Elane Photography Case Analysis
Megan Ryan
Professor Brown
English 102
March 6, 2016
Does the law have the right compel a public business like Elane Photography to be a conduit of an expression their personal beliefs disagree with? In The tangled web of conflicting rights by George F. Will, an opinion writer for The Washington Post, Will argues it is Elane Photography’s Constitutional right to deny service to refuse service to individuals based on their personal religious beliefs. George Will fails to approach and present the situation of Elane Photography refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony in an unprejudiced manner without proper evidence to back up his claims and is why he did not successfully make a convincing argument.
When Elaine Huguenin declined to provide …show more content…
Due to this, we will have more issues with businesses denying service to same-sex couples so it is important to fully comprehend the gravity of the situation. Will believes advocates of gay rights are bullies because they challenged the condemnatory attitudes of the dominant culture. A bully is a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker, not somebody who pushes for the equal treatment for all. Furthermore, the comparison of a Jewish photographer being forced to record a Nazi Party ceremony is offensive in the context of this column (Will). This is a fantasy scenario designed to inflame passions rather than instruct the reader. Will uses a biased tone of righteous indignation and tries to show Elane Photography as the victim of an oppressive force led by Willock, over-simplifies the issue and made the him come across as unwilling to consider the perspectives of both Elane Photography and Vanessa Willock because of his own …show more content…
However, the First Amendment doesn’t give businesses a license to sell goods and services to the general public but then reject customers based on race or religion or sexual orientation in violation of state law. The equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers. If Elaine Huguenin was a private photographer that took pictures on her own time then sold them in galleries, it would be a different story.
Another reason this article is lacking is because Will twists the 1977 decision in Wooley v. Maynard to fit his argument when it doesn’t apply to the situation at hand in the least (Will). Wooley v. Maynard was a case of a private citizen not having to be forced by the government to promote a message on his personal property that went against his beliefs, not a public company discriminating against a particular group of citizens because of the owner’s religious beliefs (Wooley v.
Professor Brown
English 102
March 6, 2016
Does the law have the right compel a public business like Elane Photography to be a conduit of an expression their personal beliefs disagree with? In The tangled web of conflicting rights by George F. Will, an opinion writer for The Washington Post, Will argues it is Elane Photography’s Constitutional right to deny service to refuse service to individuals based on their personal religious beliefs. George Will fails to approach and present the situation of Elane Photography refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony in an unprejudiced manner without proper evidence to back up his claims and is why he did not successfully make a convincing argument.
When Elaine Huguenin declined to provide …show more content…
Due to this, we will have more issues with businesses denying service to same-sex couples so it is important to fully comprehend the gravity of the situation. Will believes advocates of gay rights are bullies because they challenged the condemnatory attitudes of the dominant culture. A bully is a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker, not somebody who pushes for the equal treatment for all. Furthermore, the comparison of a Jewish photographer being forced to record a Nazi Party ceremony is offensive in the context of this column (Will). This is a fantasy scenario designed to inflame passions rather than instruct the reader. Will uses a biased tone of righteous indignation and tries to show Elane Photography as the victim of an oppressive force led by Willock, over-simplifies the issue and made the him come across as unwilling to consider the perspectives of both Elane Photography and Vanessa Willock because of his own …show more content…
However, the First Amendment doesn’t give businesses a license to sell goods and services to the general public but then reject customers based on race or religion or sexual orientation in violation of state law. The equal treatment of gay couples is more important than the free speech rights of commercial photographers. If Elaine Huguenin was a private photographer that took pictures on her own time then sold them in galleries, it would be a different story.
Another reason this article is lacking is because Will twists the 1977 decision in Wooley v. Maynard to fit his argument when it doesn’t apply to the situation at hand in the least (Will). Wooley v. Maynard was a case of a private citizen not having to be forced by the government to promote a message on his personal property that went against his beliefs, not a public company discriminating against a particular group of citizens because of the owner’s religious beliefs (Wooley v.