| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2012 01:12:06 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Maybe you'd get brownie points from the community if you would hire the person and then stand up for them if and when something ever did arise. If said business owner really felt it's not fair and it's not right, they'd be able to do that. If more business owners would take that step, the problem might be lessened. |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Could you imagine if no one ever stood up throughout history? Someone needs to be the leader. I would rather be that person than some peon on the side. |
Sure, if you want to be a martyr for someone else's cause. There are plenty of good causes out there that you can stand up for and get kicked in the teeth by society for it. I'm just illustrating what happens in the real world as opposed to what we would like to see. And there are just as many people that are willing to stand up for the other side to take a stand for what they know is right. |
Sorry, but I really feel that it's only happening because people let it happen. Martyr? ... doesn't compute. I don't own a business but if I did I would hire the best person for the job. That is good business.
LOL at Kelly. You're so right! My best hairdresser is gay and proud of it. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:15:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
There are plenty of good causes out there that you can stand up for and get kicked in the teeth by society for it. |
Like Susan G Komen. Oh wait, that went the other way. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:16:44 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Completely agree, but at the end of the day, if you did this, you'd have to look in the mirror and live with yourself. Bigots wouldn't care, but if you truly weren't, I think it'd be a more difficult decision to live with. |
True, but not as difficult to live with as a decision that hurts my business. I would feel that I sympathize with them, and wish them no ill, but let someone else take the damage from public opinion. I have a business to run and a family to feed. (I'm not a business owner, BTW. That was just for the sake of the example.)
No, its not fair and its not right. But it is. |
Yeah, I'm sure lots of white business owners felt the same way about having to serve blacks. As far as I'm concerned, those businesses that discriminate should fail. The disincentives to this kind of discrimination should be be ruinously harsh to outweigh any potential negative consequence from catering to a bigoted customer base.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:16:53 PM · #29 |
More info can be found here which is the story written from a law point of view. It has much more detail on the case. I always find the details of legal rulings to be fascinating.
BTW, this is a ruling specific to New Mexico which has "sexual orientation" listed in it's anti-discrimination hiring laws (an uncommon inclusion and I think only a few other states have it). Interestingly, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage but rather has domestic unions. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:17:25 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Sorry, but I really feel that it's only happening because people let it happen. Martyr? ... doesn't compute. I don't own a business but if I did I would hire the best person for the job. That is good business. |
Exactly! Hiring someone that would drive away my customer base is not good business practice or the best person for the job.
Again, it isn't fair or right, but it is.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:23:08 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The disincentives to this kind of discrimination should be be ruinously harsh to outweigh any potential negative consequence from catering to a bigoted customer base. |
I did a Google search for "jewish supermarket owner" to make a point about serving people against one's beliefs, and the first result was a white supremacist site with bigots trying to avoid them. :-/ |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:26:02 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Sorry, but I really feel that it's only happening because people let it happen. Martyr? ... doesn't compute. I don't own a business but if I did I would hire the best person for the job. That is good business. |
Exactly! Hiring someone that would drive away my customer base is not good business practice or the best person for the job.
Again, it isn't fair or right, but it is. |
As someone who owns a business, those aren't customers I want. Business isn't suffering.
EDIT - Aside from San Fran, apparently Toronto has the second largest gay pride festival in the world. Maybe my views are slightly skewed compared to rural parts of the US.
CS
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 13:32:55. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:32:04 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, this is a ruling specific to New Mexico which has "sexual orientation" listed in it's anti-discrimination hiring laws (an uncommon inclusion and I think only a few other states have it). |
21 states have laws against discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:36:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
As someone who owns a business, those aren't customers I want. Business isn't suffering. |
CS [/quote]
I feel we are discussing idealism vs reality. Whose business isn't suffering? In some cases yes, in some cases no. As a business owner, I need to sell product. I can't afford to be choosey.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 13:37:54.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:38:23 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Sorry, but I really feel that it's only happening because people let it happen. Martyr? ... doesn't compute. I don't own a business but if I did I would hire the best person for the job. That is good business. |
Exactly! Hiring someone that would drive away my customer base is not good business practice or the best person for the job.
Again, it isn't fair or right, but it is. |
Which is exactly why the sanctions for such discrimination should be harsh. If you stand to lose $10,000 from losing bigoted customers or pay $100,000 in fines plus criminal prosecution etc. to discriminate, how does that work into your business practice? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:45:53 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
As someone who owns a business, those aren't customers I want. Business isn't suffering.
CS |
I feel we are discussing idealism vs reality. Whose business isn't suffering? In some cases yes, in some cases no. As a business owner, I need to sell product. I can't afford to be choosey. |
Your analysis fails to account for the offset due to increased business from those you don't discriminate against or penalties and loss of business due to discrimination. If you're selling "E-Z Light Crosses" or pre-made "God Hates Fags" signs, then perhaps none of your existing customers will shy away based on accusations of discrimination. More likely though, your non-bigoted customers will be inclined to take their business elsewhere as will the group you're discriminating against.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 13:46:20. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:54:21 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
A photography business owner also has the right to choose his/her clients, right? |
No more than the owner of Greyhound has the right to seat only whites on his buses. |
But, Greyhound doesn't have to *go* where/when the passenger tells them. :P
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have. I don't have to accept them. As mentioned earlier, if this is the same case, this studio got into hot water when they *accepted* the client, *then* refused them later when they found out they were same sex. There was a big ole dpc thread about it.
Another example, I do educational consulting and testing for homeschoolers in the area. I can also turn away customers in that business as well. I do not *have* to test someone just because they come to me with money in hand and want me to.
(And before someone jumps to a conclusion -- my reasons for turning someone down as a potential customer have never been based on sexual orientation.)
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 13:56:56. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:56:33 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
A photography business owner also has the right to choose his/her clients, right? |
No more than the owner of Greyhound has the right to seat only whites on his buses. |
But, Greyhound doesn't have to *go* where/when the passenger tells them. :P
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have. I don't have to accept them. As mentioned earlier, if this is the same case, this studio got into hot water when they *accepted* the client, *then* refused them later when they found out they were same sex. There was a big ole dpc thread about it.
(And before someone jumps to a conclusion -- my reasons for turning someone down have never been based on sexual orientation.) |
Greyhound can also refuse to seat passengers, just not because of their race/religion etc. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 01:58:01 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Which is exactly why the sanctions for such discrimination should be harsh. If you stand to lose $10,000 from losing bigoted customers or pay $100,000 in fines plus criminal prosecution etc. to discriminate, how does that work into your business practice? |
You missed the fact that I simply tell the potential employee that someone else was better qualified for the position. There is no discrimination visible.
I need to reiterate that this is not actually how I feel, I am just playing the devil's advocate here and saying this is the way things really work as opposed to the way we might prefer.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:07:46 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
What is it about homosexuals that gets people so defensive? I've never understood this on any front.
CS |
Many heterosexual men get "uncomfortable" when they think (imagine?) someone (male) is "sizing them up" as an object of sexual gratification -- something women have to deal with all the time ... :-( |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:11:29 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by karmat:
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have... Another example, I do educational consulting and testing for homeschoolers in the area. I can also turn away customers in that business as well. |
Sure, but in 21 states (NC not among them for obvious reasons) you can't do that on the basis of sexual orientation. If you were in one of those states and told a couple you were already booked after it was revealed they were same sex and one of their friends called later and booked the same time without question, you would probably be facing a lawsuit. And lose. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:19:17 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have... Another example, I do educational consulting and testing for homeschoolers in the area. I can also turn away customers in that business as well. |
Sure, but in 21 states (NC not among them for obvious reasons) you can't do that on the basis of sexual orientation. If you were in one of those states and told a couple you were already booked after it was revealed they were same sex and one of their friends called later and booked the same time without question, you would probably be facing a lawsuit. And lose. |
There should be more inspections like this and people should be punished severely, homophobes are just suppressed gays.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:19:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have... Another example, I do educational consulting and testing for homeschoolers in the area. I can also turn away customers in that business as well. |
Sure, but in 21 states (NC not among them for obvious reasons) you can't do that on the basis of sexual orientation. If you were in one of those states and told a couple you were already booked after it was revealed they were same sex and one of their friends called later and booked the same time without question, you would probably be facing a lawsuit. And lose. |
so back to what i said earlier if i owned a studio and said i could do it if i could find a photographer on staff willing to do it. assuming i am the only photographer employed would i have to do it?
as an employee, my place of business cant force me to do something against my beliefs.
so as a sole employee, i refuse but the business agrees. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:19:30 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chazoe:
But a photographer is not like a gas station or a supermarket. At least not IMHO. |
Your opinion matters slightly less than two different courts. The court isn't telling the studio who they have to shoot, only that can't refuse to shoot people for discriminatory reasons. If the studio refused to shoot a wedding couple because they were obese or elderly or Hispanic, I would expect the exact same result. This would also apply to a plumber, caterer, magician, roofer, etc. You either offer a service to the public or you don't. |
I realize my opinion matters less than the court, but that does not mean I am not allowed to have it or express it.
To me a wedding Photographer is an artist whom is commissioned by the bride and groom and that is a completely different thing than a bus or grocery store. If a painter refused to paint a painting for someone because of this same reason would it go to court? I doubt it. What makes a wedding photographer different.
I just think it treads into dangerous water. I'm not saying the photog was right just that they should have the right to be wrong.
Now, I don't know the entire story and if what it sounds like is true and the photog took the job then refused later and the couple's wedding plans were messed up or they had a big inconvenience finding a replacement in a short time I wholeheartedly believe they are due some compensation. That's a different matter altogether.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:25:02 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
as an employee, my place of business cant force me to do something against my beliefs. |
And if you're a white supremacist and the sole employee of a barber shop when a minority walks in...? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:25:05 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, this is a ruling specific to New Mexico which has "sexual orientation" listed in it's anti-discrimination hiring laws (an uncommon inclusion and I think only a few other states have it). |
21 states have laws against discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" |
That is more than I thought. Perhaps more have passed since it last came up (a number of years ago). You can see the list here. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:26:02 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Which is exactly why the sanctions for such discrimination should be harsh. If you stand to lose $10,000 from losing bigoted customers or pay $100,000 in fines plus criminal prosecution etc. to discriminate, how does that work into your business practice? |
You missed the fact that I simply tell the potential employee that someone else was better qualified for the position. There is no discrimination visible.
I need to reiterate that this is not actually how I feel, I am just playing the devil's advocate here and saying this is the way things really work as opposed to the way we might prefer. |
Visible or not, the discrimination is there and your actions place you, your business and anyone else with an interest in you or your business at unnecessary risk from a discrimination lawsuit. It will be on you to show that you don't discriminate. You may be able to get away with it once or twice, but a history of not hiring gay candidates will do you in. Then what about the employee who you let go despite good performance reviews shortly after they came out as homosexual. Or all the other openly gay (or those you suspected as gay)candidates who didn't get hired. How many gays do you currently employ? Once the lawsuit is filed, the stories will start to roll in and unless your poop is in a group, your ship is sunk. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:27:43 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
As a photographer/studio owner, I *can* turn down customers, for a myriad of reasons, and have... Another example, I do educational consulting and testing for homeschoolers in the area. I can also turn away customers in that business as well. |
Sure, but in 21 states (NC not among them for obvious reasons) you can't do that on the basis of sexual orientation. If you were in one of those states and told a couple you were already booked after it was revealed they were same sex and one of their friends called later and booked the same time without question, you would probably be facing a lawsuit. And lose. |
so back to what i said earlier if i owned a studio and said i could do it if i could find a photographer on staff willing to do it. assuming i am the only photographer employed would i have to do it?
as an employee, my place of business cant force me to do something against my beliefs.
so as a sole employee, i refuse but the business agrees. |
And if you believe something like "A woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant."? Then what? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:36:06 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
I realize my opinion matters less than the court, but that does not mean I am not allowed to have it or express it. |
Of course. You can have and express whatever opinion you like, but whether a photo studio is like a gas station or supermarket is a mater of law, not personal opinion.
Originally posted by chazoe:
To me a wedding Photographer is an artist whom is commissioned by the bride and groom and that is a completely different thing than a bus or grocery store. If a painter refused to paint a painting for someone because of this same reason would it go to court? |
See above. Multiple courts considered the studio to be a public accommodation, just as a caterer or plumber would be commissioned by a couple to perform a service. Now there might be a difference between, say, a portrait painter who works by word of mouth without a state business license and a house painter whose services are offered to the public, but this is squarely in the latter domain. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 02:39:04 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
To me a wedding Photographer is an artist whom is commissioned by the bride and groom and that is a completely different thing than a bus or grocery store. If a painter refused to paint a painting for someone because of this same reason would it go to court? I doubt it. What makes a wedding photographer different.
|
I would say that a wedding photographer business is very much like a bus or grocery store in that all it does is advertise a product or service in exhange for money. If a portrait painter worked in the same business model as the wedding photog then they would surely be treated the same way if they showed the same discrimination. If they advertised and were looking for commisions then refused to paint someone because they were gay then of course the court should, and i imagine would, treat them the same way. Portrait painters often work in differnt ways though so if, for example, they advertise for straight christian white men for a series of portraits of straight white christian men and they had a black lesbian buddhist apply then they've got every right to say, no, that's not quite what we are after. |
|
