"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:3HS%g.5241$Bs.1313@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

"Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:oPE%g.12556$Lv3.8806@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:fP7%g.23342$Zn1.11381@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161559837.569362.284070@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

Private businesses aren't a branch of government.

Private businesses are subject to its laws, however.

This case is about performing labor.
Mandating that this business must perform labor for specific clients
is
mandating slavery.

The 13th Amendment says that one cannot be placed into involuntary
servitude which is a good thing or else people would have a much harder
time getting out of employment contracts. That said most states and the
Federal Government have laws which govern businesses. If you are
operating a business open to the public then you come under the purview
of at least some of those laws. In California for example, one cannot
discriminate based upon sex, race, religion, national origin, ethnicity,
sexual orientation or a number of other categories. You can refuse to
provide services to customers but you may not do so for these reasons.
If you do, then you can be sued.

I do not expect that anyone is going to force a gardener to perform work
for a set of people he doesn't like. However, if that gardener is so
stupid as to discriminate in his selection of customers because of whom
they are sleeping with, what color their skin is, or any of the other
prohibited categories, he stands a good likelihood of being sued.
Whether he is sued or not he stands a good chance of going out of
business.

Back in the early 1970's I attended a small Midwestern university. I
worked for a Presbyterian minister who ran a deli/catering business on
the side. He was asked by the gay student group at the university if he
would cater an event they were sponsoring and he agreed. Some of the
other ministers in town tried to persuade him to change his mind. I was
there when he told them this, "These folks are doing nothing illegal.
They are not asking me to do anything illegal or immoral. I am making
up a few deli trays and some salads. That's not in conflict with my
beliefs as a Christian. Their money is as green as anyone else's. I am
not in the habit of having my customers pass a morality test before I
will prepare their food. If I did there would be very few people who
would qualify and I would be out of business."

All that said does not allow me to force involuntary servitude upon
persons who do not wish to perform a service.

This sentence makes no sense. No one is forcing anyone to become a
landscaper. However the law does say that if you are going to offer your
services to the public you must do so within the confines of the law.

This business isn't a bonded public service such as a governmental
agency.
It would seem much more practical to me to acquire the services from
another contractor and not to raise the ire of suspicion upon those who
assume they can sue because someone does not want to labor for them.

Anyone can refuse to provide personal services to another for no reason
other than they do not wish to do so. However there are certain
catagories which restriuct that right of refusal. Here we are talking
about one. You cannot refuse to perform these services because of the
person's race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, gender and a
certain number of other catagories. If you do you run the risk of being
sued as well as having your license revoked. BTW in most of the United
States a contractor is required to be bonded to be legal.

How do all these California laws ensure that people are entitled to
personal autonomy with regard to their businesses and possessions in
light of the Constitutional provisions?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The law does not say you must work
as a landscaper, it only says that if you do so you must comply with the
laws governing that occupation. Are you suggesting that it would be
involuntary servitude if a landscaping contractor was sued for illegally
using poisonous chemicals outlawed by the state because of their harm to
people or the environment? If the contractor refused to hire anyone other
than Lutherans and was sued for that behaviour, would this be an unjust
infringement on his contitutional right? If he was required to complywith
OSHA regulations? Comply with Child Labor laws? How about minimum wage
legislation?

Many persons would dislike their government even more if a lawsuit were
allowed to proceed against this business owner to award non-incurred
damages to the persons who were seeking their services.
I do not see where any real damages were suffered other than a potential
loss of revenue by the business owners.
Having your feelings hurt or taking offense to those who are not
compliant with serving gays, such as this case shows, is not sufficient
grounds to sue.

What you talking about is the right to sue for a tort, a civil offense
against another that may or may not rise to the level of a crime. Tort
law is well founded in Anglo-Saxon law. It has been around since the time
of the Roman Empire. When the English came to North America they brought
it with them and it has thrived in the United States. There are certain
classes of damages which are not monetary in themselves, loss of
reputation being one and pain and suffering being another. These damages
are real in the sense that any damage is real. In cases of discrimination
damages are awarded for the harm to the person discriminated against AND
for the offense against society by the person acting in the discriminatory
fashion. I suggest to you that having one's feeling hurt as you put it is
an action which has always been legally actionable. If you go back to the
ancient Romans you find where they have sued each other for slander or
libel. This is equally true in other cultures.

In the United States in colonial times one had two options when slandered.
One could challenge the person to a duel and kill them or one could sue
them in court. Personally I think the lawsuit is much more civilized.
But do not think for a second that having "one's feelings hurt" is a
damage-less offense nor one that can be actionable. The right to sue for
such damages and such offenses has been around for centuries. What really
has your panties in a bind is that now people can be sued for behaving in
this fashion against gay men and women.