tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857986220109964085.post3931422987109330015..comments2023-10-13T19:42:07.764-07:00Comments on Spherical Model: BignessSpherical Modelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03075073544063199778noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857986220109964085.post-41973995172990124732015-04-17T12:19:14.251-07:002015-04-17T12:19:14.251-07:00Thanks for that added information. People shouldn&...Thanks for that added information. People shouldn't be coerced into using their talents against their principles--and lawyers already know this.Spherical Modelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075073544063199778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857986220109964085.post-66803922188057472992015-04-17T05:42:26.244-07:002015-04-17T05:42:26.244-07:00There is a big hypocrisy among these big lawyers, ...There is a big hypocrisy among these big lawyers, as well as many other lawyers who are deriding the statute in Indiana. They believe that there should not be protection against a discrimination suit where a person refuses to provide a service for a particular event that is repugnant to them, but otherwise would serve the client. Yet the lawyers themselves are given this protection when service would ordinarily be mandatory. Under ABA model rule of professional conduct 6.2, if a lawyer is appointed as counsel by the court, that lawyer must zealously represent the client. But even here, the lawyer may still decline representation for good cause, including where the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to likely impair the representation or relationship. What this means is that a black criminal defense lawyer will not be required to defend a KKK member accused of a hate crime, such as lynching a black man. Likewise, a lesbian lawyer would not be required to defend a Colorado bakery in a discrimination suit for refusing to provide a cake for a homosexual “marriage.” However, these lawyers do not feel that the Colorado bakery should be provided the same right that they provide themselves. <br /><br />I am not saying that rule 6.2 is a bad rule. Indeed, as lawyers are required to provide zealous representation it is necessary to provide a way out when they will not be able to perform as the client needs. But in all of these cases that business owners have been found to be discriminatory, the service required some level of artistic talent, which could not be provided as well when the cause is so repugnant as to impair the artistry.<br />Political Spherehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03096195054134542440noreply@blogger.com