PDA

View Full Version : Photographer forced to photograph Gay Marriage



AJBIGJ
08-24-2013, 01:21 AM
Fairly self-explanatory, thoughts?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765636407/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-gay-marriage-case.html

>>If our infinitely more assertive mods could move this thread to whatever you have for a DADT/LGBT section of late I would appreciate it, I apologize for the laziness, but your new setup confuses me!!:aargh4:

Greg
08-24-2013, 01:37 AM
"The court said a business could declare in its advertising that it opposes same-sex marriage but it has to comply with the anti-discrimination law"

I wonder if a same-sex couple would inquire about the photographer's services anyways?

Would it be too transparent if the business quoted a ridiculously high price for their services?

Rizzo77
08-24-2013, 01:42 AM
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

""The idea that free people can be 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives' as the 'price of citizenship' is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom."

The government now dictates how PRIVATE busineses must conduct business? Hello, Lenin!

garhkal
08-24-2013, 02:22 AM
Da Tavorich. IMO this should fall under the old school heading of "The owner reserves the right to refuse service" way we used to opperate by.
And the "Anti discrimination laws iirc only apply to getting work, housing etc.

imnohero
08-24-2013, 04:18 PM
Finally got time to look at the article. The court took an interesting stance, that "soliciting customers with an offered service" requires compliance with the New Mexico Human Rights [something] law. That suggests that an advertised service is presumed to be offered in compliance with the law, and refusal of service based on personal beliefs, is discrimination under the law. I'm going to have to think about that one for a while.

Does anyone have a link to the judges written ruling?

garhkal
08-24-2013, 06:38 PM
So if they didn't solicit customers by advertizing, they would have been ok?

imnohero
08-24-2013, 09:45 PM
sounds weird doesn't it...there must be more to it than just advertising.

imnohero
08-24-2013, 10:04 PM
By the way, here is a link to the decision. http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf

It's a little more convoluted than I thought, but I got the basic idea. The photo business that is a commercial business that offers it services broadly to the public on websites and the yellow pages. The business makes no effort to limit advertisement, it's website access, or to state the limits of it's services.

Also, this case goes back to 2006 and is on it's 3rd appeal. If the ACLU and Alliance Defense Fund weren't paying all the cost, this would have been over in 2008 on the first appeal. The lady should have just paid the court judgement against her ($7000) and chalked it up.

Rizzo77
08-24-2013, 10:28 PM
What do you mean now? This has been going on for a long time....the government dictates that if you operate a hotel you may not turn away people on the basis of their race, for example. Nor can you operate a "whites only" restaurant...or refuse to sell home to Jews, etc.

Not all states protect sexual orientation, and the federal govt. does not.

This is the same deal...the "people" of New Mexico have enacted into law that businesses operating in their state may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.


Cool. The next time I go back to New Mexico (my folks lived there) I will ignore any sign that says "No shirts, No shoes, No service." It will be MY RIGHT to go in barefooted and bareshirted, and maybe I'll just take a crap on the floor while I'm at it.

John Drake
08-24-2013, 11:04 PM
Cool. The next time I go back to New Mexico (my folks lived there) I will ignore any sign that says "No shirts, No shoes, No service." It will be MY RIGHT to go in barefooted and bareshirted, and maybe I'll just take a crap on the floor while I'm at it.

I doubt shirtlessness or defecation is a protected category.

Rizzo77
08-24-2013, 11:51 PM
I doubt shirtlessness or defecation is a protected category.

Well, that is an ABSOLUTE abomination, then. I will join forces with the Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA - http://www.tera.ca/) in order to fight against the shirtlessness prohibition (I think defecation should still be done privately, but who knows?).

John Drake
08-25-2013, 12:13 AM
Well, that is an ABSOLUTE abomination, then. I will join forces with the Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA - http://www.tera.ca/) in order to fight against the shirtlessness prohibition (I think defecation should still be done privately, but who knows?).

So basically, you are admitting your anger is baseless and meaningless? Sure there's the whole public breastfeeding thing, but that's for a purpose (to protect the rights of nursing mothers) - you seem to be just expressing blind anger with no purpose or direction.

Rizzo77
08-25-2013, 12:56 AM
So basically, you are admitting your anger is baseless and meaningless? Sure there's the whole public breastfeeding thing, but that's for a purpose (to protect the rights of nursing mothers) - you seem to be just expressing blind anger with no purpose or direction.

Uuuumm. Angry? Lighten up, Francis.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 01:06 AM
Uuuumm. Angry? Lighten up, Francis.

My apologies. My sarcasm-detector really isn't as sensitive as it should be. :)

Rizzo77
08-25-2013, 01:43 AM
funny.

Shirtless, shoeless public defecators is not a protected class. Nice try though.

Got it. Since when has any couple that wants to be photographed a protected class?

71Fish
08-25-2013, 05:45 AM
What will really be funny is when a gay owned photographer will be forced to photograph a Westboro Baptist church wedding, or a black owned business work a klan rally, or a Jewish business work an American Nazi rally. I could give examples for days.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 03:05 PM
Are you saying state govts. should not have any right to regulate commerce within their state?

This question really drives to the heart of the matter. Does it make sense that a bunch of obese dudes with moobs can file a class action suit against the "Hooters" franchise because they were turned away for employment as waitresses and win? (Something similar has actually happened!)

I do find it curious, however, that we do have State-level intervention in this level of specificity in commerce. Pretty much any exchange in any industry can essentially be defined as "an exchange of goods and/or services for other goods and/or services that is mutually agreed upon by both parties". That being the case, should a private business established be forced into an exchange they do not agree to? The purpose of having competition in the marketplace is that the entities that offer the best combination of quality and price for their products will ensure they become successful. Those who refuse to offer their goods and services to a specific demographic will usually fall behind in their market share under their competitors that do offer their wares to this demographic. Realistically, this is a self-correcting problem, if a business's choices to narrow their range of constituents actually runs them out of business. I personally think any individual organization should be allowed to refuse to offer their goods and services to other individuals regardless of the reasoning behind it (and yes that means a klansmen could refuse a black person or a Neo-Nazi could refuse a Jewish person). Laws, the way they've been established tend to state otherwise, so it would be moot to try to argue that position from a legalistic standpoint. The bigger question as a result is the moral one, "Should a person be forced into an exchange under conditions they do not agree upon?"

imnohero
08-25-2013, 04:15 PM
should a private business established be forced into an exchange they do not agree to?

Depends on the legal definition of "private"...in this case, the business in question did not limit themselves,or access by customers, so they were, at the time, defined as a "public accommodation" under NM law, and had to comply with the NMHRA.

This is actually pretty well settled in case law. Businesses open the public must comply with anti-discrimination laws. The best example of "private business" that I can think of off the top of my head, is a members only golf club, they may be exempt from these laws. What's that golf course that has the Master's Tourney every year? They still don't let women be members, I don't think.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 04:29 PM
Depends on the legal definition of "private"...in this case, the business in question did not limit themselves,or access by customers, so they were, at the time, defined as a "public accommodation" under NM law, and had to comply with the NMHRA.

This is actually pretty well settled in case law. Businesses open the public must comply with anti-discrimination laws. The best example of "private business" that I can think of off the top of my head, is a members only golf club, they may be exempt from these laws. What's that golf course that has the Master's Tourney every year? They still don't let women be members, I don't think.

Which is essentially why I state this is no longer really a legal discussion any longer, it's more geared towards the morality of the government intervening directly into commerce in such a fashion and whether businesses have a right to "discriminate" (in every definition of the term) who they vend their wares to. Is the principle of surrendering that much direct influence over the nuance of private commerce a precedent we wish to set and continue to allow? Laws have the singular advantage of having been written by men (and women), they can be rewritten if it can be determined there is a valid reason for doing so.

technomage1
08-25-2013, 04:41 PM
What will really be funny is when a gay owned photographer will be forced to photograph a Westboro Baptist church wedding, or a black owned business work a klan rally, or a Jewish business work an American Nazi rally. I could give examples for days.

They weren't gay, but garages already got into hot water when they refused the Westboro baptist church service. Someone slashed their tires hen they protested at a military funeral. AAA had to tow them to wal mart because no garage in town would help them.

Much as I hate them, this did violate the law.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 04:46 PM
Which is essentially why I state this is no longer really a legal discussion any longer, it's more geared towards the morality of the government intervening directly into commerce in such a fashion and whether businesses have a right to "discriminate" (in every definition of the term) who they vend their wares to. Is the principle of surrendering that much direct influence over the nuance of private commerce a precedent we wish to set and continue to allow? Laws have the singular advantage of having been written by men (and women), they can be rewritten if it can be determined there is a valid reason for doing so.

Well, perhaps one should look at it this way - I take photos as a hobby. Though I spend a great deal of money in this, I don't own a business - I do not have an EIC with the IRS, I do not make a profit, I do not advertise, save for the occasional tip or free drink, this is not a means of income. I can take photos of whatever I please - no one can tell me I HAVE to take photos of everybody.

Now I have a co-worker who DOES own his own photography/videography business. The difference is I provide a service to myself (for fun) - he provides a service to the public (for money). Therefore, he is subject to laws that I am not.

You may ask how this is fair - its not, its for the best interests of the public. For two reasons that I can think of:

1) If business owners were allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc. - then you would have certain demographic groups who would have increased difficulty and expense in getting the same services and products - a direct violation of their civil rights. Back before the Civil Rights Act it was inordinately difficult for blacks to get the same level of service as whites, because the vast majority of business owners discriminated against them. For blacks who saved up enough money to move out of the ghetto, many were unable to do so, because most upscale neighborhoods forbade blacks from owning property.

2) This reason is IMO even more serious - if you allow businesses to discriminate, you will inevitably have the unappealing situation of tax payer dollars used to enforce discrimination. This is a fact that is conveniently ignored by libertarians today. What happened back in the 1950s if some blacks went into a "whites only" diner and refused to leave? The manager would call the police, who would then arrest the black customers and put them in jail... all paid for by the tax payers. Take Rosa Parks for example... do you think she was arrested and jailed for free? Of course not, we the tax payers paid every dime spent in that case of racial discrimination. Another example is the MLK protests? Thousands of police were used to crush and arrest these protests... think of the millions of tax dollars spent in these operations!

imnohero
08-25-2013, 05:09 PM
Which is essentially why I state this is no longer really a legal discussion any longer, it's more geared towards the morality of the government intervening directly into commerce in such a fashion and whether businesses have a right to "discriminate" (in every definition of the term) who they vend their wares to.

That's a fair point. What is the proper role of government in the market? Or to use a philosophical term, what is the JUST role of government in the market? Just as in justice. Put another way, Is it morally just for the "state" to enforce anti-discrimination laws?

The answer depends a lot on what you see as the essential/right/just role of government. Libertarians would probably say "No. it's not ok." Democrats would say "yes." Republicans, probably would say "it depends." Each of these political philosophies is rooted pretty deep in some divergent philosophy, that are not mutually coexistent. To take two examples:
1) Rawls is basically a Kantian philosophy, in which property ownership happens by consent.
2) Notzick is a Lockian, in which property ownership happens by individual labor.

These two things are not mutually compatible. These sort of differences extend to the proper roles of government as well, including influence on the market. Notzick (libertarian) is almost Laizze-Faire Free Market, and minimal government. Rawls has a much broader moral requirement for government in the market to ensure equality. The two concept are not very compatible.

As a side note: much of the political debate, and the 2012 election, centers/centered around these essential philosophical difference...though there were not so calmly expressed.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 05:20 PM
As a side note: much of the political debate, and the 2012 election, centers/centered around these essential philosophical difference...though there were not so calmly expressed.

That's for sure! It's actually why I linked onto this topic so quickly in the first place because, in a way, it can force many people out of their comfort zones of parroting party-line pundit rhetoric and actually gunning for the principle behind those arguments. I think a lot of ideological paradigms tend to occur when an individual can divorce themselves of the easy way out of forming an informed opinion rather than offering blanket strawmen. Me personally, I obviously favor the Robert Notzick side of the argument quite a bit because I don't believe the recognition of individual sovereign rights can occur any other way (at least the lines get blurred once we start down the slippery slope of which is and what isn't applicable in a situation).

John Drake
08-25-2013, 05:30 PM
What will really be funny is when a gay owned photographer will be forced to photograph a Westboro Baptist church wedding, or a black owned business work a klan rally, or a Jewish business work an American Nazi rally. I could give examples for days.

Why on Earth would the Klan want to hire a Jew or a black person?

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 06:09 PM
I can imagine a community that unites behind the idea of not being welcoming to certain demographics.

For instance...if you lived in an 80% white community, whose majority members would boycott your business if you served blacks....then it makes business sense for you to exclude blacks.

I think, in certain communities, this photographers refusal to serve homosexuals would be wonderful for her business, much like Chil-Fil-A did very well following their CEO comments on gay marriage.

I think a follow-on question would become, is it so wrong for these businesses to have discriminatory practices in the act of conducting their business? (I'll leave Chik-Fil-A out of this, since it was more just the personal opinion of their CEO and not actual discriminatory policies implemented by that organization that caused the ruckus, it would kind of become an "Oranges and Tangerines" discussion). Does Tiffany's not have discriminatory policies? How about half the night clubs in America that host a "Ladies Night" every week? If we are really set upon enforcing equitable treatment of private businesses towards consumers, where do we draw the line? Do we even draw a line? Should we post regulations that every organization have equal pricing for their production that is accessible to every possible consumer involved regardless? I think it's fair to say any business is very much allowed to discriminate when alcohol products are sold (or they'd be in even worse trouble). I could easily pull the "profiling" card every time I get carded at a grocery store who has the explicit policies in place that all customers who "Appear to be under 30 years of age must show ID", although I wouldn't, I love being profiled as appearing under 30! To me, driving into the nuance to this extent really seems like an inappropriate place for government to operate effectively.

imnohero
08-25-2013, 06:16 PM
is it so wrong for these businesses to have discriminatory practices in the act of conducting their business?

This is a good question! Is it morally wrong to discriminate? More appropriately, WHEN is it morally wrong?

For me, the answer is that same as the answer to this question, "Does the discrimination violate the fundamental humanity and respect for all persons necessary for an equal society to exist?"

Ladies night, I don't think is disrespectful to fundamental humanity of men.

"Whites only" lunch counter does. The policy and idea behind it denies the equality and fundamental humanity of anyone that is not white on the outside.

For what it's worth, that's how I determine where "the line" is. But I tend to favor Kant, philosophically.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 06:22 PM
The main argument here appears to be "common sense" - libertarians are arguing that these rules are unecessary, because businesses should be expected to behave maturely.

Past history has clearly shown that they are NOT capable of this. If we removed these regulations, its pretty obvious that anti-gay businesses, whites-only businesses, etc., would start dotting the nation - particularly in the more backward and less educated regions in the South, almost immediately.

I don't see that as a good thing, I see that as a national embarrassment. I'm sure its the same for every country - but for me, when America makes the headlines in a bad way I'm embarrassed. When that Australian got murdered by three American kids with a gun, I was embarrassed. If "whites-only" businesses were legalized, I would be embarrassed - if I traveled abroad I'd tell people I'm actually English.

garhkal
08-25-2013, 07:24 PM
What will really be funny is when a gay owned photographer will be forced to photograph a Westboro Baptist church wedding, or a black owned business work a klan rally, or a Jewish business work an American Nazi rally. I could give examples for days.

It would be nice to see it turned ON them.


I think a follow-on question would become, is it so wrong for these businesses to have discriminatory practices in the act of conducting their business? (I'll leave Chik-Fil-A out of this, since it was more just the personal opinion of their CEO and not actual discriminatory policies implemented by that organization that caused the ruckus, it would kind of become an "Oranges and Tangerines" discussion). Does Tiffany's not have discriminatory policies? How about half the night clubs in America that host a "Ladies Night" every week?

Exactly.. Society already allows discrimination to go on, but seems to only say it's ok when its against the "Normally majority groups" Such as the ladies nights (never anywhere that does a mens night) or all those fitness centers that are "Women only" (even to the point some won't HIRE men).


This is a good question! Is it morally wrong to discriminate? More appropriately, WHEN is it morally wrong?

For me, the answer is that same as the answer to this question, "Does the discrimination violate the fundamental humanity and respect for all persons necessary for an equal society to exist?"

Ladies night, I don't think is disrespectful to fundamental humanity of men.

I figured you would say that.

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 07:26 PM
The main argument here appears to be "common sense" - libertarians are arguing that these rules are unnecessary, because businesses should be expected to behave maturely.

Partially that and partially the simple question, "who really gets harmed when a business refuses to offer its good and services to the consumer?" The pure power of any form of working capitalism is that, if you don't get what you want from what one fellow is offering, you can walk to the shop down the street and get it from them. Past history has its problems as well, in much of the history we're discussing, much of the discriminatory policies we are discussing were in place not only because the law didn't prevent them, but also because it was the law to have them.

I tend towards the belief that society and culture moves despite governmental influence, not because of it. Back then, society had begun to swing towards the direction where discriminatory policies inherent flaws were beginning to be revealed on a regular basis by the average Joe just out there living his life. Society as a result began to detest the fact that there were so many unjust policies and the laws that enforced them. Hence, society worked through government to remove those very same laws, and try to throw in some new ones to prevent future occurrences. I do believe the latter part was unnecessary, cultural change isn't instantaneous but it does happen. When government tries to institute cultural change overnight society typically resists the changes, often forcibly, and has an otherwise relatively seamless transition becoming a massive controversy.

In the topic in question, the Photography company discussed would probably be finding itself becoming more and more irrelevant in its market niche as societal viewpoints change. Bad PR is a very effective market tool, and in the complete absence of governing laws, a society that recognizes these discriminatory policies would expose these business practices and actively discourage conducting business with that organization.

imnohero
08-25-2013, 07:32 PM
I figured you would say that.

LOL. I take it you find me predictable?

garhkal
08-25-2013, 08:14 PM
LOL. I take it you find me predictable?

Based on your posts regarding the boobs issue *surgery*, i would say yes.

imnohero
08-25-2013, 08:17 PM
"who really gets harmed when a business refuses to offer its good and services to the consumer?"

Turning the tables a bit, and making employees "customers" and "discrimination" in a non-racial sense...an example of how harmful "no policy" policy can be is the impact of illegal immigration and employment on the "trade skills" in the US.

25-30 years ago, a few companies hired illegals to build houses. They didn't "discriminate" based on skin color or sex, but based on pay scale. The could pay illegals less, so they didn't hire citizens. As a consequence, they could bid jobs much lower than other house builders. Putting them at a competitive advantage. Since there were no laws (or no enforced laws) prohibiting this practice, to stay in business other companies had to hire illegals also. Fast forward a couple decades and you can hardly find a house builder that employs only citizens and legal immigrants. This bias for cheap labor has been/is so wide spread and so rampant, that there is a lack of skilled tradesman in the broad population. Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc. To the point that when immigration law comes up, government must consider the macroeconomic impacts to the country and international trade. One might say this discrimination has caused a great deal of harm, both in the past, and the foreseeable future.

I know this is not what you meant by your question, but it's a good example of how a broad economic harm can be caused by "discriminatory practices."

imnohero
08-25-2013, 08:26 PM
Based on your posts regarding the boobs issue *surgery*, i would say yes.

hmm, I don't remember saying anything about a "boobs issue"...but I'll look into it.

John Drake
08-25-2013, 09:43 PM
Partially that and partially the simple question, "who really gets harmed when a business refuses to offer its good and services to the consumer?" The pure power of any form of working capitalism is that, if you don't get what you want from what one fellow is offering, you can walk to the shop down the street and get it from them. Past history has its problems as well, in much of the history we're discussing, much of the discriminatory policies we are discussing were in place not only because the law didn't prevent them, but also because it was the law to have them.

I tend towards the belief that society and culture moves despite governmental influence, not because of it. Back then, society had begun to swing towards the direction where discriminatory policies inherent flaws were beginning to be revealed on a regular basis by the average Joe just out there living his life. Society as a result began to detest the fact that there were so many unjust policies and the laws that enforced them. Hence, society worked through government to remove those very same laws, and try to throw in some new ones to prevent future occurrences. I do believe the latter part was unnecessary, cultural change isn't instantaneous but it does happen. When government tries to institute cultural change overnight society typically resists the changes, often forcibly, and has an otherwise relatively seamless transition becoming a massive controversy.

In the topic in question, the Photography company discussed would probably be finding itself becoming more and more irrelevant in its market niche as societal viewpoints change. Bad PR is a very effective market tool, and in the complete absence of governing laws, a society that recognizes these discriminatory policies would expose these business practices and actively discourage conducting business with that organization.

As I addressed in my previous post - the simple "walk down the street to another business" thing doesn't work if ALL of the businesses in that area are using the same discriminatory policy. And even if this hypothetical Jew/Gay/Black could find a business where he was allowed to do business, then he wouldn't have the same opportunity to compare prices and quality, like other customers. That in itself is a violation of his civil liberties. The major argument for a free market system is exactly that - a free market, the ability of a customer to be able to choose where he gets his merchandise. If the vast majority of businesses in his area refuse to do business with him, then obviously he loses that ability.

Also, you did not address at all my key point - that in such a system, these shop owners would use tax payer dollars to enforce their discrimination. These businesses would have the right to use the police to evict customers they don't like - be it blacks, Jews, gays, or whoever else they are choosing to discriminate against. That to me is unacceptable.

And lastly, I challenge your underlying premise - that social change renders government intervention unnecessary - the civil rights movement made that abundantly clear. Eisenhower and Kennedy both had to use Federal troops and the National Guard to force the racist state governments to stop violating the constitutional rights of their citizens. That is the main issue here. Citizens' Rights trumps States' Rights!

AJBIGJ
08-25-2013, 11:03 PM
As I addressed in my previous post - the simple "walk down the street to another business" thing doesn't work if ALL of the businesses in that area are using the same discriminatory policy. And even if this hypothetical Jew/Gay/Black could find a business where he was allowed to do business, then he wouldn't have the same opportunity to compare prices and quality, like other customers. That in itself is a violation of his civil liberties. The major argument for a free market system is exactly that - a free market, the ability of a customer to be able to choose where he gets his merchandise. If the vast majority of businesses in his area refuse to do business with him, then obviously he loses that ability.

Also, you did not address at all my key point - that in such a system, these shop owners would use tax payer dollars to enforce their discrimination. These businesses would have the right to use the police to evict customers they don't like - be it blacks, Jews, gays, or whoever else they are choosing to discriminate against. That to me is unacceptable.

And lastly, I challenge your underlying premise - that social change renders government intervention unnecessary - the civil rights movement made that abundantly clear. Eisenhower and Kennedy both had to use Federal troops and the National Guard to force the racist state governments to stop violating the constitutional rights of their citizens. That is the main issue here. Citizens' Rights trumps States' Rights!

I couldn't agree more about the bolded statement. However, we're really not discussing State Rights here, we're discussing the rights of private businesses to choose who they vend their wares to. Your key point kind of applies in a "snapshot in time" analysis where you look at the precise situation that exists while ignoring trends and the fact that society, and culture in general, is perpetually in motion. For even the most powerful government entity in the modern world to significantly affect that is a similar expectation for a sandcastle wall to protect a sandcastle from the rising tides of the ocean.

The problem most people have with societal change is simply the rate at which it does so, which happens over a period of months and years. They feel that the perfect set of laws put in place will affect this change instantaneously and that cultural development demands that such laws be instituted to ensure that we as citizens operate in a moral fashion. I think most of these laws are a placebo at best. They are obeyed handily by the individual citizens who are for the most part willing to operate that way anyways, while they generally are ignored by the remainder and often fought tooth and nail until there is a massive schism between the subgroups of individuals who feel a certain way. Cultural change fortunately is automatic and self-fulfilling. Eventually, if a belief is consistently proven to be right and just for all people that is the belief that will have a tendency to become more popular after a period of time. I'm not going to jump into the revisionist history mode too much here but massive changes being shoved down the throats of freely operating individuals generally lead to massive counter-reactions if the society wasn't ready for it. I would say the Civil Rights movement was a product of the trends in society at the time, not the government or any particular law it enacted, the government just moved along with the trends.

One could look at slavery as a fine example, if one analyzes the trends of that era leading up to the Civil War one could see that slavery would not have been around for very much longer based on the way the society of that era was becoming aware of its evils, even the owners of the most prominent slave-owning institutions were beginning to feel the pressure of all the negative stigma associated with slave ownership. It would be hard to predict exactly how long society would have waited for emancipation without the proclamation, but it is significant to note that many countries did achieve this very feat without their own equivalent Civil War or Jim Crow Era. It took a fairly extreme intervention from our government to even begin to affect change, and oh the cost!

For your key point, what will a consumer do when the products and services are absolutely unavailable to them? I would add a couple modifications. What will such a consumer do TODAY when the products and services are CURRENTLY unavailable to them. It seems like a whole lot more solvable an issue, as they only have to look towards tomorrow. Truly free markets are fantastic at supplying demand, if an entrepreneur identifies a demand signal it provides the key incentive for expansion into the untapped market demographic and the opportunity to improve their market share, and sure initially they may do so at a higher-than-average price, until the next entrepreneur shows up the next day and undercuts his prices and improves their market share.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 12:29 AM
I couldn't agree more about the bolded statement. However, we're really not discussing State Rights here, we're discussing the rights of private businesses to choose who they vend their wares to. Your key point kind of applies in a "snapshot in time" analysis where you look at the precise situation that exists while ignoring trends and the fact that society, and culture in general, is perpetually in motion. For even the most powerful government entity in the modern world to significantly affect that is a similar expectation for a sandcastle wall to protect a sandcastle from the rising tides of the ocean.

The problem most people have with societal change is simply the rate at which it does so, which happens over a period of months and years. They feel that the perfect set of laws put in place will affect this change instantaneously and that cultural development demands that such laws be instituted to ensure that we as citizens operate in a moral fashion. I think most of these laws are a placebo at best. They are obeyed handily by the individual citizens who are for the most part willing to operate that way anyways, while they generally are ignored by the remainder and often fought tooth and nail until there is a massive schism between the subgroups of individuals who feel a certain way. Cultural change fortunately is automatic and self-fulfilling. Eventually, if a belief is consistently proven to be right and just for all people that is the belief that will have a tendency to become more popular after a period of time. I'm not going to jump into the revisionist history mode too much here but massive changes being shoved down the throats of freely operating individuals generally lead to massive counter-reactions if the society wasn't ready for it. I would say the Civil Rights movement was a product of the trends in society at the time, not the government or any particular law it enacted, the government just moved along with the trends.

One could look at slavery as a fine example, if one analyzes the trends of that era leading up to the Civil War one could see that slavery would not have been around for very much longer based on the way the society of that era was becoming aware of its evils, even the owners of the most prominent slave-owning institutions were beginning to feel the pressure of all the negative stigma associated with slave ownership. It would be hard to predict exactly how long society would have waited for emancipation without the proclamation, but it is significant to note that many countries did achieve this very feat without their own equivalent Civil War or Jim Crow Era. It took a fairly extreme intervention from our government to even begin to affect change, and oh the cost!

For your key point, what will a consumer do when the products and services are absolutely unavailable to them? I would add a couple modifications. What will such a consumer do TODAY when the products and services are CURRENTLY unavailable to them. It seems like a whole lot more solvable an issue, as they only have to look towards tomorrow. Truly free markets are fantastic at supplying demand, if an entrepreneur identifies a demand signal it provides the key incentive for expansion into the untapped market demographic and the opportunity to improve their market share, and sure initially they may do so at a higher-than-average price, until the next entrepreneur shows up the next day and undercuts his prices and improves their market share.

Well first off I will certainly say you are very good about giving in-depth answers. :)

To break this down piecemeal:

1) I would hardly call the 82nd Airborne a sandcastle... it seems the KKK suddenly got real quite when those guys showed up. Apparently racists are more enthusiastic about bullying little girls than armed soldiers! To say that Federal intervention doesn't work is a moot point - it has been done and does work under the right circumstances. I'm not saying the government is the magic solution to everything - it isn't. But the thing to remember, is that racists and bigots in this country tend to be cowards. You show them force, they'll back down and crawl back into their holes.

2) I agree that American slavery was an unsustainable institution - that's why the Confederacy seceded and declared war on America in the first place! For one, they didn't practice crop rotation, and constantly needed new land after the soil was exhausted. Secondly, less than 10% of whites owned slaves, and the rest lived in poverty. Social mobility in the South required land expansion, so these disenfranchised whites could acquire land and become rich slave owners themselves. With the election of Lincoln, it became apparent that the Republican Party would stonewall any attempts to gain more slave states. For the Southern way of life, war was the only solution. And frankly, I don't have any pity for them.

3) As for your "tomorrow" argument - so would you advocate passiveness? When has that EVER worked in history? May I also point out that, right from the start, America has been about aggressive action. We didn't just "wait and see" for the British to start treating us fairly!

4) And finally, your assumption that things will automatically get better for the oppressed as cultural attitudes change is based on the premise that the oppressors themselves are passive. Not the case - in the Civil Rights movement, the white racists were extremely organized - Jim Crow wasn't just a cultural norm - it was a highly organized and ruthless political and social movement. It was only defeated by the creation of an equally organized, and at times, ruthless counter-movement. Remember Jim Crow took a hundred years to defeat. A hundred years! The first attempt at a Civil Rights Act was tried in 1868... it didn't finally go through until 1964!

I for one am not a fan of just standing by and letting crimes against humanity happen. The very idea of a crowd of adults jeering and physically threatening little kids who just want to go to school... that for me is a call to action, not a call to sit down and say "don't worry, things will get better... maybe."

5) And back to the free market. The free market is all about supply and demand, and influenced by the flow of money. With enough money, I can influence it. Let's say I sell widgets. I want to destroy the widget market and knock all my competitors out of business... I can simply lower the price so much I'm actually selling at a huge loss, and simply outlast my competitors. The anti-gay agenda is, collectively, willing to spend billions of dollars every year for the ideological goal of making sure gays are never recognized as equals. To say that the free market will fix this is simply fantasy - because the free market isn't really free - it goes to the highest bidder.

RS6405
08-26-2013, 10:15 AM
Which is essentially why I state this is no longer really a legal discussion any longer, it's more geared towards the morality of the government intervening directly into commerce in such a fashion and whether businesses have a right to "discriminate" (in every definition of the term) who they vend their wares to. Is the principle of surrendering that much direct influence over the nuance of private commerce a precedent we wish to set and continue to allow? Laws have the singular advantage of having been written by men (and women), they can be rewritten if it can be determined there is a valid reason for doing so.

Here is a legal discussion.... As a lawyer, I have the right to refuse a case or terminate a client-attorney relationship on the basis that I find the issue, person, conduct or aspect repugnant to my person and that it would prevent me from providing the individual due diligence in his legal representation. How is that for irony?

Of course the State Bar might look into it, but legally, there would be no recourse.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 12:18 PM
Here is a legal discussion.... As a lawyer, I have the right to refuse a case or terminate a client-attorney relationship on the basis that I find the issue, person, conduct or aspect repugnant to my person and that it would prevent me from providing the individual due diligence in his legal representation. How is that for irony?

Of course the State Bar might look into it, but legally, there would be no recourse.

That actually is very interesting, so in effect, it gives lawyers essentially a free pass to "Do as I say, not as I do" if they choose to take a suit against an organization that selectively discriminates who it provides its services to. I'm just glad there are a few good ones out there like yourself out there, because quite frankly it scares me how much power those who practice law these days appear to have.

71Fish
08-26-2013, 12:58 PM
Why on Earth would the Klan want to hire a Jew or a black person?

Why on Earth would a gay couple hire a Christian business who refused them service?

Rusty Jones
08-26-2013, 01:03 PM
Why on Earth would a gay couple hire a Christian business who refused them service?

To piss him off.

AJBIGJ
08-26-2013, 01:06 PM
Well first off I will certainly say you are very good about giving in-depth answers. :)


Unfortunately long, in-depth answers also sometimes have a long cooldown period involved while collecting ones thoughts, doing real, productive work for society, and occasionally bedtime as well, so I apologize at delays.

In the interest of time I'll keep it short. Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking hasty action to make changes without considering all of the consequences. That's true for both very little decisions and very big ones. We have this inherent emotional need to control everything going on around us without considering the fact that some things are due to happen anyways. Sometimes it is preferable to let society change on its own (it always does, infallibly, often despite governmental intervention). So yes, sometimes doing nothing is a very viable option.

garhkal
08-26-2013, 05:42 PM
To piss him off.

Or to rub it in their nose that they can do this, force them to take their pictures.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 06:04 PM
Exactly.. Society already allows discrimination to go on, but seems to only say it's ok when its against the "Normally majority groups" Such as the ladies nights (never anywhere that does a mens night) or all those fitness centers that are "Women only" (even to the point some won't HIRE men).

You are of course aware that there are more men than women right?