Reserving the right to refuse service (Is it a violation of the constitution and human rights?)

Hotair ^ | 08/23/2013 | Erika Johnsen

[SeekAndFind]

In yet another topic sure to enrage, Sterling Beard – writing at The Corner – catches up with the latest news on a strange case coming to us from New Mexico. It’s now gone all the way to the state Supreme Court, and the story may be at an end. In case you hadn’t heard, wedding photographers can’t refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding or they have violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.

Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

AP covered this story when it hit the last level in the courts, but it’s one of those areas of the law that always leave me scratching my head. When you’re talking about services provided by the government, there’s no question in cases like this. The government can’t refuse to grant a drivers license or a fishing license or what have you to somebody just because they are Jewish or black or gay or female, etc. Everyone pays for the government and everyone is entitled to equal treatment and availability of services offered. Simple enough. But what of the private sector?

When you raise the specter of “reserving the right to refuse service” in private enterprise, one of the first images evoked is the famous Whites Only Lunch Counter. Now, if you are one of the hardest of the hard core, Big L Libertarians, you’ll claim that this is still too great of an intrusion of government control on private enterprise. The argument goes that the owner will prosper or suffer as a result of the policy as the market dictates. Black diners clearly need to eat, so other competition will rise to fill that vacuum. And in the extreme case, enough people will be angered by the policy that the restricted lunch counter will be driven out of business. It’s the Invisible Hand in action.. it either high fives your or smacks you down.

But still, that image makes many, many people feel extremely uncomfortable. Maybe the government has to step in. But if they do, the policy seems to be rather selectively enforced, doesn’t it? How about when Hooters refuses to serve anyone who is a Mayor who is a serial sexually inappropriate actor? How do eateries refuse service to people with no shirt or no shoes if it’s not illegal to go barefoot or without a top? (For men, at least.) For a less silly example, how about when many cemeteries refused to bury the body of the Boston Marathon bomber? Funeral homes tend to frequently be smaller, family run operations just like photography studios, often run out of people’s homes. Could they be sued for refusing service? If so, I never heard of anyone suggesting it. But in this case, because the photographer turned down the job for a gay wedding, they have now lost in court at every level and will pay for it in cash.

This may be the wrong side of the law here, but I’m left pondering one comment I saw on Twitter shortly after this news came out.

I’m not even one of the people who oppose gay marriage, as many of you know by now, but this story just seems wrong. I suppose this is why I’m not a lawyer.

[5thGenTexan]

To the tweet's point: it's not about getting pictures at a wedding. It's about gay-facists targeting those who disagree with them to destroy them.

With that in mind, what do you think happens if the photographer 'does a bad job' as has been suggested? They get sued for intentionally doing a bad job (again, framed as a discrimination charge), review-bombed by the gay-facists and probably run out of business.

[Taxman]

This is just more of the “We’re Queer, We’re Here” in your face aggression we have seen homosexuals use to advance their agenda.

IMHO, EVERY business owner has the right to refuse service for any reason he/she chooses. A business license is not a dictator license!

[5thGenTexan]

It’s not about getting pictures at the wedding. I bet this photographer was targeted because their views on homosexuality were known.

[Lera]

And the perverts couldn’t just find another photographer?

Of course they could but they would rather bankrupt a Christian photographer and make him pay.

[driftless2]

I think private owners have the right to refuse service to people for non-essential services. In short, nobody should be denied access to food, clothing, shelter, medical services, etc. But there are female only and male only clubs. For instance, I am denied access to certain female-oriented weight loss businesses. That is their right. There are other orgs. I can’t join because I’m not the right ethnicity. So what.

[PATRIOT1876]

* They can force them to take pictures, but he can just overexpose them or catch the subjects in foolish poses.

They cannot force him or her to do a good job. They should require full payment up front. *

VERY good idea!

[5thGenTexan]

Maybe there needs to be an organized effort to target the gay business community.

I know it's extreme, but think about getting straight men to go into a gay strip clubs, demanding they get to see some females up on the stage. Have them claiming that their sexual orientation was discriminated against. Use the EXACT language the gay groups do. Force the gay community to publicly condemn the very language they use.

When they are told they should go to another establishment, use this photographer ruling and the others like it as precedent. Make them admit they want privilege, not equality.

[Wiser now]

So why don’t the lesbians have to compromise and respect the views of Christians? Hmmmmm?
Shouldn’t their rights stop where mine begin? The homosexual lobby is using the courts to persecute Christians.

[mosaicwolf]

..."at some point in our lives all of us must compromise..."

Really? Well, I don't have to compromise with anyone that I don't want to. How do you like me so far?

[RobinOfKingston]

If there is no right to refuse service, how can a drunk be cut off in a bar??

[austinaero]

Same sex marriage isn’t yet legal in NM,,it’s still being discussed in the courts,,,and yet the NM Supreme Court compels a business to photograph and illegal ceremony because the participants were gay.

I hope SCOTUS overturns this. I have my doubts but still hope for the right ruling.

[BuffaloJack]

It’s no longer a melting pot here.
Diversity is forcing us to a collection of separate frozen groups of individuals who will never melt together.

[MinuteGal]

Armed robber to store owner: "Your money or your life"

Store owner to robber: "Take your pick. I'm not allowed by law to refuse your demand for anything in this store."

Don't laugh.

Leni

[ChiefJayStrongbow]

i would just get money up front and do the worst job ever. maximum zoom and nothing but nostrils.

[Steve_Seattle]

It is not unusual to see restaurants with a sign that says "we retain the right to refuse service to anyone," and to my knowledge no state attorney general has come after those restaurants. The practice of "86ing" customers from bars is also widespread. Then there are entertainers who refuse to allow their music to be used by Republican political candidates, and they are allowed to get away with that. What if a liberal printing company is asked to print brochures for a white supremacist group and refuses, despite laws banning discrimination based on creed, ideology, or political affiliation? And what of Muslim cabbies who refuse to serve people who appear gay or to have been drinking?

What principles do we invoke, and when? I know a few liberals who support gay marriage but also oppose the law going after businesses that want nothing to do with gay marriage. How do we ban race discrimination while allowing other forms of discrimination? Or are we forced into the "exreme" libertarian position that government stays out of ALL of these matters?

One argument available happens to be one that I don't particularly like, an argument used against government regulation of abortion, the "compelling interest" argument, which says that government cannot prohibit something when there is no compelling governmental interest to do so. What compelling interest can the government possibly have in forcing every florist or baker or photographer in town to service gay weddings? In most towns , there are alternatives.

Another possible alternative - which might sound a bit goofy - is to extend the "conscientious objector" principle from military matters to gay marriage matters, to allow people to "conscientiously object" to direct or indirect participation in a gay marriage by filing an official declaration of grave, religious-based moral objection to the practice.

[Safetgiver]

About five (?) years ago my retired, working part-time friend was working in a convenience store when a guy burst in, put a pistol to a stocker’s head and said “Give me your money or I’ll kill him!” My buddy looked at the robber and said “Go ahead and kill him, I never liked him anyways”. The robber was flustered and said “I mean it.” my buddy shrugged with a ‘so what?’ attitude. The robber turned and ran out. The kid who was stocking shelves hates him to this day.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Same sex marriage isn’t yet legal in NM,,it’s still being discussed in the courts,,,and yet the NM Supreme Court compels a business to photograph and illegal ceremony because the participants were gay."

It was not an illegal ceremony, it was some kind of non-binding "commitment" ceremony, not a wedding, and that was not an issue in the trial.

[Steve_Seattle]

"In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Unless you are gay, in which you do not need to accommodate people who disagree with your lifestyle and can - in fact - get them fined or thrown in jail.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It is not unusual to see restaurants with a sign that says “we retain the right to refuse service to anyone,” and to my knowledge no state attorney general has come after those restaurants.

So, why doesn’t a photography business make the same sign?

[Steve_Seattle]

"So, why doesn’t a photography business make the same sign?"

In the restaurant business, there are people who are known to have skipped out on the tab, who loiter and take up space while spending almost no money, who have caused trouble for the staff, and unkempt people who will drive away other customers. It's not quite the same situation in photography.