Morning Fix: Another Familiar Sight

17 Comments

Comment by Robert S. on February 1, 2008 at 6:07am

Do we have to add cameras to railroad crossings to prove people wrong when they claim malfunctionings of Railrunner signal gates?

I can't believe KOB gave that woman airtime for her story when I'm fairly convinced that she was impatient and tried to run the gate rather than obey the signals and wait for the train to pass.

If we had video of the incident, it would be a clear-cut case of who is right and who is wrong.

Comment by Robert S. on February 1, 2008 at 6:11am

Re: APS flubbing W2 forms. Poor Monica Armenta (spokeswoman for APS). APS seems to be in the news so much of the time for APS problems that it's almost like she's still an anchor with all the airtime she gets. ;)

We'll find out in 2009 if APS has figured out their new payroll system and avoids repeating this flub.

Comment by MPC on February 1, 2008 at 6:14am

That is SO FREAKIN' ridiculous!!! No one should be forced to do what they don't want to do for what ever reason. I totally agree that everyone should have access to healthcare, employment, food - basic human rights and necessities. I believe that some one denying ANYONE those basic rights should be condemned and sued for everything they are worth! Having your commitment ceremony photographed though is NOT a basic human right. If that woman didn't want to photograph it, she should not be forced to do so.

Think about it! Would you really want someone at your commitment ceremony that didn't WANT to be there? Do you think you'd get a good product because you forced someone to do the job?

I would feel the same if some hetero couple were suing a gay/lesbian owned business because they didn't want to provide a service to them. There has to be more to this story - at least I hope there is for the lesbian's sake - that's a lot of money to throw at a case of freedom of choice.

Comment by Angela on February 1, 2008 at 7:51am

I think the point of the matter is this:
"Photog denied "commitment ceremony" business, citing her Christian beliefs"

I think, if you're in the business of running a business, and you decide that a client is not for you, a prudent thing to do might be, to be nice about it. "I'm sorry, but I'm not available." instead of making a political statement.

If the photographer felt so strongly about her personal position, she could have, of course, made a notice about it on her website, or in her advertising, "Sorry, I just don't do this" and then made a list avoiding headache from both parties. (There are actually a few wedding wholesalers, that for some reason will not provide wedding related print services, or storybooks for same sex couples.. many of us in the industry that know about it, make a note of it, and avoid their business at all costs...)

I have been the main wedding photographer at several weddings, where the couple was heterosexual and the ceremony was laden with religious tradition and symbolism. I myself, am neither religious or heterosexual. I have never once been offended, or felt that another's beliefs were being pushed onto me, just because they were different. Point in fact, I had a great time, just being part of the happiest day in my clients' lives.

There's no problem with saying no, but sometimes it's how you say it, that makes all of the difference.

Comment by Freekbuoy on February 1, 2008 at 8:47am

I say run Starbucks out of town. There's plenty of great, individually-owned coffee shops all over ABQ to serve the public's caffeine needs.

Oh - and as far as the photographer goes, I see two issues:
1. Enforcement: the courts are generally unwilling to try and force people to perform services, because they cannot ensure the quality of those services. Thus the civil fine.
2. There's an interesting legal conflict here. Basically, the conflict arises between non-discrimination (in this case a state statute) and freedom of religion (the 1st Amendment, a federal Constitutional protection).
In other words, this could get interesting, folks. Or, it may just fall by the wayside and everyone will forget about it.

Comment by jeff on February 1, 2008 at 9:07am

this is perfect - i just started reading "the god delusion" last night....

btw, i've read that in most markets, starbucks presence actually helps local/individually-owned coffee shops survive and prosper, for a variety of reasons.

Comment by bleve on February 1, 2008 at 9:36am

I wonder if a Jewish catering service would get charged for not serving at a Catholic Mantanza... it all seems a little absurd to me.

Here's a good article about Starbucks... many local businesses do thrive next to them but Starbuck's goal is to run them out of business.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/pagenum/all/

Comment by once banned twice shy on February 1, 2008 at 9:53am

On the photographer: it was the woman's private business. The couple could have easily found another photographer who would photograph their commitment ceremony, so they weren't being denied a service. Much less a vital service. I think this is ridiculous--and I'm a pretty liberal gal with few libertarian leanings.

Interestingly enough, Temple B'nai Israel has a room which it offers to rent out for events such as wedding receptions, etc. I called them a few years ago to ask if they would forbid pork being served (I was planning a reception which would involve a roasted pig) in their hall. They said yes. Should I have sued based on religious discrimination?

Comment by The Grand Panjandrum on February 1, 2008 at 10:03am

Scripture was often cited as the reason for slavery and segregation. Should the photographer be allowed to say no to interracial couples? Why would we allow someone to discriminate based on sexual preference?

I would be curious to know why ones religious beliefs are a reasonable excuse for discrimination? They certainly have a right to express any opinion, but isn't discrimination in where we draw the when conducting business with the public?

Comment by Freekbuoy on February 1, 2008 at 10:17am

EFP: Somehow I don't think that Starbucks is some sort of "super-employer." Interestingly enough, if bleve is correct, then chasing Starbucks out of town would end up saving jobs, as the mega-cafe couldn't put anyone else out of business. Furthermore, because the local cafes would see a boom in their business, they could provide jobs to those few baristas who no longer work at Starbucks.
And as far as tax revenue is concerned, I don't think people will stop drinking coffee or coffee-related drinks just because Starbucks isn't around. That money will just be redistributed to the local companies. As a result, more of the coffee-related revenue will stick around locally.
Result: more jobs and more tax revenue.

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2