Should a black photographer be forced to work a KKK wedding?

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, QW, I'm pointing out that the basis for discriminatory actions is different between California then it is in other states in that the California Supreme Court extended the Unruh Act to include all forms of discriminatory conduct not necessarily related to those characteristics specifically states.

All well and good, but we are not talking about California, or even federal law, we are talking about New Mexico.

The difference is that discrimination occurred, not the location.

Only if we are talking about New Mexico. California law only applies to where the business usually supplies there service. In the case of something like photography the business is free to refuse to not leave its premises even if it involves discrimination.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/publications/DFEH-250.pdf

As a matter of fact, both the Unruh Act (CA) and the NM Civil Rights act specify that the act covers "services". As we all know services can be rendered either at the establishment of the business or in another location.

Plumbers frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for Plumbers to refuse to provide their services to blacks.

Residential painters frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for painters to refuse to provide their services to females.

Cable repair persons frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for technicians to refuse to provide their services to Jews.

Contractors remodeling work is done in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a contractor to refuse to provide their services to based on age for old people.

Caterers, in the vast majority of cases, provide food preparation and/or delivery and setup of meals for the client either in the home, business, or other rented space, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a caterer to refuse to provide their services to based on sexual orientation.​

Not saying that's the way it should be, just saying that is reality under the laws of those States. Since you site the NM case in the OP, there is nothing in the NM law or in court decisions that have been presented by the NM Supreme Court that don't allow a black photographer to turn down a job for the KKK. If you think there is, then feel free to link to the NM Supreme Court case that supports your position.



>>>>

I never said that it didn't cover services, I said that California law only applies to premises of the business, not to services a business supplies outside their normal business premises. I even supplied you with a link that explains that.

What, exactly, do you have to back up your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the KKK is not a protected class under the law - remember the OP cites the NM photographer case so we are not talking about California and it's wonky application of Public Accommodation laws.

If you are asking for the legal difference there you go.

If you are asking for the moral difference, there is none.

Remember though I support the repeal of such laws.


>>>>

Why do you keep bringing up protected classes, which is the way federal civil rights laws are structured, when we are discussing the laws in a single state, it New Mexico? The law in New Mexico specifically requires anyone who advertises a service to take on all contracts, and does not refer to anything resembling the protected classes reasoning that is a direct outgrowth of federal court interpretation of federal law.

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; - See more at: Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. - New Mexico Statutes​

Above is the law referenced in the case, and yes it does specifically identify the protected classes to which the law applies.


>>>>

None of which are a class under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You may have missed the subtle point which makes it a distinction under the law.

If the photographer says now I won't shoot the wedding because I don't do business with the KKK - that is perfectly legal (except in California, which has a broader interpretation of it's Public Accommodation law) because the does not fall under the protected class structure outlined in their Civil Rights laws. In every state in the union though (including California) the photographer can decline and if asked for a reason site a fear for his safety.

Since the decline was not for a reason which falls under the Public Accommodation laws, he is conducting his business in a perfectly legal manner.

Now, if he says "Hell know I'm not shooting that wedding because you are white." Then he has issues.



>>>>

Understood...

And here's the middle-case...

The buyer identifies himself (and/or his fiance and/or some of his wedding guests) as members of the KKK...

But this is NOT a KKK-sponsored event, therefore...

We are not looking at refusing to do business with the KKK (as an organization)...

We are looking at refusing to do business with a private citizen because of his political or racial or philosophical views and his membership in an organization which is unrelated to the Wedding Event...

Refusing to do business with someone because of their political and related views...

What's next?

You can refuse to provide services to someone because they're a member of the Democrat Party? or the Republican? or the Tea Party? or the Green Party? or the Nazi Party? or the Socialist Party? or the Communist Party? or the I-Don't-Like-Spam Party?

NOW the fat's in the fire, ain't it?

It's still the same case.

Under NM law, unless someone shows a NM Supreme Court showing the expansion of the law to include the KKK, the photographer can deny the job and be perfectly legit since the KKK is not a protected class.

However, under CA law, as expanded by the CA Supreme Court, it would be discrimination to deny either if the contracting party was in the KKK or if the job was denied because the customer indicted guests were members of the KKK.

From a legal perspective the "middle case" doesn't change anything.


>>>>

That is not how the law works. I am not required to prove that the law applies to everyone equally, that is assumed under our legal system. You have to prove that the law only applies to certain people, and not others. Feel free to show me the specific cases under New Mexico state, or even federal, law that specifically says that a member of the KKK automatically loses all human rights.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, QW, I'm pointing out that the basis for discriminatory actions is different between California then it is in other states in that the California Supreme Court extended the Unruh Act to include all forms of discriminatory conduct not necessarily related to those characteristics specifically states.

All well and good, but we are not talking about California, or even federal law, we are talking about New Mexico.

The difference is that discrimination occurred, not the location.

Only if we are talking about New Mexico. California law only applies to where the business usually supplies there service. In the case of something like photography the business is free to refuse to not leave its premises even if it involves discrimination.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/publications/DFEH-250.pdf

As a matter of fact, both the Unruh Act (CA) and the NM Civil Rights act specify that the act covers "services". As we all know services can be rendered either at the establishment of the business or in another location.

Plumbers frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for Plumbers to refuse to provide their services to blacks.

Residential painters frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for painters to refuse to provide their services to females.

Cable repair persons frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for technicians to refuse to provide their services to Jews.

Contractors remodeling work is done in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a contractor to refuse to provide their services to based on age for old people.

Caterers, in the vast majority of cases, provide food preparation and/or delivery and setup of meals for the client either in the home, business, or other rented space, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a caterer to refuse to provide their services to based on sexual orientation.​

Not saying that's the way it should be, just saying that is reality under the laws of those States. Since you site the NM case in the OP, there is nothing in the NM law or in court decisions that have been presented by the NM Supreme Court that don't allow a black photographer to turn down a job for the KKK. If you think there is, then feel free to link to the NM Supreme Court case that supports your position.



>>>>

I never said that it didn't cover services, I said that California law only applies to premises of the business, not to services a business supplies outside their normal business premises. I even supplied you with a link that explains that.

What, exactly, do you have to back up your position?

Your link does not say on the premises, it say business establishments. The photography business is an established business under the incorporation laws of NM as an LLC (Limited Liability Company) and therefore runs a business establishment.

That doesn't mean that only transactions on the property of the business is covered, it covers all services which the business normally supplies to the public.

From your link:

"This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."

(Emphasis in the original)


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Understood...

And here's the middle-case...

The buyer identifies himself (and/or his fiance and/or some of his wedding guests) as members of the KKK...

But this is NOT a KKK-sponsored event, therefore...

We are not looking at refusing to do business with the KKK (as an organization)...

We are looking at refusing to do business with a private citizen because of his political or racial or philosophical views and his membership in an organization which is unrelated to the Wedding Event...

Refusing to do business with someone because of their political and related views...

What's next?

You can refuse to provide services to someone because they're a member of the Democrat Party? or the Republican? or the Tea Party? or the Green Party? or the Nazi Party? or the Socialist Party? or the Communist Party? or the I-Don't-Like-Spam Party?

NOW the fat's in the fire, ain't it?

It's still the same case.

Under NM law, unless someone shows a NM Supreme Court showing the expansion of the law to include the KKK, the photographer can deny the job and be perfectly legit since the KKK is not a protected class.

However, under CA law, as expanded by the CA Supreme Court, it would be discrimination to deny either if the contracting party was in the KKK or if the job was denied because the customer indicted guests were members of the KKK.

From a legal perspective the "middle case" doesn't change anything.


>>>>

That is not how the law works. I am not required to prove that the law applies to everyone equally, that is assumed under our legal system. You have to prove that the law only applies to certain people, and not others. Feel free to show me the specific cases under New Mexico state, or even federal, law that specifically says that a member of the KKK automatically loses all human rights.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Go ahead and site the NM Supreme Court case that shows the Public Accommodation laws have been extended beyond the protected classes listed in the law.

It's your claim, feel free to post it.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why do you keep bringing up protected classes, which is the way federal civil rights laws are structured, when we are discussing the laws in a single state, it New Mexico? The law in New Mexico specifically requires anyone who advertises a service to take on all contracts, and does not refer to anything resembling the protected classes reasoning that is a direct outgrowth of federal court interpretation of federal law.

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; - See more at: Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. - New Mexico Statutes​

Above is the law referenced in the case, and yes it does specifically identify the protected classes to which the law applies.


>>>>

None of which are a class under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

Ummm...

............. That is the section of the New Mexico Human Rights act.





>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, QW, I'm pointing out that the basis for discriminatory actions is different between California then it is in other states in that the California Supreme Court extended the Unruh Act to include all forms of discriminatory conduct not necessarily related to those characteristics specifically states.

All well and good, but we are not talking about California, or even federal law, we are talking about New Mexico.



Only if we are talking about New Mexico. California law only applies to where the business usually supplies there service. In the case of something like photography the business is free to refuse to not leave its premises even if it involves discrimination.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/publications/DFEH-250.pdf

As a matter of fact, both the Unruh Act (CA) and the NM Civil Rights act specify that the act covers "services". As we all know services can be rendered either at the establishment of the business or in another location.

Plumbers frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for Plumbers to refuse to provide their services to blacks.

Residential painters frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for painters to refuse to provide their services to females.

Cable repair persons frequently work in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for technicians to refuse to provide their services to Jews.

Contractors remodeling work is done in the home of the client, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a contractor to refuse to provide their services to based on age for old people.

Caterers, in the vast majority of cases, provide food preparation and/or delivery and setup of meals for the client either in the home, business, or other rented space, it would be a violation of CA law and NM law for a caterer to refuse to provide their services to based on sexual orientation.​

Not saying that's the way it should be, just saying that is reality under the laws of those States. Since you site the NM case in the OP, there is nothing in the NM law or in court decisions that have been presented by the NM Supreme Court that don't allow a black photographer to turn down a job for the KKK. If you think there is, then feel free to link to the NM Supreme Court case that supports your position.



>>>>

I never said that it didn't cover services, I said that California law only applies to premises of the business, not to services a business supplies outside their normal business premises. I even supplied you with a link that explains that.

What, exactly, do you have to back up your position?

Your link does not say on the premises, it say business establishments. The photography business is an established business under the incorporation laws of NM as an LLC (Limited Liability Company) and therefore runs a business establishment.

That doesn't mean that only transactions on the property of the business is covered, it covers all services which the business normally supplies to the public.

From your link:

"This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."

(Emphasis in the original)


>>>>

Did you even look at my link?

This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's still the same case.

Under NM law, unless someone shows a NM Supreme Court showing the expansion of the law to include the KKK, the photographer can deny the job and be perfectly legit since the KKK is not a protected class.

However, under CA law, as expanded by the CA Supreme Court, it would be discrimination to deny either if the contracting party was in the KKK or if the job was denied because the customer indicted guests were members of the KKK.

From a legal perspective the "middle case" doesn't change anything.


>>>>

That is not how the law works. I am not required to prove that the law applies to everyone equally, that is assumed under our legal system. You have to prove that the law only applies to certain people, and not others. Feel free to show me the specific cases under New Mexico state, or even federal, law that specifically says that a member of the KKK automatically loses all human rights.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Go ahead and site the NM Supreme Court case that shows the Public Accommodation laws have been extended beyond the protected classes listed in the law.

It's your claim, feel free to post it.

>>>>

I don't need to cite it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am arguing that the law applies to everyone equally. You are making the extraordinary claim that it doesn't apply to some people because they disagree with your worldview. Feel free to provide the extraordinary evidence that the KKK is exempted from all laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; - See more at: Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. - New Mexico Statutes​

Above is the law referenced in the case, and yes it does specifically identify the protected classes to which the law applies.


>>>>

None of which are a class under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

Ummm...

............. That is the section of the New Mexico Human Rights act.





>>>>

Where does it say anything about "class of people?" Did I miss it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is not how the law works. I am not required to prove that the law applies to everyone equally, that is assumed under our legal system. You have to prove that the law only applies to certain people, and not others. Feel free to show me the specific cases under New Mexico state, or even federal, law that specifically says that a member of the KKK automatically loses all human rights.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Go ahead and site the NM Supreme Court case that shows the Public Accommodation laws have been extended beyond the protected classes listed in the law.

It's your claim, feel free to post it.

>>>>

I don't need to cite it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am arguing that the law applies to everyone equally. You are making the extraordinary claim that it doesn't apply to some people because they disagree with your worldview. Feel free to provide the extraordinary evidence that the KKK is exempted from all laws.

You are the one that said they are included, feel free to prove your claim under NM law, which of course was the subject of your OP by linking to the NM case.

It's not a matter of "world view" it's a matter of (a) you making a claim and failing to support it, and (b) realizing that the CA Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in NM.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

None of which are a class under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

Ummm...

............. That is the section of the New Mexico Human Rights act.





>>>>

Where does it say anything about "class of people?" Did I miss it?

I apologize you may have missed it.

Protected Class: A group of people protected by law from discrimination or harassment based on their membership in the group. For example, under federal law, race, national origin, sex, and age are examples of protected classes.

Protected Class | Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

protected class n
: a group of people intended by a legislature to benefit from the protection of a statute - See more at: Protected Class - FindLaw
​

The groups identified by name in the NM statute receive protections from discrimination via the statute, that makes them the protected classes of the statute.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

All well and good, but we are not talking about California, or even federal law, we are talking about New Mexico.



Only if we are talking about New Mexico. California law only applies to where the business usually supplies there service. In the case of something like photography the business is free to refuse to not leave its premises even if it involves discrimination.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/publications/DFEH-250.pdf



I never said that it didn't cover services, I said that California law only applies to premises of the business, not to services a business supplies outside their normal business premises. I even supplied you with a link that explains that.

What, exactly, do you have to back up your position?

Your link does not say on the premises, it say business establishments. The photography business is an established business under the incorporation laws of NM as an LLC (Limited Liability Company) and therefore runs a business establishment.

That doesn't mean that only transactions on the property of the business is covered, it covers all services which the business normally supplies to the public.

From your link:

"This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."

(Emphasis in the original)


>>>>

Did you even look at my link?

This law requires "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments."

Of course I did. You realize I had to read it to quote it right?

You may not understand that a "business establishment" to not mean that the business is limited to that conducted on the premises. "Business Establishment" means a legally functioning business established under the laws for they state the operate in, it does not mean "premises".

A plumbing company is a "business establishment", they are still conducting business when they come to your home to unplug a toilet. If Mr. Jackson showed up at their office to discuss an estimate and they told Mr. Jackson that they wouldn't take the work because he's black they would be in violation of the NM law. If Mr. O'Mally called them up to unplug his toilet and they showed up at his house and saw that Mr. O'Mally was black and they said they don't clean toilets for black people, then they would be equally in violation of the law.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Go ahead and site the NM Supreme Court case that shows the Public Accommodation laws have been extended beyond the protected classes listed in the law.

It's your claim, feel free to post it.

>>>>

I don't need to cite it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am arguing that the law applies to everyone equally. You are making the extraordinary claim that it doesn't apply to some people because they disagree with your worldview. Feel free to provide the extraordinary evidence that the KKK is exempted from all laws.

You are the one that said they are included, feel free to prove your claim under NM law, which of course was the subject of your OP by linking to the NM case.

It's not a matter of "world view" it's a matter of (a) you making a claim and failing to support it, and (b) realizing that the CA Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in NM.


>>>>

You make ridiculous claims, and then demand that other people back up common sense.

Guess what, you win simply because you refuse to play by the rules of this forum.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't need to cite it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am arguing that the law applies to everyone equally. You are making the extraordinary claim that it doesn't apply to some people because they disagree with your worldview. Feel free to provide the extraordinary evidence that the KKK is exempted from all laws.

You are the one that said they are included, feel free to prove your claim under NM law, which of course was the subject of your OP by linking to the NM case.

It's not a matter of "world view" it's a matter of (a) you making a claim and failing to support it, and (b) realizing that the CA Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in NM.


>>>>

You make ridiculous claims, and then demand that other people back up common sense.

Guess what, you win simply because you refuse to play by the rules of this forum.

I would recommend going back and reading the thread, I haven't made any ridiculous claims. As a matter of fact I've corrected some of yours. For example you claim that the NM law did not cite protected classes, yet I posted (a) the legal definition of what a "protected class" is, and then (b) cited the NM law that list those classes of person protected under the State Public Accommodation law - therefore showing that a ridiculous claim of "there are no protected classes listed in the law" to be false.

In the OP you point to NM, then in a later post you even state that the subject of the discussion is about NM and not California.

All well and good, but we are not talking about California, or even federal law, we are talking about New Mexico.

While a black photographer in California would be in violation under the Unruh Act because of the applicability of the law as decided by the CA Supreme Court, you have provided no evidence of the NM law having been expanded by the NM Supreme Court in the same manner.

You claim is that a black photographer would be required to accept the job under all circumstances which is false for a couple of reasons:

1. If he had a prior booking on the date in question he would not be required to cancel a previous booking to take the job - he's not available that day and free to not accept the job for non-discriminatory reasons.

2. If he had plans to travel out of the area that day (for a conference, vacation, etc.) he would not be required to cancel such plans to take the job - he's not available that day and free to not accept the job for non-discriminatory reasons.

3. Finally he could just not accept the job because the KKK does not fall under the protected classes identified under the law in NM.​

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have said the discussion is about NM law, made a positive claim about the law, and yet have refused to provide a citation of the NM law which expands the non-discrimination requirement or a NM Supreme Court case creating the same time of across the board applicability that CA did with the Unruh Act.

So if you want to take about someone not supporting their position, that ball is in your court.

So let's see the legal citation for your claim.



>>>>