We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to ANYBODY

[Samuraipizzaguy]

I'm sorry, I can choose who I do and don't want to provide services to. That's my choice as a business owner. If I choose to be a jackass and a bigot, then so be it.

Bollocks. Do you allow bus companies to refuse service to blacks because they're run by a racist?

A bus company like the city bus? That's a public service.

You can discriminate against somebody because they don't have shoes, or a shirt(no shirt no shoes no service). You can discriminate against somebody because he's a male, or ugly. (try getting into a nice bar where there is a line). Or how about against somebody because they don't have on a suit(dress codes). How about against somebody because they are white(affirmative action) or against somebody who makes too much money (low income housing). Private property belongs to the owner of the property, if they don't like you, they can tell you to get the f*ck out. I don't care what their reason is, it's their property, their building, their business etc.

Exactly my point.
Plus i don't see in the constitution of any state or of the federal government that gives them the enumerated power to take money from a buisness because of discrimination. Yes the government itself, and it's property cannot discriminate but private buisnesses can do what ever the hell they want.
Look i'm not a racist at all in fact my best friend is black, and my ex-girlfriend is jewish. So you have no worry about me not providing buisness to anybody.
However i believe this dispute should not have gone to the courts. They should have worked it out amongst themselves.

[jay_a2j]

A bus company like the city bus? That's a public service.

You can discriminate against somebody because they don't have shoes, or a shirt(no shirt no shoes no service). You can discriminate against somebody because he's a male, or ugly. (try getting into a nice bar where there is a line). Or how about against somebody because they don't have on a suit(dress codes). How about against somebody because they are white(affirmative action) or against somebody who makes too much money (low income housing). Private property belongs to the owner of the property, if they don't like you, they can tell you to get the f*ck out. I don't care what their reason is, it's their property, their building, their business etc.

I agree. And that goes for the smoking ban as well. If I own a business and I want to allow smoking in MY establishment, YOU do not have to come in OR work here...it would be your choice. Yet another fine example of the government overstepping its bounds.

[PLAYER57832]

... I have to disagree.

... I don't pretend to understand law beyond the realm of speeding tickets and DUI's, but it seems quite reasonable to me (even if I disagree with gay marriage) that the plaintifs have cause.

... Business is separated from personal beliefs when you put your product or service out there for the greater public to take advantage, at least that's my own take on it.

... Folks are moaning about religious rights but it was the responsibility of this business to investigate the effects and possible consequences of integrating their belief system into their business practices.

... Am I wrong?

...

I agree, but I am not lawyer, either.

One thing about inbestigating the legalities, though.. often that is impossible. I will never forget the time I called to get details on business rules from a state agency. Getting shuffled from person to person was to be expected, but when I finally got to someone who knew, I then asked OK, so this is what I can go on ..? They asked me which county I lived in and then said Oh, no I don't take that county, you better talk to "Mary". I got ahold of "Mary" and asked OK, so this is what goes in my county?

The response? "Well I only have this position for a year. I cannot gaurantee the next person will see it this way." I mean, I was talking about structural building issues, not something that would be changed on a whim and these were STATE regulations, not county ones!

To be fair, oftentimes the implementation of laws is only decided by judication. Still, if an agency is going to fine you for non-compliance, then they ought to be able to tell you what the rules are before they fine you!

[SultanOfSurreal]

Look i'm not a racist at all in fact my best friend is black, and my ex-girlfriend is jewish. So you have no worry about me not providing buisness to anybody.

A YELLOW FLAG HAS BEEN THROWN DOWN


Samuraipizzaguy. usage of "I have black friends" gambit. pizzaguy will be penalized 15 yards.

[pimpdave]

One thing about inbestigating the legalities, though.. often that is impossible. I will never forget the time I called to get details on business rules from a state agency...

I mean, I was talking about structural building issues, not something that would be changed on a whim and these were STATE regulations, not county ones!

To be fair, oftentimes the implementation of laws is only decided by judication. Still, if an agency is going to fine you for non-compliance, then they ought to be able to tell you what the rules are before they fine you!

You'd be surprised what you can find through your local library. Often times, the librarians themselves are very talented (depending on what kind of municipality you live in, in a major city, they all have Masters in Library Science, it seems, often paid for by the city, while they work) and will gladly help you track down what you're looking for, like book detectives.

Experienced librarians can be the difference between early success and hours of needless slogging. At the very least, they can point you in the best position from which to begin. That said, if you live near a university or county library within reasonable driving distance, go there. Find someone with skills.

Since these regulations are delegated by the state, you might also be able to just call the clerk for whatever judge hears such cases. You can find out which judge in the library. Should be simple enough. The clerk can probably tell you what laws cover the question at hand, and you can then look them up in the reference books in the library. Once you know the title and code, or whatever they call it, you can find the laws yourself. They will include the penalties.

Has your issue been resolved?

[HapSmo19]

You'd be surprised what you can find through your local library. Often times, the librarians themselves are very talented (depending on what kind of municipality you live in, in a major city, they all have Masters in Library Science, it seems, often paid for by the city, while they work) and will gladly help you track down what you're looking for, like book detectives.

Yeah, we called it the dewey decimal system(not to be confused with the DUI decimal system[in which I have a masters degree]) in 2nd or 3rd grade and it didn't take me eight years of college to learn it.

[b.k. barunt]

I wonder why no one else has brought this up, but being the shit stirring old fooker that i am . . .

Don't we now see clearly what the big todo about gay marriage really is? It's not about perky tax breaks that married couples get, as is the usual gay response (right sultan?), but it is in fact about forcing their values (or lack thereof) on the rest of us. State approved marital rights give gays VALIDITY and that's what they want above all else. They want it illegal for any of us heterosexuals to remind them in any way that it just might be a little weird for a man to lust after the hairy ass of another man.

We should all prepare for the deluge of civil suits now. This is how the gay community repays public tolerance - it's never gonna be enough.



Honibaz

[jay_a2j]

I wonder why no one else has brought this up, but being the shit stirring old fooker that i am . . .

Don't we now see clearly what the big todo about gay marriage really is? It's not about perky tax breaks that married couples get, as is the usual gay response (right sultan?), but it is in fact about forcing their values (or lack thereof) on the rest of us. State approved marital rights give gays VALIDITY and that's what they want above all else. They want it illegal for any of us heterosexuals to remind them in any way that it just might be a little weird for a man to lust after the hairy ass of another man.

We should all prepare for the deluge of civil suits now. This is how the gay community repays public tolerance - it's never gonna be enough.



Honibaz

Well said!

[PLAYER57832]

One thing about inbestigating the legalities, though.. often that is impossible. I will never forget the time I called to get details on business rules from a state agency...

I mean, I was talking about structural building issues, not something that would be changed on a whim and these were STATE regulations, not county ones!

To be fair, oftentimes the implementation of laws is only decided by judication. Still, if an agency is going to fine you for non-compliance, then they ought to be able to tell you what the rules are before they fine you!

You'd be surprised what you can find through your local library. Often times, the librarians themselves are very talented (depending on what kind of municipality you live in, in a major city, they all have Masters in Library Science, it seems, often paid for by the city, while they work) and will gladly help you track down what you're looking for, like book detectives.

Experienced librarians can be the difference between early success and hours of needless slogging. At the very least, they can point you in the best position from which to begin. That said, if you live near a university or county library within reasonable driving distance, go there. Find someone with skills.

Since these regulations are delegated by the state, you might also be able to just call the clerk for whatever judge hears such cases. You can find out which judge in the library. Should be simple enough. The clerk can probably tell you what laws cover the question at hand, and you can then look them up in the reference books in the library. Once you know the title and code, or whatever they call it, you can find the laws yourself. They will include the penalties.

Has your issue been resolved?

Thanks, it was resolved a few years ago, but that is good advice.

In this case, reading the law did not help. I needed a clarification. The thing that really got me was not even that there was a lack of clarity, it was that each person I spoke to was QUITE clear, but they did not agree...and they were working in the same office for the same agency and supposedly equally supporting we tax payers.

[PLAYER57832]

We should all prepare for the deluge of civil suits now. This is how the gay community repays public tolerance - it's never gonna be enough.

Honibaz

And we have heard that warning before.....

Actually, there is a limit. Its called being treated exactly like any other human being, regardless.

I do think that there should be limits when it comes to religious beliefs and actions of others, but they need to be uniform. The comparison to a Satanic wedding was apt. The key is where are you allowed to make such distinctions and where not.

[Samuraipizzaguy]

haha you know who i want to meet?
an Evolutionist Homosexual.

[HapSmo19]

Actually, there is a limit. Its called being treated exactly like any other human being, regardless.

What does that even mean? Have you seen the way humans treat eachother?
You must mean they should be treated like humans are treated under the best possible scenario.
I think Neo calls that type of thinking a logical fallacy.

[jonesthecurl]

I wonder why no one else has brought this up, but being the shit stirring old fooker that i am . . .

Don't we now see clearly what the big todo about gay marriage really is? It's not about perky tax breaks that married couples get, as is the usual gay response (right sultan?), but it is in fact about forcing their values (or lack thereof) on the rest of us. State approved marital rights give gays VALIDITY and that's what they want above all else. They want it illegal for any of us heterosexuals to remind them in any way that it just might be a little weird for a man to lust after the hairy ass of another man.

We should all prepare for the deluge of civil suits now. This is how the gay community repays public tolerance - it's never gonna be enough.



Honibaz

These were girls. I don't know if that's relevant, or if they have hairy arses, excuse I don't feel very well now. I've just imagined hairy-arsed girl-on-girlness.

But yes, gay people do want to feel that their marriages are valid. I don't have a problem with that.

These girls should have just rolled their eyes, muttered "religious nuts" and moved on.

But in a way the question is not should they sue, but the more basic question of should the photographers be allowed to say "no" on the basis they did?

I'm not sure myself.

Here's another hypothetical: what if someone refused to take photos of a cattle auction because they were veggies?

Or, um , were happy to photograph any sporting event except those involving guns?

Or combine the two and they won't do hunting-trophy photos?

[comic boy]

haha you know who i want to meet?
an Evolutionist Homosexual.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...............Why

PS Try looking in your local church as the chances are there are a few hiding in there

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, there is a limit. Its called being treated exactly like any other human being, regardless.

What does that even mean? Have you seen the way humans treat eachother?
You must mean they should be treated like humans are treated under the best possible scenario.
I think Neo calls that type of thinking a logical fallacy.

And that's called taking things out of context to pick them apart.

[PLAYER57832]

haha you know who i want to meet?
an Evolutionist Homosexual.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...............Why

PS Try looking in your local church as the chances are there are a few hiding in there

Not even hiding.

[gimil]

In all honesty the photographier is an idiot for turning away business over such a (in my opinion) trivial issue. If he wants to throw away good honest income because of personal opinion over an issue that is (probably) generally not considered to be very extreamist then that is (in business terms) bad practise.

Politically I do not really know where to stand on this issue. A part of me tells me that business should have the right to refuse service to whoever they want for whatever they want. Otherwise you are undermining capitalism which America is build on. A rational business mind shouldn't and wouldn't refuse service to people over personal beliefs.

On the other hand you also have the state is generally their to protect people. What if walmart decided (hypothetically) it didn't want to give service to blacks? Is that acceptable? Should (hypothetically) blacks be allowed to be forced to to get their food elsewhere? Bearing in mind Walmart is the biggest supermaket in the world.

[PLAYER57832]

On the other hand you also have the state is generally their to protect people. What if walmart decided (hypothetically) it didn't want to give service to blacks? Is that acceptable? Should (hypothetically) blacks be allowed to be forced to to get their food elsewhere? Bearing in mind Walmart is the biggest supermaket in the world.

I think most people would say that there is a difference between a supplier of food, a necessity and a purveyor of photographs for a ceremony many see as religiously based.

However, I agree that is the basic question.

[gimil]

On the other hand you also have the state is generally their to protect people. What if walmart decided (hypothetically) it didn't want to give service to blacks? Is that acceptable? Should (hypothetically) blacks be allowed to be forced to to get their food elsewhere? Bearing in mind Walmart is the biggest supermaket in the world.

I think most people would say that there is a difference between a supplier of food, a necessity and a purveyor of photographs for a ceremony many see as religiously based.

However, I agree that is the basic question.

There is a difference, you are correct. However, where do you draw the line betweenwho can and can't refuse service? It is much easier to regulate in an all or nothing manner.

Do you say to business owners they can refuse service unless that service is a basic human need? If so, where do you draw the line? are gay and balck women not allowed to buy tampons because they are classed as a 'luxery' item (at least they are in the UK)? or are ministers allowed to refuse to marry gays? even though gay marriage is illegal? or are blacks allowed basic supermarket own brand food, but are not allowed to by better quality brands because the business owner has a personal opinion of those shoppers?

i don't know how apropriate my examples are but I think you get the idea I am trying to put across. You can say all people should get their basic needs. But where is that line between the owners rights and the publics rights?

[AAFitz]

Obviously, we cant have business owners denying services to groups of people. Its discrimination, and simply pure evil. In this situation however, its a small business, and trying to force a person to do something they didnt want to do is absolutely absurd. I myself have a small business and never work for someone I dont want to. The important thing however, Is in a million years I would never be stupid enough to say: sorry I cant do that project because, I dont like you, you are black, you freak me out, you are a single old woman who will be picky about everything and not want to pay, are gay and clearly have the hots for me etc.

There are a million legal excuses not to do a job, and not offend someone. They should have been wise enough to use one. Saying sorry we dont shoot same-sex marriages just opened up the potential for this, when they could easily have slipped out of it if they werent comfortable with it.

I also think that in this situation that since none of the photographers had ever been to a gay marriage, or photoed one, it is also possible, if not probable they simply were afraid they wouldnt know what to do, or how to do a good job. Many of the photo ops in a wedding really do have a bride/groom theme, and I have to guess that changes in a same sex wedding, and they may simply have felt they didnt feel they could provide the level of service. Because of this, I say shame on the couple for suing them. To essentially try to force an individual to come to their wedding, and perform a service they were not completely comfortable performing is completely petty and childish.

Im sure there are photographers that do not photo shoot orthodox jewish weddings, or barmitshfas either, since they simply dont know how to do the job, or what the ceremony is. I dont think you could call this photographer a racist because he doesnt think he is up to the job at photographing a ceremony hes never been to before.

[PLAYER57832]

On the other hand you also have the state is generally their to protect people. What if walmart decided (hypothetically) it didn't want to give service to blacks? Is that acceptable? Should (hypothetically) blacks be allowed to be forced to to get their food elsewhere? Bearing in mind Walmart is the biggest supermaket in the world.

I think most people would say that there is a difference between a supplier of food, a necessity and a purveyor of photographs for a ceremony many see as religiously based.

However, I agree that is the basic question.

There is a difference, you are correct. However, where do you draw the line betweenwho can and can't refuse service? It is much easier to regulate in an all or nothing manner.

I am not sure this is true. This broaches on 2 areas where the law already makes distinctions. One is religion. Churches and certain church affiliated organizations, for example, are exempted from hiring clauses. A Roman Catholic church is not obligated to hire a Jewish or Hindu secretary, nevermind a homosexual. They can run private schools and day cares that are specifically for Roman Catholics, that actively teach their faith. On the other hand, if they operate a day care that takes public funding, then they have to be open to all and I believe there are limits to what they can teach. (some limits were broadened under Bush).

The other place is size of the business. A large business is held to higher standards than a smaller business in many things.

The other question would be access. If this were the only photography agency in town, then the argument that their decision negatively impacts the community might be more valid (? .. not sure).

There are a million legal excuses not to do a job, and not offend someone. They should have been wise enough to use one. Saying sorry we dont shoot same-sex marriages just opened up the potential for this, when they could easily have slipped out of it if they werent comfortable with it.

This is why I said I think it was a set-up by one or the other of the entities involved.

Im sure there are photographers that do not photo shoot orthodox jewish weddings, or barmitshfas either, since they simply dont know how to do the job, or what the ceremony is. I dont think you could call this photographer a racist because he doesnt think he is up to the job at photographing a ceremony hes never been to before.

Interesting argument. I am not sure, though, that there is such a huge difference in how one would handle the ceremonies.

Bottom line.. this is an area that needs clarification and probably additional legislation one way or another. It is a case of the "fences" of law perhaps not being tight enough.

[AAFitz]

Well, marriages are a largely religious ceremony. And an orthodox Jewish wedding is wildly different from a catholic wedding. The job really is different on a basic level. The key photo shoots are all different, the timing is different, the milestones are different. Its actually tricky to get the right shots in a wedding, and the key is knowing when and where to be set up for one, not to mention, knowing when not to use the flash, and when it was ok. This doesnt translate perfectly to a same sex marriage, except that, if the photographer has never been to one, they may not know if there would be any differences, and by not knowing, means that they may not feel comfortable that they are up to the job, and in my mind would allow them to back out of the process. I certainly dont know if there are any differences. Im sure some are perfectly traditional, but Im sure some put a queer eye for the straight guy spin on the ceremony, and would confuse any photographer that wasnt ready for it. Further, if a photographer doesnt do a good job, they can be sued for it, so to force someone to provide a service they do not feel they can provide adequately, is ridiculous.

Its such a personalized service, that it does not translate to other forms of business perfectly in my opinion. It takes no special skill to sell a packaged product to someone of a different race, or religion, or sexual orientation. But to say that providing a personalized service, that is based on different traditions, customs, and religion and in each case tailored specifically and often meticulously to the individual case, and people, and often determined by the different characteristics, especially when not knowing some of those differences could result in a diminished ability to provide said service... should allow for a little more discretion on the business owners part in this case I believe.

Personally, I think the business either had a bad lawyer, or a bad judge or jury.

As for another example, If I call a caterer that turns out to offer catering for kosher weddings, and try to schedule them for my catholic wedding... Im pretty sure they can say no, since that service is completely different, and is different based on the fact that I am a different race than their usual clients. I sure as hell am not going to lower myself to suing them because they feel uncomfortable performing a service which is different on a basic level than the one they usually do.

Its possible that it is easy enough to compensate for the changes that might take place in a gay wedding, but Im not sure we can force every wedding photographer to study what those are, and be prepared for them, especially if they decide to focus on the niche of same sex weddings, to insure they provide the best service that they can.

[AAFitz]

Interesting argument. I am not sure, though, that there is such a huge difference in how one would handle the ceremonies.

That is the most important part. You are not sure. I am not sure, and I bet the photographers were not sure. If they arent sure if there are differences, than that meant they werent sure about being able to provide adequate service. That would have meant they would be taking a chance of ruining a wedding, getting sued, and ruining their businesses reputation. Ironically some of those things happened anyways, but I blame the couple not them. I think the couple in this situation are just low-lifes with no sense of honor or justice. They probably ruined these peoples lives, when its very possible that those people were doing what they thought was best for them in the first place. I have absolutely no respect for people that use their cause, to further their own interests.

I feel bad for the defense attorney who refuses take their divorce case when it comes up. No way two people who would sue someone over something so stupid will stay together long.

[PLAYER57832]

You raised several good points.

Personal service IS another area where people are allowed to make distinctions without it being considered "discrimination". For example, a woman can specifically hire a woman attendent. I also agree that they did not have a great lawyer.

As for your last point.. true, but I also have a strong feeling this was a "set up". In other words, someone was pushed to bring the case specifically to try to set a legal precedent. I don't think they necessarily saw this as an individual issue, rather as a "civil rights" issue.

The law needs to be clearer to protect all concerned.

[Snorri1234]

I'm sorry, I can choose who I do and don't want to provide services to. That's my choice as a business owner. If I choose to be a jackass and a bigot, then so be it.

Bollocks. Do you allow bus companies to refuse service to blacks because they're run by a racist?

A bus company like the city bus? That's a public service.

You can discriminate against somebody because they don't have shoes, or a shirt(no shirt no shoes no service). You can discriminate against somebody because he's a male, or ugly. (try getting into a nice bar where there is a line). Or how about against somebody because they don't have on a suit(dress codes). How about against somebody because they are white(affirmative action) or against somebody who makes too much money (low income housing). Private property belongs to the owner of the property, if they don't like you, they can tell you to get the f*ck out. I don't care what their reason is, it's their property, their building, their business etc.

So you see no problem in supermarkets refusing service to black people? Or refusing to sell a house to hispanics because it's a "white neighborhood"?