http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/23/new-mexico-guarantees-gay-couples-rights

8/24/2013 6:07:05 PM

http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/22/the-socially-acceptable-range-of-discrimination-revisited/

8/24/2013 11:39:31 PM

I thought this was about the article's image



In New Mexico.

8/25/2013 10:01:38 PM

Quote :

"http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/22/the-socially-acceptable-range-of-discrimination-revisited/"

We're not talking about what's socially acceptable, though. It's obviously socially unacceptable, in most contexts, to discriminate on basis of sexuality, race, gender, or anything else. If every law were wiped from the books tomorrow, and someone opened up a restaurant with a "No blacks allowed" sign, it wouldn't be a viable business. The market punishes overt discrimination, and where it doesn't directly punish it, there are plenty of alternative vendors. The Downtown Sports Bar & Grill's reputation is permanently in the shitter, as we all know. No crackdown necessary for you to not give them your money.

This debate is about what's enforceable by the authorities. If you refuse to do business with someone, and a judge determines that it was on the basis of some protected class, you now have to do business with them anyway, or shut down/face penalties, etc.

People have the right to be bigots, and we have the right to publicly shame and ostracize them.

8/25/2013 10:22:20 PM

Quote :

" If every law were wiped from the books tomorrow, and someone opened up a restaurant with a "No blacks allowed" sign, it wouldn't be a viable business."

But if they opened it up in the 1940s there would be a line around the fucking block.

8/25/2013 10:54:43 PM

Quote :

"If every law were wiped from the books tomorrow, and someone opened up a restaurant with a "No blacks allowed" sign, it wouldn't be a viable business."

In certain counties in our state and elsewhere in the south and midwest, I'm not so sure.

8/26/2013 8:59:49 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/05/georgia-students-fight-segregated-proms/

8/26/2013 9:04:36 AM

Quote :

"But if they opened it up in the 1940s there would be a line around the fucking block."

Right, and in 1800 you could put a price tag on a black person. It's 2013.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2013 9:16:29 AM

I think the point is that there are still people that were alive in 1940 around and their children and grandchildren have higher than normal chances of being bigoted pieces of shit.

America (and the rest of the world for that matter) is not enlightened enough to abandon enforced civil rights laws in favor of letting "the market" sort it all out.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2013 10:26:05 AM

If we get rid of discrimination laws, "white only" businesses open up, and the majority of people are okay with it, then that means the majority of people surrounding that business are racist anyway. If the only thing keeping people from putting up a "no blacks" sign is the law, then it's not going to be a welcoming atmosphere anyway.

8/26/2013 10:29:57 AM

I think "not a welcoming atmosphere but still offers the service to everyone" is preferable. I'm not compelled to abandon civil rights laws on the basis of "some bigots will still be rude to their minority customers."

8/26/2013 10:49:25 AM

Law follows morality, not the other way around. Lawmakers are almost always behind the people when it comes to civil rights.

For instance, in the 10 years leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment of blacks in technical and professional occupations doubled. Thomas Sowell talks about this in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality:

Quote :

"The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators."

8/26/2013 11:01:27 AM

Quote :

"Law follows morality, not the other way around"

Louis CK disagrees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUr2RkjykU

Quote :

"Lawmakers are almost always behind the people when it comes to civil rights."

This is an incredibly romantic view of a history that never happened. You don't have to go back very far to find the obstructionist who opposed civil rights every single step of the way. Hell, just look at Peter King today and his views on Muslim-Americans.

It really bothers me that you speak with such authority on civil rights and race relations when you've demonstrated over and over again that your views of market-based solutions stem only from ideological dogma rather than historical evidence.

8/26/2013 11:57:51 AM

Quote :

"Louis CK disagrees:"

But your own modern day experiences vis a vis gay marriage and gay rights should bear it out as true. And really, the truth of it visible with a bit of thinking on it. The laws (in the US) are generally a reflection of the people. If the law in question is a reflection of the majority, then by definition the law is following morality as the majority's morals must change for the law to come to pass. If the laws are are reflection of a minority, but a minority in power (say, rich old white christian conservative males), then the laws are also following morality as most (all?) shifts in morality are the result of the new and younger generations who have not yet risen to power.

8/26/2013 12:19:32 PM

and yet if we narrow the focus to race relations, or women's rights, we are met with tons of evidence that demonstrate that the powerful minority often go directly against the dictates of the electorate.

Just look at your own state government which has regressed in gay rights and women's rights and voter rights. I'd recommend not using anecdotal evidence, as the sheer volume of cases overwhelmingly support my argument, and not the silly argument that laissez fair, market-based solutions are an adequate tool for combating civil rights disparities.

8/26/2013 12:31:16 PM

Quote :

"The laws (in the US) are generally a reflection of the people. "

This is not true. The laws (in the US) are generally a reflection of the monied and powerful interests. Not a reflection of the people.

8/26/2013 12:32:43 PM

but for a new law to pass, morality has to change first in at least some parts of the country for at least some people

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM. Reason : qualifiers ]

8/26/2013 12:50:28 PM

I don't understand this trajectory of discussion. Even if morality of the "people" precedes the law, some people will still discriminate and should be dealt with.

8/26/2013 12:53:34 PM

^

8/26/2013 12:54:08 PM

Quote :

"and yet if we narrow the focus to race relations, or women's rights, we are met with tons of evidence that demonstrate that the powerful minority often go directly against the dictates of the electorate. Just look at your own state government which has regressed in gay rights and women's rights and voter rights. I'd recommend not using anecdotal evidence, as the sheer volume of cases overwhelmingly support my argument, and not the silly argument that laissez fair, market-based solutions are an adequate tool for combating civil rights disparities."

So by your own argument, the law follows the morality. Why are you disagreeing again? The general morality trend is in the direction of expanded rights, the law is playing catch up.

Quote :

"I don't understand this trajectory of discussion. Even if morality of the "people" precedes the law, some people will still discriminate and should be dealt with."

You deal with these people the same way you deal with any asshole, you ignore them, criticize them and boycott them.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM. Reason : fhj]

8/26/2013 1:25:32 PM

Quote :

"the law is playing catch up."

This isn't always true, which is why I brought up the NC government. The law doesn't move in straight line toward increased civil rights, and sometimes regresses.

People have this silly notion that once rights are codified, that they are permanent. But history is filled with examples where those same rights are taken away from people the minute they relax their guard and assume that cultural shifts are enough to maintain the status they fought to gain. That's why I meet ideas of market-based 'equality' with scorn. You can't just fight to gain your rights, you have to fight to maintain them. Boycotts and cultural pressure are only a portion of that fight.

8/26/2013 2:08:43 PM

You don't have a right to other people's stuff/time, no matter how racist that person is.

8/26/2013 2:11:07 PM

is that in response to anything?

8/26/2013 2:15:30 PM

Quote :

"You can't just fight to gain your rights, you have to fight to maintain them."

You do not have a right to the time and the property of private citizens, no matter how shitty those people may be.

With that said, leases for shopping centers and developed areas will likely have anti-discrimination written into their agreements. If you're running a business in a strip mall, having a neighboring business with a "whites only" sign significantly impacts your own business in a negative way, as the owner of the development is likely to feel the same way. Many (most?) businesses do not own the property that they operate their business from, so it's going to take a lot more than one rogue racist to open a discriminatory shop.

8/26/2013 2:39:42 PM

Quote :

"This isn't always true, which is why I brought up the NC government. The law doesn't move in straight line toward increased civil rights, and sometimes regresses. "

Sure, and I'm not arguing that it doesn't. I am arguing that the trend is that the law is behind the general morality of the people. And as you keep saying, (but for some reason insist it means the opposite) it holds true here in NC in regards to the issues of gay rights. The people of NC in general are trending towards gay rights (or at the least neutrality on the issue) as a result of cultural changes. The law in NC is not leading these changes, at best it's keeping up and at worst its actively hindering. Basically, my point is, if you take a moment in time and examine the general opinion of the people and sample the general position of the law on that same subject, you would not go broke betting on the law being behind the times in comparison to the general opinion of the people.

At this point, the only thing I can think of is that you and I are talking at cross purposes over the meaning of the phrase "the law follows the morality". I'm not using "follows" in the sense of "in lock step with" or "a good measure indicator of", I'm using it in the sense of "playing catch up" or "not at the forefront"

8/26/2013 2:45:36 PM

Quote :

"must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples"

I have a problem with this. It's a private business. It's their right to provide service to whomever they choose. You can't/shouldn't force people to provided service to those they don't want to. Service is a privilege, not an entitlement.

8/26/2013 3:22:28 PM

^ Yeah totally, I mean if McDonald's wants to decide they aren't going to sell hamburgers to gays and blacks and Asians, that would be totally their choice

8/26/2013 3:26:57 PM

You're completely delusional if you think the only thing keeping McDonald's from discriminating against black/gay/whatever customers is the law.

[] McDonald's is an evil, profit-seeking-above-all corporation
[] McDonald's would prohibit minorities if there were no civil rights legislation applying to private property

Pick one.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2013 3:54:48 PM

In no way did I infer that that I think that's the only reason McDonald's wouldn't make that rule. I'm simply saying that just because it's a private business does not give them the right to discriminate at their will, regardless of how suicidal it might be to their bottom line

8/26/2013 4:02:56 PM

Quote :

"You're completely delusional if you think the only thing keeping McDonald's from discriminating against black/gay/whatever customers is the law."

No, but Chick-fil-a might, and I should know, because I spent most of my high school years working the goddamn drive through window....but not on Sundays...because, because of Jesus.




[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Reason : that job sucked so fucking hard...]

8/26/2013 4:57:33 PM

Problem: A New Mexico bigot wants the freedom to discriminate against gays in a relatively trivial matter.

Solution: Strike all civil rights legislation.

8/26/2013 4:58:31 PM

The problem with this kind of decision and the law that it is based on is the same problem that exists with things like European hate speech laws. Curtailing basic liberties such as freedom of association and freedom of speech to avoid offending people is a bad use of government power.

I also have a problem with this pretty much assuming that every business is a public accommodation. A photography business should not be considered a public accommodation for purposes of right to refuse service.

What's even more problematic is that a gay photographer setting up a business could not similarly be required to photograph a straight wedding if he wanted to refuse service because straight people are not a protected class. While I'm hardly one to bemoan the fate of the majority, it has to be considered a bit perverse that something intended as a shield is now being used as a sword, but that's often the unintended consequence of many, many laws.

8/26/2013 6:49:15 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/24/south-carolina-restaurant-ejected-african-american-customers-when-white-person-felt-threatened/

Quote :

"South Carolina restaurant ejected African-American customers when white person felt ‘threatened’ A group of customers at a Wild Wing restaurant in Charleston, SC were forced to wait two hours for their table and then were ultimately denied service on the basis of their race. According to Charleston’s WNEW Channel 5, the group of 25 African-Americans were asked to leave because a white customer felt “threatened.”"

Quote :

"“I asked her I want to be clear with you,” Brown recounted. “I said so you’re telling me I have to leave. She said I have a right to deny you service. "

8/26/2013 7:57:53 PM

Quote :

"The problem with this kind of decision and the law that it is based on is the same problem that exists with things like European hate speech laws. Curtailing basic liberties such as freedom of association and freedom of speech to avoid offending people is a bad use of government power."

A)Why is "offering services only to the type of people you want" a "basic liberty?"
B)Who's talking about avoiding offending people?

Quote :

"I also have a problem with this pretty much assuming that every business is a public accommodation. A photography business should not be considered a public accommodation for purposes of right to refuse service. "

Why not? What's your distinction for "public accommodation"?

Quote :

"What's even more problematic is that a gay photographer setting up a business could not similarly be required to photograph a straight wedding if he wanted to refuse service because straight people are not a protected class. While I'm hardly one to bemoan the fate of the majority, it has to be considered a bit perverse that something intended as a shield is now being used as a sword, but that's often the unintended consequence of many, many laws."

I am certain that if this ever happened case law would support a claim for the heterosexual person. I also think it would never happen.

8/27/2013 9:21:32 AM

Quote :

"A)Why is "offering services only to the type of people you want" a "basic liberty?""

Are you seriously asking why not being forced against your will to provide labor for another individual is a "basic liberty"?

Look at it this way, even though the decision dances around this point, what is the fundamental difference between this case and a hypothetical scenario where a black or jewish photographer not wanting to photograph a white supremacist or neo-nazi wedding?

Edit
------

Or as an alternative, from Ken the Popehat comment thread:

Quote :

"Someone posed a question to me that I think illustrates the problem: Imagine that Westboro Baptist Church is holding a wedding for two of its members. Must a gay photographer accept a request to photograph it? How about a photographer whose son was killed in Afghanistan? "

Bear in mind that religious groups are a protected class.

[Edited on August 27, 2013 at 1:24 PM. Reason : sfg]

8/27/2013 1:02:35 PM

I have never understood why entrepenuers don't have a right to refuse to service someone, no matter what that decision is based on.

8/27/2013 3:08:44 PM

common decency?

8/27/2013 8:59:28 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously asking why not being forced against your will to provide labor for another individual is a "basic liberty"?"

No one is being forced to do anything.

No one is having a camera shoved into their hands.

No one is being forced to open a business.

No one is being forced to provide services to the public.

However, some people do choose to open a business in the state of New Mexico and offer services to the public.

8/27/2013 11:13:09 PM

Couldn't the couple in question have simpley hired a different photographer instead of a lawyer?

8/28/2013 2:27:35 AM

Quote :

"No one is being forced to provide services to the public."

Except that they are. It's just more reason to make your business a private "members only" entity to avoid bullshit like this, or declare yourself a church. That works too apparently.

8/28/2013 10:02:07 AM

There's a bed and breakfast that my wife and I really like visiting. They don't allow couples with children. We have a kid now, so guess what, we'll find another B&B. Are we looking to hire a lawyer? No.

How is this any different? We made a lifestyle choice - to have children. And we'll deal with the consequences. We'll probably even come up against restaurants that don't allow small children. But I still think it is the business owners right to refuse service to someone they may not like, for whatever reason.

8/28/2013 10:07:51 AM

I think I'd rather know which businesses aren't friendly to groups I belong to, rather than force them to cater to me. You can't force tolerance, and I don't want to give bigots my money.

Quote :

"We made a lifestyle choice"

being gay is not a lifestyle choice

[Edited on August 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/28/2013 10:08:39 AM

Neither is being born. Yet our child can't stay at that B&B. I fail to see a difference.

8/28/2013 10:16:48 AM

your child also can't vote, drive a car, own a gun, have a job, etc.

your child is under your care and does not have full rights. you chose to have a child.

i can't believe i have to explain how this is different

8/28/2013 10:22:22 AM

Quote :

""Are you seriously asking why not being forced against your will to provide labor for another individual is a "basic liberty"?" No one is being forced to do anything. No one is having a camera shoved into their hands. No one is being forced to open a business. No one is being forced to provide services to the public. However, some people do choose to open a business in the state of New Mexico and offer services to the public. "

They are being forced.

The question is if this is right or not. We as a society decided that racism was wrong a few decades ago, and we force people to accept this view in their business practices (rightfully so).

If we as a society decide that homophobia is equally wrong, then we should also accept forcing businesses to accept gays.

Laws an morality are intricately linked, and the country's moral compass is shifting on gays. Cases like this only seem "weird" because they are, it's a new thing that couldn't have happened a few years ago.

A few decades from now, no one will care if a gay couple sues a photography studio for discriminating against them.

8/28/2013 10:34:38 AM