Quote Originally Posted by bob williams View Post
The question is pretty basic. Were their rights violated by providingdisparate treatment based on some legally identified protected class?

So, as others havesaid, refusing to provide services based solely on one of the protected classesis unlawful.
Your analysis is correct only once a business is found to be a public accommodation. While similar, public accommodation discrimination laws are not the same as employment discrimination laws. They are often found in the same umbrella law (e.g. the Americans with disabilities act includes both public accommodation and employment discrimination provisions), but the analysis is slightly different.

The case you shared with us is strictly a public accommodation case. The threshold issue is whether the photography business constitutes a public accommodation. If it does, then the next question is whether someone in a protected category suffered discrimination at the hands of the public accommodation. The court in this case found that the business was a public accommodation, which paved the way for a verdict in favor of the gay client.

Public accommodation laws (and courts' interpretations of them) have significantly expanded over the last 30 to 40 years -- as Rick appropriately reminds us, the writing on the barn does change over the years. The expansion of public accommodation laws is part of a larger trend to protect people who have traditionally suffered discrimination in this country. Despite the fact that I am a management-side employment lawyer and used to defend employment discrimination suits for large corporations, I'm very much in favor of this trend. But there must to be limits. This case, I believe, is one of those that crosses the line. They photographer's rights were violated as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks, Bob, for bringing this interesting case to the forum.