3 ms·

You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses

by Crito 13y ago

You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.

protomyth 13y ago
Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
- Crito 13y ago
  No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    First you state untruths about what restaurants are required to do and now you misstate what actually was ruled by the New Mexico Supreme Court on the photographer: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf "Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post). I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.

by Crito 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago

Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others

Crito 13y ago
No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
- protomyth 13y ago
  First you state untruths about what restaurants are required to do and now you misstate what actually was ruled by the New Mexico Supreme Court on the photographer: http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf "Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post). I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.