Remember Public Accommodation laws (like New Mexico) require that a business provide the full range of goods and services, or as NM puts it differences either "directly or indirectly" in what they do.
So, the hairdresser (one would assume) will be able to bring a long trail of (a) females, showing it wasn't based on gender, (b) Christians showing it wasn't based on religion. The same services were supplied to customers irregardless of gender or religion. On the other, using a baker of wedding cakes as a reference, the baker would need to provide witnesses (i.e. customer testimony) that show that they had supplied wedding cakes to same-sex Commitment Ceremonies/Weddings, not sold them brownies (a subset of services) but the same services (wedding cakes). If the baker can show that, ya he'd probably prevale on the political stance argument.
See if the baker can show they had already provided EQUAL goods and services to homosexual couples for the same ceremonies, then it's demonstrable history of non-discrimination. On the other hand if the Baker was trying to use it a "ruse" to get around the law then it wouldn't fly.
Last edited by WorldWatcher; 03-04-14 at 10:06 PM.
You can't possibly win your argument, Rathi. It's exactly the same thing. This hairdresser is refusing his services to someone that he had as a client for what he believes to be rational objections. The state of Arizona, through its elected representatives are actively seeking to protect the "other's not named gay" rights to their beliefs. You personally think that this is irrational, but on its face the very existence and pursuance of such laws demands that the thought process for needed to protect those that believe what they do as paramount to preserving the essential liberties of association. This is the irony of the Arizona Bill that this hairdresser has so eloquently placed on display for all to see; If the Bill was signed into law, his actions would not be criminal, or at the least require a civil remedy.
Ain't irony great?
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
That DOES NOT mean that I will agree with their discriminatory practices. Television news, Radio, Newspapers, email, internet, review sites should also be free to highlight such practices to inform the public concerning the operation of the business.
I also like the idea of a "Public Accommodation" certificate that must be displayed at each customer entrance, at each cash register (or on the menu for restraints), and posted next to the Business license (which must be on display). Such a certificate must be on file with the business licensing authority and available for review just as the license is. A business can select an option that indicates they will comply with providing equal and full access to all customers. On the other hand they can also select that they reserve the right to refuse customers based on what classes they choose and then are required to identify. This allows the public to be informed. If after filing such a certificate the business owner violates the conditions they set, only then would they be subject to penalties. OK, so a baker fills out the certificate and reserves the right to serve gays, that doesn't mean they HAVE to refuse gays, it just means they've reserved the right - they can refuse all services or just a subset, their choice.
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway
the Gov of NM is a catholic. therefore her religious beliefs say that marriage is between a man and a women. the dresser in question is discriminating against her religious beliefs.
that is illegal.