Is It Right to Force Business Owners to Violate Their Beliefs?
Although I’m a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, and have attended a number of gay and lesbian ceremonies long before they were legal in any U.S. state, I am very disturbed by a ruling of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission that a photography studio, Elane Photography (owned by Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, was not within its rights to decline a job photographing a same-sex wedding. (That link is to the NPR story–scroll down–and in the midst of the coverage is a link to download a PDF of the actual decision.) And the photography studio is to pick up $6,637.94 in plaintiff’s legal fees!
The decision quotes the actual e-mail correspondence, which was civil, measured,not the least bit threatening, and simply stating that the couple did not choose to photograph same-sex weddings.
When someone contacts me regarding my copywriting/consulting services, I send back an e-mail response that includes the following:
Please note that I reserve the right to reject a project if I feel I’m not the right person for it. This would include projects that in my opinion promote racism, homophobia, bigotry or violence–or that promote the tobacco, nuclear power, or weapons industries–or if I do not feel the product is of high enough quality that I can get enthusiastic about it.
In other words, I am putting out my values and stating clearly that I will not accept projects in conflict with my values. I have in fact occasionally turned down projects because they were promoting causes I actively disagree with. And in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I even have a section called “When to Say No to a Sale.”
While the values of these photographers are not my values, I think they, too, should have the right to turn down projects that violate their particular beliefs. I feel this on both ethical and practical grounds: the truth is, when someone takes on a project in conflict with deep internal values, that person won’t turn in good work.
I support their right to not be hired to perform their art for a cause they disagree with; this is not a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or hotel denying service. It is not a job discrimination issue, but a self-employed couple in the creative arts choosing not to be hired by a prospective client.
It would be a sad day indeed if someone were to compel me to write propaganda for, say, a homophobic organization, or a company whose primary product is nuclear weapons.
I don’t know if there’s any appeal process for the New Mexico board, but I certainly hope there is. Something is very definitely rotten in this decision.
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
Good post, Shel. There is a huge difference between a private company and a public accomodation (and even a government service, such as marriage itself). I would not wasted my time and money with a lawsuit like this. Eventually, public disapproval, not lawsuits, will make rejection like this rare (imagine if the photographers had said no to an interracial wedding).
Yes, Jennie, it will be public pressure that creates the change, just as public pressure is forcing the business world to go green. Legislation can change behavior but not attitude, although over time, when the behaviors change, sometimes the attitues shift as well (US civil rights movement as an example)
Bob, you make some excellent points, and I agree that the photographer could have delivered a less hurtful response. But I do think it’s not right to force a business owner to do work that supports causes s/he vehemently disagrees with.
Linda, on the smoking issue, I see it as very different from a question of core values. there is a public health issue in public smoking. The right of a smoker to pollute stops when a nonsmoker has to breathe that poison.
Bob, you make some excellent points, and I agree that the photographer could have delivered a less hurtful response. But I do think it’s not right to force a business owner to do work that supports causes s/he vehemently disagrees with.
Linda, on the smoking issue, I see it as very different from a question of core values. there is a public health issue in public smoking. The right of a smoker to pollute stops when a nonsmoker has to breathe that poison.
Let’s put this in perspective; consider a very similar response in 1950s America.
A white photographer might easily, and perhaps at the time, did make it clear he was unwilling to photograph a black couple’s wedding, or perhaps the wedding of a mixed race couple — citing not simply an aversion to race-mixing or integration, but his strong-held religious beliefs as a Christian.
History records that business owners — not just photographers, but florists, restaurants, accountants and others did use religious arguments to frame their opposition to race-mixing. Human rights and civil rights ordinances overturned these objections in the public market because they were deemed unacceptable to a majority of Americans.
Entrepreneurs (and I happen to be a business-owner) ply their services in a market that is indeed regulated, zoned and taxed by public officials to ensure that all parties, consumers and businesses can freely engage, contract and trust one another.
We are not living by the rules of the jungle any longer, and therefore, unreasonably denying service to someone because of their faith, race, age, disability, gender or sexual orientation — strikes most of us as unfair.
In many earlier days, some religious beliefs victimized and penalized the religious beliefs of others — but we would pretty quickly agree it is unthinkable for a Christian to deny service to a Jew in contemporary America because their beliefs are thought to conflict.
As a gay man, I would not wish to hire such a photographer, easily enough. But if we begin to bar services to some and use the argument of our religious beliefs — then be very careful how quickly and unreasonably that defense may yet become.
In the real world, these kinds of accommodations are frequently made. Pharmacists with chain stores, if they maintain their religious views do not permit them to dispense RU 486 to a customer, are directed to identify a pharmacist or assistant who will gladly do so.
I feel a better response from the photographer might have been — “I do not think we are the best option for you, given our experience and faith — instead, may I work with you and recommend another professional who will probably be better prepared to meet your needs for this special occasion knowing how important it is to you?”
Let’s put this in perspective; consider a very similar response in 1950s America.
A white photographer might easily, and perhaps at the time, did make it clear he was unwilling to photograph a black couple’s wedding, or perhaps the wedding of a mixed race couple — citing not simply an aversion to race-mixing or integration, but his strong-held religious beliefs as a Christian.
History records that business owners — not just photographers, but florists, restaurants, accountants and others did use religious arguments to frame their opposition to race-mixing. Human rights and civil rights ordinances overturned these objections in the public market because they were deemed unacceptable to a majority of Americans.
Entrepreneurs (and I happen to be a business-owner) ply their services in a market that is indeed regulated, zoned and taxed by public officials to ensure that all parties, consumers and businesses can freely engage, contract and trust one another.
We are not living by the rules of the jungle any longer, and therefore, unreasonably denying service to someone because of their faith, race, age, disability, gender or sexual orientation — strikes most of us as unfair.
In many earlier days, some religious beliefs victimized and penalized the religious beliefs of others — but we would pretty quickly agree it is unthinkable for a Christian to deny service to a Jew in contemporary America because their beliefs are thought to conflict.
As a gay man, I would not wish to hire such a photographer, easily enough. But if we begin to bar services to some and use the argument of our religious beliefs — then be very careful how quickly and unreasonably that defense may yet become.
In the real world, these kinds of accommodations are frequently made. Pharmacists with chain stores, if they maintain their religious views do not permit them to dispense RU 486 to a customer, are directed to identify a pharmacist or assistant who will gladly do so.
I feel a better response from the photographer might have been — “I do not think we are the best option for you, given our experience and faith — instead, may I work with you and recommend another professional who will probably be better prepared to meet your needs for this special occasion knowing how important it is to you?”
Wow, that is so wrong. All business relationships are (or should be) “at will” relationships. If customers can choose which company will get their money (often based on ethical positions), companies should be able to choose who will get their service.
I agree that non-discriminatory rules may apply to businesses that make a venue available to the general public (such as the restaurants and hotels you mention), but any business that performs custom services should not be required to do so for just anyone.
Like you, our company reserves the right to refuse service for various reasons, but really, we shouldn’t even need a reason. If we don’t want to do the job, we shouldn’t be forced to do so.
And for the record, whether or not a prospect is gay has no bearing on our decision to take a project. On the other hand, if the person (gay or straight) is a jerk, that’s another story.
James Byrd’s last blog post… Next Thursday is “Promotion Day”
Wow, that is so wrong. All business relationships are (or should be) “at will” relationships. If customers can choose which company will get their money (often based on ethical positions), companies should be able to choose who will get their service.
I agree that non-discriminatory rules may apply to businesses that make a venue available to the general public (such as the restaurants and hotels you mention), but any business that performs custom services should not be required to do so for just anyone.
Like you, our company reserves the right to refuse service for various reasons, but really, we shouldn’t even need a reason. If we don’t want to do the job, we shouldn’t be forced to do so.
And for the record, whether or not a prospect is gay has no bearing on our decision to take a project. On the other hand, if the person (gay or straight) is a jerk, that’s another story.
James Byrd’s last blog post… Next Thursday is “Promotion Day”
Thought-provoking post, and where do you draw the line? And I thought you’d talk about smoking bans (big fuss in St. Louis area)
Thought-provoking post, and where do you draw the line? And I thought you’d talk about smoking bans (big fuss in St. Louis area)