What scares the f*ck out of you?

[Lamplighter]

V, It's much easier to decide.

If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.

(Printers may have an out in refusing what is legally pornographic;
but that is a different issue, not legally dependent on who is the customer.)

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

V, It's much easier to decide.

If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.

What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple, and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? It's a case that has drawn a lot of media attention because the starlet claims it was a real rape, even though she signed a contract earlier consenting to it in detail. The case isn't about the alleged rape, it's about another website streaming the video of it and violating the copyright. Anyway, can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple,
and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn
wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? <snip>

I'm not clear on your example... I'm assuming the following
Apple is your existing client.
The porn company is a prospective client.
The copyright issue is not between Apple and the porn company ?


I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.
Likewise for physicians deciding who will be their patients.
But there is the concept that everyone in need is entitled to an attorney and/or physician.

In your example, my first decision would be along the lines of
"Is there a conflict of interest or exposure of proprietary information" by representing the porno company.
If not, then a business license is to serve all of the public.

I suspect these kinds of issues occur frequently...
but I do not see a "religious freedom" issue in this specific example.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'm not clear on your example

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people.

... if these guys get into bed with pornographers ... (pun intended ?)

No, I don't think "it's just fine for a law firm..."
That's not to say I don't think it happens.

But, were the pornographers able to bring a discrimination suit against the law firm,
I believe and hope this law would have a hard time giving legal
arguments to defend their firm's actions based on PR or religious freedom.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.

A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit.

If such use (or misuse) offends the market (customers, potential and actual) then the owner will be punished through loss of profit. If such use (or misuse) pleases the market, then the owner will be rewarded through improved profit.

Not seein' how a focus on religion (freedom or restrictions on) serves any purpose 'cept to muddy the waters.

What I'm sayin': the atheist should be able to refuse the job for whatever reason (or for no reason) he cobbles together. The print shop is his to use or misuse as he sees fit.

Now, if I were the printer, I'd print anything and everything that comes across the threshold of my shop (if the money is right).

Monday: lesbian (I love her vulva!) wedding invitations.

Tuesday: KKK Holy Rollin' (don't forgit yer chewin' tobbacee!) Revival flyers.

Wednesday: Pro-choice (kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Thursday: Anti-abortion (don't kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Friday: Obama is my Lord and Savior (I'll blow him!) bumper stickers.

Saturday: Obama is the Anti-Christ (I'll blow him up!) bumper stickers.

Sunday: whatever comes through the door (and can pay).

But my mercenary bent is 'my' bent...can't see any good comin' from forcing that print shop across the way to do the same (besides, his principled stand [or prejudice] against 'this or 'that' may mean more profit for me).

This only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

Again: the religion angle that both (all) sides run through the legal machinery just muddies the issue.

But: of course, that's the way the chess board is currently set for play (and why, in the end, not a one will be satisfied with the short- or long-term results).

[henry quirk]

"...can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?"

In my view (outlined above): yep.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.

A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit. <snip>

Only if you are King on your own wholly-island could you make such an argument. (pun not intended)
And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King.

But like it or not, our laws require a business license to sell to or service the public.

You may try to make the trivial argument that the government just wants to make $,
but license fees are not the sine qua non of issuing a business license.

A license is a "statement" that each licensee agrees to abide by certain Laws, Rules, and Regulations.

And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S.