US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude

[Chris]

In the following pay particular attention to the comparison of Huguenin and Darden, and to the invocation of the 13th amendment.


US Supreme Court Endorses Involuntary Servitude (http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/04/us-supreme-court-endorses-involuntary-servitude/)


A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before that state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” ....

...In declining the couple’s business, Elane Huguenin did not injure or defraud anybody. The same is true of Antonio Darden, a gay hairdresser from Santa Fe who earned nation-wide publicity a couple of years ago when he announced that he would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage. Both Huguenin and Darden sought to exercise their property rights by declining proposed business transactions. Only Darden was permitted to do so, because he – unlike Huguenin – belongs to a “specially protected” class.

In its ruling upholding the actions of New Mexico’s “human rights” soviet, the State Supreme Court claimed that the lesbian couple had a right “to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of … sexual orientation.” This assumes that business owners like Huguenin have a duty to provide such services – and no right to decline participation in that transaction. In other words, involuntary servitude – despite being explicitly banned by the 13th Amendment – is justified in the service of “anti-discrimination” policy.

...This argument would only find traction, unfortunately, in a society where property rights are properly understood.

...

[zelmo1234]

There is an interesting twist to this! While they can for you to preform a service? They can't take away your right to free speech!

So for example! in this case, the owners of the photo gallery must take the picture at the ceremony of the gay couple. But they could in fact bring a work crew of about 20 people with extremely vulgar anti gay sayings on shirt and they can be a rude and vulgar in speech to the gay couple and attendants as they wish to be!

All under the aspect of free speech!

And I think that this is the way that the companies should react! take the job willingly and tell them that you do not agree with there lifestyle and then make it the worst possible day that they can have. And if they react violently, which they are likely to! Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!

It is time that we realize that we are in a fight for the very constitution that we are founded on and that this is not likely to be a war that will be won without very serious confrontation!

[Chris]

Well, I see it more as private property rights, beginning with self-ownership and extending to all I own by the fruits of my labor. No one else, not even government, only I have a right to decide how I use my property, which includes free speech, so long as I do no harm of course.

[Ravi]

Did someone sue Dardin to force him to cut the governor's hair? If not, how is the claim that he was allowed to refuse because he's a protected class realistic.

Not to mention that discrimination against political speech is not a protected right regarding Dardin.

[1751_Texan]

Well, I see it more as private property rights, beginning with self-ownership and extending to all I own by the fruits of my labor. No one else, not even government, only I have a right to decide how I use my property, which includes free speech, so long as I do no harm of course.

If you see it as a property rights issue, then the 5th amendment says the govenment can deny your property so long as due process is utilized. A court hearing and ruling is due process.

[Chris]

Did someone sue Dardin to force him to cut the governor's hair? If not, how is the claim that he was allowed to refuse because he's a protected class realistic.

Not to mention that discrimination against political speech is not a protected right regarding Dardin.


Go find out rather than make assumptions.

Isn't the point made that no one would even consider taking him to court?

[Chris]

If you see it as a property rights issue, then the 5th amendment says the govenment can deny your property so long as due process is utilized. A court hearing and ruling is due process.


Given that no harm was done, what crime was committed? None, so where's that due process? And isn't due process respecting all the rights of the person?

[Ravi]

Go find out rather than make assumptions.

Isn't the point made that no one would even consider taking him to court?The article made the assumption. I found out. No one sued him.

You couldn't take him to court because refusing someone service for political speech is allowed. Anti-discrimination law does not cover political speech in his state. Or most.

[Chris]

The article made the assumption. I found out. No one sued him.

You couldn't take him to court because refusing someone service for political speech is allowed. Anti-discrimination law does not cover political speech in his state. Or most.


Read the article again, ravi, there's no claim about a court case with Darden, that's your invention to dance around the point being made no one would sue him for his choice because he's protected.

And now you're inventing a case about free speech. Refusing to cut someone's hair is not speech. His refusal was the same as Huguenin. Would you thus claim Huguenin's choice should have been protected as free speech? Either way you're argument doesn't stand scrutiny.

[Ravi]

Read the article again, ravi, there's no claim about a court case with Darden, that's your invention to dance around the point being made no one would sue him for his choice because he's protected.

And now you're inventing a case about free speech. Refusing to cut someone's hair is not speech. His refusal was the same as Huguenin. Would you thus claim Huguenin's choice should have been protected as free speech? Either way you're argument doesn't stand scrutiny.
There's no claim of a court case, correct. The article stated that Darden was allowed to do something because he belongs to a special class. No such ruling was ever made.

Huguenin could have refused to photograph the couple under political speech. She did not. She did it because they were gay.

Again, anti-discrimination laws do not include political speech.



As of July 1, 2003, New Mexico non-discrimination law extends to categories of "sexual orientation and gender identity" as well as "race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap or serious medial condition." An Act Relating to Human Rights, N.M. S.B. 28 to be codified at ch. 196, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-1-2, 7, 9 (April 8, 2003); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-7 (2001). "Gender identity" is defined to mean "a person's self-perception, or perception of that person by another, of the person's identity as a male or female based upon the person's appearance, behavior or physical characteristics that are in accord with or opposed to the person's physical anatomy, chromosomal sex or sex at birth."
http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/new-mexico-non-discrimination-law1

[Chris]

There's no claim of a court case, correct. The article stated that Darden was allowed to do something because he belongs to a special class. No such ruling was ever made.

Huguenin could have refused to photograph the couple under political speech. She did not. She did it because they were gay.

Again, anti-discrimination laws do not include political speech.


http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/new-mexico-non-discrimination-law1




There's no claim of a court case, correct.

Right, you invented that. Now you'd think that admission on your part would end that line of thinking, but....


The article stated that Darden was allowed to do something because he belongs to a special class. No such ruling was ever made.

How could there be a ruling when, as you just admitted, there was no court case but the one you invented?

Darden was allowed to refuse service by the fact no one took him to court over it. The question you seem to want to avoid is why? Especially when for the same sort of refusal Huguenin was taken to court. Why?



Again, anti-discrimination laws do not include political speech.

The OP doesn't consider free speech but property rights. Why are you persisting with this second of your diversions?

If you don't want to address the point of the OP, that's fine.