- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS declines NM photographer First Amendment case
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:45 pm
Does this put the future of Mississippi's newly enacted law in doubt? Or is this somehow different? I'm not sure.
LINK
quote:
Today the Supreme Court turned away a photography business's claim that it had a First Amendment right to break New Mexico public accommodations law and discriminate against gay customers.
No court has ever held that a business has a First Amendment right to discriminate in the commercial marketplace. For over 150 years, states have passed public accommodation laws saying that if a business voluntarily decides to open its doors to the public, they can't pick and choose which customers they will serve.
But Elane Photography – which sells commercial photography services for weddings and other events – has argued that it does not have to follow the normal rules that apply to every other business in New Mexico because taking photographs is a form of protected speech, which requires artistic creativity. If Elane Photography were right, then photography businesses would have a First Amendment right to discriminate against any customer for any reason. Under Elane Photography's argument, an interracial family could walk into the portrait studio in the local shopping mall and be turned away because the photographer does not want to take a picture of interracial couples.
The same groups that have been backing recent efforts to give businesses the right to turn away gay customers have been eagerly following the Elane Photography case because they know that Elane Photography's argument would create a gigantic loophole in the protection of public accommodation laws. Numerous business interactions could be characterized as containing an expressive element.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:51 pm to Toddy
Eh, a denial of writ means nothing. And this was a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court, which may have proved to be an ineffectual vehicle.
I wouldn't read anything into this Toddy.
I wouldn't read anything into this Toddy.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:10 pm to Toddy
quote:I think the decision was correct legally. Under the law a business can't pick and choose which customers they will serve. That part is simple enough.
SCOTUS declines NM photographer First Amendment case
However, what I think the courts didn't anticipate when the laws were enacted and reinforced through the courts is that the day would arrive when groups would intentionally target businesses who do not want their business. Seriously, what's next? Will a Jewish deli be forced to cater the Hitler birthday bash of a Neo-Nazi group?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:11 pm to Toddy
The bigger question is: why would you want to do business with hardcore bigots? And what does this decision ultimately mean other than other such business owners will just provide purposely shitty service to folks they can't turn away?
Better by far to know who you are (or aren't) dealing with.
Better by far to know who you are (or aren't) dealing with.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:16 pm to Bard
quote:
The bigger question is: why would you want to do business with hardcore bigots? And what does this decision ultimately mean other than other such business owners will just provide purposely shitty service to folks they can't turn away?
Exactly. I don't believe I would purchase a wedding cake, or anything edible, from someone who considered me an abomination and who didn't want to bake one for me. I'd look elsewhere.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:19 pm to Toddy
I would personally like business to openly discriminate instead of hiding it.. It allows me, the consumer, the opportunity to not give them any business and to honestly challenge their behavior through my first amendment rights.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:19 pm to Holden Caulfield
Can we say Supreme Court instead of SCOTUS? Even you, Toddy?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:23 pm to L.A.
quote:
However, what I think the courts didn't anticipate when the laws were enacted and reinforced through the courts is that the day would arrive when groups would intentionally target businesses who do not want their business. Seriously, what's next? Will a Jewish deli be forced to cater the Hitler birthday bash of a Neo-Nazi group?
If you didn't see this coming, you should look back at the Americans with Disabilities Act. Good, and probably necessary legislation, but a whole subset of ADA trolls have developed who attend businesses with the express purpose of finding violations.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:24 pm to FalseProphet
and a whole new set of prejudiced people who commit these violations
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:29 pm to FalseProphet
The ADA has been a thorn in my side for years. good intentions with some horrible consequences..
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:38 pm to TROLA
Toddy, in all honesty (and I know this is a very personal issue for you), but do you spend your entire day every day fighting the battles of gay discrimination on the internet? If so, what fruits do you have for your arduous labor?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:40 pm to L.A.
quote:
Under the law a business can't pick and choose which customers they will serve.
Then what's up with bars putting signs outside that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Is it just because the normal customer won't know any better?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:41 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
If so, what fruits do you have for your arduous labor?
Isn't that a bit personal?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:41 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
If you didn't see this coming, you should look back at the Americans with Disabilities Act. Good, and probably necessary legislation, but a whole subset of ADA trolls have developed who attend businesses with the express purpose of finding violations.
The only good thing about the ADA is requiring accomodations in government offices/buildings.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:42 pm to Mac
If a business is open to the public, it must serve everyone. No discrimination.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:47 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:That would be a reasonable and logical conclusion.
Exactly. I don't believe I would purchase a wedding cake, or anything edible, from someone who considered me an abomination and who didn't want to bake one for me. I'd look elsewhere
However, we are not dealing with either of those characteristics in this case.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:47 pm to Mac
quote:My guess is that it has something to do with not having to serve alcohol to someone who is already drunk.
Then what's up with bars putting signs outside that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Is it just because the normal customer won't know any better?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:49 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
I honestly find this whole dynamic rather interesting. It's a battle of beliefs.
When I was in private practice I saw a lot of couples for therapy. I had a few gay and Lesbian couples as well. With very few exceptions all of the stresses and problems facing these folks (hetero- and homo-sexual) were the same.
I ended up seeing a lot more homosexual couples for one reason. They all attended the same church which accepted their sexuality. I did not care one way or the other. To me, people who are struggling with something are the people I help. The church's pastor and I talked about it and next thing I know I'm seeing 10 different couples!
Is this not supposed to be the way things work?
When I was in private practice I saw a lot of couples for therapy. I had a few gay and Lesbian couples as well. With very few exceptions all of the stresses and problems facing these folks (hetero- and homo-sexual) were the same.
I ended up seeing a lot more homosexual couples for one reason. They all attended the same church which accepted their sexuality. I did not care one way or the other. To me, people who are struggling with something are the people I help. The church's pastor and I talked about it and next thing I know I'm seeing 10 different couples!
Is this not supposed to be the way things work?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News