|
|
Post by docilelion on Sept 4, 2013 16:26:55 GMT
A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections.
Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmazingDomo on Sept 4, 2013 23:12:55 GMT
A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections. Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis? Interesting question. I think that since the First Amendment was in the original Bill Of Rights, it takes priority. |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 9, 2013 20:08:30 GMT
A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections. Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis? Interesting question. I think that since the First Amendment was in the original Bill Of Rights, it takes priority. That argument could be made, however the amendment being in the Bill of Rights does not necessarily make it the supreme right. The Bill Of Rights were the first amendments made to the constitution. There could have been oversights when they ratified those laws. My particular opinion in this case, would be that the implied freedom not to associate takes precedence over the equal rights amendment. My reasoning is: that man had the right not to photograph the couple. Why force someone to do that against their will? Also something to keep in mind is the original intent of the founders that wrote the constitution. What were the biggest issues of their time? Lawmaking/taxation without representation, and religious freedom. The founders were constantly in persecution because of their religion. A majority of the first colonists moved to the Americas simply to be able to practice their religions in peace. So it could be argued that the original intent of the founders thought the freedom of religion(or the implied lack thereof) to be the supreme right. |
|
Gipper
Member
Posts: 59 
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by Gipper on Sept 12, 2013 12:06:13 GMT
A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections. Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis? Think about this in terms of Positive and Negative rights. A Positive Right is a right that the government or someone is OBLIGATED to give you. An example of this would be when a policeman arrests you and tells you that you have the right to an attorney. That's a positive right. A Negative Right would be your right to buy a lottery ticket. No one can stop you from buying that lottery ticket, you have the right to buy it...however the seller is not obligated to give it to you. That's a Negative Right. The photography service is a Negative Right. The gay couple has the right to seek photography services, however those photography services are not obligated to sell them services. |
|
rserling
Member
Posts: 52
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by rserling on Sept 12, 2013 23:27:21 GMT
A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections. Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis? Think about this in terms of Positive and Negative rights. A Positive Right is a right that the government or someone is OBLIGATED to give you. An example of this would be when a policeman arrests you and tells you that you have the right to an attorney. That's a positive right. A Negative Right would be your right to buy a lottery ticket. No one can stop you from buying that lottery ticket, you have the right to buy it...however the seller is not obligated to give it to you. That's a Negative Right. The photography service is a Negative Right. The gay couple has the right to seek photography services, however those photography services are not obligated to sell them services. Precisely. What injury is brought to a couple who cannot procure a specific photographer, besides possibly getting their feelings hurt? I'm sure said photographer would object to providing his services at a heterosexual, yet Satanic, wedding ceremony. People need to see that rights don't come from belonging to groups. I don't get rights because I am atheist or gay, I get rights because I am a human being! It is no one's responsibility to make others feel good, and this man has every right to deny his services based on his conscience. As for the gay couple, find another photographer. Tell people to avoid that man's business because he is discriminatory. Equal Rights amendments don't work. They limit rights. You know what? I think people should be able to deny business to people for being black or Jewish as well. Because how many days will it be before they get a load of negative Yelp reviews, and people use their own conscience to avoid, boycott, and hurt that business and put it out to pasture? That's how the free market should operate. |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 13, 2013 1:04:35 GMT
Think about this in terms of Positive and Negative rights. A Positive Right is a right that the government or someone is OBLIGATED to give you. An example of this would be when a policeman arrests you and tells you that you have the right to an attorney. That's a positive right. A Negative Right would be your right to buy a lottery ticket. No one can stop you from buying that lottery ticket, you have the right to buy it...however the seller is not obligated to give it to you. That's a Negative Right. The photography service is a Negative Right. The gay couple has the right to seek photography services, however those photography services are not obligated to sell them services. Precisely. What injury is brought to a couple who cannot procure a specific photographer, besides possibly getting their feelings hurt? I'm sure said photographer would object to providing his services at a heterosexual, yet Satanic, wedding ceremony. People need to see that rights don't come from belonging to groups. I don't get rights because I am atheist or gay, I get rights because I am a human being! It is no one's responsibility to make others feel good, and this man has every right to deny his services bases on his conscience. As for the gay couple, find another photographer. Tell people to avoid that man's business because he is discriminatory. Equal Rights amendments don't work. They limit rights. You know what? I think people should be able to deny business to people for being black or Jewish as well. Because how many days will it be before they get a load of negative Yelp reviews, and people use their own conscience to avoid, boycott, and hurt that business and put it out to pasture? That's how the free market should operate. I could not agree more. |
|
