Oh come on now! We both know that plenty of businesses deny services to people on the basis of race, gender identity, sexuality and various other factors and they do so quite legitimately.

Those statutes offer very little protection. All they have to do is come up with some other reason for denying service to an individual and there’s not a damn thing that can be done. No one can know what’s in another person’s mind.

And personally I find any legislation that attempts to force a private individual or business to engage with a person they don’t like, for whatever reason, completely abhorrent. If I was running a business I would want the right to refuse service to the right wing nutjobs who attempt to deny me my rights, so if I expect that right I cannot attempt to deny them the right to serve me.

Yes, there is legislation that, in theory, prevents businesses from discriminating, but we both know all too well how effective that legislation is.

“a private business DOES have the right to deny service to ANYONE for ANY REASON. Would I accept it? Absolutely not. Would I be angry? Most certainly. Do they have the RIGHT to deny me service for being gay? Yes.”

This is a common misconception. If a business offers its good or services to the public (and is, in fact, a business and not a genuine private club or religious institution), then they are obligated to comply with various statutes that limit their ability to discriminate. Most importantly with respect to this example are laws that prohibit discrimination in “public accommodations” (i.e., businesses who offer goods or services to the public) on the basis of race, sex and other factors. In some jurisdictions, these statutes include protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and, in a few, gender identity or expression. In those jurisdictions, a business does NOT have the right to deny you service because you are gay or trans, any more than they can do so because you are black.

“Why do the various LGBTIQ groups put not out a list of which lawyers (AND LAW FIRMS) are pro-LGBTIQ and will do their best to support and represent us? I have had a really difficult time over the years finding a good pro-LGBTIQ lawyer. I have had to use word of mouth, but it is difficult to find one even that way. Can we not create a Good Gay Servicing Seal of Approval and allow the lawyers and their firms to use it like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval?

The local pink and lavender directories seldom have (many) professional people listed, and that has been where I have lived in the states of California, Ohio, Kentucky West Virginia and Florida.

Somehow, we need to find those professionals that will graciously and appropriately service our community.”

One thing you can do is to ask the attorney if s/he is a member of the National LGBT Law Association – http://www.nlgla.org/. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an online membership directory that the public can access. In larger cities and states, there may be a comparable local gay bar associations you can contact. Your best source for that information is the State Bar Association for your state.

Abby
Arizona Attorney

It is also important to note that the Ethics Rules applicable to attorneys (yes, there are some) specifically require attorneys to withdraw from cases where their personal opinions interfere with their ability to fully represent their client. From what I can see, the addition to the Oath of Office would not change this rule. Instead, I believe it will simply make it more clear that attorneys who object to their clients or clients’ issues on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. MUST withdraw from that representation, or decline to take the case in the first place. Any attorney who violates these rules is subject to discipline, including disbarment. If any of you have been in that situation, I urge you to contact your State Bar Association and file an ethics complaint. It does work.

Now, I have to find out why the proposal doesn’t include “gender identity and expression,” as it should.

Abby
Arizona Attorney

What an interesting moral conscience they have!

Such protections already exist. Under the law that existed before, no doctor could be compelled to provide any non-emergency treatment they didn’t feel was necessary or that went against their personal beliefs. All they were required to do was to act in the best interests of their patient and refer them to a doctor who WOULD give them the treatment they required.

That protection already existed. This new law allows doctors to discriminate and deny treatment to ANYONE they don’t like, and claim it was because of a moral or religious objection.

“For the most part, lawyers should be able to pick and choose their clients and the area of law they want to practice. Except when it comes to criminal defense, when it becomes necessary to have a lawyer to offset the state’s attorney. Then, though I would not choose to defend the (alleged)criminal for a pile of cash, if the Court appointed me, I would do so and attempt to provide the best legal defense.”

Sorry, but where personal liberty is at stake, as it so often is in criminal matters, lawyers should most definitely be able to pick and choose their clients. Every man and woman is entitled to the best possible defense. If you have a bigot who thinks you should be locked up simply for being gay, do you think he is the best person to defend you?

It may be hard for the LGBT community to find lawyers who will adequately represent their interests, but that search is worthwhile in the interests of justice and should not be inhibited by an oath that would force lawyers to take cases out of fear that they might be sued or disbarred if they don’t.

“Imagine you walk into the restaurant, and they will ask you to leave just because you are LGBT. Will you accept this?”

No, but then a private business DOES have the right to deny service to ANYONE for ANY REASON. Would I accept it? Absolutely not. Would I be angry? Most certainly. Do they have the RIGHT to deny me service for being gay? Yes.

Any privately owned business has the right to pick and choose their customers. Doing so may harm their business, and if I was denied service somewhere because I’m gay I would (and have in the past) publicise that fact to the gay community and ask them to act with their conscience and boycott that business.

It is their right to serve whoever they want. It is my right to deny them service because they’re bigots. That’s how it works when it comes to private businesses.

There are, however, some groups who do NOT have the right to discriminate. The police, for example, do not have the right to refuse to protect me and investigate a complaint I file because I’m gay. As for doctors, any doctor can refuse to provide any patient any non-essential medical treatment. That has always been the law, as far as I’m aware, though I admit it may vary from State to State in the US. All a doctor is obliged to do is provide that patient with a referral to a doctor who can treat them.

Prosecutors do not, and should not, have the right to refuse to prosecute a case on the grounds that they don’t like the victim. State-provided lawyers should not have the right to deny defense to a client simply because they don’t like that client, though if they genuinely believe that they cannot act in the best interests of their client they should, and do, have the right to step aside (though admittedly that may result in disbarment in some cases).

Private lawyers, however, already have the right to pick and choose their clients, their cases, and nothing should be done to interfere with that. It ensures that lawyers only take those clients whose interests they feel they can adequately represent. It is a safeguard that protects the integrity of the justice system, and this oath would only serve to undermine that safeguard.