This ought to get a reaction

joshhuntnm · June 13, 2008

Check out this article from my local paper:

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8893673

By SUE MAJOR HOLMES Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 04/11/2008 03:27:25 PM MDT

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.
Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages. Huguenin and her husband, Jon, own Elane Photography.
The commission's one-page ruling Wednesday said Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay $6,637 for Willock's attorney's fees and costs.
Willock, through her attorney, said in an e-mail that she was pleased by the finding.
"I feel that it is an important decision towards defining the responsibilities of business when they offer their services to the public in this state," she said.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty, plans to appeal to state district court.
"The fact she is a commercial business does not mean she loses her constititutional protection. ... The constitution prevents

the government from forcing people to choose between their faith and their livelihood," ADF's senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, said Friday.
The commission viewed Huguenin's business as a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or a store.
Willock's attorney, Julie Sakura of Santa Fe, said the commission's decision based on a public accommodation "is the correct application of New Mexico law to the facts of this case."
Lorence argued that even if the studio were a public accommodation, it is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Elaine Huguenin, as a Christian, would not photograph such things as a horror movie or something showing abortion in a positive light, either, Lorence said.
"There's a great artistic component to photography, and a lot of messages are communicated with a wedding-type ceremony," Lorence said. "No one should be compelled to participate in a ceremony when they disagree with it. The government is compelling speech here in a way that violates the First Amendment."
He said the ADF will appeal "as far as it will go." The organization has 90 days to file its appeal.
The state Senate this year shelved a proposal to allow for domestic partnerships in New Mexico after critics expressed concern that the measure was similar to recognizing gay marriage.

gus · June 13, 2008

A reaction from the parties involved solicitors or your expectation of d/grin forum members reaction ??.

I think people should just get over themselves on both sides & i would expect a majority of our forum members are well past jumping up & down about the stupidity of matters such as this.

PineapplePhoto · June 13, 2008

Well, religious vs sex-orientation issues aside.

I do not like nobody telling me what I can or can not shoot. If I were to choose the opposite (only shoot gay couples and not straight couples) would I be getting sued also? If I refused to take pictures of a gay p0rn film production, would I be getting sued?

mercphoto · June 13, 2008

PineapplePhoto wrote:

Well, religious vs sex-orientation issues aside. I do not like nobody telling me what I can or can not shoot.

If you are shooting for pleasure then you are correct. But I think things change quite a bit once you become a business. Certain anti-discrimination laws will come into play. It goes along with "nobody can tell me which customers I can and cannot sell to". The law can, actually.

If I were to choose the opposite (only shoot gay couples and not straight couples) would I be getting sued also?

Please try to justify a white photographer refusing to photograph the wedding of a black man to a white woman. You can't. For that very same reason you can't justify not photographing a gay couple's wedding.

Sam · June 13, 2008

This issue is old news, and seems to have people lined on on both sides.

This will be appealed, and we can revisit the issue at that time.

For me it's pretty simple. Both sides have rights, but when does one set of rights trump an others?

Lets say I asked you to photograph my wedding, and you declined saying I was too old, and unattractive. Since you felt it necessary to share your feelings with me, I might share my thoughts about you,

but that said, I would simply move on to someone who wanted to photograph me.

I can assure you all of one thing. The government will NOT dictate what photographic jobs, I take or don't take. Yes, that little dot at the end of the sentence is a period.

You can jump up and down say anything you like, but until you, or the government can turn me into a frog, I will choose the jobs I will take.

Sam

joshhuntnm · June 13, 2008

PineapplePhoto wrote:

Well, religious vs sex-orientation issues aside.

I do not like nobody telling me what I can or can not shoot. If I were to choose the opposite (only shoot gay couples and not straight couples) would I be getting sued also? If I refused to take pictures of a gay p0rn film production, would I be getting sued?

yeah, I thought this one one interesting response:
That's odd. I am heterosexual, but in favor of civil gay marriage, live and let live. But if this woman does not want to do the job because of her personal beliefs, that is her choice and should be respected.
I am an agnostic and have nothing with churches and religion and would not want to be forced to do a photo shoot at the 700 club or a bible thumping fundamentalist baptist snake dancer event.
Are they saying I should do that or be called discriminating? That is taking it too far.

Response: that is exactly what the law says. It says that you also cannot discriminate agaisnt a person because of their religion. So yes you would have to photograph the 700 club or a bible thumping fundamentalist baptist snake dancer event.

mercphoto · June 13, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

Response: that is exactly what the law says. It says that you also cannot discriminate agaisnt a person because of their religion.

Bingo! Absolutely correct. Sorry to tell you Sam, but the government will tell you what business you can and cannot turn away under certain circumstances. They might not turn you into a frog, but they can punish you in court. Jump up and down and say "they can't" all you want... but they can. And for good reason.

The religious "right' needs to stop acting as if letting other people of differing beliefs live their own lives is somehow threatening to them.

joshhuntnm · June 13, 2008

Sam wrote:

This issue is old news, and seems to have people lined on on both sides.

This will be appealed, and we can revisit the issue at that time.

For me it's pretty simple. Both sides have rights, but when does one set of rights trump an others?

Lets say I asked you to photograph my wedding, and you declined saying I was too old, and unattractive. Since you felt it necessary to share your feelings with me, I might share my thoughts about you, but that said, I would simply move on to someone who wanted to photograph me.

I can assure you all of one thing. The government will NOT dictate what photographic jobs, I take or don't take. Yes, that little dot at the end of the sentence is a period.

You can jump up and down say anything you like, but until you, or the government can turn me into a frog, I will choose the jobs I will take.

Sam

I understand the complexity of the case. If a resturaunt refused service to a gay couple, that seems wrong to me. But photographing a wedding seems different. I am sure it will be appealed, but as it stands now, the photograher was ordered this week to pay a $6600 fine. Lesson for all of us: if you turn down a job, choose your words carefully.

Sam · June 13, 2008

mercphoto wrote:

Bingo! Absolutely correct. Sorry to tell you Sam, but the government will tell you what business you can and cannot turn away under certain circumstances. They might not turn you into a frog, but they can punish you in court. Jump up and down and say "they can't" all you want... but they can. And for good reason.

The religious "right' needs to stop acting as if letting other people of differing beliefs live their own lives is somehow threatening to them.

Bill,

For the record, I don't have a religious horse in this race.

I don't want to hurt or offend someone just because they are gay, but on the other hand I do believe the gay couple that sued had an agenda here.

Would you seriously want to try and force a photographer to photograph what is supposedly a very personal commitment with great meaning, who doesn't want to photograph it?

I suppose if you were to put a gun to my head, I would take a photography job I didn't want to take, but why in the world would you? The photos will be terrible. Are you going to put a gun to my head, threaten me with death, and then sue me when the photos are terrible?

This is nonsense!

Again, I will type slowly for you.

The.... government.... can ....not ....force....me ....to .....
take....a....photographic.....job.....I....don't.....want.....!!!!

I value my freedom. I WILL NOT willing let you take it from me!!

Get it?

Sam

mercphoto · June 13, 2008

First off, Sam, glad you're reasons aren't religious in nature. Personally I find it hypocritical when people use religion as a justification for discriminating against other people. I have a feeling now you would agree as well.

Sam wrote:

Would you seriously want to try and force a photographer to photograph what is supposedly a very personal commitment with great meaning, who doesn't want to photograph it?

Sometimes some lawsuits absolutely are brought about as to be an example and to set precedent, an agenda so to speak. This very well may be one of them. And there is nothing wrong with that. In my mind this photographer did discriminate. It was not a valid reason to turn away business.

Again, I will type slowly for you.

The.... government.... can ....not ....force....me ....to .....
take....a....photographic.....job.....I....don't.....want.....!!!!

I value my freedom. I WILL NOT willing let you take it from me!!

Get it?

Sam, if you want to break the laws that state that you cannot discriminate against people go ahead and try it. There are legal reasons to turn away business, and illegal reasons to turn away business. Sexual orientation, religious orientation, disabilities, age, none of these are legal reasons to turn away business. And for the record, I was typing that slowly as well...

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

Harryb · June 13, 2008

When you engage in a commercial enterprise you also place yourself under the laws of the locality where you are conducting your business. If you have religious beliefs or political beliefs that are in opposition to those laws the law will usually win.

I got a speeding ticket last week and the police officer wouldn't accept my explanation that my religious beliefs forbid me to go 30 MPH. He didn't buy it. :cry

Rhuarc · June 13, 2008

Harryb wrote:

When you engage in a commercial enterprise you also place yourself under the laws of the locality where you are conducting your business. If you have religious beliefs or political beliefs that are in opposition to those laws the law will usually win.

I got a speeding ticket last week and the police officer wouldn't accept my explanation that my religious beliefs forbid me to go 30 MPH. He didn't buy it. :cry

LMAO!

heatherfeather · June 13, 2008

I think it is interesting that for years folks have avoided things like the draft because of conscientious objection. (A person's moral, ethical or religious views preventing them from being required to serve in the military by fighting or supporting war efforts.) And while it ticked some poeple off, it was generally accepted, even by the government. (Though I think they had to fight for it a bit.)

To me this seems like a similar case. Though it is sad that the couple had to feel rejected, I really think it is a bummer that the government feels like they need to force a person to do something that is contrary to their core values. The government respects core beliefs in the case of war but not photography?

I don't know about you but I always feel like the first meeting with a client is a bit of a interview both ways- are we a good fit to work together? Do I want to take this job? I am right there with Sam in that I choose who I work for, and that is my belief. (Not even related to religion at all- just plain old personality issues.) If I can tell that they are going to be a bridezilla, then is it discrimination if I choose to not work for them? (hasn't ever happened to me yet btw)

Waiting for the lambasting.... waiting...

Sam · June 13, 2008

heatherfeather wrote:

I think it is interesting that for years folks have avoided things like the draft because of conscientious objection. (A person's moral, ethical or religious views preventing them from being required to serve in the military by fighting or supporting war efforts.) And while it ticked some poeple off, it was generally accepted, even by the government. (Though I think they had to fight for it a bit.)

To me this seems like a similar case. Though it is sad that the couple had to feel rejected, I really think it is a bummer that the government feels like they need to force a person to do something that is contrary to their core values. The government respects core beliefs in the case of war but not photography?

I don't know about you but I always feel like the first meeting with a client is a bit of a interview both ways- are we a good fit to work together? Do I want to take this job? I am right there with Sam in that I choose who I work for, and that is my belief. (Not even related to religion at all- just plain old personality issues.) If I can tell that they are going to be a bridezilla, then is it discrimination if I choose to not work for them? (hasn't ever happened to me yet btw)

Waiting for the lambasting.... waiting...

Heather,

Well put.

The real issue here has nothing to do with gay or straight, and no I don't give up my rights when I go into business.

This case represents a core issue of when conflicting rights crash into each other, does one group have the right to subject the other group to their point of view. If we are talking about selling soda at the local convince store, then I whole heartedly agree, and will support laws that define this. (They already have laws for this).

But when we are dealing with small individual creative, hands on endeavors, I must side with the individuals right to choose who they will do business with.

While this is a bit of a gray area, it's really how we deal with these issues that will define who we are, and what individual rights we will have in the future.

Sam

Harryb · June 13, 2008

[

quote=heatherfeather]I think it is interesting that for years folks have avoided things like the draft because of conscientious objection. (A person's moral, ethical or religious views preventing them from being required to serve in the military by fighting or supporting war efforts.) And while it ticked some people off, it was generally accepted, even by the government. (Though I think they had to fight for it a bit.)

Not a good comparison. A person claiming CO status is saying that have religious convictions against killing. It doesn't necessarily bar one from serving. When I served in Vietnam one of our medics was a CO.

Anti-discrimination laws were passed because society found that discrimination caused harm to those discriminated against. Religious beliefs and convictions can be upheld when they are not causing harm to another. However if your religious beliefs called for the stoning of gays or the burning of "witches" I would hope that there would be someone available to interfere with your religious convictions.

In this case the locality's laws say that the photographer's business was a public accommodation and covered by the anti-discrimination laws. Personally I wouldn't want to give my business to that bigoted photographer. If the photographer had more sense than their own intolerance they could have made up an excuse like "I'm booked that day". Instead they choose to express a reason that was in violation of local laws. When you do that you have to deal with the consequences of your own actions.

Angelo · June 13, 2008

The photographer could have found all sorts of ways to get out of the job, using any sort of excuse, operational to creative but because it appears SHE had an agenda she chose to make it be about the couple's gayness and if she's been granted an operating license in a municipality that does not condone that type of discrimination she's simply wrong.

This is why the concept of seperation of church and state is so important but we've trampled all over that concept over the past few years.

joshhuntnm · June 13, 2008

Angelo wrote:

The photographer could have found all sorts of ways to get out of the job, using any sort of excuse, operational to creative but because it appears SHE had an agenda she chose to make it be about the couple's gayness and if she's been granted an operating license in a municipality that does not condone that type of discrimination she's simply wrong.

This is why the concept of seperation of church and state is so important but we've trampled all over that concept over the past few years.

Another quote from the paper's board:

Transcript of case: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-conte... ;]http://www.boxturtlebulletin .com/btb...8/04/elane.pdf
It was based on these emails:

Initial Email:
We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.
This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information.
Thanks

Elaine Huguenin responded
Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.
-Elaine-

Willock wrote for clarication:
Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
Vanessa

Huguenin in conclusion
Hello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine

That is the entire email exchange that led Elaine being sued.

Andy · June 13, 2008

mercphoto wrote:

If you are shooting for pleasure then you are correct. But I think things change quite a bit once you become a business. Certain anti-discrimination laws will come into play. It goes along with "nobody can tell me which customers I can and cannot sell to". The law can, actually.

Right... but oh my - look at how full up I am on the those dates... Sorry!

Harryb · June 13, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

Another quote from the paper's board:

Transcript of case: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-conte... ;]http://www.boxturtlebulletin .com/btb...8/04/elane.pdf

Having looked over the transcript it was pretty much if a slam dunk for the complainant.

Richard · June 13, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

That is the entire email exchange that led Elaine being sued.

Yep, and she will probably lose:
we do not photograph interracial weddings
we do not photograph Jewish weddings
we do not photograph Asian weddings

Get the idea?

heatherfeather · June 13, 2008

Angelo wrote:

The photographer could have found all sorts of ways to get out of the job, using any sort of excuse, operational to creative

And this is, I think, the solution that she should have used. Make a reason why you are unavalable that day. Go fishing with your kids- if nothing else-If you are uncomfortable doing business with someone you definately should not hurt their feeling or attack who they are. For instance, I would never tell a bridezilla that the reason I won't do her wedding is because she is a bridezilla. And so on.... But I still would not feel obligated to put myself under contract with someone that I do not feel that I would be able to do my best with.

PineapplePhoto · June 13, 2008

The constitution protects religious freedom, and discrimination against gender (not sexual preference/orientation). Though newer laws are passed (and some pretty lame still stand) I think the US supreme court and the constitution it upholds should be the standard.

But the way the US is headed, in a couple of years the US would have passed anti-discrimination laws to Zoophilia and we will be taking pictures of a guy and his goat...

Harryb · June 13, 2008

PineapplePhoto wrote:

The constitution protects religious freedom, and discrimination against gender (not sexual preference/orientation). Though newer laws are passed (and some pretty lame still stand) I think the US supreme court and the constitution it upholds should be the standard.

But the way the US is headed, in a couple of years the US would have passed anti-discrimination laws to Zoophilia and we will be taking pictures of a guy and his goat...

Actually there's nothing in the Constitution about gender discrimination.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The free exercise of religion gives one the right to belong freely to the religion of their choice but does not give them the guarantee that the practices of their religion will be allowed. A good example of this is the Mormons and polygamy.

Its interesting that you raise the spectre of bestiality though. I remember a couple guys from my army days talking about their sexual escapades with farm animals. They were horrified however when I told them I had friends who were gay.

joshhuntnm · June 13, 2008

heatherfeather wrote:

And this is, I think, the solution that she should have used. Make a reason why you are unavalable that day. Go fishing with your kids- if nothing else-If you are uncomfortable doing business with someone you definately should not hurt their feeling or attack who they are. For instance, I would never tell a bridezilla that the reason I won't do her wedding is because she is a bridezilla. And so on.... But I still would not feel obligated to put myself under contract with someone that I do not feel that I would be able to do my best with.

I'd guess the photographer just didn't give it that much thought, which is why I brought this up here. However we agree or disagree over the particulars of this case, we all agree on this: no one here wants to pay a court fee of $6600 because of a couple of email that they didn't think through all that clearly.

LiquidAir · June 13, 2008

heatherfeather wrote:

And this is, I think, the solution that she should have used. Make a reason why you are unavalable that day. Go fishing with your kids- if nothing else-If you are uncomfortable doing business with someone you definately should not hurt their feeling or attack who they are. For instance, I would never tell a bridezilla that the reason I won't do her wedding is because she is a bridezilla. And so on.... But I still would not feel obligated to put myself under contract with someone that I do not feel that I would be able to do my best with.

That is certainly a better answer.

My personal belief is that equal opportunity and anti-discrimination go hand in hand as core values that I live by. As such, I would never flat out refuse a couple purely because I disapproved of them (schedule conflicts are another matter) because I feel that one of the obligations of being a professional is providing access to everyone. However, when I am concerned about a gig I will encourage the customer to check out the competition in the hope that they don't come back.

My own personal bugaboo in wedding photography is alcohol. A few glasses of champange or bottles of beer are fine, but I find no joy in watching people get ripped. I shot one wedding where the drinking started at 8am (or earlier?) and the couple could barely stand for the ceremony. Who needs a fifth of Jack in their pocket to enjoy their own wedding? All I could see through the lens was the sadness of alcohol addiction and, while I still tried to do a good job with the gig, I am afraid it still showed in my photos. Did that hurt my sales? Did I do a worse job than someone else would have? Objectively I don't know, but I certainly feel like mine was not the best perspective on the day.

Anyhow, we'd all be happier if all gigs were perfect, but much of what it means to be a professional is how well you deal when they aren't. As far as I am concerned, cherry picking is the relm of the amateur. The professional photographers I respect are the ones who take the difficult jobs and the jobs don't like and still do them well.

jeffreaux2 · June 13, 2008

Andy wrote:

Right... but oh my - look at how full up I am on the those dates... Sorry!

....exactly!!!

I have never been in this exact situation.....but have been put in the position of trying to price myself out of a job. In the end, I was chosen for the job, got paid handsomely, and had a good time doing it.

Still, I think I could get BUSY real quick if I thought it were in my best interests....for whatever reason. I agree with Sam on most all of his points as well.(period)

Angelo · June 13, 2008

PineapplePhoto wrote:

The constitution protects religious freedom, and discrimination against gender (not sexual preference/orientation). Though newer laws are passed (and some pretty lame still stand) I think the US supreme court and the constitution it upholds should be the standard.

But the way the US is headed, in a couple of years the US would have passed anti-discrimination laws to Zoophilia and we will be taking pictures of a guy and his goat...

The US Constitution is not in question in this matter and please don't let this discussion devolve into any name calling.

And negative points to you for attempting to equate gay relationships with bestiality.

jonh68 · June 14, 2008

Looking at this I think both parties are wrong. Legally, only the photographer is wrong. However,if I got reply stating the photographer only photographed gay weddings and wouldn't do my straight wedding, my first thought would not be to sue, but to move on.

From a debate point of view, I think the discrimination law is outdated in this case. With the abundance of photographers who would take the job, I don't think this is discrimination. Feelings are hurt, but it's not like their wedding will not be photographed. I think it's a slippery slope when you can't turn down a job based on personal beliefs that don't do harm to the other party.

we do not photograph interracial weddings
we do not photograph Jewish weddings
we do not photograph Asian weddings

Or We don't photograph white weddings
Or redneck weddings

I am sorry but I think sometimes anti-discrimination laws go to far and tread on becoming regulating thoughts. The gay couple can still lead their life and find someone to photograph their wedding as evident on these boards. Before I get labeled as a bigot or intolerant, I fully tolerate anyone being intolerant of what they will or will not photograph. I think the gay couple is being intolerant as well.

If I were on the jury of this case, I would have to side with gay couple if the discrimination law applied in this case. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

joshhuntnm · June 14, 2008

jonh68 wrote:

Looking at this I think both parties are wrong. Legally, only the photographer is wrong. However,if I got reply stating the photographer only photographed gay weddings and wouldn't do my straight wedding, my first thought would not be to sue, but to move on.

From a debate point of view, I think the discrimination law is outdated in this case. With the abundance of photographers who would take the job, I don't think this is discrimination. Feelings are hurt, but it's not like their wedding will not be photographed. I think it's a slippery slope when you can't turn down a job based on personal beliefs that don't do harm to the other party.

Or We don't photograph white weddings
Or redneck weddings

I am sorry but I think sometimes anti-discrimination laws go to far and tread on becoming regulating thoughts. The gay couple can still lead their life and find someone to photograph their wedding as evident on these boards. Before I get labeled as a bigot or intolerant, I fully tolerate anyone being intolerant of what they will or will not photograph. I think the gay couple is being intolerant as well.

If I were on the jury of this case, I would have to side with gay couple if the discrimination law applied in this case. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

it seems to me the judge tried to strike a balance. While he did side with the gay couple, he only awarded them legal fee, not punitive damages--fees that would not have existed had they not gone to court.

I guess it is the lawyers who really won.

Nikolai · June 14, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

I guess it is the lawyers who really won.

They always do, don't they:-)

Angelo · June 14, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

I guess it is the lawyers who really won.

don't they always?

This ought to get a reaction

Comments