I do believe that you have missed the conclusion of our discussion, actually. I think many of us are agreeing that if you decide to open a business to "serve the public", you make a commitment to serve the public equally. So you do not have the right to REFUSE something on a basis if it is discriminatory.
Many have not reached that conclusion. The discussion isn't about a generic business refusing to provide a generic product or service. It is about a specific business "photography" being forced to participate in an event contrary to ones religious and / or core beliefs. It's about laws that provide special protections and treatment for some groups while denying those same protections for another groups. It's about political correctness becoming the new religion, and set high above everything else. It is about the loss of freedom. It's about a state, New Mexico, that while discriminating against same sex couples by denying them the right to marry, yet awarded the same couple monetary damages against a photographer who didn't deny them the right to marry or the ability to get photos of marriage that couldn't take place legally.
Clarify: Most do agree that basic products and services should be available to all including those whose life style or beliefs we disagree with.
The argument here concerns a small sole proprietor "Photography" wedding business. Weddings are intimate affairs. A wedding photographer doesn't simply take an order on the phone, show up, walk around and press the little button on the camera. Wedding photographers like to get to know the couple, and build up a report with them. A wedding photographer does not simply document the wedding but becomes immersed in the event. The ambiance and overall flavor of the event can become very powerful as it washes over everyone present like an unstoppable ocean wave.
Normally that is a very nice thing, but in the case of a person being forced to be involved and participate in an event that is contrary to their core values can be very painful. Please don't say if you feel this way don't go into the wedding business. Wedding photographers reject clients on a regular basis for all kinds of reasons.
Those public business owners / service provides who have a problem with that, well, maybe a public service business isn't the right career path for you... (Or, do as I do, and just pick-and-choose your battles. And, always be honest and up-front with your clients about your personal beliefs...)
=Matt=
Please!!! If this were a mall photo studio and a gay couple came in and asked for one of the advertized portrait photo packages, I would agree with you 100% I see a wedding photography business as a very personal and intimate type of business offering technical skill, as well as creative and artistic skills.
I see this as political correctness run a muck protecting one group (gays) against another group (those with deep held religious beliefs) with out the first group ever having any damages.
Isn't the goal to be fair as possible, even to those we disagree with?
If a gay couple chooses a live-in nanny for their children, does the nanny have the right to decline to take the job?
It depends on the situation. If the nanny applies for a job and then chooses not to take it, that is entirely her decision.
If she advertises herself as a nanny, then she is a public accommodation under the law. Should the gay couple then request her services, she can not refuse them based on their sexual orientation.
A wedding photographer doesn't simply take an order on the phone, show up, walk around and press the little button on the camera.
This keeps getting re-hashed and I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I can apply it to any profession:
A marketer doesn't just throw a poster together and send it to the client.
A architect doesn't just draw up a building.
A software engineer doesn't just type up some code for the computer.
My point: Most skilled careers have a large creative component . Wedding photographers shouldn't think they are unique in that regard. When you are a creative professional, you use your vision to ultimately satisfy a client's request.
If anyone is so arrogant that they couldn't bear the thought of the client influencing their "intimate" work, they should probably stop doing work for hire and keep their photography in the domain of personal art.
And regarding this defense... I think for ANY commercial wedding photographer - if their work was that deeply personal, they would have a hard time dealing with clients on a day to day basis (as any business owner knows, clients are not always easy). No, they make many compromises in their work. This is just a convenient excuse to endorse discrimination.
It really just comes down to whether or not you think that there should be protected classes and if gays should be included in those classes.
The justification for protected classes being that there has been an historic pattern in this country of discrimination against them. Gays fit squarely in that category, IMO. Christians, not at all.
It's an interesting and challenging dilemma for those who don't wish to serve gays, but if we define our laws by the tenets of any one person's religious beliefs, then the law would quickly become a mess. There are as many religious viewpoints as there are religious people and to conflate law with religion is a slippery slope. The law needs to serve us all, regardless of our beliefs.
...It is about a specific business "photography" being forced to participate in an event contrary to ones religious and / or core beliefs. It's about laws that provide special protections and treatment for some groups while denying those same protections for another groups.
Sam, this clip makes sense. It is one thing to say "I refuse to do business with you because of your sexual preference."
...It may be a whole different thing to argue "You cannot legally force me to attend a gay wedding that is against my religious beliefs, even though I provide a wedding-related service".
Damn, we just went way back into grey territory...
This is turning out to be one of the most heated thread in the wedding forum. =P
Opinionated? Yes. Heated? Not really. at least not according to this moderator. Not compared to what "heated" means on any other forum! You guys are gonna hafta get a lot more offensive and immature before I consider shutting it down. Keep up the lively discussion! (Even though we're just going in circles, sorta ...)
OK, I haven't read the article but get the idea from the comments in the thread.
I'm going to say this from the perspective of someone who is gay and a photographer.
Its hard to approach vendors when your same sex relationship because quite frankly, you don't know what kind of reaction your going to get. It can be hurtful, surprising and extremely stressful. I can tell you from experience that its not an easy thing to do.
That said, as a photographer I have knocked back potential clients because I felt that we wouldn't be a good fit.
The difference here is why your knocking them back. Are you saying no because they are gay, black, green or tall or are you saying no because you feel that by being a not so good fit that they wouldn't be getting the best possible images in the end? If its the first then shame on you, if its the second then good on you for putting their best interests first.
I think that on principle, courts are correct to punish those that discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
I wouldn't want any photographer like that to shoot for me though.
If that photographer just said, "I don't think on a personal level that we'd be a good fit to shoot your wedding and there for I don't think you'll be getting the best images that you can possably get. Because of this, here are some photographers that I think you'd be very pleased with..." then I wouldn't see anything wrong that.
Joe BarnetRegistered UsersPosts: 2Beginner grinner
edited June 17, 2012
Wow, you can make this a problem, or take the practical approach. We welcome gay weddings. We've only done one so far (2 guys). It went great and we would gladly do others. In fact, we did very well on the one we photographed. Would we do a better job with a male and female couple? Possibly, because we're more used to that and we're not familiar with that community, but we appreciated the business. If you don't want to do gay weddings, tell the client you're not available on that date when they call, that's all.
Opinionated? Yes. Heated? Not really. at least not according to this moderator. Not compared to what "heated" means on any other forum! You guys are gonna hafta get a lot more offensive and immature before I consider shutting it down. Keep up the lively discussion! (Even though we're just going in circles, sorta ...)
=Matt=
Well heated for this forum, to be honest. This is usually a pretty chill place.
Sam, this clip makes sense. It is one thing to say "I refuse to do business with you because of your sexual preference."
...It may be a whole different thing to argue "You cannot legally force me to attend a gay wedding that is against my religious beliefs, even though I provide a wedding-related service".
Damn, we just went way back into grey territory...
=Matt=
The concept is really very simple:
Public service business = serves everyone equally.
That is the agreement that anyone in a public service business makes with the state and with the community. I think that a lot of people just don't understand what they are committing to by going public.
Anyone who publishes prices for a service "must" offer those services, at those prices, to anyone who responds, for instance. Anything else can get you into legal difficulties.
Again, I encourage anyone who still doesn't understand this to consult legal advice. A really good attorney may be able to offer some alternatives, but there is no single simple solution. (Alliteration )
I'd rather hear that then "because of my beliefs I won't shoot your wedding" even if it is a lie.
I think the thread has become too polarized... there are many shades of grey too in the real world. In this case, there's not simply those who are pro and those who are contra in this thread. There are many, like me, who find error with both sides.
For example your quote above: I am sure that there are many here who agree with it WHEN it would have been a wedding like you write. If you run a wedding photography business, you must accept every customer. But it wasn't a wedding because same sex weddings are illegal in the state of NM. What we have here is a wedding photography business who is forced to shoot another kind of ceremony for which they don't advertise, and which only exists because same sex weddings are illegal.
For that reason, your anger should primarily be aimed at the state of NM. Also, when the state would change the law and allow same sex marriage, the photography business should start accepting these jobs or cease their operation. That is my view, which is somewhere in between the two opposing sides here I think.
Just so to be clear: I have nothing against gay people or anyone else as long as they show me the same respect that I show them. I have a close family member who is gay and there has never been a problem.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
This report deals with the appeal of an old case, which we discussed at excruciating length four years ago. The appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling that the photographers were guilty of violating state anti-discrimination law.
:deadhorse
Thought I'd seen this before.
If I recall correctly, the couple selected this photographer specifically so they could battle this out in the courts.
I personally would have no problem shooting a gay wedding, but in a truly free society nobody should be forced to do anything that makes them uncomfortable. That said, I do agree that the photographer was a complete moron to reveal their bigotry, and now they must sleep in the bed they made. I can think of many ways to turn down a client politely with a white lie. Or a carefully worded version of the truth like "I don't think our personalities are a good fit and I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do a good job for you."
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
OK, I haven't read the article but get the idea from the comments in the thread.
I really think you should read about the case and the appeal for yourself.
I'm going to say this from the perspective of someone who is gay and a photographer.
I want to thank you for coming forward and offering your opinion. I know there are other gay people reading this but to date you are the only one who has come forward.
Its hard to approach vendors when your same sex relationship because quite frankly, you don't know what kind of reaction your going to get. It can be hurtful, surprising and extremely stressful. I can tell you from experience that its not an easy thing to do.
Hard to comment because I don't know what the Australian law and culture is with regard to gays.
That said, as a photographer I have knocked back potential clients because I felt that we wouldn't be a good fit.
And you should have that right. In this case the photographer did say that, just not in the state approved politically correct speak.
The difference here is why your knocking them back. Are you saying no because they are gay, black, green or tall or are you saying no because you feel that by being a not so good fit that they wouldn't be getting the best possible images in the end? If its the first then shame on you, if its the second then good on you for putting their best interests first.
Again you have every right to to say and think that.
I think that on principle, courts are correct to punish those that discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
Much to broad a statement to parse up.
I wouldn't want any photographer like that to shoot for me though.
Nor would any rational person.
If that photographer just said, "I don't think on a personal level that we'd be a good fit to shoot your wedding and there for I don't think you'll be getting the best images that you can possably get. Because of this, here are some photographers that I think you'd be very pleased with..." then I wouldn't see anything wrong that.
Yes this would be a nice approach, but doesn't solve the issue we are discussing here. The gay couple here set up the photographer, they had no intention of booking with the photographer. They simply wanted to make a point, and punish someone who has a different belief system.
I live in CA near San Francisco. There is a large gay population here. While considering this thread I went online and searched for wedding photographers specializing in gay weddings. I found a ton. I looked at many portfolios and did not see one "traditional wedding" I believe that could easily be interpreted to mean we don't do, and or have no interest in "traditional Weddings"
The bottom line is there was no damages other than a claimed hurtful insult. While not nice far better than a sharp stick in your eye.
Which is more relevant the party who says my values differ with your values let both of us go our own way, or the party that says your values differ with my values so I will punish you?
MY agenda is to provide as much freedom as possible and to treat each party as equal as possible. I object to putting one group in a position over the other.
OK, I haven't read the article but get the idea from the comments in the thread.
I'm going to say this from the perspective of someone who is gay and a photographer.
Its hard to approach vendors when your same sex relationship because quite frankly, you don't know what kind of reaction your going to get. It can be hurtful, surprising and extremely stressful. I can tell you from experience that its not an easy thing to do.
That said, as a photographer I have knocked back potential clients because I felt that we wouldn't be a good fit.
The difference here is why your knocking them back. Are you saying no because they are gay, black, green or tall or are you saying no because you feel that by being a not so good fit that they wouldn't be getting the best possible images in the end? If its the first then shame on you, if its the second then good on you for putting their best interests first.
I think that on principle, courts are correct to punish those that discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
I wouldn't want any photographer like that to shoot for me though.
If that photographer just said, "I don't think on a personal level that we'd be a good fit to shoot your wedding and there for I don't think you'll be getting the best images that you can possably get. Because of this, here are some photographers that I think you'd be very pleased with..." then I wouldn't see anything wrong that.
But Laura, I think the point here is that the first automatically equals the second.
In other words, if you're a bigot and don't want to shoot same-sex weddings, you're automatically not going to be a good fit and the clients won't be getting the best possible images in the end. Even if you try your absolute best, the fact that you're not having fun, not enjoying your work, and are uncomfortable in the situation will negatively impact your creativity. You won't be inspired, you'll be phoning it in.
I hope a Christian never feels the need to lie to protect their business and livelihood. That is asking to replace one sin for another.
I hope a Christian remembers certain quotes from the Bible that have relevance to bigotry in general:
Vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
I think what all of those quotes mean is that, you may certainly judge people to have sinned in the eyes of god, but striking back at them with bigotry and vitriol is just as sinful. On the other hand, showing mercy and compassion to those whom you judge sinful is a virtue.
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!"
However I do think the problem is what Sam has repeatedly said. Really, this whole ruling is so full of holes…Just a few things... It was an obvious set up with a bold face lie told to the photographer. A key ruling that I find interesting and insulting and mostly ignored is that the Judge defined what commercial photography is so that it would help side with the ones who sued – as I repeatedly said… the judge ruled and defined commercial photography as not expressing oneself but merely taking pictures. that in itself is a slippery slope!
ziggy53;1788987]The concept is really very simple:
Public service business = serves everyone equally.
Ziggy, That really needs to be quantified, How about serves everyone equally. except for the qroups that are not deemed protected, by our elected officails. Bars dont sevre everyone equally. Are all bar owners bigots. People under 35 years are unable to be president. Do we really want to stop all discrimination?
The concern is the loss of Freedom, and the intrusion of Big government. If I were a Wedding photographer, I would not have any problem with a gay wedding. I have a concern for a government that would force photographers to shoot unions that they dont recognize. The price of Freedon is vey high.
... You are correct to show mercy... which the ensuing couple did not. ...
The Complainant, "Vanessa Willock", could have asked for much more as a settlement. All she asked for was her legal fees and court costs. (Her companion was not involved in the case, other than as a witness.)
In other words, she could have asked for much more and the State of New Mexico could have asked for jail time, neither of which happened.
... However I do think the problem is what Sam has repeatedly said. Really, this whole ruling is so full of holes…Just a few things... It was an obvious set up with a bold face lie told to the photographer. A key ruling that I find interesting and insulting and mostly ignored is that the Judge defined what commercial photography is so that it would help side with the ones who sued – as I repeatedly said… the judge ruled and defined commercial photography as not expressing oneself but merely taking pictures. that in itself is a slippery slope!
Those things do not represent the legal facts of the case.
I seriously recommend that you make a copy of the facts of the case, which represent the legalities of the case, to an attorney which specializes in human rights issues, if you want to find out how much personal jeopardy you might be in if you pursue a defiance of this ruling, and an attorney which specializes in business law, if you want to minimize your business risk.
I say these things because with this first round of appeals seeming to affirm the first court findings, anyone in a public, service oriented, business, who believes that they can still pick and choose their clients needs to know their legal position. I can truly say that I wish no harm to any DGrin user and I am meaning to be helpful.
Once again, here is a link to the legal facts of the case:
The Complainant, "Vanessa Willock", could have asked for much more as a settlement. All she asked for was her legal fees and court costs. (Her companion was not involved in the case, other than as a witness.)
In other words, she could have asked for much more and the State of New Mexico could have asked for jail time, neither of which happened.
Those things do not represent the legal facts of the case.
I seriously recommend that you make a copy of the facts of the case, which represent the legalities of the case, to an attorney which specializes in human rights issues, if you want to find out how much personal jeopardy you might be in if you pursue a defiance of this ruling, and an attorney which specializes in business law, if you want to minimize your business risk.
I say these things because with this first round of appeals seeming to affirm the first court findings, anyone in a public, service oriented, business, who believes that they can still pick and choose their clients needs to know their legal position. I can truly say that I wish no harm to any DGrin user and I am meaning to be helpful.
Once again, here is a link to the legal facts of the case:
I did read the 'facts'. Part of my reply is toward the scripture quoted. And the second part is the Judge ruling what constitutes commercial photography.
I did read the 'facts'. Part of my reply is toward the scripture quoted. ...
... And did you read that the studio's owner's religious beliefs had no bearing on the case, in that it was a "human rights" case? Personal beliefs are not a defense in human rights issues. The particular human rights violation takes legal precedent over "any" personal belief, and so, it is not a defense.
In particular, page 17, point 25 and point 26,
"25. The United States Supreme Court has considered the provisions ofstate antidiscrimination laws similar to the provisions ofNMHRA and concluded that: "Provisions like
these are well within the States usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that
a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First
or Fourteenth Amendments." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 2346 (1995). The Court has explained that "acts of invidious
discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause
unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent." Roberts v. United States
Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3255 (1984).
26. In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise ofreligion, the United States
Supreme Court detennined that its "cases establish the general proposition that a law that is
neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest
even i fthe law has the incidental effect ofburdening a particular religious practice." Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226 (1993). Cf. Axson-Flynn
v. Johnson, 356 F.1277, 1294 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Neutral rules of general applicability ordinarily
do not raise free exercise concerns even i fthey incidentally burden a particular religious practice
or belief."). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that " the right to free exercise
does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general
applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
prescribes (or proscribes). ' " Employnlent Division. Department ofHuman Resources of Oregon
v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)."
... And the second part is the Judge ruling what constitutes commercial photography.
I do not see that comment in the official decision and order of the case, at the link I provided. If you would be so kind as to give the page number and paragraph on which it occurs, that would be helpful.
... And did you read that the studio's owner's religious beliefs had no bearing on the case, in that it was a "human rights" case? Personal beliefs are not a defense in human rights issues. The particular human rights violation takes legal precedent over "any" personal belief, and so, it is not a defense.
In particular, page 17, point 25 and point 26,
"25. The United States Supreme Court has considered the provisions ofstate antidiscrimination laws similar to the provisions ofNMHRA and concluded that: "Provisions like
these are well within the States usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that
a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First
or Fourteenth Amendments." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 2346 (1995). The Court has explained that "acts of invidious
discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause
unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent." Roberts v. United States
Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3255 (1984).
26. In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise ofreligion, the United States
Supreme Court detennined that its "cases establish the general proposition that a law that is
neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest
even i fthe law has the incidental effect ofburdening a particular religious practice." Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226 (1993). Cf. Axson-Flynn
v. Johnson, 356 F.1277, 1294 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Neutral rules of general applicability ordinarily
do not raise free exercise concerns even i fthey incidentally burden a particular religious practice
or belief."). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that " the right to free exercise
does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general
applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
prescribes (or proscribes). ' " Employnlent Division. Department ofHuman Resources of Oregon
v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)."
Wonderful gobelty gook.
Prior to 1861 it was legal in 9 states to own slaves. The attorneys of the states would tell you it's legal, the judges would uphold this. Many thwarted this law at every turn due to personal core values. Others with more power and authority objected with force and 620,000 deaths later slavery was declared illegal. Who was right? the ones obeying and defending a legal law or those that opposed it?
You and others continue to quote recent law and how we need to follow it no matter our personal, religious or core value beliefs. Yet at the same time applauding Rosa Parks for openly violating a legal law of that time. So does right and wrong trump law or the other way around?
I think (opinion only) many here who agree with the courts decision also support the occupy movement that routinely violates state and federal law while destroying private property at will. Agin a disconet with the stated position.
If you truly want freedom and fairness you can't simply obey and enforce the laws you like while ignoring those you don't. Rational thought would dictate a consistent response not one of convenience to support the position of the moment.
No rational gay couple would want a photographer who is uncomfortable with gays and the gay lifestyle to photograph their wedding. What logic supports the idea of suing a photographer that they don't want and wouldn't hire in the first place?
There is room and opportunity for both the gay couple and the photographer to exist and to maintain their values. Novel concept I am sure.
No rational gay couple would want a photographer who is uncomfortable with gays and the gay lifestyle to photograph their wedding. What logic supports the idea of suing a photographer that they don't want and wouldn't hire in the first place?
Agreed. It's contrived entrapment.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Prior to 1861 it was legal in 9 states to own slaves. The attorneys of the states would tell you it's legal, the judges would uphold this. Many thwarted this law at every turn due to personal core values. Others with more power and authority objected with force and 620,000 deaths later slavery was declared illegal. Who was right? the ones obeying and defending a legal law or those that opposed it?
...
That's a curious choice in misdirection. Right and wrong are only currently pertinent to this case in that the judgement and finding have been supported in appeal, meaning that this could be considered a legal precedent for similar cases.
... You and others continue to quote recent law and how we need to follow it no matter our personal, religious or core value beliefs. Yet at the same time applauding Rosa Parks for openly violating a legal law of that time. So does right and wrong trump law or the other way around?
I think (opinion only) many here who agree with the courts decision also support the occupy movement that routinely violates state and federal law while destroying private property at will. Agin a disconet with the stated position.
...
I have never stated my opinion or position in regard to this case and its findings and judgement. My consideration is to try to clarify the situation. As I said before, anyone not clear with the legal aspect really needs to seek legal counsel.
BTW, Rosa Parks would probably be against unlawful discrimination, don't you think?
... If you truly want freedom and fairness you can't simply obey and enforce the laws you like while ignoring those you don't. Rational thought would dictate a consistent response not one of convenience to support the position of the moment.
...
Freedom and fairness are not the purpose of this case. This case is about human rights and unlawful discrimination and the owners of Elane Photography were found guilty of unlawful discrimination. They tried to defend their position but their defense didn't work, either in the original ruling or in appeal.
... No rational gay couple would want a photographer who is uncomfortable with gays and the gay lifestyle to photograph their wedding. What logic supports the idea of suing a photographer that they don't want and wouldn't hire in the first place?
...
I agree with your statement, but it seems not to have any bearing on the case in question. Has Ms. Willock been charged with a crime? If not by now, in the 4 years since the original case, I doubt that she committed any crime, regarding this case.
Public opinion regarding the motives of Ms. Willock likewise have no bearing on the case.
... There is room and opportunity for both the gay couple and the photographer to exist and to maintain their values. Novel concept I am sure.
...
Unless, and until, the ruling is overturned through appeal, this case will likely serve as a rather pivotal case in the human rights of people of alternate sexual orientation.
For now, it is extremely important for those with opposing views to seek legal counsel so that you know how to proceed.
I am not telling anyone what to do, except to seek legal advice if you are at all unclear about your legal position. Everyone is still free to do as they wish, but certain directions and actions may yield undesirable results. An attorney can help sort out your options before any decisions become dire and consequential.
Comments
Many have not reached that conclusion. The discussion isn't about a generic business refusing to provide a generic product or service. It is about a specific business "photography" being forced to participate in an event contrary to ones religious and / or core beliefs. It's about laws that provide special protections and treatment for some groups while denying those same protections for another groups. It's about political correctness becoming the new religion, and set high above everything else. It is about the loss of freedom. It's about a state, New Mexico, that while discriminating against same sex couples by denying them the right to marry, yet awarded the same couple monetary damages against a photographer who didn't deny them the right to marry or the ability to get photos of marriage that couldn't take place legally.
Clarify: Most do agree that basic products and services should be available to all including those whose life style or beliefs we disagree with.
The argument here concerns a small sole proprietor "Photography" wedding business. Weddings are intimate affairs. A wedding photographer doesn't simply take an order on the phone, show up, walk around and press the little button on the camera. Wedding photographers like to get to know the couple, and build up a report with them. A wedding photographer does not simply document the wedding but becomes immersed in the event. The ambiance and overall flavor of the event can become very powerful as it washes over everyone present like an unstoppable ocean wave.
Normally that is a very nice thing, but in the case of a person being forced to be involved and participate in an event that is contrary to their core values can be very painful. Please don't say if you feel this way don't go into the wedding business. Wedding photographers reject clients on a regular basis for all kinds of reasons.
Please!!! If this were a mall photo studio and a gay couple came in and asked for one of the advertized portrait photo packages, I would agree with you 100% I see a wedding photography business as a very personal and intimate type of business offering technical skill, as well as creative and artistic skills.
I see this as political correctness run a muck protecting one group (gays) against another group (those with deep held religious beliefs) with out the first group ever having any damages.
Isn't the goal to be fair as possible, even to those we disagree with?
Sam
It depends on the situation. If the nanny applies for a job and then chooses not to take it, that is entirely her decision.
If she advertises herself as a nanny, then she is a public accommodation under the law. Should the gay couple then request her services, she can not refuse them based on their sexual orientation.
This keeps getting re-hashed and I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I can apply it to any profession:
A marketer doesn't just throw a poster together and send it to the client.
A architect doesn't just draw up a building.
A software engineer doesn't just type up some code for the computer.
My point: Most skilled careers have a large creative component . Wedding photographers shouldn't think they are unique in that regard. When you are a creative professional, you use your vision to ultimately satisfy a client's request.
If anyone is so arrogant that they couldn't bear the thought of the client influencing their "intimate" work, they should probably stop doing work for hire and keep their photography in the domain of personal art.
And regarding this defense... I think for ANY commercial wedding photographer - if their work was that deeply personal, they would have a hard time dealing with clients on a day to day basis (as any business owner knows, clients are not always easy). No, they make many compromises in their work. This is just a convenient excuse to endorse discrimination.
www.tednghiem.com
The justification for protected classes being that there has been an historic pattern in this country of discrimination against them. Gays fit squarely in that category, IMO. Christians, not at all.
It's an interesting and challenging dilemma for those who don't wish to serve gays, but if we define our laws by the tenets of any one person's religious beliefs, then the law would quickly become a mess. There are as many religious viewpoints as there are religious people and to conflate law with religion is a slippery slope. The law needs to serve us all, regardless of our beliefs.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=885898&postcount=225
How do you find these things???? I can barely remember what i had for breakfast.
Sam
Sam, this clip makes sense. It is one thing to say "I refuse to do business with you because of your sexual preference."
...It may be a whole different thing to argue "You cannot legally force me to attend a gay wedding that is against my religious beliefs, even though I provide a wedding-related service".
Damn, we just went way back into grey territory...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Opinionated? Yes. Heated? Not really. at least not according to this moderator. Not compared to what "heated" means on any other forum! You guys are gonna hafta get a lot more offensive and immature before I consider shutting it down. Keep up the lively discussion! (Even though we're just going in circles, sorta
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
You know us noobs - we lurk alot!
I'm going to say this from the perspective of someone who is gay and a photographer.
Its hard to approach vendors when your same sex relationship because quite frankly, you don't know what kind of reaction your going to get. It can be hurtful, surprising and extremely stressful. I can tell you from experience that its not an easy thing to do.
That said, as a photographer I have knocked back potential clients because I felt that we wouldn't be a good fit.
The difference here is why your knocking them back. Are you saying no because they are gay, black, green or tall or are you saying no because you feel that by being a not so good fit that they wouldn't be getting the best possible images in the end? If its the first then shame on you, if its the second then good on you for putting their best interests first.
I think that on principle, courts are correct to punish those that discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
I wouldn't want any photographer like that to shoot for me though.
If that photographer just said, "I don't think on a personal level that we'd be a good fit to shoot your wedding and there for I don't think you'll be getting the best images that you can possably get. Because of this, here are some photographers that I think you'd be very pleased with..." then I wouldn't see anything wrong that.
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
I'd rather hear that then "because of my beliefs I won't shoot your wedding" even if it is a lie.
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
Well heated for this forum, to be honest. This is usually a pretty chill place.
www.tednghiem.com
The concept is really very simple:
Public service business = serves everyone equally.
That is the agreement that anyone in a public service business makes with the state and with the community. I think that a lot of people just don't understand what they are committing to by going public.
Anyone who publishes prices for a service "must" offer those services, at those prices, to anyone who responds, for instance. Anything else can get you into legal difficulties.
Again, I encourage anyone who still doesn't understand this to consult legal advice. A really good attorney may be able to offer some alternatives, but there is no single simple solution. (Alliteration
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I think the thread has become too polarized... there are many shades of grey too in the real world. In this case, there's not simply those who are pro and those who are contra in this thread. There are many, like me, who find error with both sides.
For example your quote above: I am sure that there are many here who agree with it WHEN it would have been a wedding like you write. If you run a wedding photography business, you must accept every customer. But it wasn't a wedding because same sex weddings are illegal in the state of NM. What we have here is a wedding photography business who is forced to shoot another kind of ceremony for which they don't advertise, and which only exists because same sex weddings are illegal.
For that reason, your anger should primarily be aimed at the state of NM. Also, when the state would change the law and allow same sex marriage, the photography business should start accepting these jobs or cease their operation. That is my view, which is somewhere in between the two opposing sides here I think.
Just so to be clear: I have nothing against gay people or anyone else as long as they show me the same respect that I show them. I have a close family member who is gay and there has never been a problem.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Thought I'd seen this before.
If I recall correctly, the couple selected this photographer specifically so they could battle this out in the courts.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I really think you should read about the case and the appeal for yourself.
I want to thank you for coming forward and offering your opinion. I know there are other gay people reading this but to date you are the only one who has come forward.
Hard to comment because I don't know what the Australian law and culture is with regard to gays.
And you should have that right. In this case the photographer did say that, just not in the state approved politically correct speak.
Again you have every right to to say and think that.
Much to broad a statement to parse up.
Nor would any rational person.
Yes this would be a nice approach, but doesn't solve the issue we are discussing here. The gay couple here set up the photographer, they had no intention of booking with the photographer. They simply wanted to make a point, and punish someone who has a different belief system.
I live in CA near San Francisco. There is a large gay population here. While considering this thread I went online and searched for wedding photographers specializing in gay weddings. I found a ton. I looked at many portfolios and did not see one "traditional wedding" I believe that could easily be interpreted to mean we don't do, and or have no interest in "traditional Weddings"
The bottom line is there was no damages other than a claimed hurtful insult. While not nice far better than a sharp stick in your eye.
Which is more relevant the party who says my values differ with your values let both of us go our own way, or the party that says your values differ with my values so I will punish you?
MY agenda is to provide as much freedom as possible and to treat each party as equal as possible. I object to putting one group in a position over the other.
Sam
But Laura, I think the point here is that the first automatically equals the second.
In other words, if you're a bigot and don't want to shoot same-sex weddings, you're automatically not going to be a good fit and the clients won't be getting the best possible images in the end. Even if you try your absolute best, the fact that you're not having fun, not enjoying your work, and are uncomfortable in the situation will negatively impact your creativity. You won't be inspired, you'll be phoning it in.
I hope a Christian remembers certain quotes from the Bible that have relevance to bigotry in general:
Vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
I think what all of those quotes mean is that, you may certainly judge people to have sinned in the eyes of god, but striking back at them with bigotry and vitriol is just as sinful. On the other hand, showing mercy and compassion to those whom you judge sinful is a virtue.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> I don't think too many Christians who follow the Word is a bigot and with sincerity I say that I will not quote scripture which is the basis for this particular photographer's belief for not wanting to shoot the said 'event'. But - Let me clarify; I ought to have said considering that some have suggested the photographer should have lied should not be considered. So – in the future I hope that lies would not be promoted - particularly from a Christian. If a Christian believes homosexual marriage is against their belief and fear protecting their livelihood is to lie - just ought not to be measured as one sin better than another.You are correct to show mercy... which the ensuing couple did not.
However I do think the problem is what Sam has repeatedly said. Really, this whole ruling is so full of holes…Just a few things... It was an obvious set up with a bold face lie told to the photographer. A key ruling that I find interesting and insulting and mostly ignored is that the Judge defined what commercial photography is so that it would help side with the ones who sued – as I repeatedly said… the judge ruled and defined commercial photography as not expressing oneself but merely taking pictures. that in itself is a slippery slope!
Public service business = serves everyone equally.
Ziggy, That really needs to be quantified, How about serves everyone equally. except for the qroups that are not deemed protected, by our elected officails. Bars dont sevre everyone equally. Are all bar owners bigots. People under 35 years are unable to be president. Do we really want to stop all discrimination?
The concern is the loss of Freedom, and the intrusion of Big government. If I were a Wedding photographer, I would not have any problem with a gay wedding. I have a concern for a government that would force photographers to shoot unions that they dont recognize. The price of Freedon is vey high.
http://rckimaging.smugmug.com/
The Complainant, "Vanessa Willock", could have asked for much more as a settlement. All she asked for was her legal fees and court costs. (Her companion was not involved in the case, other than as a witness.)
In other words, she could have asked for much more and the State of New Mexico could have asked for jail time, neither of which happened.
Those things do not represent the legal facts of the case.
I seriously recommend that you make a copy of the facts of the case, which represent the legalities of the case, to an attorney which specializes in human rights issues, if you want to find out how much personal jeopardy you might be in if you pursue a defiance of this ruling, and an attorney which specializes in business law, if you want to minimize your business risk.
I say these things because with this first round of appeals seeming to affirm the first court findings, anyone in a public, service oriented, business, who believes that they can still pick and choose their clients needs to know their legal position. I can truly say that I wish no harm to any DGrin user and I am meaning to be helpful.
Once again, here is a link to the legal facts of the case:
http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I did read the 'facts'. Part of my reply is toward the scripture quoted. And the second part is the Judge ruling what constitutes commercial photography.
... And did you read that the studio's owner's religious beliefs had no bearing on the case, in that it was a "human rights" case? Personal beliefs are not a defense in human rights issues. The particular human rights violation takes legal precedent over "any" personal belief, and so, it is not a defense.
In particular, page 17, point 25 and point 26,
"25. The United States Supreme Court has considered the provisions ofstate antidiscrimination laws similar to the provisions ofNMHRA and concluded that: "Provisions like
these are well within the States usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that
a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First
or Fourteenth Amendments." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 2346 (1995). The Court has explained that "acts of invidious
discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause
unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent." Roberts v. United States
Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3255 (1984).
26. In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise ofreligion, the United States
Supreme Court detennined that its "cases establish the general proposition that a law that is
neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest
even i fthe law has the incidental effect ofburdening a particular religious practice." Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226 (1993). Cf. Axson-Flynn
v. Johnson, 356 F.1277, 1294 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Neutral rules of general applicability ordinarily
do not raise free exercise concerns even i fthey incidentally burden a particular religious practice
or belief."). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that " the right to free exercise
does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general
applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
prescribes (or proscribes). ' " Employnlent Division. Department ofHuman Resources of Oregon
v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)."
From the previous link, cited for accuracy.
I do not see that comment in the official decision and order of the case, at the link I provided. If you would be so kind as to give the page number and paragraph on which it occurs, that would be helpful.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Wonderful gobelty gook.
Prior to 1861 it was legal in 9 states to own slaves. The attorneys of the states would tell you it's legal, the judges would uphold this. Many thwarted this law at every turn due to personal core values. Others with more power and authority objected with force and 620,000 deaths later slavery was declared illegal. Who was right? the ones obeying and defending a legal law or those that opposed it?
You and others continue to quote recent law and how we need to follow it no matter our personal, religious or core value beliefs. Yet at the same time applauding Rosa Parks for openly violating a legal law of that time. So does right and wrong trump law or the other way around?
I think (opinion only) many here who agree with the courts decision also support the occupy movement that routinely violates state and federal law while destroying private property at will. Agin a disconet with the stated position.
If you truly want freedom and fairness you can't simply obey and enforce the laws you like while ignoring those you don't. Rational thought would dictate a consistent response not one of convenience to support the position of the moment.
No rational gay couple would want a photographer who is uncomfortable with gays and the gay lifestyle to photograph their wedding. What logic supports the idea of suing a photographer that they don't want and wouldn't hire in the first place?
There is room and opportunity for both the gay couple and the photographer to exist and to maintain their values. Novel concept I am sure.
Sam
Agreed. It's contrived entrapment.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
That's a curious choice in misdirection. Right and wrong are only currently pertinent to this case in that the judgement and finding have been supported in appeal, meaning that this could be considered a legal precedent for similar cases.
I have never stated my opinion or position in regard to this case and its findings and judgement. My consideration is to try to clarify the situation. As I said before, anyone not clear with the legal aspect really needs to seek legal counsel.
BTW, Rosa Parks would probably be against unlawful discrimination, don't you think?
Freedom and fairness are not the purpose of this case. This case is about human rights and unlawful discrimination and the owners of Elane Photography were found guilty of unlawful discrimination. They tried to defend their position but their defense didn't work, either in the original ruling or in appeal.
I agree with your statement, but it seems not to have any bearing on the case in question. Has Ms. Willock been charged with a crime? If not by now, in the 4 years since the original case, I doubt that she committed any crime, regarding this case.
Public opinion regarding the motives of Ms. Willock likewise have no bearing on the case.
Unless, and until, the ruling is overturned through appeal, this case will likely serve as a rather pivotal case in the human rights of people of alternate sexual orientation.
For now, it is extremely important for those with opposing views to seek legal counsel so that you know how to proceed.
I am not telling anyone what to do, except to seek legal advice if you are at all unclear about your legal position. Everyone is still free to do as they wish, but certain directions and actions may yield undesirable results. An attorney can help sort out your options before any decisions become dire and consequential.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums