“I reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE and I don’t need a reason.”
I don’t suggest you go to court with that approach. What you do in your home may be your business, as long as it doesn’t involve flush toilets or light bulbs. However, what you do in a public business is NOT just your business.
Anti-discrimination laws would have no teeth if your approach prevailed.
Yep. This is one of the onerous legacies of the federal government’s 1960s Civil Rights “you-will-serve-black customers-or-serve-federal-time” laws.
"AD" laws shouldn't even exist, much less have any 'teeth'.
L
Oh give us a break, leftist and liberals have been discriminating for years - one look at the media, colleges, and the govt proves this point. Many of the HR managers are extreme leftists who refuse to hire whites or anyone who who looks like they have morals and values. Claiming that people cant discriminate is just stupid. The last value of a deginerate society is tolerance. Tell me if you dont discriminate they why not just leave your choices for where you live, what you eat and where you work by chance. Outlawing discrimination is like outlawing free speech - a ban only promotes it.
And hence why such anti-discrimination laws should be repealed. I hire blacks, gays or whatever because I care only about performance. But if a gay person tells me as a private business owner I must attend his gay wedding, I have a right to refuse. I live in Maine. The 54th of Maine led the attack on Fort Wagner with one of the first black regiments during the Civil War. Those who understand the right to be free and how to treat other human beings do not need legislation to tell us how to do this. Instead, promote education, not pass laws that force this on the population.
I wouldn’t have any misgivings about taking this approach in a courtroom setting. The simple fact is this: As a merchant, I will sell my goods and services to whomever I choose, at such time as I choose, under such circumstances as I choose. As long as my customer or client is in agreement, we have a deal.
In this particular case, the photographers should be free to make that same decision. If someone solicits their services, the photographers are not immediately beholden to those making the solicitation. No agreement exists just becasue someone decides they want that particular photographer. It takes a mutual agreement. There appears to be no mutual agreement in this case.
The reasoning of the photographer is not an issue, IMO. A simple, “No, I won’t take your photograph” will be sufficient. Personally, I wouldn’t even have a problem with “I don’t knowingly photograph homosexuals.”
This overly sensitive, society of victims that the Libs have been successful in creating is really beginning to chafe my scivvies. It’s time for people to stop playing a victim card everytime something doesn’t go just their way. It’s wearing very thin with a whole lot of us out here in the hinterlands...