Just as an aside I wanted to say how impressed I am with how civil this discussion has stayed! Anywhere else on the itnernet this would have devolved into a flam war almost immediatley! This just shows how amazing of a place DGrin is! Thank you everyone!
Just as an aside I wanted to say how impressed I am with how civil this discussion has stayed! Anywhere else on the itnernet this would have devolved into a flam war almost immediatley! This just shows how amazing of a place DGrin is! Thank you everyone!
yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully we have all learned something, or at least thought more deeply about things that matter to us. I know I have. It is amazing what happens when we make an attempt to follow the advice of Stephen Covey (Seven Habits) "Seek to understand more than to be understood."
You may be right, Richard. I guess I just prefer a world where the photographers rights are considered as well. There are quite a number of things I would rather not photograph. I'd like to live in a world where I could graciously decline.
Just as an aside I wanted to say how impressed I am with how civil this discussion has stayed! Anywhere else on the itnernet this would have devolved into a flam war almost immediatley! This just shows how amazing of a place DGrin is! Thank you everyone!
This isn't nearly as controversial as the size of watermarks or posting a pic of a squirrel in the Wildlife forum.
while this debate has indeed remained civil, and I'm thankful for that, I tire of the circular arguments:
"government overpowering"
"forcing the photographer"
"first amendment"
"religion"
etc.
let's keep in mind the photographer was never forced to do anything and no law ever forces anyone to do something. laws exist to prevent wrongdoing.
in this case the photogrpaher was dead wrong in making a determined decision to deny services based soley on the couple's sexual orientation, against the anti-discrimination laws of the state.
while I don't condone evasive behavior to cover-up discrimination the photographer did not have to make a soap-box case of this. this has been said numerous times already; scheduling problems, pricing, or even an honest discussion about whether creative success could / would be achieved would have been better.
and let's not forget the couple, while standing on their own soap box regarding their rights, did NOT seek punitive damages, they simply made the case of educating the photographer on the law.
What if you are physician? Pretty up close and personal, I'd say. Does that mean you can discriminate if you are a racist? Or a misogynist? The creative aspect of photography does not give you a free pass. The blunt force of law is coming to bear in the area of sexual orientation precisely because all the "wouldn't it be better for everyone" scenarios have had ample time to take effect but they haven't. You seem to be saying that you can pick and choose when discrimination is OK and when it's not. I don't agree.
If I come to the ER with a broken leg seeking to have it fixed, then there are several key differences that apply: (1) It's an emergency -- life and limb, not mere feelings are at stake. (2) My race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. have no bearing on what I asking you to do.
If I come to the ER with a broken leg seeking to have it fixed, then there are several key differences that apply: (1) It's an emergency -- life and limb, not mere feelings are at stake. (2) My race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. have no bearing on what I asking you to do.
For a professional photographer race, gender, sexual orientation also have no bearing on what you are being asked to do. Once you hold your services out to the public you are required to follow the laws that apply to all other businesses.
If you are not prepared to accept that responsibility then don't hold your services out to the public.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
in this case the photogrpaher was dead wrong in making a determined decision to deny services based soley on the couple's sexual orientation, against the anti-discrimination laws of the state.
Can't his religious freedom and strong belief be enough to keep him from paying the fine?
while I don't condone evasive behavior to cover-up discrimination the photographer did not have to make a soap-box case of this. this has been said numerous times already; scheduling problems, pricing, or even an honest discussion about whether creative success could / would be achieved would have been better.
Once again if his religion teaches him to not be a part of such things or to try to lead those who are sinners to the Lord isn't this his free right?
and let's not forget the couple, while standing on their own soap box regarding their rights, did NOT seek punitive damages, they simply made the case of educating the photographer on the law.
and assisted him in finding a 6500 dollar fine...
Did the photographer do the job? Did he charge them over the top? Maybe $6500....lol.... sorry for making light a little.
No! His religious beliefs have no bearing on civil matters. That's the very foundation of the concept of "separation of church and state"
Sinners? I won't even dignify that with a response and please do not start a religious argument here.
.
"Sinners" I wasn't asking for a response to that and no one is attempting to start an argument about religion. Just asking a question I had. As for the foundation of the "seperation" where is this happening? Bush? no... and it still is "In God We Trust" right?
I'm done now, but I really wasn't trying to start this getting out of hand. Good Day...
"Sinners" I wasn't asking for a response to that and no one is attempting to start an argument about religion. Just asking a question I had. As for the foundation of the "seperation" where is this happening? Bush? no... and it still is "In God We Trust" right?
I'm done now, but I really wasn't trying to start this getting out of hand. Good Day...
From the Treaty of Tripoly of 1797
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in anysense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The treaty was signed by our second President, John Adams and was passed by our Senate w/o a dissenting vote. I do believe that Mr. Adams qualifies as a "founding father". I guess that I'm going to go with Adams on this one.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in anysense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The treaty was signed by our second President, John Adams and was passed by our Senate w/o a dissenting vote. I do believe that Mr. Adams qualifies as a "founding father". I guess that I'm going to go with Adams on this one.
Sorry, but I really can't believe that. Using that noun is making a value judgement on the person.
[/QUOTE]As for the foundation of the "seperation" where is this happening? Bush? no... and it still is "In God We Trust" right?[/QUOTE]
You're religious leaders have, unfortunately, been misleading you about the intentions of our founding fathers, which definitely was not to create a Christian nation. You might be surprised to learn a bit about some of them in this book:
Sorry but John Adams was a bit before my time. However, John Quincy and I got along just fine. :ivar
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
For a professional photographer race, gender, sexual orientation also have no bearing on what you are being asked to do. Once you hold your services out to the public you are required to follow the laws that apply to all other businesses.
If you are not prepared to accept that responsibility then don't hold your services out to the public.
Now that you mention that, this issue is a whole lot bigger than just same-sex vs. opposite-sex weddings. The law in most of western civilization has pretty well established that in most cases, a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics that have no bearing on the transaction (like the religion of a baseball player).
The important question now is what becomes of those cases where these personal characteristics have a direct impact on the transaction? For example, if one is a photographer who specializes in religious ceremonies, can one be compelled by law to photograph those events which contain actions one finds objectionable, simply because they are "religious" in nature? Could a photographer legally refuse to photograph men kissing each other at an Italian wedding, while being legally compelled to do so at a same-sex wedding simply because of the sexual orientation of the participants?
Now that you mention that, this issue is a whole lot bigger than just same-sex vs. opposite-sex weddings. The law in most of western civilization has pretty well established that in most cases, a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics that have no bearing on the transaction (like the religion of a baseball player).
The important question now is what becomes of those cases where these personal characteristics have a direct impact on the transaction? For example, if one is a photographer who specializes in religious ceremonies, can one be compelled by law to photograph those events which contain actions one finds objectionable, simply because they are "religious" in nature? Could a photographer legally refuse to photograph men kissing each other at an Italian wedding, while being legally compelled to do so at a same-sex wedding simply because of the sexual orientation of the participants?
A professional photographer should act like a professional. Its not complex at all. I have never seen an ad from a pro that says "I will not shoot the following ....... because it offends my delicate sensibilities". All the pros I know are happy with any job they can get.
The only thing the law in this case compels you to do is not discriminate. If one's sensibilities are so easily offended then professional photography really shouldn't be their gig.
Now I'm an atheist and any religious ceremony offends me. If I decided to make my living as a wedding photographer can you see me advertising "Wedding Photographer for secular ceremonies - because of my personal convictions I will not photograph any religious ceremony or any ceremony where a diety is mentioned". :lol4
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
This places the burden on the couple to find someone who will not discriminate. How much progress do you think would have been made in public accommodations if it had been left to African Americans to find businesses that were "comfortable" with dealing with them? Isn't it just a wee bit condescending to say that refusing to serve a gay couple is really for their own good?
If the interest of both parties in this case is satisfaction in both a) producing and b) receiving the best photographs, refusing to shoot was probably wise. It was the manner in which it was refused that was punished. It is illegal to refuse service based on discrimination. It is also difficult as hell to prove you were discriminated against without some kind of direct evidence, which the defendant provided in this case. The lesson to be learned here and this has already been stated numerous times is, choose your words wisely.
I still think the defendant could have made a case with the following logic argument:
1. Being a business owner the top concern is to provide the best product possible.
2. Photography is expressive.
3. Their personal beliefs made them uncomfortable with the job.
Therefore the work would have suffered and henceforth the would-be client's best interest as well as their own was best served in refusal to do the job. In simple terms this was a professional decision, not discrimination.
Now I'm an atheist and any religious ceremony offends me. If I decided to make my living as a wedding photographer can you see me advertising "Wedding Photographer for secular ceremonies - because of my personal convictions I will not photograph any religious ceremony or any ceremony where a diety is mentioned".
And I think that's the beauty of freedom. If you were so inclined to take a stance like that, then take the stand and accept the consequences of business. The government should not be in the business of regulating expression.
And I think that's the beauty of freedom. If you were so inclined to take a stance like that, then take the stand and accept the consequences of business. The government should not be in the business of regulating expression.
The government is not regulating expression in this case. The defendants (aka -bigots) in this case are completely free to spout their ignorance from the highest hill and in their loudest voice. However they are required to follow local laws concerning their business.
If you allow them to discriminate then a chef can claim that his/her cooking is an artistic expression and their restaurant can choose who they wish to share their artistic expression with. Then the architect can claim the same "artistic right" concerning who gets to live in their artistic expression. Once you find some loophole for ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, etc in one area then you have to allow the same opening in other areas.
Our courts throughout our history have had to step in many times to protect the minority from the prejudices of the majority. Many folks felt that their freedoms and rights were limited when the courts struck down Jim Crow laws.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Is this the peoples republic
WOW this is interesting!!! After reading through a lot of the replies i got hungry and went to lunch at a local restaurant .....and DAMN.... the owner had a sign on the wall that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I asked him what would cause someone to be denied service. His answer was simple "anything I don't approve off". So I explained the situation here on Dig a Grin to him. That scared the hell out of him so he made a new sign. It reads "We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone". All this PC crap has gone too far.
WOW this is interesting!!! After reading through a lot of the replies i got hungry and went to lunch at a local restaurant .....and DAMN.... the owner had a sign on the wall that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I asked him what would cause someone to be denied service. His answer was simple "anything I don't approve off". So I explained the situation here on Dig a Grin to him. That scared the hell out of him so he made a new sign. It reads "We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone". All this PC crap has gone too far.
You can tell that restaurant owner that he doesn't have the "right" to deny service to anyone. If he discriminates in a manner that is against local laws he might and hopefully would be held responsible for his acts.
As for PC crap" what the hell is PC crap? In my neck of the woods I'm considered to be not politically correct because I won't pledge allegiance to the flag or take in any invocation before a public meeting. Usually folks raise the phoney issue of PC when they don't agree with it but don't mind applying their own brand of PC against others.
What went too far in this case under discussion were the photographers (aka bigots) who foolishly tried to apply their private prejudices to a service they held open to the general public.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Transcript of case: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-conte...
Initial Email:
We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.
This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information.
Thanks
Took me a freaking hour to read every post here to make certain I wasn't restating something. It seems to me, that contrary to the assertion that's been made here, the "couple" did not start this legal brouhaha in order to prove any point. If you'll read their e-mail above, they were very up front in their initial contact with the defendant that this was a "same-gender" ceremony. They then went on to say "if you are open . . . yadda-yadda."
Rather than just deleting the (I'm guessing unsolicited) e-mail, the defendant chose to do a nanny-nanny-boo-boo, and say "we don't serve gays." The defendant started it.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Took me a freaking hour to read every post here to make certain I wasn't restating something. It seems to me, that contrary to the assertion that's been made here, the "couple" did not start this legal brouhaha in order to prove any point. If you'll read their e-mail above, they were very up front in their initial contact with the defendant that this was a "same-gender" ceremony. They then went on to say "if you are open . . . yadda-yadda."
Rather than just deleting the (I'm guessing unsolicited) e-mail, the defendant chose to do a nanny-nanny-boo-boo, and say "we don't serve gays." The defendant started it.
and there you have it....
it's always about the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" isn't it?
icebear you have hopefully brought this circuitous argument to it's conclusion! Thank you.
You really need to read the thread......it is not a matter of who recognizes same sex marriages.......but the way they decided to say NO to doing business was an act of discrimination against the would be client.........but you really need to read the thread............
Comments
yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully we have all learned something, or at least thought more deeply about things that matter to us. I know I have. It is amazing what happens when we make an attempt to follow the advice of Stephen Covey (Seven Habits) "Seek to understand more than to be understood."
You may be right, Richard. I guess I just prefer a world where the photographers rights are considered as well. There are quite a number of things I would rather not photograph. I'd like to live in a world where I could graciously decline.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
This isn't nearly as controversial as the size of watermarks or posting a pic of a squirrel in the Wildlife forum.
haha. . . . or the ubiquitous controversy of Nikon vss Canon or Mac vss PC
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
"government overpowering"
"forcing the photographer"
"first amendment"
"religion"
etc.
let's keep in mind the photographer was never forced to do anything and no law ever forces anyone to do something. laws exist to prevent wrongdoing.
in this case the photogrpaher was dead wrong in making a determined decision to deny services based soley on the couple's sexual orientation, against the anti-discrimination laws of the state.
while I don't condone evasive behavior to cover-up discrimination the photographer did not have to make a soap-box case of this. this has been said numerous times already; scheduling problems, pricing, or even an honest discussion about whether creative success could / would be achieved would have been better.
and let's not forget the couple, while standing on their own soap box regarding their rights, did NOT seek punitive damages, they simply made the case of educating the photographer on the law.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
If I come to the ER with a broken leg seeking to have it fixed, then there are several key differences that apply: (1) It's an emergency -- life and limb, not mere feelings are at stake. (2) My race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. have no bearing on what I asking you to do.
For a professional photographer race, gender, sexual orientation also have no bearing on what you are being asked to do. Once you hold your services out to the public you are required to follow the laws that apply to all other businesses.
If you are not prepared to accept that responsibility then don't hold your services out to the public.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Can't his religious freedom and strong belief be enough to keep him from paying the fine?
Once again if his religion teaches him to not be a part of such things or to try to lead those who are sinners to the Lord isn't this his free right?
and assisted him in finding a 6500 dollar fine...
Did the photographer do the job? Did he charge them over the top? Maybe $6500....lol.... sorry for making light a little.
http://www.pymatuningmx.com/index.html :thumb
No! His religious beliefs have no bearing on civil matters. That's the very foundation of the concept of "separation of church and state"
Sinners? I won't even dignify that with a response and please do not start a religious argument here.
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
"Sinners" I wasn't asking for a response to that and no one is attempting to start an argument about religion. Just asking a question I had. As for the foundation of the "seperation" where is this happening? Bush? no... and it still is "In God We Trust" right?
I'm done now, but I really wasn't trying to start this getting out of hand. Good Day...
http://www.pymatuningmx.com/index.html :thumb
From the Treaty of Tripoly of 1797
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The treaty was signed by our second President, John Adams and was passed by our Senate w/o a dissenting vote. I do believe that Mr. Adams qualifies as a "founding father". I guess that I'm going to go with Adams on this one.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Do you remember when this happened Harry?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist! We love you Harry!
[/QUOTE]As for the foundation of the "seperation" where is this happening? Bush? no... and it still is "In God We Trust" right?[/QUOTE]
You're religious leaders have, unfortunately, been misleading you about the intentions of our founding fathers, which definitely was not to create a Christian nation. You might be surprised to learn a bit about some of them in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/2000-Years-Disbelief-Famous-Courage/dp/1573920673/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214149417&sr=8-1
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Sorry but John Adams was a bit before my time. However, John Quincy and I got along just fine. :ivar
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
yeah they went to different schools together.................
Sorry got off topic but couldn't reisit a levity...................
Now that you mention that, this issue is a whole lot bigger than just same-sex vs. opposite-sex weddings. The law in most of western civilization has pretty well established that in most cases, a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics that have no bearing on the transaction (like the religion of a baseball player).
The important question now is what becomes of those cases where these personal characteristics have a direct impact on the transaction? For example, if one is a photographer who specializes in religious ceremonies, can one be compelled by law to photograph those events which contain actions one finds objectionable, simply because they are "religious" in nature? Could a photographer legally refuse to photograph men kissing each other at an Italian wedding, while being legally compelled to do so at a same-sex wedding simply because of the sexual orientation of the participants?
A professional photographer should act like a professional. Its not complex at all. I have never seen an ad from a pro that says "I will not shoot the following ....... because it offends my delicate sensibilities". All the pros I know are happy with any job they can get.
The only thing the law in this case compels you to do is not discriminate. If one's sensibilities are so easily offended then professional photography really shouldn't be their gig.
Now I'm an atheist and any religious ceremony offends me. If I decided to make my living as a wedding photographer can you see me advertising "Wedding Photographer for secular ceremonies - because of my personal convictions I will not photograph any religious ceremony or any ceremony where a diety is mentioned". :lol4
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
If the interest of both parties in this case is satisfaction in both a) producing and b) receiving the best photographs, refusing to shoot was probably wise. It was the manner in which it was refused that was punished. It is illegal to refuse service based on discrimination. It is also difficult as hell to prove you were discriminated against without some kind of direct evidence, which the defendant provided in this case. The lesson to be learned here and this has already been stated numerous times is, choose your words wisely.
I still think the defendant could have made a case with the following logic argument:
1. Being a business owner the top concern is to provide the best product possible.
2. Photography is expressive.
3. Their personal beliefs made them uncomfortable with the job.
Therefore the work would have suffered and henceforth the would-be client's best interest as well as their own was best served in refusal to do the job. In simple terms this was a professional decision, not discrimination.
regular site
oo
smug site
And I think that's the beauty of freedom. If you were so inclined to take a stance like that, then take the stand and accept the consequences of business. The government should not be in the business of regulating expression.
The government is not regulating expression in this case. The defendants (aka -bigots) in this case are completely free to spout their ignorance from the highest hill and in their loudest voice. However they are required to follow local laws concerning their business.
If you allow them to discriminate then a chef can claim that his/her cooking is an artistic expression and their restaurant can choose who they wish to share their artistic expression with. Then the architect can claim the same "artistic right" concerning who gets to live in their artistic expression. Once you find some loophole for ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, etc in one area then you have to allow the same opening in other areas.
Our courts throughout our history have had to step in many times to protect the minority from the prejudices of the majority. Many folks felt that their freedoms and rights were limited when the courts struck down Jim Crow laws.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
WOW this is interesting!!! After reading through a lot of the replies i got hungry and went to lunch at a local restaurant .....and DAMN.... the owner had a sign on the wall that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I asked him what would cause someone to be denied service. His answer was simple "anything I don't approve off". So I explained the situation here on Dig a Grin to him. That scared the hell out of him so he made a new sign. It reads "We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone". All this PC crap has gone too far.
You can tell that restaurant owner that he doesn't have the "right" to deny service to anyone. If he discriminates in a manner that is against local laws he might and hopefully would be held responsible for his acts.
As for PC crap" what the hell is PC crap? In my neck of the woods I'm considered to be not politically correct because I won't pledge allegiance to the flag or take in any invocation before a public meeting. Usually folks raise the phoney issue of PC when they don't agree with it but don't mind applying their own brand of PC against others.
What went too far in this case under discussion were the photographers (aka bigots) who foolishly tried to apply their private prejudices to a service they held open to the general public.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Took me a freaking hour to read every post here to make certain I wasn't restating something. It seems to me, that contrary to the assertion that's been made here, the "couple" did not start this legal brouhaha in order to prove any point. If you'll read their e-mail above, they were very up front in their initial contact with the defendant that this was a "same-gender" ceremony. They then went on to say "if you are open . . . yadda-yadda."
Rather than just deleting the (I'm guessing unsolicited) e-mail, the defendant chose to do a nanny-nanny-boo-boo, and say "we don't serve gays." The defendant started it.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
it's always about the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" isn't it?
icebear you have hopefully brought this circuitous argument to it's conclusion! Thank you.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
:whip
WWW.LONGISLANDIMAGE.COM
No, you are SO WRONG it is absolutely nanny nanny BOO BOO.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
Does New Mexico recognize same sex mairrage? If not it seems hypocritical of them to charge someone for choosing not to recognize same sex marraige.
No, New Mexico doesn't. But that is actually kind of beside the point in that. .. well, it wasn't even called a wedding but a commitment ceremony.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site