I see a miniseries. The Undocumented. Tales of the millions of people who have never had their visage immortalized. Tonight’s episode, Homely Henrietta.
ETA: Goddammit, by appearing in an episode it wrecks the premise. Never mind.
It could work with a Carlton the Doorman type setup.
It does manage to be ethically terrible and completely goofy at the same time. That’s not easy.
Are you suggesting that when someone’s legal rights are being withheld, that they simply forget about it and move on? That these folks just try to be good little gays, and not make waves when they are discriminated against? That they should just go away and hope to find someone who does not break the law?
If someone does not insist that their legal rights are upheld, they have pretty much voluntarily surrendered those rights. I hope that is not what you believe is an appropriate action.
ETA:
Is this a whoosh? Or what? You can’t be serious.
Well, theoretically. But only pro-choicers have abortions. Again - what?
Are you not following my train of thought? A pharmacist can also refuse BC to a woman even though women are the only ones who need birth control.*
*in pill form
Well, I’d hope you’d understand that what happens in a NJ court doesn’t affect what happens in my home state. There are also states that don’t protect same sex couples in the wedding industry, but NM has no bearing on that until it reaches SCOTUS.
Do you extend this to clergy as well?
That, and it flies in the face of something that’s been mentioned about 5,000 times during the thread: by that logic, black people shouldn’t have eaten lunch in Southern cities.
It’s hard to take a question this asinine seriously.
Does this pharmacist also refuse to give women high blood pressure medication? antibiotics? analgesics? If he doesn’t refuse to give women other pills, it is clear his discrimination is NOT based on the person’s sex.
Of course, I personally think a Pharmacist that refuses to dispense legal medication should take up a new line of work, but that’s beside the point for this thread.
Are they selling something? Providing a service or product in exchange for money? Then yeah, they can’t discriminate over sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.
That logic may have been used to justify Jim Crow and Apartheid, but it wasn’t actually used by many of the people who had to follow it. Many people didn’t like following it.
Jim Crow and Apartheid were laws, specifically because there were people willing to do business in a non-discriminatory manner. That would put the ones who wanted to discriminate at a competitive disadvantage. Hence, laws that compelled everyone to play by the discrimination rule. I don’t know about South Africa, but in the southern US, there were many business owners that hated Jim Crow, because it compelled them to needlessly duplicate facilities and services, and compelled them to turn away customers, even if they were at less than maximum capacity, just because the potential customer was “the wrong color” for the underutilized facility.
If the majority had actually supported Jim Crow, rather than merely being to apathetic to oppose them (as was the actual case), you would have seen much more resistance to the Civil Rights Act after it was passed.
Pretending for a moment that that’s actually true, it’s not an issue here. It is not against the law to refuse to sell those pills, and it’s not discrimination against pro-choices - again, a non-protected class as far as I know - it’s refusing to sell them to anyone. (And it probably should be illegal to refuse that kind of service in my opinion. If you don’t want to dispense drugs, don’t be a pharmacist. That’s a case where a public accomodation law would apply very well.)
It wasn’t in my home state either, and I was making reference to a precedent, not assuming you knew about it. I am pretty sure it was discussed earlier in the thread.
No. Clergy don’t make their services available to the general public, they make their services available to believers and their congregation. They make it explicit that they cant refuse to marry two people. If a church has an accomodation that it rents out to the general public, it can’t discriminate against protected classes for religious reasons. That was the case in the example discussed earlier where a church (or congregation) was sued successfuly.
Actually, it’s exactly the point of this thread. If the photographer doesn’t want to serve customers the law says they must, should the photographer take up a new line of work?
If the law stays on the books and applies to her, what other option is there? Unless she can do business while deliberately flouting the law and getting sued over and over, that is.
I wasn’t disagreeing with the premise, I was pointing out to the other poster that it’s the same question in this thread as the pharmacist example.
I agree it’s a very similar issue. Like I said earlier, it’s surprising that it hasn’t been discussed more here, but this has mostly been focused on the photographer and the New Mexico public accomodation law.
I don’t know why he’d “understand” that, because it’s not true. Certainly the decisional law of another state is not binding on the courts of your own state, but the courts of your state will certainly look at the approach the courts of other states have taken when deciding an issue for the first time.
No,you are confused.
“Public accommodation” does not mean “public place” in common parlance. We’re talking about Public accommodation in the sense of legal definitions of civil rights.
Conceptually, it’s very similar, though there’s no law that requires pharmacists to treat all legal medications equally. I just didn’t want to sidetrack this thread with an abortion pill debate.
Still, linguistics confusions aside, my point stands: a Church an its recption hall are not “public accomodation”, therefore my hypothetical Chatolic-wedding-only photographer can get by without breaking the law.
A reception hall is “public accommodation” if the church acts as a business by renting it out to members of the public at large, rather than just to members of it’s closed congregation. This would be particularly true if the church generally advertises via public means (newspaper, etc) rather than by something like a church bulletin, which only goes to congregation members.
Even though the Church building itself is open to the public to see or visit, it is not generally considered a “public accommodation”, since it is used for it’s intended purpose only by members of the church, not by the public, and is not rented to the general public for use.