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

[FA_Q2]

"...As long as the law codifies racism to hide in the shadows, racism will forever exist. The only way for it to truly be dealt with, IMHO, is to let society deal with it. There was a time when law was necessary to show people the way. Now we know and that law is more of a hindrance than it is a help; consistently reminding us that we are different and that those that are different are going to use FORCE to make you serve them. That does not allow racism to fade into history as another failed human construct."

I think we may be coming at this from two similar but not identical angles.

You (and, perhaps one or more colleagues) seem to be coming at this from the angle that we should not have such Equal Product/Service Access Under Law, at all; rather, we should let Society and Time sort that out.

You may be right, but I also see that as a related but separate topic.

I am coming at this from the angle of what IS... and that is, that providers of goods and services to the general public are increasingly being prohibited at-law from discriminating against one or more client-demographics... so...

IF we intend to maintain such laws on the books... and I assure you that "we" do... then... the laws must apply to all, not just to those demographic groups and mindsets which we as a society approve of...

That includes a Black photographer providing publicly-offered product to members of the KKK, or a Jewish photographer providing publicly-offered product to members of a Nazi hate group... just as a conservative and pious baker or florist who is taught to shun Gays is obliged by law to provide that product to those whom he-or-she finds repugnant...

IF we create and maintain such laws, then they must apply to all, or none at all.

It is the other (and undesirable but necessary) side of the double-edged sword.

Excellent post. THIS I can understand and I have to (grudgingly) admit that you are right there. Carving exceptions into laws for those that we do not like is an unacceptable practice – one that I am very vocal on other matters about like speech – and it diminishes law all around. That type of thinking allows politicians to pay favors and curry special interest groups, a practice that I am thoroughly against.

I would like to see the laws done away with entirely but as long as they are there they need to be adhered to. On a similar point, and one that I was thinking on going into earlier, the laws already do this to a degree as they set up protected classes. Essentally, those classes RIGHT NOW receive more protections than those that do not fit under them. Examples earlier were of KKK members not being able to force the photographer to take pictures at their Klan meeting but the gay couple being allowed to do so.

I think that no matter how you structure that law, there are ALWAYS going to be groups left out unless you were to take the entire choice of who to serve away and that is, quite frankly, not possible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You keep saying that, yet you just argued that they made sense because, to quote you own words, "Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's ... I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time." The simple fact is that the laws in the decides you pointed to required business to not serve people, so how do you possibly justify the laws going the other way,even at the time.

XXXX

Understanding why something was passed is not agreeing that such laws are "good".


>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

I had a patient once who was a KKK member. His case manager was black. He had a white one before that with whom he did not get along with. The case management supervisor noted that the Klansman was getting along better with the brother than he did with the white man.

 

[Asclepias]

I say if you dont want to make the money and your principles are more important then you should not be forced unless you have agreed and have a legal document that is binding. You always have a choice. You make not like the results of your choice but you do have one.

 

[FA_Q2]

I had a patient once who was a KKK member. His case manager was black. He had a white one before that with whom he did not get along with. The case management supervisor noted that the Klansman was getting along better with the brother than he did with the white man.

LOL. That is rather ironic.

 

[High_Gravity]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

 

[Kondor3]

Here's an interesting blog-caliber article found on the commercial website LegalZoom.

I don't know Phillips' credentials but she does appear to provide a fair number of blog articles for that website.

For whatever it's worth...

Some excerpts...

===========================

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?


LEANNE PHILLIPS - OCT 2007

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

...

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act...

...

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service...

...

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated?

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. (1)


The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

===========================

(1) Yeah... that's pretty much what this layman thought was going on... and the spin I've been putting on my own handful of contributions on this thread.

 

[Kondor3]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

 

[High_Gravity]

I had a patient once who was a KKK member. His case manager was black. He had a white one before that with whom he did not get along with. The case management supervisor noted that the Klansman was getting along better with the brother than he did with the white man.

Thats funny how that works out.

 

[WorldWatcher]

===========================

(1) Yeah... that's pretty much what this layman thought was going on... and the spin I've been putting on my own handful of contributions on this thread.

The application of State level Public Accommodation laws have always varied by the State depending on how they write their laws. California - of course - being one of the most - ah - liberal interpretations of their statute.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

Outside of California and it's Supreme Court ruling on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, in other states the black photographer can refuse the business because the KKK is not a race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.


>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

That's not true FA-Q2. Declining a job because he fears for his life would be perfectly legal as it is a decision based not on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the client. It based on a preceived propensity for violence at the location where services will be rendered. It wouldn't be a violation of the law at all.

So saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because I fear for my safety" = Perfectly Legal. On the other hand saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because ya'll are white" = Illegal - under Public Accommodation laws.


Some people seem to have the impression that a business must accept ALL business from a customer/client who may be in a protected class - that is not true. They are fully able to deny services based on other conditions.



>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

So a black person cannot operare a camera but yet these KKK guys want him to photograph them?

 

[Sunshine]

Why would the KKK want a Black photographer? What else, are they have the catering done by a Jamaican restaurant?

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

The black person would not have to attend the Klan rally because of the intimidation factor. Cross burning has not been outlawed by the SCOTUS, but it has to be done where it cannot be seen by those who would find it intimidating.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

That's not true FA-Q2. Declining a job because he fears for his life would be perfectly legal as it is a decision based not on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the client. It based on a preceived propensity for violence at the location where services will be rendered. It wouldn't be a violation of the law at all.

So saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because I fear for my safety" = Perfectly Legal. On the other hand saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because ya'll are white" = Illegal - under Public Accommodation laws.


Some people seem to have the impression that a business must accept ALL business from a customer/client who may be in a protected class - that is not true. They are fully able to deny services based on other conditions.



>>>>

Worthy point. I should have worded it better.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

That's not true FA-Q2. Declining a job because he fears for his life would be perfectly legal as it is a decision based not on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the client. It based on a preceived propensity for violence at the location where services will be rendered. It wouldn't be a violation of the law at all.

So saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because I fear for my safety" = Perfectly Legal. On the other hand saying "No I'm not going to take the contract because ya'll are white" = Illegal - under Public Accommodation laws.


Some people seem to have the impression that a business must accept ALL business from a customer/client who may be in a protected class - that is not true. They are fully able to deny services based on other conditions.



>>>>

Worthy point. I should have worded it better.

See how the Yankee originally from New York who has lived in the sourth threw the "ya'll" in there.



>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

Guys... guys... this hypothetical situation would NOT be a KKK Rally, but a WEDDING that just happens to involve KKK member(s) and, presumably, various members of the local KKK Chapter, as well as, presumably, NON-members...

And the "fear for my life" defense is probably less dominant for a WEDDING than it would be for a RALLY...

Neutralized or negated, quite possibly, to the point of being set aside...

Not saying that that would be the case, but I can see the very real possibility of such an argument being raised in counterpoint in a court of law, and meeting with some degree of success...

I dunno...

 

[Sunshine]

Guys... guys... this hypothetical situation would NOT be a KKK Rally, but a WEDDING that just happens to involve KKK member(s) and, presumably, various members of the local KKK Chapter, as well as, presumably, NON-members...

And the "fear for my life" defense is probably less dominant for a WEDDING than it would be for a RALLY...

Neutralized or negated, quite possibly, to the point of being set aside...

Not saying that that would be the case, but I can see the very real possibility of such an argument being raised in counterpoint in a court of law, and meeting with some degree of success...

I dunno...

Very few Klansmen announce themselves in a public way such as at a wedding. This guy might be the exception, but most do not.


KKK nutjobs - August Kreis and family - YouTube

So this is a stupid hypothetical.

 

[Sunshine]

Ya know... that's a damned-fine question, and none of us have the answer to that...

Several possibilities spring to mind, at first glance...

1. the person(s) in the KKK choosing the Photographer did not know he/she was Black.

2. the person(s) in the KKK choosing... did so intentionally to screw with a Black person.

3. the peson(s) in the KKK choosing... did so to test the complete fairness of the law.

...plus dozens of reasons that we haven't even conjured-up yet.

I haven't seen anything telling us why, but maybe I just missed something.

It’s worth repeating that the way the law is structured it would be perfectly legal for the black photographer to meet with the client to discuss the contract and the Klan member to tell him to fuck off because he hates blacks and does not think they are intelligent enough to operate the camera and yet if the black photographer said that he is not going to take pictures of a clan rally that wants to see him dead it would be illegal.

This is why I don’t like laws structured in this manner. Freedom should be a 2 way street.

So a black person cannot operare a camera but yet these KKK guys want him to photograph them?

There is a fair list to choose from:

Category:African-American photographers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia