In the state of New York, a human rights law prohibiting business owners from refusing service to same-sex couples if they are willing to service heterosexual couples runs a potential fine of $100,000, a revoked business license, and even jail time if violated. Wedding photographer Emilee Carpenter finds herself in violation of this law, as her Christian faith paints a clear concept and image of weddings and marriage in which same-sex couples are not included. Because of this, Emilee declines photo requests from same-sex couples getting married in order to uphold her religious beliefs and obligations. Because of this conflict, Emilee has been forced to face the option of either violating New York's law and potentially becoming imprisoned and losing her livelihood, or to disregard her faith and be limited in her religious exercise. Further, this law prohibits Emilee from explaining her decision from a religious standpoint on her business website in order to prevent individuals from feeling unwelcome or not accepted. Ultimately, this case presents a situation in which Emilee's freedom to exercise her religion, as protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment, is being challenged by the New York state human rights law.
While I understand and support the compelling interest of the state, and also acknowledge that excusing businesses from already established laws due to religious belief may lead to a slippery slope of individuals being excused from the law under the false guise of religion, I ultimately believe that the state's decision violates Emilee's constitutional rights. In this case, I do worry that the slippery slope may lead to denial of service for certain individuals at any business based on hostility or disagreement towards an individual's identity - an act that I believe is discriminatory and should not be constitutionally protected. However, the distinction in Emilee's case is that her decision has a legitimate religious reasoning and is not simply an act of hostility against a particular identity. The issue is the marriage itself, as she sees facilitating or advancing a ceremony that is unrecognized in her religion as fundamentally limiting her faith and religious practice. When reading the severity of punishment she faces, it is clear that Emilee has no other choice but to adopt a state-approved opinion of marriage and disregard what she believes to be her religious obligations - something that could even be argued to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well, due to the state endorsing one, accepted religious viewpoint. Additionally, I do not believe there would be a frequent impact of Emilee's religious decision on citizens. Citizens of New York are not being forced to face Emilee's business on a daily basis or even that often at all, and would have to go out of their way to search and find her online. Because of this, Emilee is not actively preaching her beliefs to everyone possible. It is also troubling that the state of New York's denies Emilee from being able to explain her decision regarding same-sex marriage on her website. If she were able to communicate her decision in more detail, it could serve to prevent miscommunication and potentially leading on customers that, ultimately, she felt she could not serve.
Overall, I believe that demanding Emilee's compliance with one particular religious viewpoint will serve to decrease diversity of thought, conflicting with the intentions of Founding Fathers Jefferson and Madison in their monumental pieces regarding the relationship between religion and the state. Particularly as the nature of Emilee's business is not actively targeting or religiously coercing citizens, forcing her to comply with one, accepted religious viewpoint would violate her First Amendment rights.
4 comments:
I agree with the author’s argument in this case. While Emilee Carpenter’s beliefs may not be accepted universally, it is not the state’s job to make her feel as if she has to compromise her religious values in order to have a livelihood in her chosen field. The state’s fine seemingly specifically targets religious beliefs like that of Carpenter’s which puts a considerable burden on Carpenter and others like her expressing the free exercise of their religious convictions.
I agree with the author's assessment of this case. I was surprised to read how severe the potential punishments are and agree that Emilee has no choice but to abandon her religious beliefs to maintain her freedom from such extreme punishments. Emilee operates independently and therefore has the right to practice her religious obligations in her work. In this case, the burden on the state is not greater than the burden on Emilee's religious practices.
I believe that the author made very convincing points and highlighted that Emilee has no choice but to abandon her religious beliefs in order to not face punishment from New York's government. The author argues that Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission sets precedent for how this case may be decided but my understanding of the Court's opinion was that the case was not decided upon the freedom of expression and that works with anti-discrimination law or if Masterpiece Cakeshop could be considered an artists and protected by freedom of speech but rather that Colorado's Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious animus in their arguments. I do believe that business are allowed to deny services to anyone for any reason, but I also I believe that if that business provides the reason and said reason violates State and/or Federal law they should have to suffer the consequences.
I agree with Sofia's conclusion of this case. Similarly to Mason, I was shocked by the potential punishment that Emilee was facing. I think that the state was putting her in a situation where she would have to choose between her religious beliefs or her career, and that is unconstitutional. I think an important part, that Sofia noted, is that nobody is being forced to interact with Emilee's business. The policy is creating a large burden for Emilee and her free exercise rights.
Post a Comment