Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?[W:349

[johndylan1]

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?

 

[specklebang]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

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?

The best way to be noticed here is for you to answer your own question and then we'll tell you how wrong you are

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

The best way to be noticed here is for you to answer your own question and then we'll tell you how wrong you are

My opinion is that the first amendment should have primacy, but I haven't thought through what implications that might have on the civil rights amendment, it may leave it meaningless. Despite that I am certain that no amendment should have primacy over the first if we wish to maintain our form of government.

 

[specklebang]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

My opinion is that the first amendment should have primacy, but I haven't thought through what implications that might have on the civil rights amendment, it may leave it meaningless. Despite that I am certain that no amendment should have primacy over the first if we wish to maintain our form of government.

The First Amendment has many times been limited when it conflicts with the rights of others. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" i the best known case but there are other limits as well.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Although LGBT is not a protected class under the US Code, there are laws in place that regulate business. The old sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service" is not accurate anymore. However, usually a business can get away with it when it isn't a protected class, such as people without shirts can be refused service in a restaurant (partly due to health laws), but mostly because shirtless people are not a protected class.

There are also exceptions as well in the regulations, such as the EEOC's regulations as they interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This particular part has not been adjudicated in a SCOTUS decision as far as I know (I'm not a lawyer). Since the case you refer to was at the state level, it is possible that it will make its way to the SCOTUS eventually.

 

[sangha]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

My opinion is that the first amendment should have primacy, but I haven't thought through what implications that might have on the civil rights amendment, it may leave it meaningless. Despite that I am certain that no amendment should have primacy over the first if we wish to maintain our form of government.

My understanding is that rights are not ranked in any way. Instead, when rights conflict, the task is to find the least intrusive means of resolving the conflict, even if that means that one right takes a bigger hit.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

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?

Do you have a link for this story? It is hard to believe that they held up their wedding long enough to litigate who would be their photographer.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

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?

It should, it would be different if the couple was coming in the studio for photos, but they are asking the photographer to attend and participate in an event that they are morally and religiously objected to. That is a violation of the photographer's rights.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

My understanding is that rights are not ranked in any way. Instead, when rights conflict, the task is to find the least intrusive means of resolving the conflict, even if that means that one right takes a bigger hit.

The simple solution: FIND ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

The First Amendment has many times been limited when it conflicts with the rights of others. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" i the best known case but there are other limits as well.

Limiting the first amendment temporarily to provide for orderly public accommodations is a bit different than giving primacy to another right that negates the other all together ie. forcing an association.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal | Reuters

 

[specklebang]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Limiting the first amendment temporarily to provide for orderly public accommodations is a bit different than giving primacy to another right that negates the other all together ie. forcing an association.

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal | Reuters

Freedom of association has many limits, whether or not they are liked. How different would this be if the photographer refused to work because it was an interracial couple?

Now, personally, I'm a huge supporter of gay rights and SSM. That doesn't mean I agree with this ruling - it seems petty and foolish to me. But that's the trouble with "law". Everything requires endless definition.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not aware of any "exercise of religious freedom" component to operating a camera. Likewise, there's no exercise of religious freedom component to serving up a mocha chino extra foam whatever, so someone can't claim first amendment rights protecting them from being a barista to a gay person or couple.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not aware of any "exercise of religious freedom" component to operating a camera. Likewise, there's no exercise of religious freedom component to serving up a mocha chino extra foam whatever, so someone can't claim first amendment rights protecting them from being a barista to a gay person or couple.

Obviously you are not familiar with all of the components of the practice of the photographers religion, neither am I. But I am aware of scriptural passages that could be interpreted to prohibit certain associations. The right of religious practice is ambiguous and would depend on conscience and interpretation of their particular objective standard. If there no other photographer in the area I could see a public accommodation argument as having some small merit, but when an individual right is violated for nor other reason than to make a social point it seems to be excessive governmental oppression upon the conscience.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Freedom of association has many limits, whether or not they are liked. How different would this be if the photographer refused to work because it was an interracial couple?

Now, personally, I'm a huge supporter of gay rights and SSM. That doesn't mean I agree with this ruling - it seems petty and foolish to me. But that's the trouble with "law". Everything requires endless definition.

I'm not sure I'd feel differently no matter the circumstance. I suppose that the marketplace would enlarge reject a bigoted photographer and poverty would be his just reward, on the other hand if this is a truly a matter of religious conscience, forcing an association seems excessive and oppressive.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

It should, it would be different if the couple was coming in the studio for photos, but they are asking the photographer to attend and participate in an event that they are morally and religiously objected to. That is a violation of the photographer's rights.

But the court ruled that the photographer violated the gay couples rights.

 

[specklebang]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not sure I'd feel differently no matter the circumstance. I suppose that the marketplace would enlarge reject a bigoted photographer and poverty would be his just reward, on the other hand if this is a truly a matter of religious conscience, forcing an association seems excessive and oppressive.

I know what you mean. Sometimes it comes down to which is the greater oppression.

Our society is quite repressive. We imprison people for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with direct harm to others. The photographer is a fool to dismiss income and the couple are fools for trying to force his services.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

But the court ruled that the photographer violated the gay couples rights.

They do not have the right to force somebody to take part and participate in an event that is against their religion. The court overstepped its bounds and serverly violated the rights of the photographer.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Do you have a link for this story? It is hard to believe that they held up their wedding long enough to litigate who would be their photographer.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I know what you mean. Sometimes it comes down to which is the greater oppression.

Our society is quite repressive. We imprison people for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with direct harm to others. The photographer is a fool to dismiss income and the couple are fools for trying to force his services.

I agree, with this caveat: A fool's individual rights are just as valuable and deserve defense just as the rights of the well informed.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not aware of any "exercise of religious freedom" component to operating a camera. Likewise, there's no exercise of religious freedom component to serving up a mocha chino extra foam whatever, so someone can't claim first amendment rights protecting them from being a barista to a gay person or couple.

Freedom of association amongst other SOVERIEGN rights.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not aware of any "exercise of religious freedom" component to operating a camera. Likewise, there's no exercise of religious freedom component to serving up a mocha chino extra foam whatever, so someone can't claim first amendment rights protecting them from being a barista to a gay person or couple.

That is why I say it would be one thing if the couple came into the studio for shots, it is a totally different thing to require a photographer to attend an event and participate in that event that is blatantly against their religious and moral values.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

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?

There is no “equal rights amendment” in the Constitution.

Freedom of religion, of course, is explicit in the First Amendment, and implicit in this is a right not to be compelled to do something which violates one's religious beliefs.

There is no clear “right” in the Constitution to compel the services of someone who does not wish to offer you these services. I have no doubt that judges and lawyers can find some way to twist such a meaning out of the Constitution, but I see no rational basis for claiming that such a twisted extrapolation should override a much more clearly-written right. In fact, whatever amount of twisting it might take to find a “right” to compel a professional to serve an event which violates his own moral beliefs, it would take much less twisting to read the Thirteenth Amendment as forbidding such a compulsion.

I have to say that this recent ruling is just flat-out wrong. It clearly violates the explicit, constitutionally-affirmed-right of one individual, in order to uphold an imaginary, nonexistent right of another.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I'm not aware of any "exercise of religious freedom" component to operating a camera. Likewise, there's no exercise of religious freedom component to serving up a mocha chino extra foam whatever, so someone can't claim first amendment rights protecting them from being a barista to a gay person or couple.

As has already been said in this thread…

…it would be different if the couple was coming in the studio for photos, but they are asking the photographer to attend and participate in an event that they are morally and religiously objected to. That is a violation of the photographer's rights.

If the photographer operated a studio, and the couple came in wanting to be photographed there, on the photographer's turf, under his terms, that would be one thing.

Photographing a wedding isn't the same thing as photographing people in one's studio, or in another non-ceremonial context. A wedding photographer is a participant in the wedding. And where the event in question is not a genuine marriage at all, but a sick, disgusting mockery of marriage, I think anyone with true moral character has every reason and right to object to being forced to participate therein, and I think that no one should ever be forced into such a participation in something so foul.

 

[johndylan1]

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

There is no “equal rights amendment” in the Constitution.

Freedom of religion, of course, is explicit in the First Amendment, and implicit in this is a right not to be compelled to do something which violates one's religious beliefs.

There is no clear “right” in the Constitution to compel the services of someone who does not wish to offer you these services. I have no doubt that judges and lawyers can find some way to twist such a meaning out of the Constitution, but I see no rational basis for claiming that such a twisted extrapolation should override a much more clearly-written right. In fact, whatever amount of twisting it might take to find a “right” to compel a professional to serve an event which violates his own moral beliefs, it would take much less twisting to read the Thirteenth Amendment as forbidding such a compulsion.

I have to say that this recent ruling is just flat-out wrong. It clearly violates the explicit, constitutionally-affirmed-right of one individual, in order to uphold an imaginary, nonexistent right of another.

I'm calling the equal rights amendment the 14th, a careful reading will leave one to conclude that it is establishing who is a citizen and how a citizen should be treated equally under the law.