In the opinion that was linked to on an earlier page, the studio stipulated that the creation of a contract is a part of its business practices. When I first read that portion of the document, I initially thought that it referred to a contract that had actually been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.
A more careful re-reading allowed me to correct my error.
You bolded the “any person”, suggesting that it applied to all people - I added the additional bolding to the qualifier “in”, which implies that its not people, per se, but people that are a public acccomidation - ie ‘business owners’ - the rule would not just apply to people that might free lance services, but to people that own/operate a business.
It may not have been the distinction you were intending to make - but that is how I read it at the time.
Wow, that’s kind of a peremptory tone you’re taking. Are you even the boss of her?
nm. Ninja’d.
A (Catholic) church and its reception hall aren’t “public”. The reception hall is “members only”.
Assuming the “matter” has presented itself “long before now” which quite simply isn’t true as “you pretend.”. Anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation for the most part haven’t been around very long as “you pretend” and their potential implication of free speech rights in regards to photography is a “matter” which has not been around “long before now.”
Some “clear-cut” issues quite simply take awhile to find themselves litigated in a court room.
The Court has, however, addressed the issue of anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the context of speech and speech compulsion. The Court ruled, in Hurley, the anti-discrimination law on the basis of sexual orientation cannot be used to compel accommodation to gays and lesbians when to do so would constitute as speech and therefore, speech compulsion by the government.
No, I understand it. Perhaps you have been remissed in failing to notice in different posts to different posters making the same point I have admitted this “may be true” or “maybe so” or “perhaps” because this is a “novel” issue not addressed by the Court or the federal courts at the present time.
I just disagree with this position in part because of the reasons and law I have provided.
My response wasn’t used in relation to the 1st Amendment but to address your idea people, when looking at photographs, never wonder who took the picture. This quite simply isn’t true. This isn’t particularly germane to the 1st Amendment question but I thought I’d address your digression.
I never said it did but I did post criteria used in a series of cases, including a U.S. Supreme Court case, in which they have held photographs can contain a message, are expressive, the photographs in the case at issue in those decisions were expressive, they were speech, and the criteria for them to be expressive.
I am simply relying upon what the Court and federal appellate courts have said when photographs are said to be expressive. As a result, you can criticize the federal judiciary for “painting expressive conduct with too broad a brush.”
The flaw with your argument is it is not true all businesses product something, or anything, which constitutes as speech or expressive conduct.
Furthermore, your analogy is a false one. Discrimination is not permitted because the company creates products constituting as speech or expression. The fact you create a product possessing expression or message does not suggest you can discriminate against people on the in employment on the basis of race or some other criteria and this is not and never has been my argument.
Rather, the discrimination is permitted because the action itself constitutes as expression and to engage in this expressive conduct by compulsion under the statute constitutes as speech compulsion. In your example, you referenced “hiring” and refusal to hire but hiring is not and has never been held to be expressive conduct, like photography. So, your equivocation between hiring and photography is an error.
Yeah so? I never said otherwise.
No, actually I did not make this suggestion. Rather, my “bold” was made in a direct response to another poster and their specific comment. My statement included the qualifier you talk about so it is rather, well, untenable to think I was making any suggestion it applied to all people especially when I included the qualifying language. I was in fact, addressing a specific point of another poster and the context is rather important in undestanding why I emphasized the words “any person” among the words in the entire phrase.
AFAICT the homsexual agenda is a name given by conservative Christians to the fact that homosexuality is a very normal and natural occurance in a certain % of human beings.
They refuse to accept this fact as reality and the evil agenda is to get this simple fact recognized.
It’s akin to creationists calling evolution the “scientific agenda” as if science itself is plotting against thier religious freedom to live in ignorant denial.
I’m going to take a guess here that a business cannot side-step laws on lunch counter equality just because their servers are “sandwich artists” or even if there are actual artistic components to the food and service (e.g. Teppanyaki or elaborately arranged Bento).
Since it was you who quoted law pertaining public places when I has specified “Catholic weddings”…
Yeah, generally “the homosexual agenda” is shorthand for “people are trying to get us to stop being revolting, hateful, ignorant, mean little bigots, and to instead make us treat homosexuals like human beings and stop denying them civil rights. We don’t want none of that, and we’ll keep on smiting teh ghey out of our Love for mankind.”
Don’t forget they believe it’s also an attempt to recruit more people to the gay lifestyle.
I never quoted a law pertaining to public places. You most certainly have me confused with someone else.
Some examples, please? There was social pressure against intermarriage and other such close relationships (and still is, for that matter), but even a hundred years ago few sects forbade all interaction whatsoever.
Just to clarify a vague phrasing, “social pressure” means interracial relationships or marriage were illegal in many states.
He’s referring to a post about religious prohibitions, not legal ones. I can’t think of any mainstream religious group other than the CJCLDS that openly discriminated against blacks 50 years ago.
Ptooey. You want to use the power of the state to punish people who don’t conform to your ideology. If she doesn’t want to photograph a wedding for whatever reason, the state has no business penalizing her for refusing to do so. Barring unusual circumstances, you don’t have a “basic human right” to require others to do business with you or associate with you if they don’t want to.
Getting your feelings hurt because someone doesn’t approve of the way you live is not a violation of your “human rights.”
He made much too wide a claim. A few sects prohibited any interaction, but the vast majority did not. Not even in the Bad Old Days.
Just to be clear, you feel that a business like a restaurant has the right to not serve people based on the color of their skin?