As an attorney I can refuse to represent anyone for any reason. If I don’t like them or I don’t support their “agenda”, all I need to do is to declare a “conflict of interest” and tell them to look for someone else to represent them.
But somehow, if some pervert decides that they want a cake baker to bake them a cake that has some phrase on it that they find repulsive, or they want a photographer to take pictures of their perverted ceremony, they can’t refuse or they can be sued and they will lose their profession.
If an attorney can refuse to represent anyone simply on the grounds that to represent them would be a conflict of interest, why can’t a baker or photographer make the same claim. Why can’t a baker or photographer just say, “I can’t do that because I have a conflict of interest.”
I’ve been making your point for days. But the same libs who tell you that “gays don’t have special rights,” will tell you in the next breath that they are a “protected class.”
But somehow, if some pervert decides that they want a cake baker to bake them a cake that has some phrase on it that they find repulsive, or they want a photographer to take pictures of their perverted ceremony, they can’t refuse or they can be sued and they will lose their profession.
If an attorney can refuse to represent anyone simply on the grounds that to represent them would be a conflict of interest, why can’t a baker or photographer make the same claim. Why can’t a baker or photographer just say, “I can’t do that because I have a conflict of interest.”
Funny, I was thinking about just this example today.
But attorneys are treated somewhat differently under the law as "officers of the court," so that might bestow a limited indemnification not available to other businesses. In fact, that's actually what an attorney's license IS - a certification of indemnification. So that might the empowerment to declare a customer a "conflict of interest" that others don't enjoy.
....”Why can’t a baker or photographer just say, “I can’t do that because I have a conflict of interest.”....
They probably could and would be smart to keep this in mind if any of us face such a situation.
Can the business owners use “Terms of service”, such as websites, social media, and other internet sites use?
if someone is found violating said terms, they are booted...
That's probably the best way to handle it, really. It's honest, but it isn't specific.
Homosexuals are trying to embed themselves into federal civil rights laws. As of now federal law bars discrimination for categories of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, and there have been recent additions concerning conditions for age, pregnancy, disability.
But nowhere in federal law is there a category for sexual orientation.
There are executive orders and actions relevant to sexual orientation but no federal legislative law.
As I’ve posted for going on 10 years now, this battle is ultimately an attack on the Church and now we see it clearly as such.
There is a solid way to defeat the social tyranny of the courts and it does not involve any branch of the federal government.