[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Minnesota "Human Rights": State Demands Christian US Filmmakers Make Same-Sex Films or Face Jail Time - [PEACE]

Hash: SHA256

On 10/21/18 7:15 PM, jim bell wrote:
> https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/ Prior to
> 1964, there was a doctrine that "public accommodations" had to
> serve all customers, in large part because those customers had no
> or little choice but to deal with the government or business.  On
> Sunday, October 21, 2018, 3:16:37 PM PDT, Marina Brown
> <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/18 6:05 PM, jim bell wrote:
>>>> state-demands-christian-us-filmmakers-m
>> ake-same-sex-films-or-face-jail-time
>> How about looking at actual law rather than what some ideologue
> says ? "The goyim know" is a nazi site.
>> https://codes.findlaw.com/mn/human-rights-ch-363-363a/mn-st-sect-363a
- -02.html
>> The question at hand appears to be whether wedding photography is
>> a
> public service or accomodation.
> I don't think it can properly be labelled a "public service",
> unless some governmental or quasi-governmental entity provides it. 
> The term "public accomodation" began to be abused in about 1964. 
> scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/
> Prior to 1964, there was a doctrine that "public accommodations"
> had to serve all customers, in large part because those customers
> had no or little choice but to deal with the government or
> business.   There were very few "public accommodations".
> Utilities, ferries, motels on highways, etc.  And that made sense.
> But the 1964 Civil Rights Act decided that it was okay for
> governments to force businesses to not discriminate, analogous to
> the fact that prior to 1964, many governments REQUIRED businesses
> to discriminate ("Jim Crow Laws").   As a libertarian, I cannot
> abide such control by government.   Also, I am quite confident that
> in the situation where government neither required nor prohibited
> businessess from engaging in discrimination, very few businesses
> would engage in any such discrimination unless the public
> considered it reasonable.  ("No shirt, no shoes, no service"). Jim
> Bell From: scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol52/iss1/2/
> A 1968 law article. "Under English common law, it was the duty of-a
> common carrier toserve all persons 5 without imposing unreasonable
> conditions.6 TheEnglish courts considered that "a person [who]
> holds himself out tocarry goods for everyone as a business . .. is
> a common carrier,"' andthat any member of the public may create a,
> contract with the carrierby accepting its general offer.8 The rule
> remains the same today.9Wherever English common law was exported,
> the rule that carriershad to serve the public without unreasonable
> discrimination went withit. The rule is therefore found in cases
> from Australia," Burma,1Canada,12 India,13 Ireland,' 4 and New
> Zealand. 15 An early South Africancase held that since a public
> utility must serve the whole public,an electric tramway could not
> refuse to carry non-Europeans,"8 althougha later case held that
> race was a reasonable ground for refusalto carry passengers.7From
> its earliest days, American law followed the English ruleI'8that
> railroads and ,other common carriers were legally bound to carryall
> persons and could not unreasonably exclude anybody, but they
> hadpower to make reasonable regulations and discriminations, and
> excludepassengers on reasonable grounds. 9 Even before the Civil
> War theIllinois Supreme Court had pointed out that ferrymen were
> commoncarriers because '!he enjoys'a franchise-a special privilege,
> which isgranted to 'him in 'conseqfience of his superior
> qualifications to fill apublic trust. 2 0 ° That court also
> pointed'out that "railroads are .'. commonhighways ... in the sense
> of being compelled to accept of each andall, and take'and catry to
> the extent of their ability."21'The rule remains unchanged to the
> present time. Thus it has beenheld that because of the special
> privilege of a monopoly franchise givento a common carrier to
> peiform a service for the public,22 the carrier,like other public
> utilities, cannot abandon its service without permissionof the
> authorized governmental commission.2 3 Thus, a recent case
> hasnoted- "This duty of a common carrier to meet the needs of the
> publicarises from its acceptance and enjoyment of the' powers and
> privilegesgranted by'the State and endures 'so long as they' are
> retained."24 Adistinguishing hallmark of common ;carriers is the
> obligation to carryall persons without unreasonable
> discrimination.2 5 Conversely, a carrier which reserves the right
> to pick and choose its passengers is not a commoncarrier.26 Thus,
> common carriers of passengers could not engagein racial
> discrimination merely by virtue of common law or statutoryrules
> prohibiting unreasonable discrimination, entirely aside from
> anyspecial statute banning racial discrimination.17Under English
> common law, a similar rule applied to innkeepers,2who were likewise
> bound to accommodate all travelers, unless they hadreasonable cause
> to refuse.2 9 The rule was similar in Scotland, althoughthere
> hotels could pick the class of guests they chose to
> accommodate."Cases to the same effect are found in Australia,3'
> Canada, 32 Ireland,33and South Africa. 34 Thus, when a Negro sued a
> London hotel for refusinghim accommodations, he was allowed to
> recover on the theorythat such discrimination was simply one of the
> many types of unreasonablediscrimination, and no special
> consideration was paid to the factthat racial discrimination was
> involved. 35 The Lord Justice-Clerk of theScottish Court of Session
> observed in a similar case:It is obvious that the defenders are not
> entitled to exclude thepursuer from their hotel because he is a
> Jew; and it would havemade no difference, in my opinion, had it
> been proved that he isa Jew of German origin. An individual is not
> responsible, andought not to be made responsible, for his ancestry.
> 3"[end of long quote]

We will see. I expect legally you are correct.

My bet is that the Supremes will vote the same
way as the bigot baker case and say they have to
provide service but NOT service that is in opposition
to their beliefs.

- --- Marina

Version: GnuPG v2