Started By
Message
locked post

SCOTUS declines NM photographer First Amendment case

Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted by Toddy
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
27250 posts
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.

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 by FalseProphet
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
11706 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:51 pm to
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.
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32176 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:54 pm to
Don't know. Don't care.
Posted by L.A.
The Mojave Desert
Member since Aug 2003
61182 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

SCOTUS declines NM photographer First Amendment case
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.

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 by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51394 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:11 pm to
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.
Posted by Holden Caulfield
Hanging with J.D.
Member since May 2008
8308 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:16 pm to
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 by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
12288 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:19 pm to
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 by JEAUXBLEAUX
Bayonne, NJ
Member since May 2006
55358 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:19 pm to
Can we say Supreme Court instead of SCOTUS? Even you, Toddy?
Posted by FalseProphet
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
11706 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:23 pm to
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 by JEAUXBLEAUX
Bayonne, NJ
Member since May 2006
55358 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:24 pm to
and a whole new set of prejudiced people who commit these violations
Posted by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
12288 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:29 pm to
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 by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
98071 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:36 pm to
The SCOTUS also declined to take on the NSA metadata challenge LINK
Posted by DeltaDoc
The Delta
Member since Jan 2008
16089 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:38 pm to
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 by Mac
Forked Island, USA
Member since Nov 2007
14656 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:40 pm to
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 by Erin Go Bragh
Beyond the Pale
Member since Dec 2007
14916 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:41 pm to
quote:

If so, what fruits do you have for your arduous labor?

Isn't that a bit personal?
Posted by MFn GIMP
Member since Feb 2011
19260 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:41 pm to
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 by JEAUXBLEAUX
Bayonne, NJ
Member since May 2006
55358 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:42 pm to
If a business is open to the public, it must serve everyone. No discrimination.
Posted by Mahootney
Lovin' My German Footprint
Member since Sep 2008
11872 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

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
That would be a reasonable and logical conclusion.

However, we are not dealing with either of those characteristics in this case.
Posted by L.A.
The Mojave Desert
Member since Aug 2003
61182 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

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?
My guess is that it has something to do with not having to serve alcohol to someone who is already drunk.
Posted by Paluka
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
10763 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:49 pm to
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?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram