Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Xiahou]

I assume that at least some of our members will say, "yes it can and should".

The specific case in question is about a photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay marriage. The case made it all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court where they decided that the photographer must photograph gay marriages even if he doesn't want to.

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal

In refusing to photograph the ceremony, Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same way that it would have if the company had refused to photograph an inter-racial wedding, the New Mexico Supreme Court said.

"We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," the court ruled.

Interestingly, the ACLU was representing the plaintiffs in this case..

I have a lot of problems with this decision. Wouldn't the easiest course of action be for the couple to find another photographer who's willing to take their money? How can you force someone to photograph your even, and why would you want to? What if you think the photographer did a deliberately lousy job? Can you take him to court for that too? Can the government enforce a standard of quality for the service as well as forcing you to provide it?

[Sir Moody]

that depends very much on the service...

Life Saving Surgery? Yes and it should

Photography? No and it shouldn't...

[Crazed Rabbit]

An in depth look at the legal implications and reasoning;
http://volokh.wpengine.com/2013/08/2...mination-case/

The decision comes down to three basic conclusions:

(1) The state’s antidiscrimination law applies. Discrimination against a same-sex couple (married or not) is discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and is prohited in public accomodations under the statute.

(2) The First Amendment does not protect the photographer. There is no free-speech right of a business to discriminate in providing services to the public.

(3) The state Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply.

Consider as well that photography is a form of artistic expression, and if we have freedom of speech (and expression) protecting our ability to say (and photograph) what we want, surely that means we have the freedom to not say (or photograph) what we don't want to. In this case, the government is compelling expression from an individual through the law.

CR

[Ironside]

Consider as well that photography is a form of artistic expression, and if we have freedom of speech (and expression) protecting our ability to say (and photograph) what we want, surely that means we have the freedom to not say (or photograph) what we don't want to. In this case, the government is compelling expression from an individual through the law.

CR

That's not it, professional photography in this case is a corperate service, not an artistic expression. It's the equivalent of refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

I
I have a lot of problems with this decision. Wouldn't the easiest course of action be for the couple to find another photographer who's willing to take their money? How can you force someone to photograph your even, and why would you want to? What if you think the photographer did a deliberately lousy job? Can you take him to court for that too? Can the government enforce a standard of quality for the service as well as forcing you to provide it?

That would be the easiest way yes (although in this case I suspect it went nasty halfway through transactions, a la "A marriage? sure. Wait a minute, a gay marriage? Never!"), but consider this situation:

What if all local photographers would refuse them because they don't want to photograph a gay marriage? So option b is either non-existant or much more expensive (renting someone from another city/state). That would be very discriminating agreed?

And we agree that there's some types of discriminations companies aren't allowed to do, on principle? So we have to differ between the private person and the company man, who are a lot more restricted in their actions.

To make it very clear, this is legally the same as refusing cutting the hair of a black man because he's black. Or sell him food.

That would also mean that a Jewish Photographer would have to take a Nazi client for what ever ceremony they wanted photographed or a Black Photographer would have to take a job with the KKK if it came along.

Are discrimination because of political opinions illegal? Because if it's legal, then no.

[Xiahou]

And we agree that there's some types of discriminations companies aren't allowed to do, on principle? So we have to differ between the private person and the company man, who are a lot more restricted in their actions.

To make it very clear, this is legally the same as refusing cutting the hair of a black man because he's black. Or sell him food.

I think business owners should be free to make any (stupid) decisions they want about how to operate. They can also live with the consequences.

[HoreTore]

Because of features people are born with? Definitely yes.

Because of opinions? Nope, not a chance.

Feel free to toss commies and nazi's out of your shops, but be prepared to lose it if you start tossing out blacks or gays. Judge 'em on the content of their character, as one of the finest Americans who ever lived once dreamed of

[rvg]

I think business owners should be free to make any (stupid) decisions they want about how to operate. They can also live with the consequences.

I agree. Discrimination in the private sector should be allowed.

[Catiline]

It's the equivalent of refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ng-challenges/

[Fisherking]

Total Bull Pucky! How did they even get standing on such a case?

That would also mean that a Jewish Photographer would have to take a Nazi client for what ever ceremony they wanted photographed or a Black Photographer would have to take a job with the KKK if it came along.

I think the Judges should be tossed out along with the decision. Judicial Tyranny.

[Fragony]

They should be in some cases, in the bible-belt here they refuse to have their kids vaccinated for some pretty nasty diseases. Screw that. It doesn't matter to them that these diseases are contagious, they are the most egocentric people ever.

[Fisherking]

How did photographing a gay wedding turn into a public health issue?

[HoreTore]

Pretty much this. If it is a vital service, then discrimination of any kind is wrong. If it is something very much non-vital and private like a wedding photography business, then what happened to the right to refuse service?

The right to refuse service must be seen in the light of the right to not be harassed.

Rights must always be seen in context with others, otherwise they all become meaningless.

[The Lurker Below]

How does a gay couple not recognize the freedoms and liberties of an individual. I would have thought they would be hypersensitive to using the law to compel somebody to change their behaviors.

[Papewaio]

Were the couple getting married?

[Xiahou]

Were the couple getting married?

No, same-sex marriage is not legal in the state. It was a "commitment ceremony".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, same-sex marriage is not legal in the state. It was a "commitment ceremony".

Missed that.

Then the judges are technically wrong, and the case should be overturned on appeal because it sets bad precedent, that a "similar" situation is the same as an "equivalent" one.

I.E. That a non-legal ceremony is the same as a legal one.

[Montmorency]

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

And you too, with your 'concepts can only mean what I'd like them to mean' hooey...

[Vuk]

Well, on a personal level I have had people discriminate against me because of my beard. That may sound far out or like a bad joke, but it is the truth. Not only do you have people steer clear from you like you a dangerous caveman, but I have had people working in certain business when I spent some time in Madison and Chicago think I was a hobo who wandered my way in by accident (even though I was dressed similarly to some of the customers inside). From what I read, it seems those stupid Duck Dynasty brothers have had similar experiences in a hotel.
My guess is that this type of discrimination happens quite often, but famous people generally do not have big, bushy beards, so you do not hear about it much. Even in my hippie Uni I was treated weird and got a bunch of punk comments on my beard.
My point is that if someone chooses not to serve me because they think I am a hobo because of my beard, I'll happily take my business elsewhere. Sure, I think people who think poorly of people because of their facial hair are schmucks, but it their right to be so.
People gotta stop being so sue happy.

[Ironside]

My guess is that this type of discrimination happens quite often, but famous people generally do not have big, bushy beards, so you do not hear about it much. Even in my hippie Uni I was treated weird and got a bunch of punk comments on my beard.
My point is that if someone chooses not to serve me because they think I am a hobo because of my beard, I'll happily take my business elsewhere. Sure, I think people who think poorly of people because of their facial hair are schmucks, but it their right to be so.
People gotta stop being so sue happy.

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

Missed that.

Then the judges are technically wrong, and the case should be overturned on appeal because it sets bad precedent, that a "similar" situation is the same as an "equivalent" one.

I.E. That a non-legal ceremony is the same as a legal one.

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

[Vuk]

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay. Second of all, these people do not need to, because even if in the worst case scenario that they could get no professional to photograph their ceremony, they could still have a family member or friend do it. Also, that doesn't stop them from living together. To think though that majority (never mind the entirety) of professional photographers in the area would not photograph their ceremony is unrealistic I think.

Also, about the beard, it is not as easy as you think. My paternal grandfather was Jewish and always wore a long beard. My paternal grandmother was Norwegian and her father wore a large beard. My maternal grandfather wore a large beard, my father wore a beard nearly to his waste his whole life. All my brothers wear large beards, as do many of the men living around us (due in part to the fact that there are tons of Amish around).
I grew up in a very religious (Christian) family in which the men are expected to have beards, and to say "I will cut off my beard and become an entirely different person because some snobs do not like it." is just completely unrealistic. (it was hard enough to trim it down when I went abroad and to turn it into a goatee for my job)
Not to mention I have had it since I was 16, and am used to having a beard and not used to shaving (it comes in very handy when you are working in the cold).
Also, add on to that the fact that I have no chin whatsoever and would look like a scary cartoon character without it, and you can see why it is a very unreasonable thing to just say 'cut it off!'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

Is that explicitly stated in Court documents - because here it's illegal to refuse marriage counselling to homosexual couples.Not "because they're Gay", but because you aren't allowed to say they aren't "married".And to Montmercy: You can flap you're gums as much as you like but you need grammar for that to mean anything.

[Beskar]

Natural instinct and behaviour is being over-thought and misconstrued by peoples own morality. There are some very basic preconceptions which are innate, but none of these are in league with morality. They are simple guidelines such as 'Loud Noise = Bad' and as such, drop a pan on the floor or knock over a glass, everyone suddenly goes quiet and draws their attention towards you, heightened senses, anxiety, it starts kicking in the bodies "fight or flight" mechanisms.

The most basic construction of morality was adopted by Christianity and that is "Do upon others as you would do upon yourself". Murder is wrong as you would not wish to be murdered yourself, even this is a stretched as it is a fundamental selfishness. What is very surprising is when you take a look at other cultures where you have the example of HoreTore in Africa saying "First to the tree gets all the apples" and all the kids hold their hands and run to the tree together, so they all got an apple. Put that in America where there is more focus on the individual, and bam, that kid just ran off with all the apples. Clearly the environment makes a massive difference even if you do not understand or appreciate how complex it actually is.

What is inherent is the sex drive, and that desire to do the mating, this is even within asexuals, but it doesn't affect attraction in the slightest. The nature 'favours' certain scenarios such as making sex pleasurable, as people are more likely to do pleasurable things. 'I have a pleasure stick, I have a pleasure hole, lets put them together and both feel good' and the by-product of this is the child, thus this is how nature encourages reproduction. There is no 'You have to be with female only' gene, such as there is no 'You have to be with male only' gene.

[Papewaio]

Monty i believe we are misaligned on emergence.

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

Look at the layer approach to networking from 1 to 7. The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

[Montmorency]

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

Then let's be really clear about how we mean this.

Let's go back to the automobile. The car is an assembly of parts (including hydrocarbon molecules actually, though this inclusion still leaves the car many orders of magnitude below the human brain) that function a certain way as a system when properly combined. When improperly combined, the system may act a totally different way, or may even be relatively stable (i.e. totally inoperable).

Does the automobile not have the same properties as its constituents? It doesn't only if you tack on extraneous labels. Yes, you can't drive a steering wheel or scrap a hexane molecule - but so what?

It is totally OK to have a definition of emergence (see end of post) that deals precisely with this sort of thing, but my impression is that it's not the emergence you have in mind.

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

There are a number of parts to a computer, and when they are combined - just as with a car - you get a certain systemic behavior that is reducible to the interaction of the components. A car is what we call a particular agglomeration of parts that has a certain appearance and a certain behavior; it doesn't matter that pistons or wheels or plastic molecules are not 'tiny cars'. A car is just what we call a result.

If a mixture has different properties than its constituent chemicals, well, maybe that's just because the constituent chemicals (each with their own particular properties) react to produce a different chemical with its own unique properties, and not because its some mysterious thing unrelated to the chemicals that were combined to produce it, to be discovered purely by trial and error.

It is not conceptually difficult to predict the "emergent" systemic behavior of automobiles or computers, which are relatively simple compared to biological systems. We do it all the time, in fact, or else we wouldn't indeed have such technology available.

The crux: emergence defined as the interactions of parts producing a - any - systemic function at the highest level, or an emergence defined as the arising of significant new properties on a systemic level that can not be expected to derive from the interactions of the constituents.

The second half of the latter is really critical, and I'm seeing your talk of emergence in that light. So, choose one or offer a different definition.

As an example: if we were to build a human being 'from scratch', do you believe that morality could be predicted as a feature of this human?

[Papewaio]

I'm not saying emergence is not predictable. I'm saying there are new attribute sets when you combine things.

=][=
However your view is very mechanical.

It seems to not include things like HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) where the computers abilities are not directly linked to its particular hardware. It's why windows runs on so many different hardware combinations. The hardware isn't determining how the applications work.

Add in probability, chaos theory, quantum physics. The last being very interesting as you scale up you go from a digital to continuum so something that changes from probable outcomes to mechanical ones as it gets larger.