would be better to spare people of such humiliation. You contradicted yourself.
The one-sexed relationship is in the non-marriage category which isvery broad -- it includes many two-sexed scenarios as well.
Your focus is on the gay subset of that range of relationship types. But why? If you circle back to gay identity, then, you are again inviting a comparison that will only disappoint your and those who'd follow your thinking on this.
What is the relevance of gay identity on this? How does that make the same-sex union superior to the rest of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage catgegory. Explain how these other relationships are "not good enough".
2) "A cross in the window would serve as sufficient enough notice, I think."
Sufficient notice for what? The issue here is not the religious beliefs of the photographer, really, but freedom of conscience (religious or irreligious or panreligious). Tolerance is not a one-way street.
If you engage in immoral behavior, okay, society might tolerate that as a matter of social policy, but the other side of that coin is that those who engage in that immoral behavior do not flaunt it and demand endorsement of it. That is what you meant by supposed suffering of humilation -- no -- you inverted the very principle of tolerance, as George Will said.
The issue here is not about "sufficient notice" or "signage" or advertising, anyway. Indeed, if a photographer advertised more explicitly -- we only do weddings and we do not do non-wedding ceremonies (gay or otherwise) -- would likely invite the very customers you are supposedly hoping to protect. The ways of lawfare are not nearly as subtle as you might imagine when you wrote your remarks.
3) "And ultimately, that's better than having a disgruntled photographer deliberately sabotaging your wedding shots. Or a baker spitting in the batter."
Huh?
Disgruntled? You sure have away of diminishing the significance of freedom of conscience.
Sabotaging? Spitting? How little you think of people you supposedly expect to hold to standards higher than the "prospective gay customers" you had in mind in your own remarks.
Readers will note that if the complaint against the wedding photographer is that refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony is unjust sexual orientation discrimination, then, the SSMers have just admitted that they seek government enforced approval of same-sex sexual behavior.
Surely SSMers mean that a same-sex union is presumably a sexualized relationship that entails same-sex sexual behavior. If they mean that most of the time it does not entail such behavior, then, they might now say so and then justify, somehow, the complaint against the wedding photographer.
The photographer is not asked to photograph same-sex sexual behavior, right? But if the type of relationship that the ceremony celebrates is defined by such behavior, then, come on, be forthright about this.
If the SSMers here would rather recast the same-sex union to be a platonic friendship, a sex-neutral arrangement, something that the ceremony explicitly makes clear, then, okay, please do that forthrightly here.
Otherwise, what is this complain really based on?