Activity › Forums › Creative Community Conversations › Not sure how to bring it up exactly…is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
-
Not sure how to bring it up exactly…is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
Herb Sevush replied 12 years, 2 months ago 13 Members · 52 Replies
-
Mitch Ives
February 28, 2014 at 1:49 pm[TImothy Auld] “I will work with anyone without regard to their race, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other nonsense that people will use to marginalize some person or group they don’t happen to agree with. Jeez, I though we settled all this stuff in the late sixties”
That’s a perfectly fair choice Timothy. I think it’s one that a lot of us have made. Choice being the key word here. You’ve made yours and I think everyone will agree that it should be respected. My question is… should we allow others their right to choice as well… or should we have your choice or somebody else’s choice forced on them? That’s the issue here.
It’s the idea I’m supporting, not any particular legislation. I grew up seeing signs in every business that said “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. That right is now effectively gone. It’s a misnomer to assume that those signs were there to keep minorities out. They were designed to allow the business owner to provide a positive environment for their customers. People that were violent, smelled bad, used bad language, etc. could all be asked to leave.
I’ve travelled extensively and I’ve been in places where it was made quite clear that I, as a white male, was not welcome there. Places like “little Korea” in San Diego… and in some black communities. While I didn’t agree with them, I respected their right to make those decisions with regard to their business. I simply voted with my dollars and went somewhere else. At no point in time did I ever consider filing a Civil Rights lawsuit.
People ar too thin skinned these days, and the country is worse off for it…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
Timothy Auld
February 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm[Mitch Ives] “It’s a misnomer to assume that those signs were there to keep minorities out.”
I grew up in the south and saw those signs everywhere too. We disagree strongly that they were not designed to keep out minorities. The bottom line is that business owners have a perfect right to refuse service to anyone who is unruly, violent, or otherwise disruptive to the business. But no right whatever to refuse service to someone for being black, native american, hispanic, gay, or in show business.
Tim
-
Mitch Ives
February 28, 2014 at 2:03 pm[Andrew Kimery] “”The market” is a human construct cop out manipulated by those in position of power. Where was “the market” in the deep south during the Civil Rights Movement? How is “the market” fixing the still large pay gap between men and women? How can “the market” fix collusion between businesses when it’s those very businesses that make up the market? The wage tampering case in Silicon Valley right now is a perfect example. Everyone from Apple to Intel to Adobe agreed (some under duress) to not hire employees away from each other and to keep pay levels similar thus driving down and ‘normalizing’ wages across the board. “The market”, controlled by those in positions of power, actively conspired against employees.
“The market” only works under the assumption that businesses will always do their best to compete against one another for both customers and employees and that’s just not representative in reality. Capitalism is about making the most money, not building the best mouse trap, so why compete when collusion is easier and more profitable?”
Let me make sure I got your point. Our industry is made up almost entirely of small businesses, so to make your point you use giant corporations as an example? It doesn’t fit Andrew. In our industry, if you’re difficult to work with, people don’t use you. If your work is shoddy, people don’t use you. If you don’t show up late or don’t deliver on time, people don’t use you. As a result, your business suffers and eventually you either change or go out of business. The free market accomplishes all of this because they have the choice to go elsewhere. They don’t need to sue you to accomplish this.
I love how everyone wants to bring up the deep south in their example. I can tell you that out here in the west, people boycotted businesses that discriminated against minorities during that time frame you’re referencing. Businesses changed because they had to in order to survive. Voting with your feet and peer pressure can be very effective tools for change.
I won’t comment on your Silicon valley case, as I have no direct knowledge of that situation and therefore I have no opinion. Shocking I know, as most Americans can deliver an opinion on anything in the complete absence of any actual knowledge. Watching the National news coverage on this bill was a perfect example. Of all the shows I watched, not a single one had their facts straight. Every one misconstrued this bill. It was fascinating to watch these people pontificate while being wrong on every single thing they said. Wow.
Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days. If you hate it so much, why are you in business? Why not get an over-paid government job instead?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
Mitch Ives
February 28, 2014 at 2:28 pm[TImothy Auld] “I grew up in the south and saw those signs everywhere too. We disagree strongly that they were not designed to keep out minorities. The bottom line is that business owners have a perfect right to refuse service to anyone who is unruly, violent, or otherwise disruptive to the business. But no right whatever to refuse service to someone for being black, native american, hispanic, gay, or in show business.”
It was different out here in the west, but then most things are. Those signs were never viewed in those terms here… at least not by anybody I ever knew, but then this was once the “wild west”, so signs of that nature were commonplace… just like guns.
Show business? Of course we should exclude them… 🙂
The issue is that refusing service as in handing you a hot dog through a window is not in the same category as forcing a prolonged relationship on somebody, which is what our business is. Sooner or later people are going to recognize this difference and understand that. Forcing you out on a one time date with somebody is one thing… forcing you into an arranged marriage is another. People are too caught up in their emotions to see the impracticality of this…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
Timothy Auld
February 28, 2014 at 3:15 pmThey are exactly the same. If a business provides a service then they may not refuse that service to anyone on what the law calls an arbitrary basis. Refusing a service to someone because one does not like or approve of how they live their lives outside the confines of your business seems to me to be the very definition of “arbitrary.”
Tim
-
Mitch Ives
February 28, 2014 at 3:41 pm[TImothy Auld] “They are exactly the same. If a business provides a service then they may not refuse that service to anyone on what the law calls an arbitrary basis. Refusing a service to someone because one does not like or approve of how they live their lives outside the confines of your business seems to me to be the very definition of “arbitrary.””
I get that. My point is that if this were in fact the universal sentiment, then we wouldn’t be going through this would we? The point is that not everyone agrees with you or several states wouldn’t be doing this, would they? I’m trying to find some way of respecting all sides, not just the protected classes. I can see that’s a lost cause with you, so I’ll stop.
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
Timothy Auld
February 28, 2014 at 4:00 pmNot the first time I have been given up as a lost cause. But I will say that what I was describing is not my opinion, but the law. Yes, in this case I agree with it. However, there are all manner of other laws that I do not agree with. But I do not try to bypass them because I don’t agree with them.
Tim
-
Walter Soyka
February 28, 2014 at 4:47 pmI get the sense that only a couple of the participants here have actually read the petition. If you haven’t, check out Richard’s link. The petition, briefs, and responses are all accessible, clearly written and generally free of legalese.
This case pits free speech against civil rights. Both of these should be absolute in America, so this case is much more nuanced than the discussion here makes it seem.
Can one couple be legally denied a service offered freely on the market to other couples because of who they are? Photography is considered speech, but can the law compel a photographer to take a photograph?
What about different public accommodations laws having different protected classes? Some expressly protect political ideology. The same principle that protects couples’ civil rights could be used under these broader accommodations laws to compel any one of us here to create media, say, supporting a political group that would seek to deny civil rights.
This case shows why a symbol of justice is a scale.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Timothy Auld
February 28, 2014 at 5:44 pmPhotography is not protected as speech as I understand it. The right to photograph events that are public is a protected activity. Someone paying someone else to take a private picture of them or someone or something else is not protected as speech in any way. It is to my understanding a simple business transaction.
One thing is sure though. If I am wrong about this and anyone ever tried to force me to create media to present a political agenda – liberal, conservative, or not of this earth – I would stand against that as strongly as I stand against anyone who would marginalize a group because it did not fit their personal definition as “moral.”
Tim
-
Andrew Kimery
February 28, 2014 at 5:49 pm[Mitch Ives] ” I can tell you that out here in the west, people boycotted businesses that discriminated against minorities during that time frame you’re referencing. Businesses changed because they had to in order to survive.”
Exactly to my point that “the market” isn’t some naturally occurring, overarching force of balance and equality. The ‘guiding hand of the free market’ is a human construct and there are times when humans must to be forced to change (like during the Civil Rights movement or the industrial revolution or modern day Earth where in some places ‘the market’ still says it’s acceptable to throw acid on women). Believing that some all powerful guiding force will magically fix things is a pass-the-buck, BS cop-out. What’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.
[Mitch Ives] “Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days. If you hate it so much, why are you in business? Why not get an over-paid government job instead?”
Shame you ended a decent post with an ignorant character attack. Where did I say I hated Capitalism? The problem I have is with the human element that manipulates the system for their own gain and to the detriment of everyone else. It’s a people problem not an ideology problem, though all ideologies are flawed in execution because humans are flawed. I’m more of do-what-works, pragmatic type guy rather than a paint by numbers, blindly cling to a specific ideology type guy . But, you already knew that about me didn’t you?
Since apparently the schooling you received didn’t teach you how to Google things here’s a link to the problem in Silicon Valley I mentioned. 😉
https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up