Yeah, that is a little strange, but I think it's simply a matter of the temporary messiness that long-term changes involve. Anti-discrimination laws apply broadly and are meant to reduce historic and systematic abuse of the protected classes. Whether gays have the right to marry in NM is a separate issue. Even if they do not have the right to marry (yet), they are nevertheless protected against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. Businesses offering their services to the public are prohibited from discrimination against the protected classes. It's really not all that complicated.
Now see if you can wrap your head around this and justify it.
New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.
So we have a state that discriminates against gays ruling that a photographer discriminated against the gay couple by not photographing a ceremony the state doesn't recognize and therefor doesn't legally exist.
Please tell me how this makes any sense?
Sam
One screwed up Law after another .
Effectively the judge has prosecuted the Shooter for refusing to participate in something the state says doesn't exist anyway.
But it's all how you word it isn't it.
If you tell the truth this is unacceptable, If you lie through your ass then that is what the politically correct are saying is the way to go.
These gays carry on like this then bleat they are discriminated against.
I can't begin to think why when they are making themselves so endeared to everyone.
I'm gonna sue the Ford dealer's a$$ because he refused to service my Honda, which is discrimination!
ciao!
Nick
No, Honda is no good. That would be a recognized brand. What you need to do is get something like a Mahindra, Tata, Skoda or a Holden that isn't sold where you are and there are no parts available then Sue.
You need to make sure your law suits are frivolous, illogical and reverse discriminatory as well!
Like the one being discussed!
I doubt there will ever be a time where we agree with every single law. Doesn't mean we shouldn't follow them. As a business owner you need to be aware of what you can and can't do, and protect yourself the best you can.
I doubt there will ever be a time where we agree with every single law. Doesn't mean we shouldn't follow them.......
Wow! I can't agree with your assertion. "We" is a broad category of participation. If you as an individual choose this approach that is your prerogative - but non-violent (and violent for that matter - example the American Revolution) civil disobedience has been used as a catalyst for change for millennia. It may not be for everybody, but thank goodness some choose to take up the cause -torches and pitchforks notwithstanding. The wedding photographer in question may have very well known the consequence of his actions and chose to act anyway in defense of his core beliefs.
1. I note that these are religious organisations expressing disapproval, not individuals.
2. The situation is quite different in the UK for the simple matter there is no division of Church/State - the monarch is the official head of the CofE. That alone makes it even more complex.
It should be considered, too, that the last time there was this kind of conflict between church and state in the UK, it resulted in the abdication. Interesting that the stigma of a divorced consort which forced Edward VIII to step down in 1936 has been entirely overlooked 75 years later.
As I see it, this was presented to the State of New Mexico as a "Human Rights" case. In particular the case revolves around the legal concept of, and the legal definition of, discrimination. Ultimately, it was determined that the respondent, "ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC", discriminated against the complainant, "VANESSA WILLOCK".
The key point, and what should interest our users, is that if you run a public business, of any kind, you may "not" choose your clients based on sexual orientation. Obviously, all other forms of discrimination are also illegal, as they were illegal before this case.
I believe that the reason we are hearing of this case again is because Elane Photography just lost their first appeal. I also believe that other states will probably adopt this case, and the findings and final order of the case, as a legal precedent for their respective state.
We will probably hear of this case for some time, but I strongly recommend that everyone understand that this is a "Human Rights" case and that in 2 instances now the Sate of New Mexico has ruled that there was a human rights violation. Making any more of this case, like the press is likely to continue to do, is just wrong. No individual, and certainly no group, is above human rights.
If you don't agree with the decision, that's OK. That discussion is far beyond the scope of this forum, however. Legal discussions should be with a competent and capable attorney, not here. We are not in a position to offer free legal advice.
Maybe it will be turned around and use a civil rights case that extends to private employers-the employer has religious freedom in how they run their business, they can incorporate biblical principles and in how they provide employees, customers, or vendors an opportunity to consider things of faith, and their freedom of association?
Me...not thrilled about a job like that, but men can be really funny, might consider that.
Here is what I might say after reading some of the posts... " I have zero experience with shooting a gay wedding, never attended a gay wedding, never had a desire to learn anything about gay weddings, therefore I can't imagine I would be a choice/value/ etc "
If I were contacted by a Klansman and asked to photograph a Klan rally, I'd tell him to go pound sand, because my personal philosophy is that he's slime. Would I then be sued and forced to take the job?
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
Thanks, Ziggy, for the facts. I've been wondering about the actual and factual (rather than media-ized) particulars since the start of this thread
It is important to receive and understand the "facts" in a matter like this - it helps one to formulate informed opinions. However.....
Any attempt to censor, demonize, moralize, or constrain the activities of a free press (media) SCARE ME. We can choose to believe or not what we are exposed to in the media - but I want no group or person restricting my access to information. Let the market place of ideas regulate itself.
Also, regarding "Human Rights", sexual orientation and discrimination - isn't it obvious that not all sexual orientations have achieved protected status - but perhaps the ones with the loudest lobby and that have passed the current tests of social and political correctness. I ask, really, what is the harm in the sexual orientation of multiple partner relationships and the desire to marry as such (polygamy). People are sent to prison for this.
So I guess "all other forms of discrimination are illegal" may not be the case in every place and in every way. Discrimination by definition is an analytical tool not a dirty word - it is misapplied at times like any other tool - but we all discriminate in various ways and degrees (usually based on core beliefs) - it is necessary to organize our lives.
Maybe it will be turned around and use a civil rights case that extends to private employers-the employer has religious freedom in how they run their business, they can incorporate biblical principles and in how they provide employees, customers, or vendors an opportunity to consider things of faith, and their freedom of association?
Again, this is a "Human Rights" issue. That takes legal precedent over civil rights. Religious concerns are not necessarily legal concerns.
If you conduct a "public" business of any kind, and photography is no exception, you have no legal right to deny anyone service based on sexual orientation. That is the legal principle at work in this case.
... So I guess "all other forms of discrimination are illegal" may not be the case in every place and in every way. Discrimination by definition is an analytical tool not a dirty word - it is misapplied at times like any other tool - but we all discriminate in various ways and degrees (usually based on core beliefs) - it is necessary to organize our lives.
Please interpret my previous comment as reflecting discrimination as previously determined to be illegal.
But then again the Judge defined what commercial photography is- that it expresses nothing but simply taking photographs. Perhaps a mean spirited photographer will use that ruling literally and will he have the legal right to photograph an event with a Polaroid.
So does this mean if I am set up by Satanists - and I find out at a meeting with them what kind of wedding ceremony this will be – or perhaps in my case printing a satanic message on one of my personalized greeting cards…and I refuse, then - they claim either it’s their religious right or a human rights violation, they would win?
So does this mean if I am set up by Satanists - and I find out at a meeting with them what kind of wedding ceremony this will be – or perhaps in my case printing a satanic message on one of my personalized greeting cards…and I refuse, then - they claim either it’s their religious right or a human rights violation, they would win?
Just for the sake of argument, reverse it. What would your reaction be if you hired the Satanic photographer and asked him to print a Christian symbol/message for you and he refused on faith grounds?
Just for the sake of argument, reverse it. What would your reaction be if you hired the Satanic photographer and asked him to print a Christian symbol/message for you and he refused on faith grounds?
After I found out he was a Satanist I would run for the hills.
And so the photographer for answering a few emails had to pay $6,637.94 for the attorney's fees of the person suing her as well as her own attorney's fees. I didn't see where they even had communicated besides email. It was interesting that the plantiff didn't see any damages, which they could have asked for and would have gotten, by reading the summary.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
Well if you read the article this part my put a hole in your idea, be careful.
"Vanessa Willock asked the studio, Elane Photography, in 2006 about taking pictures of a same-gender ceremony but was told it handled only traditional weddings. When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, she was given a price list and sent a follow-up email."
Why would the words, "We only photograph traditional marriages" ever come out of your mouth? Business is not the place to evangelize.
If I were contacted by a Klansman and asked to photograph a Klan rally, I'd tell him to go pound sand, because my personal philosophy is that he's slime. Would I then be sued and forced to take the job?
no becasue you can discriminate on many grounds..but not ethnicity, religeon, sexual orientation, and a few others. You can turn a away a client because they wear red shoes or becasue they are a democrat or becasue they like a certain brand of cereal. These are not protected classes
Why would the words, "We only photograph traditional marriages" ever come out of your mouth? Business is not the place to evangelize.
The photographer is not evangelizing via her business. By the definition of Christian evangelism it means to take the Gospel of Christ 'out' to people. The photographer was responding in defense to protect her beliefs which is protected under the constitution that an artist, small business and Christian of a business owner has.
Really? Because to me, her response of "only photographing traditional marriages" says. "I believe your lifestyle, and who you are as a person is not condoned by my deity and my interpretation of a holy book, it is invalid and therefore not worth my services" It also implies that if the person were to change their ways, their "traditional" love would meet some standard as held by the photographer and therefore valid and worthy. I'm fine with freedom of religion so long as I have freedom FROM religion, and any way you cut it, her specific response is inflammatory, and discriminatory.
Really? Because to me, her response of "only photographing traditional marriages" says. "I believe your lifestyle, and who you are as a person is not condoned by my deity and my interpretation of a holy book, it is invalid and therefore not worth my services" It also implies that if the person were to change their ways, their "traditional" love would meet some standard as held by the photographer and therefore valid and worthy. I'm fine with freedom of religion so long as I have freedom FROM religion, and any way you cut it, her specific response is inflammatory, and discriminatory.
Really? Because to me, her response of "only photographing traditional marriages" says. "I believe your lifestyle, and who you are as a person is not condoned by my deity and my interpretation of a holy book, it is invalid and therefore not worth my services" It also implies that if the person were to change their ways, their "traditional" love would meet some standard as held by the photographer and therefore valid and worthy. I'm fine with freedom of religion so long as I have freedom FROM religion, and any way you cut it, her specific response is inflammatory, and discriminatory.
I'm not sure my response needs any more clarification, but let's get back to this suit and the couple, and why the whole thing is full of stupid. I'm confronted with ignorance, prejudice, and stupidity on a daily basis. My first reaction is usually disgust, then pity, followed by an acceptance of the behavior as a base part of human nature. My first response is NEVER to litigate against it. Ridicule it on the internet, warn other potential customers? Sure, but what was it that those lads from Liverpool said "Live and let Live/Live and let die" not "Live and lets litigate", it is a net step backward for your "agenda" especially when there are plenty of businesses willing to take your business. So sad that some people wanting the same thing other people openly disparage, disrespect, and disregard is cause for such gnashing and ugly grandstanding, but hey, that is base human nature.
Comments
Link to my Smugmug site
Yeah, that is a little strange, but I think it's simply a matter of the temporary messiness that long-term changes involve. Anti-discrimination laws apply broadly and are meant to reduce historic and systematic abuse of the protected classes. Whether gays have the right to marry in NM is a separate issue. Even if they do not have the right to marry (yet), they are nevertheless protected against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. Businesses offering their services to the public are prohibited from discrimination against the protected classes. It's really not all that complicated.
ciao!
Nick
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
No, Honda is no good. That would be a recognized brand. What you need to do is get something like a Mahindra, Tata, Skoda or a Holden that isn't sold where you are and there are no parts available then Sue.
You need to make sure your law suits are frivolous, illogical and reverse discriminatory as well!
Like the one being discussed!
Wow! I can't agree with your assertion. "We" is a broad category of participation. If you as an individual choose this approach that is your prerogative - but non-violent (and violent for that matter - example the American Revolution) civil disobedience has been used as a catalyst for change for millennia. It may not be for everybody, but thank goodness some choose to take up the cause -torches and pitchforks notwithstanding. The wedding photographer in question may have very well known the consequence of his actions and chose to act anyway in defense of his core beliefs.
pp
Flickr
Two things here:
1. I note that these are religious organisations expressing disapproval, not individuals.
2. The situation is quite different in the UK for the simple matter there is no division of Church/State - the monarch is the official head of the CofE. That alone makes it even more complex.
It should be considered, too, that the last time there was this kind of conflict between church and state in the UK, it resulted in the abdication. Interesting that the stigma of a divorced consort which forced Edward VIII to step down in 1936 has been entirely overlooked 75 years later.
http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf
As I see it, this was presented to the State of New Mexico as a "Human Rights" case. In particular the case revolves around the legal concept of, and the legal definition of, discrimination. Ultimately, it was determined that the respondent, "ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC", discriminated against the complainant, "VANESSA WILLOCK".
The key point, and what should interest our users, is that if you run a public business, of any kind, you may "not" choose your clients based on sexual orientation. Obviously, all other forms of discrimination are also illegal, as they were illegal before this case.
I believe that the reason we are hearing of this case again is because Elane Photography just lost their first appeal. I also believe that other states will probably adopt this case, and the findings and final order of the case, as a legal precedent for their respective state.
We will probably hear of this case for some time, but I strongly recommend that everyone understand that this is a "Human Rights" case and that in 2 instances now the Sate of New Mexico has ruled that there was a human rights violation. Making any more of this case, like the press is likely to continue to do, is just wrong. No individual, and certainly no group, is above human rights.
If you don't agree with the decision, that's OK. That discussion is far beyond the scope of this forum, however. Legal discussions should be with a competent and capable attorney, not here. We are not in a position to offer free legal advice.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Here is what I might say after reading some of the posts... " I have zero experience with shooting a gay wedding, never attended a gay wedding, never had a desire to learn anything about gay weddings, therefore I can't imagine I would be a choice/value/ etc "
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
It is important to receive and understand the "facts" in a matter like this - it helps one to formulate informed opinions. However.....
Any attempt to censor, demonize, moralize, or constrain the activities of a free press (media) SCARE ME. We can choose to believe or not what we are exposed to in the media - but I want no group or person restricting my access to information. Let the market place of ideas regulate itself.
Also, regarding "Human Rights", sexual orientation and discrimination - isn't it obvious that not all sexual orientations have achieved protected status - but perhaps the ones with the loudest lobby and that have passed the current tests of social and political correctness. I ask, really, what is the harm in the sexual orientation of multiple partner relationships and the desire to marry as such (polygamy). People are sent to prison for this.
So I guess "all other forms of discrimination are illegal" may not be the case in every place and in every way. Discrimination by definition is an analytical tool not a dirty word - it is misapplied at times like any other tool - but we all discriminate in various ways and degrees (usually based on core beliefs) - it is necessary to organize our lives.
Again, this is a "Human Rights" issue. That takes legal precedent over civil rights. Religious concerns are not necessarily legal concerns.
If you conduct a "public" business of any kind, and photography is no exception, you have no legal right to deny anyone service based on sexual orientation. That is the legal principle at work in this case.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Please interpret my previous comment as reflecting discrimination as previously determined to be illegal.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
But then again the Judge defined what commercial photography is- that it expresses nothing but simply taking photographs. Perhaps a mean spirited photographer will use that ruling literally and will he have the legal right to photograph an event with a Polaroid.
So does this mean if I am set up by Satanists - and I find out at a meeting with them what kind of wedding ceremony this will be – or perhaps in my case printing a satanic message on one of my personalized greeting cards…and I refuse, then - they claim either it’s their religious right or a human rights violation, they would win?
Just for the sake of argument, reverse it. What would your reaction be if you hired the Satanic photographer and asked him to print a Christian symbol/message for you and he refused on faith grounds?
After I found out he was a Satanist I would run for the hills.
Why would the words, "We only photograph traditional marriages" ever come out of your mouth? Business is not the place to evangelize.
no becasue you can discriminate on many grounds..but not ethnicity, religeon, sexual orientation, and a few others. You can turn a away a client because they wear red shoes or becasue they are a democrat or becasue they like a certain brand of cereal. These are not protected classes
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
The photographer is not evangelizing via her business. By the definition of Christian evangelism it means to take the Gospel of Christ 'out' to people. The photographer was responding in defense to protect her beliefs which is protected under the constitution that an artist, small business and Christian of a business owner has.
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
Wha?????????