Three-strikes and a death-sentence? If it doesn't slow them down, it'll definitely "weed" them out.
Yep. It stops recidivism.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ah yes, the infamous "you gotta be tolerant of my intolerance otherwise you yourself are intolerant" defense. Sorry Sam, I have zero tolerance for bigots.
Wonder what would happen if a gay photographer refused to shoot a non gay wedding?
The same as what happened here. Its rather simple. The law says you can't discriminate, so don't.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
The same as what happened here. Its rather simple. The law says you can't discriminate, so don't.
So, have they officially said that sexual orientation is on the list of "do not discriminate" for reasons of employment or doing business with? I thought it wasn't officially on the list. Just wondering if this is a state-level thing, or a federal...?
So, have they officially said that sexual orientation is on the list of "do not discriminate" for reasons of employment or doing business with? I thought it wasn't officially on the list. Just wondering if this is a state-level thing, or a federal...?
=Matt=
In this case it was state law. Federally sex discrimination which include sexual orientation was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
In this case it was state law. Federally sex discrimination which include sexual orientation was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Whoa so if it's been against federal law since '63 / '64, how on earth are people still getting away with it? That's crazy!
Whoa so if it's been against federal law since '63 / '64, how on earth are people still getting away with it? That's crazy!
Initially sexual orientation was not spoken to but later judicial decisions found it to be covered but there is no specific prohibition in the legislation.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I have been asked to do male nude photography. I refuse as I could not put my heart into it. Why is the gay agenda being pushed on us? If they choose that route then fine for them. I would think this would fall under my own religious views and beliefs. If all else fails interview the couple first. If they are obviously people you don't want to deal with take an alka seltzer, put it in your mouth and you will start foaming. Then fall on the floor and start talking to yourself about aliens or something. Hopefully they will walk.. or they will love your personality and hire you anyway.
Too funny!
I have been asked to do male nude photography. I refuse as I could not put my heart into it. Why is the gay agenda being pushed on us? If they choose that route then fine for them. I would think this would fall under my own religious views and beliefs.
Close analogy, but no cigar. Let me put it this way: If some dude got nude in front of you, that would be sexual assault, and/or public indecency, and probably a few other things... But if you happened to see two dudes kiss in public, or happen to glance into a church as they're getting married, you've got nothing.
Okay that analogy isn't perfect either, but the bottom line is that EVERYTHING is governed legally in its own way. Which is why the people who say "pretty soon we'll see people marrying their pets, or the return of polygamy" make me roll my eyes so greatly...
Statement: Federally sex discrimination which include sexual orientation was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Question: Whoa so if it's been against federal law since '63 / '64, how on earth are people still getting away with it? That's crazy!
Answer: Initially sexual orientation was not spoken to but later judicial decisions found it to be covered but there is no specific prohibition in the legislation.
ME: First the claim is that this has been law since 1963 and 1964. When questioned it changes to, " well it actually hasn't been law since then." While the legislation never addressed sexual orientation someone or group of someones with little black robes thought that the original legislation should have included this.
That isn't the roll of judges, although currently people think it is. The roll of judges is to interpret the law as it was written. If the law doesn't cover something or isn't producing the results the legislation wanted then the legislation needs to clarify it with new legislation.
Statement: "pretty soon we'll see people marrying their pets, or the return of polygamy" make me roll my eyes so greatly...
ME: Polygamy has been around probably as long as homosexuals. Polygamy is currently practiced legally in some parts of the world, and illegally in the US. England (western country) currently recognizes men with multiple wives if immigrating from a country where it is legal. The US seems to turn a blind eye the similar immigrants.
If two men and or two woman can love each other and desire to enter into a contract of marriage, why can't three or more people form this same bond of marriage?
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals, and homosexuals.
I do agree that marrying your gold fish isn't likely to be legalized.
If two men and or two woman can love each other and desire to enter into a contract of marriage, why can't three or more people form this same bond of marriage?
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals, and homosexuals.
I do agree that marrying your gold fish isn't likely to be legalized.
Sam
I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong / right, or that I agree / disagree. Short of sexual assault / rape etc, I couldn't care less what people do.
I'm just saying that comparing it all is just apples and oranges. Every single situation must be governed completely separately from the other.
BTW the reason we'll never see guys marrying goldfish is because, of course, legally speaking there has to be consent between the two parties. Which is also why minors are so highly protected- our legal system is attempting to look after those who are not able / ready to give consent or fully grasp things like sexuality etc...
...That isn't the roll of judges, although currently people think it is. The roll of judges is to interpret the law as it was written. If the law doesn't cover something or isn't producing the results the legislation wanted then the legislation needs to clarify it with new legislation....
I think that they walked a fine line on that one, and simply did what they thought was fair for everyone. Of course we'd have to know the very, VERY exact words that were spoken by the people who wrote all that down way back when, not just the words that were written. If the term "sexual orientation" was not used but instead it was ONLY supposed to be a gender-related thing, then yeah they should have taken the proper course to come up with new legislation. But if it even hinted about sexuality in general, then I think it may simply be an issue of wording and the judges did the right thing.
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited September 1, 2013
And remember folks, let's keep this discussion with PHOTOGRAPHY in mind, (namely weddings and portraits) ...otherwise it belongs in the OT forum section.
Personally, I believe that even if you are like me and you don't care what people do behind closed doors, there is still a LOT of grey area when it comes to being forced to photograph something that makes you extremely uncomfortable.
That is what this all boils down to, really. For example if I were extremely homophobic, then we as photographers all know just how poorly I would perform if I were forced to photograph such a wedding / session. The law could state that I cannot turn away the client based on sexual orientation alone, however it could NOT force me to practice photographing gay people until I'm really good at it. If I were grossed out by seeing gay people kiss, nothing could change that feeling. The fine line is, what I am allowed to feel as a person behind closed doors, and what I am allowed to do as a business.
I feel like photographers SHOULD be able to turn down work if they know they will not perform at their best for personal reasons. It's not illegal discrimination unless you make it that, by saying something stupid like "I believe what you are doing is wrong and I don't want to support it". You may be allowed to believe this and state it as a person, but NOT as a business. It's that simple.
But then again, I doubt many strict Christians can bring themselves to tell a potential client "I have nothing against this, but I just want you to know that I have zero experience with it and the results could potentially be far, far worse than what you see in my portfolio due to the awkward learning curve"...
I am addressing the business aspect, but the example used and the question does specifically address "gay weddings" and an individual photographers business rights. So there can be some general comments as well.
Statement: I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong / right, or that I agree / disagree. Short of sexual assault / rape etc, I couldn't care less what people do.
Me: Then why roll your eyes? Do you think photographers should be compelled by law to photography weddings with multiple brides and / or grooms?
Statement: BTW the reason we'll never see guys marrying goldfish is because, of course, legally speaking there has to be consent between the two parties. Which is also why minors are so highly protected- our legal system is attempting to look after those who are not able / ready to give consent or fully grasp things like sexuality etc...
ME: The gold fish was a satirical comment.
Statement: I think that they walked a fine line on that one, and simply did what they thought was fair for everyone. Of course we'd have to know the very, VERY exact words that were spoken by the people who wrote all that down way back when, not just the words that were written. If the term "sexual orientation" was not used but instead it was ONLY supposed to be a gender-related thing, then yeah they should have taken the proper course to come up with new legislation. But if it even hinted about sexuality in general, then I think it may simply be an issue of wording and the judges did the right thing.
ME: This is the kind of thinking that drives me nuts! It's obviously not fair for everyone. The judges simply did what they thought was fair for everyone.
FIRST, their job and authority is to make decisions based on the law as it exists. It is not within their authority to CREATE law. This is called judicial activism.
Second, in this case it's not fair for the photographer. One should be very careful about supporting judicial activism. When it goes your way your happy, but what happens when it goes the other way?
This is a case of competing rights, and should be better thought out and defined. Some common sense would be nice.
The lawyer things that write all these convoluted laws don't have abide by them. A lawyer has no legal obligation to represent you or anyone they chose not to, including protected classes. All they need to say is I don't believe I can adequately represent you. No reason is required.
I think photographers should have this same choice.
This is the responsibility of the legislation. The more rights that are taken and the more impediments, restrictions are placed on businesses the less business we will have.
FIRST, their job and authority is to make decisions based on the law as it exists. It is not within their authority to CREATE law. This is called judicial activism.
Second, in this case it's not fair for the photographer. One should be very careful about supporting judicial activism. When it goes your way your happy, but what happens when it goes the other way?
This is a case of competing rights, and should be better thought out and defined. Some common sense would be nice.
Sam, I don't think that this is a case of judicial activism.
From the actual New Mexico Supreme Court decision:
"In 2003, the NMRHR [New Mexico Human Rights Act] was amended to add "sexual orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch 383 s 2."
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Docket No.33687, at page 4
The actual NMHRA states that "sexual orientation" is defined as "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." I am paraphrasing but suffice it to say that if you are a business that provides goods, services, facilities, etc. to the public then you are a "public accommodation" and are subject to the Act.
Looks to me like the New Mexico legislature passed and amended the Act and the Court has interpreted the Act.
The lawyer things that write all these convoluted laws don't have abide by them. A lawyer has no legal obligation to represent you or anyone they chose not to, including protected classes. All they need to say is I don't believe I can adequately represent you. No reason is required.
I think photographers should have this same choice.
"lawyer things" (that's a good one).
Curious as to your basis on this because I can't see how a photographer and lawyer wouldn't be in the same boat....nobody has to give a reason for turning down work. But if you do say it's because someone is gay (or even perceived to be gay), then you violate the Act.
As would a reception venue, florist, make-up artist, etc.
I feel like photographers SHOULD be able to turn down work if they know they will not perform at their best for personal reasons. It's not illegal discrimination unless you make it that, by saying something stupid like "I believe what you are doing is wrong and I don't want to support it". You may be allowed to believe this and state it as a person, but NOT as a business. It's that simple.
But then again, I doubt many strict Christians can bring themselves to tell a potential client "I have nothing against this, but I just want you to know that I have zero experience with it and the results could potentially be far, far worse than what you see in my portfolio due to the awkward learning curve"...
There are two main factors in an EEO case. The first is that someone in a protected class was discriminated against and two the discrimination was based on one of the protected categories. A number of years ago I lost an EEO case I was handling. I had established that my client had been discriminated against but management argued successfully that the discrimination was based on other factors (they did not like his attitude).
If someone doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding all they have to do is find a non-discriminatory explanation for their stupidity.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
due to protected status as the article states... will the couple really be happy with the pictures IF they do hire this lady? I doubt they will hire her now. Bummer she has to pay their legal fees too.
She should have to pay their legal fees and penalties. Engage in public commerce and you must serve the public. This is 2013 - not 1865. Should this photographer who is providing a service to the public also be allowed to refuse black couples? Interracial couples?
what a .... topic ( fill in on the dotted line )
i am glad i live in a more free country
over here race or sexual orientation are accepted , allthouhg not as being normal , but still accepted
if a photog takes or refuses a job its his/her own decision , nobody can force you to take a job unless you signed an agreement
and even then , ..... if you would be forced , nobody tells the pics would look great !!!!!!! just screw it
:whew
i hope i did not offend anyone
if i did , feel free to delete my post
Sam, I don't think that this is a case of judicial activism.
From the actual New Mexico Supreme Court decision:
"In 2003, the NMRHR [New Mexico Human Rights Act] was amended to add "sexual orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch 383 s 2."
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Docket No.33687, at page 4
The actual NMHRA states that "sexual orientation" is defined as "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." I am paraphrasing but suffice it to say that if you are a business that provides goods, services, facilities, etc. to the public then you are a "public accommodation" and are subject to the Act.
ME: Looks to me like the New Mexico legislature passed and amended the Act and the Court has interpreted the Act.
My comment about judicial activism was directed at the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It seems that NM followed the constitution.
NagoC50: Curious as to your basis on this because I can't see how a photographer and lawyer wouldn't be in the same boat....nobody has to give a reason for turning down work. But if you do say it's because someone is gay (or even perceived to be gay), then you violate the Act.
The difference here is that if the photographer was to (lie, use a deliberate false statement) to avoid photographing a gay wedding and the deception was uncovered, the photographer could be sued under many state laws.
Not so the lawyer.
I will say bravo for a well reasoned post.
Haryb: If someone doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding all they have to do is find a non-discriminatory explanation for their stupidity.
ME: Why is the mantra to lie?
Haryb: You note that that invariably those who refuse service describe themselves as "Christians?" Don't recall Jesus behaving this way
ME: While some may find this offensive, I call it honest. Without honest dialog how does anyone think to gain a real understanding of the differences an / or change the beliefs and opinions of others?
Of course we can continue with the current policy of demanding political correctness and demonizing those with unapproved thoughts. If that doesn't work we will fine or incarcerate them.
basfit: what a .... topic ( fill in on the dotted line )
i am glad i live in a more free country
over here race or sexual orientation are accepted , allthouhg not as being normal , but still accepted
if a photog takes or refuses a job its his/her own decision , nobody can force you to take a job unless you signed an agreement
and even then , ..... if you would be forced , nobody tells the pics would look great !!!!!!! just screw it
ME: I like this environment. This in my opinion seems to be the fairest attitude. I used to live in a free country, it was pretty good.
.......
Haryb: If someone doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding all they have to do is find a non-discriminatory explanation for their stupidity.
ME: Why is the mantra to lie?
Haryb: You note that that invariably those who refuse service describe themselves as "Christians?" Don't recall Jesus behaving this way
ME: While some may find this offensive, I call it honest. Without honest dialog how does anyone think to gain a real understanding of the differences an / or change the beliefs and opinions of others?
.......
Indeed, some photographers (indeed most will mention Christianity, so I think it is fair to mention this aspect) ...will talk about how they feel they shouldn't be forced to lie in order to avoid getting sued.
But really, this is how it has always been with all civil rights. A business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but NOT because of race or gender, and now (apparently) sexual orientation.
I am not encouraging you to be racist behind closed doors and just lie in order to save your business. I'm not even expecting anyone to change their religious beliefs; they cannot be forced to. I'm just saying that if you want to run a photography business, or any other, you may eventually encounter a client whom you'd prefer not to do business with. And I believe my policy of tactful honesty is still the best option:
"Legally speaking you are welcome to hire me, however I must be clear that I have never photographed this type of wedding before, and therefore with zero experience I can tell you right now that the product I would deliver might be far inferior to what you see in my portfolio."
There. It's honest, and legally speaking it's probably the safest way to express your personal beliefs without lying or flat-out saying that you're homophobic.
I've already mentioned this numerous other times in this same discussion, and we keep going in circles: It all comes down to this: As a professional photographer and small business owner, you shouldn't expect your personal ideology or religious beliefs to transcend others' civil rights. It's that simple: equality versus personal beliefs.
You can argue the opposite too- that a gay couple's civil rights do not allow them to force their business on someone just because equality transcends religious beliefs.
Comments
Yep. It stops recidivism.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-usa-marriage-newmexico-idUSBRE97L18J20130822
.
The same as what happened here. Its rather simple. The law says you can't discriminate, so don't.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
So, have they officially said that sexual orientation is on the list of "do not discriminate" for reasons of employment or doing business with? I thought it wasn't officially on the list. Just wondering if this is a state-level thing, or a federal...?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
In this case it was state law. Federally sex discrimination which include sexual orientation was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Whoa so if it's been against federal law since '63 / '64, how on earth are people still getting away with it? That's crazy!
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Initially sexual orientation was not spoken to but later judicial decisions found it to be covered but there is no specific prohibition in the legislation.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Too funny!
http://www.richardsphotography.com
Photography San Antonio
http://photographysanantonio.weebly.com
Close analogy, but no cigar. Let me put it this way: If some dude got nude in front of you, that would be sexual assault, and/or public indecency, and probably a few other things... But if you happened to see two dudes kiss in public, or happen to glance into a church as they're getting married, you've got nothing.
Okay that analogy isn't perfect either, but the bottom line is that EVERYTHING is governed legally in its own way. Which is why the people who say "pretty soon we'll see people marrying their pets, or the return of polygamy" make me roll my eyes so greatly...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Statement: Federally sex discrimination which include sexual orientation was prohibited under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Question: Whoa so if it's been against federal law since '63 / '64, how on earth are people still getting away with it? That's crazy!
Answer: Initially sexual orientation was not spoken to but later judicial decisions found it to be covered but there is no specific prohibition in the legislation.
ME: First the claim is that this has been law since 1963 and 1964. When questioned it changes to, " well it actually hasn't been law since then." While the legislation never addressed sexual orientation someone or group of someones with little black robes thought that the original legislation should have included this.
That isn't the roll of judges, although currently people think it is. The roll of judges is to interpret the law as it was written. If the law doesn't cover something or isn't producing the results the legislation wanted then the legislation needs to clarify it with new legislation.
Statement: "pretty soon we'll see people marrying their pets, or the return of polygamy" make me roll my eyes so greatly...
ME: Polygamy has been around probably as long as homosexuals. Polygamy is currently practiced legally in some parts of the world, and illegally in the US. England (western country) currently recognizes men with multiple wives if immigrating from a country where it is legal. The US seems to turn a blind eye the similar immigrants.
If two men and or two woman can love each other and desire to enter into a contract of marriage, why can't three or more people form this same bond of marriage?
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals, and homosexuals.
I do agree that marrying your gold fish isn't likely to be legalized.
Sam
I'm just saying that comparing it all is just apples and oranges. Every single situation must be governed completely separately from the other.
BTW the reason we'll never see guys marrying goldfish is because, of course, legally speaking there has to be consent between the two parties. Which is also why minors are so highly protected- our legal system is attempting to look after those who are not able / ready to give consent or fully grasp things like sexuality etc...
I think that they walked a fine line on that one, and simply did what they thought was fair for everyone. Of course we'd have to know the very, VERY exact words that were spoken by the people who wrote all that down way back when, not just the words that were written. If the term "sexual orientation" was not used but instead it was ONLY supposed to be a gender-related thing, then yeah they should have taken the proper course to come up with new legislation. But if it even hinted about sexuality in general, then I think it may simply be an issue of wording and the judges did the right thing.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Personally, I believe that even if you are like me and you don't care what people do behind closed doors, there is still a LOT of grey area when it comes to being forced to photograph something that makes you extremely uncomfortable.
That is what this all boils down to, really. For example if I were extremely homophobic, then we as photographers all know just how poorly I would perform if I were forced to photograph such a wedding / session. The law could state that I cannot turn away the client based on sexual orientation alone, however it could NOT force me to practice photographing gay people until I'm really good at it. If I were grossed out by seeing gay people kiss, nothing could change that feeling. The fine line is, what I am allowed to feel as a person behind closed doors, and what I am allowed to do as a business.
I feel like photographers SHOULD be able to turn down work if they know they will not perform at their best for personal reasons. It's not illegal discrimination unless you make it that, by saying something stupid like "I believe what you are doing is wrong and I don't want to support it". You may be allowed to believe this and state it as a person, but NOT as a business. It's that simple.
But then again, I doubt many strict Christians can bring themselves to tell a potential client "I have nothing against this, but I just want you to know that I have zero experience with it and the results could potentially be far, far worse than what you see in my portfolio due to the awkward learning curve"...
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I am addressing the business aspect, but the example used and the question does specifically address "gay weddings" and an individual photographers business rights. So there can be some general comments as well.
Statement: I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong / right, or that I agree / disagree. Short of sexual assault / rape etc, I couldn't care less what people do.
Me: Then why roll your eyes? Do you think photographers should be compelled by law to photography weddings with multiple brides and / or grooms?
Statement: BTW the reason we'll never see guys marrying goldfish is because, of course, legally speaking there has to be consent between the two parties. Which is also why minors are so highly protected- our legal system is attempting to look after those who are not able / ready to give consent or fully grasp things like sexuality etc...
ME: The gold fish was a satirical comment.
Statement: I think that they walked a fine line on that one, and simply did what they thought was fair for everyone. Of course we'd have to know the very, VERY exact words that were spoken by the people who wrote all that down way back when, not just the words that were written. If the term "sexual orientation" was not used but instead it was ONLY supposed to be a gender-related thing, then yeah they should have taken the proper course to come up with new legislation. But if it even hinted about sexuality in general, then I think it may simply be an issue of wording and the judges did the right thing.
ME: This is the kind of thinking that drives me nuts! It's obviously not fair for everyone. The judges simply did what they thought was fair for everyone.
FIRST, their job and authority is to make decisions based on the law as it exists. It is not within their authority to CREATE law. This is called judicial activism.
Second, in this case it's not fair for the photographer. One should be very careful about supporting judicial activism. When it goes your way your happy, but what happens when it goes the other way?
This is a case of competing rights, and should be better thought out and defined. Some common sense would be nice.
The lawyer things that write all these convoluted laws don't have abide by them. A lawyer has no legal obligation to represent you or anyone they chose not to, including protected classes. All they need to say is I don't believe I can adequately represent you. No reason is required.
I think photographers should have this same choice.
This is the responsibility of the legislation. The more rights that are taken and the more impediments, restrictions are placed on businesses the less business we will have.
Photographers have right too.
Sam
Sam, I don't think that this is a case of judicial activism.
From the actual New Mexico Supreme Court decision:
"In 2003, the NMRHR [New Mexico Human Rights Act] was amended to add "sexual orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch 383 s 2."
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Docket No.33687, at page 4
The actual NMHRA states that "sexual orientation" is defined as "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." I am paraphrasing but suffice it to say that if you are a business that provides goods, services, facilities, etc. to the public then you are a "public accommodation" and are subject to the Act.
Looks to me like the New Mexico legislature passed and amended the Act and the Court has interpreted the Act.
"lawyer things" (that's a good one).
Curious as to your basis on this because I can't see how a photographer and lawyer wouldn't be in the same boat....nobody has to give a reason for turning down work. But if you do say it's because someone is gay (or even perceived to be gay), then you violate the Act.
As would a reception venue, florist, make-up artist, etc.
There are two main factors in an EEO case. The first is that someone in a protected class was discriminated against and two the discrimination was based on one of the protected categories. A number of years ago I lost an EEO case I was handling. I had established that my client had been discriminated against but management argued successfully that the discrimination was based on other factors (they did not like his attitude).
If someone doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding all they have to do is find a non-discriminatory explanation for their stupidity.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
She should have to pay their legal fees and penalties. Engage in public commerce and you must serve the public. This is 2013 - not 1865. Should this photographer who is providing a service to the public also be allowed to refuse black couples? Interracial couples?
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
You note that that invariably those who refuse service describe themselves as "Christians?" Don't recall Jesus behaving this way
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Moderator:
This comment is off-topic, unnecessary, and to many, may be offensive. May I suggest this thread be locked - it has lived a long life.
i am glad i live in a more free country
over here race or sexual orientation are accepted , allthouhg not as being normal , but still accepted
if a photog takes or refuses a job its his/her own decision , nobody can force you to take a job unless you signed an agreement
and even then , ..... if you would be forced , nobody tells the pics would look great !!!!!!! just screw it
:whew
i hope i did not offend anyone
if i did , feel free to delete my post
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Sam, I don't think that this is a case of judicial activism.
From the actual New Mexico Supreme Court decision:
"In 2003, the NMRHR [New Mexico Human Rights Act] was amended to add "sexual orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch 383 s 2."
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Docket No.33687, at page 4
The actual NMHRA states that "sexual orientation" is defined as "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." I am paraphrasing but suffice it to say that if you are a business that provides goods, services, facilities, etc. to the public then you are a "public accommodation" and are subject to the Act.
ME: Looks to me like the New Mexico legislature passed and amended the Act and the Court has interpreted the Act.
My comment about judicial activism was directed at the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It seems that NM followed the constitution.
NagoC50: Curious as to your basis on this because I can't see how a photographer and lawyer wouldn't be in the same boat....nobody has to give a reason for turning down work. But if you do say it's because someone is gay (or even perceived to be gay), then you violate the Act.
The difference here is that if the photographer was to (lie, use a deliberate false statement) to avoid photographing a gay wedding and the deception was uncovered, the photographer could be sued under many state laws.
Not so the lawyer.
I will say bravo for a well reasoned post.
Haryb: If someone doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding all they have to do is find a non-discriminatory explanation for their stupidity.
ME: Why is the mantra to lie?
Haryb: You note that that invariably those who refuse service describe themselves as "Christians?" Don't recall Jesus behaving this way
ME: While some may find this offensive, I call it honest. Without honest dialog how does anyone think to gain a real understanding of the differences an / or change the beliefs and opinions of others?
Of course we can continue with the current policy of demanding political correctness and demonizing those with unapproved thoughts. If that doesn't work we will fine or incarcerate them.
basfit: what a .... topic ( fill in on the dotted line )
i am glad i live in a more free country
over here race or sexual orientation are accepted , allthouhg not as being normal , but still accepted
if a photog takes or refuses a job its his/her own decision , nobody can force you to take a job unless you signed an agreement
and even then , ..... if you would be forced , nobody tells the pics would look great !!!!!!! just screw it
ME: I like this environment. This in my opinion seems to be the fairest attitude. I used to live in a free country, it was pretty good.
Sam
But really, this is how it has always been with all civil rights. A business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but NOT because of race or gender, and now (apparently) sexual orientation.
I am not encouraging you to be racist behind closed doors and just lie in order to save your business. I'm not even expecting anyone to change their religious beliefs; they cannot be forced to. I'm just saying that if you want to run a photography business, or any other, you may eventually encounter a client whom you'd prefer not to do business with. And I believe my policy of tactful honesty is still the best option:
There. It's honest, and legally speaking it's probably the safest way to express your personal beliefs without lying or flat-out saying that you're homophobic.
I've already mentioned this numerous other times in this same discussion, and we keep going in circles: It all comes down to this: As a professional photographer and small business owner, you shouldn't expect your personal ideology or religious beliefs to transcend others' civil rights. It's that simple: equality versus personal beliefs.
You can argue the opposite too- that a gay couple's civil rights do not allow them to force their business on someone just because equality transcends religious beliefs.
And thus, we go in circles.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum