Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, businesses have that right. I remember trying to get some electrical work done and the contractors were too busy, they turned it down. They can limit to existing customers. Pizza delivery to an address 25 miles away, even if you are willing to pay extra, will probably be refused. Only if it violates civil rights laws would it be a problem.
If you are a business owner, do you have the right to decide what segment of your market you will serve? Should you be forced to accept any and all work? Must you accept all who may contact you that have a need for your particular service? Or, do you have a right of refusal?
I spent many years as a self employed ceramic tile contractor. Over those years, there were times we would visit a client, but decide to decline to offer a quote (for various reasons, but sometimes simply because we had a bad feeling about the client; i.e., we didn't like them). I always believed it was my right to decline or accept work.
As a freelance Web site designer, would I be forced to create a Web site for anyone, regardless of the content of that site?
I think that is your right. But why would you refuse work just because you didn't like someone. You're in business to make money right? But yeah, it should be your choice.
Yep; because many have different ideas on what they will be a part of and should have that right.fro some it maybe the Mob and others it maybe on other moral grounds they want no part of.
If I cannot refuse to do the work/service, then I become a slave to those that will punish me for not doing so.
You can always quit. For a self-employed person or business owner, that's analogous to shutting down the business. Never claim that there aren't choices, and that you are therefore a slave. It is a deception, and marginalizes the actual experience of people who actually do suffer from slavery in our world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Bidding high really high(5X what I would normally do it for), usually runs off the unwanted clients/customers, in my business.
So what you're saying is that the photographers had a ready means of avoiding the issue, but instead stood their ground insisting on their right to engage in despicable prejudice. Interesting.
The reality is that if a public accommodation is shown to exhibit a pattern of discrimination in pricing, then the same sanctions can apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If we look at consumers, ultimately (in the abstract) the consumer is a business entity
And that's where your analysis varies from the reality that applies to this case, legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
A photographer who doesn't want to photograph a particular law is not subject to a public accommodation.
Your statement is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
The law allows businesses to discriminate in certain cases.
Yes, but evidently not in this case. Even though some of you want it to be one of those exceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
For the most part, we have.
Precisely. The balance provides for the ability to live your life in accordance with your own beliefs and values within your own skin, within your own home, within your own family, and within your own worship. The other side of the balance is that in the part of society where you interact with other people you are obligated to treat everyone fairly. I think the problem is that some folks are unwilling to admit that their business is not their home, even though the law makes very clear the difference between someone's home and someone's business.
To the OP's question. Yes, who is so crazy to think that a business can't turn down work. They do it all the time. But some do it in a more subtle way. They delay quotes, they price the job WAY TOO HIGH, they don't return phone calls, etc.
Yep; because many have different ideas on what they will be a part of and should have that right.fro some it maybe the Mob and others it maybe on other moral grounds they want no part of.
How is it, then, that a New Mexico court can tell a photographer that he cannot refuse to photograph a "gay wedding?"
I think this is a serious violation of our Constitutionally protected rights, specifically the right to "free exercise" of religion. This photographer is said to be Christian. It would seem that he is being denied the freedom to choose not to participate in something he disagrees with on the basis of his moral convictions (as dictated by his Christian beliefs). How is it that he can be forced to take a job photographing an event that he, as a Christian, finds abhorent?
Are we, as business owners, required to violate our most deeply held religious beliefs, for the priviledge of self employment?
I have done some photography in the past, as I once aspired to become a photographer. I worked for a photographer, doing black-and-white custom printing. While I personally may not object to photographing a "gay wedding" (I may view it as simply another job), I support the right of anyone to turn down work, regardless of the reason, and especially if one feels it would violate their religious beliefs.
This "gay couple" was not harmed in anyway by the refusal of the photographer, and I'm sure they were able to find another photographer to shoot the "wedding."
Photography is not a religion. Your comment is simply nonsense.
Photography is not a religion, but being forced to photograph an event that goes against one's religious beliefs would seem to violate one's rights. That is where "free exercise" comes in. Free exercise means that you have the right to act according to the dictates of your religion, and if you feel uncomfortable shooting the wedding of a same-sex couple, it should be your right to refuse to do it.
Photography is not a religion, but being forced to photograph an event that goes against one's religious beliefs would seem to violate one's rights.
It isn't. That's the point. The decision to offer a public accommodation that isn't exempt from the applicable laws is a decision and admission that offering your goods and services to all is not a violation of your rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
