Then why are the refering to it as a "law"? I'm not the one who used the term first. It's called "The Human Rights Act of 1969" That's not a law? Whatever...
1) The answer to your first question depends on what "it" refers to. No, I'm not related to Slick Willy. But, if "it" refers to the decision in this case, then the answer is that yes, currently, it is the law that the defendant must compensate the plaintiff in accordance with the court's ruling. It is *not* the law that any businessperson must provide services to anyone who is a member of a protected class, despite personal reservations or objections. This is because a human rights panel is a very, very low level tribunal and the "law" they pass down only applies to the situation they are directly ruling on.
2) The Human Rights Act and its recent revision are law in the general sense. They are binding on the people of New Mexico. The application of that law used in this decision by this panel is not yet law.
It is a matter of interpretation. And since there have been lots and lots of legal rulings in many jurisdictions on what does or does not constitute a "public accommodation, and to my knowledge these generally are not nearly as broad as this panel determined, it is nonsensical to insist that there is no difference at all between this decision and the law itself, as properly drafted and voted into law by the legislature.
You quoted earlier an AG opinion that the law could not be overturned on referendum. That is not on point here. When I'm talking about appeals, I'm not talking appealing directly to the legislature to overturn the law. I'm talking about the defendant in this case appealing the verdict in this case to a higher court. (Or a district court, since the panel that rendered this decision is an inferior court to even the district court.)
The panel decided she violated the NMHRA of 1969 and it's relatively recent addition of sexual orientation which, so far I perceive as a "law". We'll just have to wait and see then, won't we?
NMHRA is a law. The decision of the panel is law only in a very specific sense, as applies to the parties in this case. Yes, we will wait and see if this interpretation becomes law.
They're claiming she discriminated in the providing of a public service. It's called the "service industry". Hotels, restaurants, Photographers, HVAC guys, they provide a service.
And that is clearly the argument the panel found persuasive. However, it's pretty telling that from 1969 through early 2008, even during the mid-80's and early 90's age of political correctness, the high court in New Mexico (or anywhere else) did not find that individuals could be classified as public accommodations. Such an interpretation reaches far beyond legislative intent.
My thinking is laws are in place to force us to do what is morally right.
Laws exist to prevent us from infringing on other people's rights
Same idea, different words.
I disagree.
And the ruling that a small business providing professional services on a contract basis is such an accommodation is both not binding law on anyone else in the state or country and is likely to be overturned on appeal.
Again, let's wait and see.
Certainly. We will wait and see if this becomes law.
