His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d say it’s the business model.

    Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.

    If it’s a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that’s open to everyone equally.

    If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.

    At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party’s decision to not enter that agreement doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have that option.

    What if it was a photographer who didn’t want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?

    I don’t think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don’t feel like it’s fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that’s their business.

    Again, I’m not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn’t bigoted, just offering a distinction.

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with “independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public.” And I agree with you

        • mommykink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For the same reason that I don’t believe gay couples should be legally forced to accept services from a MAGA photographer. A private contract in this situation is just that, a contract. Both parties have the power to set whatever terms and conditions that they want.

          For example, imagine a black couple wanted a photographer for a family event and said something along the lines of “we’d like to support members of the black community by hiring an independent black photographer.” If a white photographer saw this and sued, everyone would (rightfully) react negatively to him trying to force a private party to break the conditions they set for their private contract.

          • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But a MAGA supporter is not the same characteristic as being LGQTB. They are not equivalent. Some countries have protected classes which I think is best. Political affiliation is not protected. Sexual orientation is. A protected class is saying that infringing the freedoms of others based on these characteristics is a great threat to freedom. The country needs to explicitly state it won’t tolerate it, because it will erode the freedom far greater than not allowing it. You can discriminate against someone based on choices they make, but not on inherent characteristics they have.

            Likewise saying you are hiring a black photographer isn’t the same as saying you’re not hiring a white photographer. The distinction is important. You’re not saying you exclude a person based on an inherent/protected characteristic. The exclusion can be inferred but it doesn’t actually mean the exclusion exists. You can say you will hire a black photographer does not mean you won’t consider or hire any other. But saying you will not hire a white photographer does concretely state your exclusion which shouldn’t be a factor in business in any free Democratic country.

            I would think this is a choice that doesn’t have a right answer. All choices suck. You infringe on someone regardless of choice. But saying that I think the choice with least harm is choosing to have protected classes that can’t be infringed on vs allowing people to disallow people access to services based on these protected classes. I would prefer a person who feels they will infringe on those rights to not choose to be in the market offering services where they can discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other traits that should be protected. But if they feel they don’t want to serve plumbers or Democrats or movie producers all the power to them

    • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn’t, so the comparison isn’t of equal demographic descriptors.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let’s say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.

        A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don’t think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.

        A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.

        Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she’s being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there’s a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family’s history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that’s not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.

        There’s even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn’t want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won’t work with men.

        Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can’t change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.

        As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It’s different when it’s like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.

        But in the cases I’m talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are “always open” except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they’re just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are “always closed” outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you’re actually using it. I see storefronts as “always open” valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they’re closed. In contrast, contract workers are “always closed” valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it’s a good or shitty reason to anyone else.

        While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other’s reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.

        • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you respond to the wrong comment? If not, you read a lot into what little I said and much I wouldn’t have said, had I said more.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This isn’t about defining a business model. It’s about defining discrimination and protected groups. By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

      At the end of the day, a Trump rally is not a protected group, so a business can say no. Just like a shop proprietor can refuse business to said rally goers, but not to a protected group.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

        No that is part of what I mean. And it is about defining a business model.

        They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.

        If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?

        What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?

        I’m not saying that I personally wouldn’t do these events or that I feel the person’s objection may be legitimate or not, my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.

        Just my opinion and you’re free to disagree!

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.

          No, they can’t. They cannot simply because they are a protected class. If there other reasons, they can.

          If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?

          Not because he is white. But yes because he is a police chief, or just about any other reason.

          What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?

          She could decline because its a church, a business, but not because a client has a religion.

          … my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.

          The rest of the paragraph is what you think. It is not what the majority think, and that is why laws exist as they do, because the majority voted for them.

          Just my opinion and you’re free to disagree!

          I do disagree, and so does the law, excluding OPs post and thus why this is relevant and important to understand. You’re still trying to frame this as a business model, but it’s about protected classes.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.

      Healthcare falls into this quite easily.

    • MagicShel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone building a deck? I shouldn’t discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn’t expose me to anything I object to (I’m using “I” universally here - I’m queer positive and don’t build decks). But like if I’m a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.

      So I don’t know that the line is just a one on one service. That’s not quite there, but it’s close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.

      I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn’t anything that can be forced on someone.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I agree that it doesn’t seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that’s a good thing. And honestly, to me it’s one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it’s just opening up that opportunity to competitors.

        So you don’t wanna photo gay weddings? That’s cool, someone else will.