When I was seventeen, my best friend and I decided to start an illegal business venture, something that today might be called an illegal “side gig.” We decided to scalp tickets, at that time prohibited in New York State. We were season ticket holders to the New York Islanders (our seats were high up, near the rafters of the Nassau Coliseum). Islander playoff tickets went on sale at some ridiculous early morning time, and in the dark before dawn we stood in line with the grungy, grizzled veteran ticket scalpers. My friend and I each bought an extra four tickets to every playoff game, better seats than our own. To finance my portion of the purchase I borrowed the money from a kindly family friend, which was terribly irresponsible of me since her circumstances were such that she could ill afford to lose the money or ever reveal her involvement in this scheme to my parents.
I always wonder, in cases such as this, why the case was brought at all. Why would I, a Jew, want to give my money to avowed Nazis to buy a mini-Hitler? Why would I bother to then spend my money on legal fees to force the Nazis to take my money? Surely there are better ways to demonstrate my opposition to their enterprise. In my youth, I remember my mother would not buy any German product. Why would she want to give them her money after what they did to her family?
I think these things lead us into court battles that stray from the larger point. If 303 loses, she'll be forced to take money for her work from those who don't want to give it to her and this is worth the battle? Why not "out" her for her prejudice and support a more friendly competitor who is also more likely to put her heart into the product than someone forced to do it?
I'm sympathetic, but I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. She (Lorie Smith) is not refusing to provide service to someone because that someone is gay; she is refusing to help celebrate/enable a ceremony that is contradictory to a cornerstone tenet of her religion. There are reasonable arguments that she should not be made to do it and the circumstances seem to invite hypotheticals. Should a Christian rock group be forced to play at the wedding? Should an Orthodox Jewish builder of wedding chuppas, who believes that he undertakes a sacred task, be required to build one for a gay wedding? What about for a Christian wedding between two people who just happened to like chuppahs? If we force Ms. Smith to do the wedding website, how far does that line of thinking go and where does it end up? Hard to say. Even so, I cannot help remember (growing up in the deep south) how many times I heard it said and preached that integration was "against the bible, against God's will, an abomination - that it was a restriction of our freedom of religion. I can still hear them and it's their voices that make me as sympathetic to your argument as I am.
She has not started her business yet. One solution would be to find another business that wouldn't interfere with her beliefs. Make websites for everything but weddings and anything wedding related.
She may not like the law, the law may interfere with the business she wants to conduct, she may think the law is unfair to her, but that is true of lots of laws and lots of situations.
I always wonder, in cases such as this, why the case was brought at all. Why would I, a Jew, want to give my money to avowed Nazis to buy a mini-Hitler? Why would I bother to then spend my money on legal fees to force the Nazis to take my money? Surely there are better ways to demonstrate my opposition to their enterprise. In my youth, I remember my mother would not buy any German product. Why would she want to give them her money after what they did to her family?
I think these things lead us into court battles that stray from the larger point. If 303 loses, she'll be forced to take money for her work from those who don't want to give it to her and this is worth the battle? Why not "out" her for her prejudice and support a more friendly competitor who is also more likely to put her heart into the product than someone forced to do it?
I'm sympathetic, but I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. She (Lorie Smith) is not refusing to provide service to someone because that someone is gay; she is refusing to help celebrate/enable a ceremony that is contradictory to a cornerstone tenet of her religion. There are reasonable arguments that she should not be made to do it and the circumstances seem to invite hypotheticals. Should a Christian rock group be forced to play at the wedding? Should an Orthodox Jewish builder of wedding chuppas, who believes that he undertakes a sacred task, be required to build one for a gay wedding? What about for a Christian wedding between two people who just happened to like chuppahs? If we force Ms. Smith to do the wedding website, how far does that line of thinking go and where does it end up? Hard to say. Even so, I cannot help remember (growing up in the deep south) how many times I heard it said and preached that integration was "against the bible, against God's will, an abomination - that it was a restriction of our freedom of religion. I can still hear them and it's their voices that make me as sympathetic to your argument as I am.
She has not started her business yet.
She has not started her business yet. One solution would be to find another business that wouldn't interfere with her beliefs. Make websites for everything but weddings and anything wedding related.
She may not like the law, the law may interfere with the business she wants to conduct, she may think the law is unfair to her, but that is true of lots of laws and lots of situations.