4 ms·
It's more a case of, they would already be forced to under existing laws and the new bill does nothing to change that situation. (if that makes sense?) What is
by synicalx 9y ago
It's more a case of, they would already be forced to under existing laws and the new bill does nothing to change that situation. (if that makes sense?)
What is a little unclear, is how the intention of a service provider (lets say, a photographer) is determined if a same-sex couple makes a complaint about them refusing service. If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court?
- xupybd 9y agoThat's interesting, does anyone know who the burden of proof would fall on? Can you just refuse to offer service without giving a reason?
- microcolonel 9y ago> they would already be forced to under existing laws Well, the reason there isn't an exception for that is that it has not applied this whole time in the first place. Under existing laws, they are not forced to, whether that's by default or not.
- Renaud 9y agoProbably the same way if the photographer refused service to someone of colour. It could be racism or the photographer could just being busy.
- cynix 9y ago> If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court? Ask the photographer if they'll do the shoot before telling them it's for a same-sex couple.