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

[Kondor3]

"...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."

Yes, I agree that most such laws leave the Service Provider an Escape Hatch (an ability to refuse service), to be used as legitimately needed (fortunately)...

However...

In circumstance wherein we are talking about (1) a Wedding [ostensibly non-threatening] and (2) no hostility is manifested during the course of inquiry or negotiations, then...

In at least some settings and jurisdictions, I am guessing that The Law will not allow the Service Provider to USE the Escape Hatch, when there is no legitimate (safety, business detriment, etc.) reason to do so...

Nor, under such non-threatening circumstances, SHOULD the Service Provider be able to use that Escape Hatch...

At least not while OTHERS are FORCED by law to provide service to those whom THEY don't approve-of...

Else prove The Law to be hypocritically selective, as we discussed earlier here...

So-called 'bigots' or other 'disapproving types' are not the ONLY ones required to abide by Equal Access to Services kind of laws...

Even members of so-called 'protected classes' need to be held to the same standards that the rest of the population operates under, when it is THEY who are providing the Service...

And, of course, sometimes, even the best-intentioned Equal Access type of Laws can be spun in such a way so as to have consequences that were not intended when the Laws were first put into force...

It's that whole Goose-and-Gander thing that the OP seems to have had in mind, in launching this thread in the first place...

From that perspective - exercising our brains and putting scenarios on the table and getting folks to own-up to the need for consistency (even when they resist, but then come to the realization that fairness and equal access has its own [worthwhile] price, sometimes)...

The OP and thread were successful, after all...

 

[Annie]

I see a world of difference between a business that is 'walk in and be served,' i.e., restaurant, retail, etc., and one where one 'walks in' and enters into a contract on a one time basis, i.e., caterer, baker, photographer, cleaning service etc.

One is general population, no one should be refused barring disturbing the peace type of behavior. The other is more personal and by that very nature, includes belief systems of the parties entering a contract.

The first in refusal of service is discriminatory that causes those discriminated to be held in a 'public ridicule' position. The second is voluntary and actually provides both parties the substance of being comfortable. It's obvious that a KKK wedding to ask for a black photographer would be baiting. Same with a KKK photographer trying to garner black clients-only ijit blacks would give him business. Wouldn't happen.

 

[Kondor3]

"...One is general population, no one should be refused barring disturbing the peace type of behavior. The other is more personal and by that very nature, includes belief systems of the parties entering a contract..."

Counterpointing scenarios...

1. I am a Conservative, religious, pious, old-fashioned fellow... a baker... and my God and my faith teach me that homosexuality is unclean and perverse and sinful and to be shunned... and you are a Gay, coming to me and wish to contract with me to create a cake for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

2. The parameters for you and I are identical to (1), except that I am a Florist, and you wish to contract with me to deliver flowers for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was WRONG to refuse service, and that I violated your rights when I did so...

...how does this differ from...

3. I am a black photographer operating a studio and you are a KKK member and you wish to contract with me to be your photographer at your wedding, which I believe will be frequented by bigots but who are not manifesting hostility within the framework of our contract nor the event itself, and I refuse because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was RIGHT to refuse service, and that I violated NONE of your rights when I did so.

I don't see the difference, with respect to provision of service nor equal access, from a dispassionate, logical or ethical perspective.

But maybe I'm just being 'dense' in this context, today.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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...

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.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

"...One is general population, no one should be refused barring disturbing the peace type of behavior. The other is more personal and by that very nature, includes belief systems of the parties entering a contract..."

Counterpointing scenarios...

1. I am a Conservative, religious, pious, old-fashioned fellow... a baker... and my God and my faith teach me that homosexuality is unclean and perverse and sinful and to be shunned... and you are a Gay, coming to me and wish to contract with me to create a cake for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

2. The parameters for you and I are identical to (1), except that I am a Florist, and you wish to contract with me to deliver flowers for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was WRONG to refuse service, and that I violated your rights when I did so...

...how does this differ from...

3. I am a black photographer operating a studio and you are a KKK member and you wish to contract with me to be your photographer at your wedding, which I believe will be frequented by bigots but who are not manifesting hostility within the framework of our contract nor the event itself, and I refuse because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was RIGHT to refuse service, and that I violated NONE of your rights when I did so.

I don't see the difference, with respect to provision of service nor equal access, from a dispassionate, logical or ethical perspective.

But maybe I'm just being 'dense' in this context, today.

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.


>>>>

 

[Politico]

If their job requires it yeah.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If their job requires it yeah.

The photographer in question is the owner of the business (along with her husband).

She doesn't have a "boss" or a "job" (as in employed by another person or business).



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.I

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.


>>>>

You actually have that wrong, California interprets the Unruh act to apply to a place of business. It is New Mexico that would require a black photographer to attend a KKK wedding.

 

[Politico]

If their job requires it yeah.

The photographer in question is the owner of the business (along with her husband).

She doesn't have a "boss" or a "job" (as in employed by another person or business).



>>>>

That does make the whole thread pointless.

 

[FA_Q2]

If their job requires it yeah.

The photographer in question is the owner of the business (along with her husband).

She doesn't have a "boss" or a "job" (as in employed by another person or business).



>>>>

That does make the whole thread pointless.

No it does not. She lost the suit and therefore is required by law to attend the wedding. That is the point of the thread.

 

[High_Gravity]

A KKK wedding with a Black photographer, Chinese catering and a Mexican DJ. Wow the KKK are becoming more diverse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...One is general population, no one should be refused barring disturbing the peace type of behavior. The other is more personal and by that very nature, includes belief systems of the parties entering a contract..."

Counterpointing scenarios...

1. I am a Conservative, religious, pious, old-fashioned fellow... a baker... and my God and my faith teach me that homosexuality is unclean and perverse and sinful and to be shunned... and you are a Gay, coming to me and wish to contract with me to create a cake for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

2. The parameters for you and I are identical to (1), except that I am a Florist, and you wish to contract with me to deliver flowers for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was WRONG to refuse service, and that I violated your rights when I did so...

...how does this differ from...

3. I am a black photographer operating a studio and you are a KKK member and you wish to contract with me to be your photographer at your wedding, which I believe will be frequented by bigots but who are not manifesting hostility within the framework of our contract nor the event itself, and I refuse because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was RIGHT to refuse service, and that I violated NONE of your rights when I did so.

I don't see the difference, with respect to provision of service nor equal access, from a dispassionate, logical or ethical perspective.

But maybe I'm just being 'dense' in this context, today.

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.

 

[Politico]

No it does not. She lost the suit and therefore is required by law to attend the wedding. That is the point of the thread.

Then I guess he should have titled the thread better.

 

[Sunshine]

A KKK wedding with a Black photographer, Chinese catering and a Mexican DJ. Wow the KKK are becoming more diverse.

If I ever get married again I want black people to cook the food. The stereotype of blacks being good cooks is 100% correct! I've never eaten anything prepared by a black cook that wasn't delicious. There is an African restaurant in Nashville. It was on the other side of town from me and I never made it there. It is owned and operated by African immigrants. I also haven't found anyone who will go there with me once they find out that you eat with your fingers like they do in Africa.

But then I'm not in the KKK. Just the DAR.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.I

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.


>>>>

You actually have that wrong, California interprets the Unruh act to apply to a place of business. It is New Mexico that would require a black photographer to attend a KKK wedding.

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.

The difference is that discrimination occurred, not the location.

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.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Counterpointing scenarios...

1. I am a Conservative, religious, pious, old-fashioned fellow... a baker... and my God and my faith teach me that homosexuality is unclean and perverse and sinful and to be shunned... and you are a Gay, coming to me and wish to contract with me to create a cake for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

2. The parameters for you and I are identical to (1), except that I am a Florist, and you wish to contract with me to deliver flowers for your Gay wedding, which I believe to be a sin, and I refuse, because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was WRONG to refuse service, and that I violated your rights when I did so...

...how does this differ from...

3. I am a black photographer operating a studio and you are a KKK member and you wish to contract with me to be your photographer at your wedding, which I believe will be frequented by bigots but who are not manifesting hostility within the framework of our contract nor the event itself, and I refuse because I don't want anything to do with your kind...

...and yet, when you sue me, The Law will say that I was RIGHT to refuse service, and that I violated NONE of your rights when I did so.

I don't see the difference, with respect to provision of service nor equal access, from a dispassionate, logical or ethical perspective.

But maybe I'm just being 'dense' in this context, today.

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.


>>>>

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

As long as you refuse to provide service to ALL KKK weddings regardless of the race of the members at the wedding, there's no problem.

I don't get the point of the question. Why would you want a black photographer at your wedding?

 

[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...

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?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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...

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.


>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

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

In jurisdiction A, quite possibly; in jurisdiction B, perhaps not; or, at least the door seems open, for some judicial spin-doctoring and liberal (small L) reinterpretation...

Frankly, though, darned-near anybody can pick-apart the Collection of Statutes du jour, but part of the 'mandate' for this thread seems to be a discussion of the ETHICS associated with such cases, and that requires a little deeper 'reach'...

And, given that such ethics oftentimes form much of the the basis for re-interpretations of such law and extensions to such law and judicial social engineering over time...

It seems like some attention to the ETHICS of the matter - especially as this relates to possible new spin in the future on the State and Federal levels - might prove profitable and interesting and challenging...

Or not...