First of all to say a photographer or baker cannot refuse service is a misstatement of the facts. Any business can refuse service for any reason they choose, as long as the reason is not for one limited by law. A photographer or baker sure can refuse service for a variety of reasons: credit check, they have a previous booking, will be on vacation, etc. What they cannot do is refuse service for one of the stated reasons contained in the law.
So, there is a class of laws in each State referred to commonly as "Public Accommodation Laws", these laws make it illegal for a business to refuse to provide the same goods and services to customers based on factors that vary from State-to-State. There is also a Federal Public Accommodation law contained in the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Often the States identify more classes then the Federal Statute.
Public Accommodation laws have been reviewed by both State and Federal courts and found to be a proper exercise (under the Commerce Clause for Federal Law and as a States power to regulate commerce inside the State. You will notice in the New Mexico law cited below that it specifies that goods and services must be offered equally to the public with not "direct or indirect" difference.
New Mexico Statute
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;
When people say that the photographer or baker cannot refuse service, but this hairdresser can?
No the hairdresser CANNOT refuse service (in New Mexico) based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. The baker, the photographer, the hairdresser and the candlestick maker can all refuse service for other reasons - for example to the governor based on that individuals publicly available political position concerning secular law in the State. When contrasted with the photographer (Elane Photography was the New Mexico case) the business advertised for and routinely performed wedding photography. That was a service offered, they refused because of the sexual orientation of the couple - they were in violation of the law because they chose to make a distinction directly based on the sexual orientation of the couple.
If you'd like to read the case you can read the decision here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf
The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.
Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-11-14 at 07:10 PM.
it's just funny the hoops y'all jump through, the appeal to authority y'all take, to monkey with laws and just government action to engineer a solution you think is right. No difference here. You cannot argue from base as to why these are separate, you can only appeal to authority. Logical fallacy, BTW.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I think it's OK for a website to make there own business model and to selective on the clientele they choose to service.
P.S. - In the interest of honesty you should really stop with the dishonest question that try to paint by position as other that what it is. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and a private business owners right to turn away any customer based on any factor they choose whether it be race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, marital status, veterans status, handicap or if the patron shows up dressed as a one legged pirate and says "Arrrgggg matey!"
I explained why they are different in detail - you don't want to see it. Nothing personal, but that is your problem not mine.
His refusal of service was based on her secular governmental position as Governor and her position on Civil Marriage. I'm sure if you asked the hairdresser he would have no problems and would cut her hair if she said that she was Catholic and that she supported her Church not performing same-sex Religious Marriages. As a mater of fact being in New Mexico he could probably trot out quite a few customers that don't support Religious Same-sex Marriage. It's her ability to influence secular law that he objects to.
No no, "religion" isn't the reason - it's political position on secular law.
But hey, if the Governor wants to file a claim with the appropriate NM agency that handles them - more power to her.
Sorry you can't understand the difference between discussing what the law should be and the reality of what the law is. You have a narrow opinion based on a few threads I choose to participate in.
Here is another conundrum for you. I support the right of free speech, therefore I support Westboro Baptists Church and their right to be assholes. That does not mean I support their position. Here is another, the Constitution says (and I paraphrase) that peopel born here and under the United States jurisdiction are citizens. That's what the law says. And the current interpretation considers those here illegally as being under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a child born to an illegal alien is a citizen. I disagree with that that is the way it should be, a child should ONLY get US citizenship if the parent is here legally.
If you would like to know my views on other matters, feel free to ask.
Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-11-14 at 07:39 PM.
Right. So would you do that? Or is it okay for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind?The laws exist, they have been reviewed by the courts. That is reality. However just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it should. The only way at this point to reverse these laws which usurp the individuals right of free association and rights of property is to make the case for the laws to be repealed.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
You can say you support this and that, but you can't WAIT to move the goalposts if it doesn't fit your ideology.
In your world, politicians aren't allowed to exercise religious freedom. Any other occupations you want to oppress while you're at it?
Is discrimination "OK"? No, in this context you are asking for a value judgement and in general I disagree with discrimination. To refuse service to a ____________________ (fill in category of people) is something I'm against. However just because someone else chooses to be a jerk toward ____________________ (fill in category of people) doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.
The question you should have asked: Or is it legal for discrimination in this case but not in others, in your mind? Yes, see Post #132 as to why.