Segregated single sex populations cannot be characterized as having a choice, however. Male prisoners cannot “choose” women; it is hardly a fair comparison to include them in the population of those who “choose” to have homosexual sex.
True. I was responding to the specific phrasing in your earlier post. They ‘choose’ gay sex over masturbation or no sex, even if it would not be their choice in a freer circumstance.
My earlier post was in the context of choice. Sorry that was not clear.
Sure, you can try; as long as you are holding the party away from any place that you work (and probably also away from any place that you have access to based solely upon your job).
Better to have the party at your home. And keep it discreet. If any of your caucasian guests lets it slip to a non-caucasian co-worker that you’re prone to doing this kind of thing, it could precipitate the formation of a hostile (or at least toxic) work environment.
I have non idea why spell-check wants to insist that I capitalize “Caucasian.” It’s probably bigoted.
I suppose you are asking whether a specialization would violate the NM public accommodation law?
any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation[,] or physical or mental handicap.
Whether there is a violation of the law above is contingent upon what the specialty itself is based on. If the specialty is based on a characteristic enumerated in the non-discrimination law itself, then you are likely in violation of the law, assuming you are also a public accommodation.
For example, a photographer who only takes photographs of gay weddings is A.) Obviously capable, in his or her own mind, to take pictures of weddings and B.) Conditioning their service on the basis of sexual orientation, specifically, the photographer will photograph only same sex marriages and not heterosexual marriages. The photographer’s specialty is specializing in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
If, however, you as a photographer are declining to take pictures on the basis you do not photograph weddings, any wedding, then this is not a violation of the NM law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Your reason for refusing service is not because of sexual orientation but because you do not photograph weddings.
If you refuse service for some reason other than those categories enumerated under the law prohibiting discrimination, then there likely isn’t a violation of the specific and particular law itself.
This an argument Elane made, which was she did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but rather on the content of the message, specifically her disagreement with the content of the speech and/or she cannot be compelled to engage in speech or expressive conduct she disagrees with.
No, it isnt.
Just because you participate in hetero acts, doesnt mean youre hetero. My friends partner was engaged to wed a woman, and he is gay.
Additionally, (my perception is this is more common with females then males) that women are more apt to be sexually active with another woman, while being hetero.
Thus, they arent gay, or maybe even bi, they just had a homosexual event
Essentially, there is evidence but no real determination. At no time in my friends life, was he ever attracted to a female in a physical way. Never (by his statement)
He has been sexually active since 14. Always with males.
I’ll cringe sllightly on this one. The studies are sufficiently muddled between what is genetic vs what is congenital. Slight, very slight, difference there.
Regardless, I don’t think it should matter in the slightest as to what protections should be afforded as a matter of public policy.
I believe him but you’re missing the point. I was saying there are biological causes other than genes. Saying homosexuality is genetic is premature and not supported by much evidence. I’m not sure there’s any, actually - it might just be wrong. Generally speaking, sexuality is thought to be determined by a combination of different things including biology (prenatal hormones seem to be the big one) and environmental factors.
Things are really black or white in your world.
This is a slippery slope, people! First the government will force GEEPERS to photograph a gay wedding. Then, it will force him to marry a gay person.
Now I’m wondering if someone could change their specialty from “wedding photography” to “bridal photography”. At the very least, this should protect them from having to cover about half of those icky “untraditional” weddings.
First - define ‘Bride’
then - in the course of taking ‘bridal’ pictures, is the groom present? the family? is it before/during/after a ceremony or get together? is it a portrait type (in a studio) or at a gathering? Is it only ever the one ‘person’ (the bride) ?
Even worse a gay person would be forced to marry GEEPERS
Well, if a hypothetical photographer changed all their literature from “wedding photography” to “bridal photography”, would they seriously have to answer these kinds of dictionary questions, as well as have to explain the details of how they take pictures? The service they offer is “bridal photography”, with pictures of people near the bride taken for the sake of thoroughness. If you want to nitpick them, go call the grammar police.
Actually, I’m wondering if we might see a division between “wedding photographers” and “bridal photographers” (or “traditional wedding photographers”) with the latter designation being code for “we’re going to resist to the maximum legal extent possible accepting any bookings for gay weddings, i.e. telling you off the bat that we’ve already been hired that day, so you may as well find someone else unless you’re determined to make a stink about it, in which case we’ll shoot your sinful ceremony under silent accidentally-on-purpose-out-of-focus protest.”
Seems like an overreach to me. If you can find a photographer that will do it close by for a similar price theres no reason to force someone who doesn’t want to to do the work. I mean I think the guy who doesn’t want to is an idiot and a douchebag but he/she shouldn’t be forced to. I do think it should be illegal to charge more for one than the other though.
My only point was that the term ‘Bride’ is ambiguous, and that they would likely still fall short of the non-discrimination test (when they refuse to take pictures at Joe Bride’s wedding).
Im not sure you realize what you just said. My opinion isnt black and white. Im saying just the opposite in fact.
Well, I don’t see how anyone would not consider photography to be an artistic work. Regardless of the end use, hiring a photographer would seem to, by definition, be hiring someone to perform an artistic service. Hence, calling it “hiring a photographer”, not “renting a camera”.
I would be against a government enforced censorship of an artist’s work. This seems like the mirror image of that.
Really? Because you’re saying that people are either x or y.