Horowitz: Can a private company discriminate on the basis of a vaccine? Tell that to Christian photographers


“Oh sure, private companies can collude with the government to make sure you don’t have access to jobs, goods and services and are marginalized from society if you don’t share their values ​​- don’t you know?” Well, this line of thinking used against those who don’t want to get vaccinated is news to anyone who follows anti-discrimination courts and cases over the past decade.

Those who believe that private corporations can engage in the most heinous form of discrimination and force dangerous products into people’s bodies as a prerequisite to even participating in society, allow me to introduce Judge Frank Geraci Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District. from New York. He ruled that New York can force Emilee Carpenter of Emilee Carpenter Photography to film a gay wedding against her most sincere religious beliefs.

“New York has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, have equal access to publicly available goods and services, and that the accommodation clause is narrowly tailored as applied to the plaintiff , to serve this interest”, Geraci wrote in a decision of December 13.

How strong is this “compelling interest”, according to Judge Geraci? “As a result, even if the accommodation clause compels speaking or associating in a manner that implicates the plaintiff’s free speech and free association interests, the provision survives scrutiny,” concluded the judge in dismissing Carpenter’s lawsuit against the New York State government. .

In other words, the state’s interest in ensuring that one in 100 photographers doesn’t refuse service for a gay wedding is so compelling that a state can outright compel you to indulge in speeches and to activities that violate your conscience. Yet, at the same time, we are told that a red state cannot tell private companies “what not to do” by ordering them not to discriminate against workers or customers who refuse to take the hit. Not only is this gross hypocrisy, but there are many differences that make the double standard of the justice system all the more appalling.

  1. In the case of florists, photographers and bakers who refuse to serve a gay marriage, they are not refusing to serve the individualjust this particular Event. Compare that to vaccination mandates, and they refuse to employ or serve the individual for nothing.
  2. In the case of the photographer, the owner respects her religious beliefs so as not to participate in something she considers anathema to her conscience. Such a claim cannot be made with vaccines, unless we concede that mass vaccination has become a religion. By definition, one person’s vaccination status cannot affect another human being, as others can benefit from this tremendous protection. In addition, the shots never stopped transmitting and, with the new variant, seem to cause more transmission.
  3. In the case of marriage services, the number of those who refuse is a minority of a minority. The culture is so tolerant of homosexuality that customers could probably get discounts and better service almost anywhere within a few miles. Compare this to the vaccine wars, and the unvaccinated are marginalized from all aspects of society, employment and higher education and are now threatened with inability to access vital goodsservices and treatment – ​​including organ transplants.
  4. In the case of same-sex marriages or the employment of homosexuals, no one requires individuals to engage in a specific action that they find offensive, such as requiring a dangerous bullet in the body. The equivalent of direct warrant for bakers would be for a company to say you have to have heterosexual sex for me to hire or serve you. Or explained in the opposite sense, court mandates to serve same-sex marriages would be tantamount to requiring companies to hire a certain quota of people without jab and service events, fundraisers, and jab-fighting rallies.
  5. In the case of the vaccine wars, the government has fostered a discriminatory culture across the country with billions of dollars in funding, marketing, coercion, and shielding manufacturers from liability. So it’s not coming from a “private” company, but clearly from the government, even when there’s no direct requirement. The equivalent dynamic with same-sex marriages would be if the government spent billions of dollars marketing gay people as dangers to society, spreading HIV and syphilis, and then, when “private” corporations answered the government’s call, claiming that “a private company can do whatever they want.”

But at the end of the day, the two terms are in harmony with each other in one respect: they both reek of fascism. They both require a person to actively participate in something that is anathema to their body or mind against their will. Notice how religious consciousness loses both ways – both when the claimant is an employer and when it is an employee or customer.

Now is the time for red states to enact systemic protections for people who don’t want to risk the senseless firing that is currently rendered useless by Omicron. The slate is not clean when it comes to private practice and the law of discrimination. If we’re going to indulge in absurd levels of anti-discrimination law – to the point of forcing Christian photographers to film two men kissing – you better believe we’re going to enforce anti-discrimination law when the Discriminatory behavior is senseless, is global down to apartheid, and is routinely fueled by the federal government.

Source link


Comments are closed.