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

[Ironside]

What is the context of the refusal? Did the photography outfit sign up for the gig and the photographer sent then refused to untake the task? Or did they simply refuse the job, in which case why not just make up some reason for not doing it (sorry, we are all booked up on that day)? I don't get it.

I get the feeling that it went something like this "A wedding? Sure! Wait a minute. A gay wedding? Never!" making it very blatant for the reasons. Because as you said, it's quite easy to give another official reason if you really don't want to.

[Beskar]

I get the feeling that it went something like this "A wedding? Sure! Wait a minute. A gay wedding? Never!" making it very blatant for the reasons. Because as you said, it's quite easy to give another official reason if you really don't want to.

It does sound like that, he turned up for the big day then realised there were two grooms then pulled out. Obviously, the couple wanted pictures of the big day and those memories were kind of ruined and the photographer possibly didn't refund them too at first, so they started a legal battle to get their funds back and the fact their day was ruined, might have had the money returned, but they continued due to discrimination and the hard legal process they had to go through.

[Lemur]

What is the context of the refusal?

Most salient question about this entire thing. As clumsy as the law can be, it's very frequently about context, and it looks like we're missing all of it right now.

[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".

[a completely inoffensive name]

It has come about as more of a preference, such as with food, try getting some one to eat something they dislike even though you might like it and viceversus. There is some thought that naturally, we are just instinctively horny animals which would hump anything (and lots of evidence to show that in practise on google) and it is society which helps moulds us to tame these wild ways. The whole idea of taking simply one 'mate' and performing marriage is unnatural, but that is the custom we have.

Might be true. But I personally think that it is good that such "natural" behaviors are suppressed whether they exist or not.

[Montmorency]

To those who say that 'This or that is unnatural for humans': are you grammatical prescriptivists?

Do you maintain that "May I have..." is the only proper English form, and that "Can I have..." is ungrammatical?

Grammar is just what people do, guys! Same with 'the natural'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is mostly that the Christian church since the early days sought an monopoly on sex. It wasn't the only religion and there were others with conflicting views.

Christian marriage Law just follows Roman Law, or Germanic Law depending on locality.

The only "Christian" part is the resistance to divorce.

On to the topic at hand - society in general has decided that being Gay is OK and disagreeing with being Gay is not OK. Ergo, you either photograph any "wedding" or none. The rational is that we have accepted that "Gay Marriage" is the same as "Marriage" and any discrimination at this point essentially refusing to accept the validity of the marriage.

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.

[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.

[Montmorency]

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

[Papewaio]

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

[Vuk]

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

No, and I wouldn't shave my beard either. That is kind of my point though: it is not impossible, just unreasonable. There is a difference.
My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

[Montmorency]

My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

What if this creates an excessive burden on the rejected customers? Why should that be taken as a matter of course?

[Goofball]

At first I thought this was silly and an overreach of the judicial. But then I thought, how is this any different from southern lunch counters in the sixties being forced to serve blacks?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Making and serving lunch is not an example of protected free speech and expression like photography is. The fact that it's a business that provides photography and not a personal hobby is irrelevant. It's still free expression, just as a professional author has the right to free expression.

Question for those who support this court - would you support a law forcing poets to write wedding poems for couples they don't want to?

CR

[Goofball]

Making and serving lunch is not an example of protected free speech and expression like photography is. The fact that it's a business that provides photography and not a personal hobby is irrelevant. It's still free expression, just as a professional author has the right to free expression.

Question for those who support this court - would you support a law forcing poets to write wedding poems for couples they don't want to?

CR

I guess the root of it is that when you offer your services as a commercial photographer, what you are saying is that the jobs you are going to do are no longer an expression of your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but those of your clients, as they are paying you for the service and your art will be guided by their vision, not yours. You are merely the vehicle for their expression when under contract. Once your shingle is on the door offering your services for hire, unless a customer is actually asking you to do something illegal or something that you can prove would harm yourself or others, you just have to bite the bullet and do it. So yes, if the poet was advertising her services commercially as a pen for hire, I would support a law that prohibited her from refusing to serve gays at her lunch counter.

As a side note, I wonder if this case would have ever made it to court if the photographer had said "I'm sorry, but my personal and/or religious beliefs make me uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships and marriage, so I am afraid I might not be the best person to hire to capture this very special day for you. I would be happy to refer you to my colleague, Mr. So-and-So, who is an excellent photographer and would be happy to have your business."

[Vuk]

I guess the root of it is that when you offer your services as a commercial photographer, what you are saying is that the jobs you are going to do are no longer an expression of your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but those of your clients, as they are paying you for the service and your art will be guided by their vision, not yours. You are merely the vehicle for their expression when under contract. Once your shingle is on the door offering your services for hire, unless a customer is actually asking you to do something illegal or something that you can prove would harm yourself or others, you just have to bite the bullet and do it. So yes, if the poet was advertising her services commercially as a pen for hire, I would support a law that prohibited her from refusing to serve gays at her lunch counter.

As a side note, I wonder if this case would have ever made it to court if the photographer had said "I'm sorry, but my personal and/or religious beliefs make me uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships and marriage, so I am afraid I might not be the best person to hire to capture this very special day for you. I would be happy to refer you to my colleague, Mr. So-and-So, who is an excellent photographer and would be happy to have your business."

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

[Goofball]

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

[Vuk]

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc). He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?
You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

When "marriage" is understood to mean "the physical joining of one man and one woman" it naturally excludes homosexuals couples, as well as un-consummated marriages. Notably, un-consummated marriages are known throughout history, and they often resulted in divorce (as opposed to consummated marriages).

The current bill passing through the British Parliament does not allow for the consummation of a homosexual union (because that it technically impossible) but instead side-steps the issue.

Now - because the meaning of the word marriage has been abandoned, and the word attached to the meaning "a union between two people who love each other, recognised by the State" we now apply a syntactical qualification, being "straight" or "gay".

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

But, you know, who cares right?

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes, so "Slavery" can become "Freedom" and "Freedom" can become "Slavery" and...

Oh wait, didn't George Orwell have something to say about this?

[Montmorency]

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings?

My, what an idea.

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

[Montmorency]

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

That's the point, it was possible and now is not because of the loss of grammar.

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

No - you get a grip.

Laws from Shakespeare's time need to be interpreted in their original frame of reference, granted that the practical circumstances of the day may alter how that law is applied but the wording of the Law must not be sidestepped because we have a different understanding of a particular adjective.

For example - "Malice of forethought" means "with intention to act" with regard to the Common Law definition of "murder" in the UK, it does not mean "with intent to kill" if defense lawyers could argue that it did then they could get their clients off.

If you don't like a Law you change it, ignoring it or fantastically reinterpreting it weakens the legal institutions.

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

I agree, but Gay-Rights activists should not have been able to use that argument. As a result you have had states pass laws restricting the rights of homosexuals. So, now instead of having to pass a Law to include homosexuals you now have to repeal a law that deliberately excludes them. Not only is this absurd, but it is proving predictable hard to do.

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings?

Err yes - was this not obviously my point?

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

Learn a little about linguistics first, please, at least as much as I do.

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

Well - legal wording - yes.

The difficulty when the two diverge is that the people might not understand their Laws - but that's not exactly a new problem.

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

You've applied a rhetorical figure - one that means "the joining together of disparate ideas". The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example, the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

What has changed is a movement of "marriage" as primarily a contractual arrangement to regulate the parentage of children to a primarily social arrangement that validates the emotional relationship between two people. Both these meanings were and are present but there has been a rapid shift in emphasis in a small number of Western Countries (and it really is a small number) in about a generation.

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

True - but the point is this jives neither with traditional usage or with Laws as they stand prior to amendment. The UK Bill currently under consideration is just such a fudge. After it become law I will still be able to annul
my marriage if, after the ceremony, I discover that my new wife is carrying another man's child. HOWEVER, none of my Lesbian friends will be able to do the same.

How is that fair?

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

No - I said that the legal definition of marriage is this. The laws being passed currently just tack some rights on for homosexuals. The reason for this is simple, nobody (least of all politicians) want to admit the truth, that marriage as a legal institution has effectively ceased to exist in the West. the only vestige remaining pertains to divorce (division of wealth) and death (inheritance) both of which can be more easily and cheaply resolved by writing contracts.

A Solicitor costs less than a wedding.

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

Oh?

Where?

Because I happen to have an appreciation of the legal and historical context, and a lack of sentiment?

[Montmorency]

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

How is it "abandoning grammar"?

The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

How? Seriously, explain that one.

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example,the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

I just said that "words broaden their meanings all the time", not "all words always..."

***

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?

[Goofball]

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc).

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor. Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody. I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

Homosexuality is not a "belief." Hatred of homosexuals is a belief. If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way. Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?