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.
In general, I support the ideal of anti-discrimination and the laws to establish such. However......
I share the above concern expressed by ashrugged as my basic disagreement with the court's interpretation of law and ruling on this case. Whatever the legalese, cited prior case law, or current rulings, I disagree with the court, in this particular circumstance. That doesn't make me special or alone - there are two sides (at least) to these matters and just because one side prevails in court the other view doesn't disappear, it becomes the minority opinion and still remains valid to proponents. I may accept the authority of the court and obey the ruling, buy I will never give up my right to hold a dissenting position.
The terms Shameful, Bigot, Hater, Ignorant etc., etc. have been tossed around quite a bit in this thread, applied to those (like me) who have argued (for whatever reason) in support of the photogs right to decline the client. Really ?? Seriously ?? It's just that simple?? It's easy ?? - just connect the dots ?? I double-dare anyone to try and squeeze me into the BIGOT box using my dissenting opinion based on a concern for Liberty.
Can you see where I'm going with all this? There may be several different basis for disagreement in this case, including - but not limited to - personal/religious beliefs, and so, It is just factually wrong to characterize most/all dissenters as Haters and Bigots because they do not believe an injustice occurred - in this case. To do so indicates to me that a person is intoxicated with the rhetoric and self-righteousness that comes with a super-size gulp of political-correctness Kool-aid and is not worldly enough to understand the diverse nature of human behavior and beliefs.
Edit: Glort is, of course, an exception to my theory, Doh!
Ya know, I can't help but think this couple were just looking for trouble.
With the amount of photographers anywhere, would it have really been so hard for these people to just go find someone who was interested in taking the job and their money?
Legalities aside, I think the fact they choose to fill their lives with this bitterness and crap over something that is supposed to be beautiful and happy just goes to show they are nothing but either a bitter, sad pair of trouble makers or it was basically a set up to make some money from the shooter.
Any reasonable person would have said " We'll take our money elsewhere if you don't want it" and would have done that. Only the pathetic would carry on dragging them through court because they don't condone the choices they made for themselves. Truthfully, the Photographer probably offended them by being an attractive, married woman with nice kids and a good looking husband.
If this pair are going to be such a pair of bitches over something like this, then I'm sure their lives will be as miserable as they deserve to be if they aren't already.
Karma can be a real bitch as well and I hope this pair get their share with interest.
You know, I was recently reading the blog of an Oregon-based friend who is in a domestic partnership. The ridiculous number of hoops she and her same-sex partner have had to jump through to file taxes jointly, to be on joint medical plans, to be allowed to visit each other in hospital as "family", and any number of other things those of us in traditional unions take entirely for granted make it more understandable why something as seemingly "trivial" as a photographer's tacitly-judgmental response might stimulate a reaction. Until you've walked in somebody else's shoes.....
I have a concern for a government that would force photographers to shoot unions that they dont recognize.
Which takes us right back to miscegenation laws. Do you have a concern for the government that "forced" recognition and acceptance of mixed-race unions? I see no difference.
The board moves rather quickly so instead of digging to find Ziggy's qr I'll just post here.
I don't think the statement made by the court is not found in the link you provided but in the court of appeals - not sure but here it is:
“By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message,” the judges said. “Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.”
"While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take, in that it decides which pictures to take, which pictures to edit, and how to edit them, this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography." What the law is regulating is not Elane's artistic expression, but rather its business practice. - District Judge Alan M. Malott of the Bernalillo County District Court, a three-judge panel of the New Mexico Court of Appeals
and for some spice the court also said Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.
Now I have seen the photog's work here and I must say your work is awesome so no worries...I'll never compare your photography and business to a pay toilet!
Eia, what the judge is saying is that the photographer is not expressing a "message" about whether gay marriages are right or wrong... and that is completely correct.
You know, I was recently reading the blog of an Oregon-based friend who is in a domestic partnership. The ridiculous number of hoops she and her same-sex partner have had to jump through to file taxes jointly, to be on joint medical plans, to be allowed to visit each other in hospital as "family", and any number of other things those of us in traditional unions take entirely for granted make it more understandable why something as seemingly "trivial" as a photographer's tacitly-judgmental response might stimulate a reaction. Until you've walked in somebody else's shoes.....
This is not part of the discussion. The state of New Mexico, in this case, is responsible for this. Not the photographer.
Which takes us right back to miscegenation laws. Do you have a concern for the government that "forced" recognition and acceptance of mixed-race unions? I see no difference.
No one, the government included, has the power to force anyone to accept mixed-race marriages. Many people of different groups still do not accept this. The government can help the situation, but that's it. Time, culture, exposure, can at first create a tolerant atmosphere which can lead to acceptance over time. There is no short cut. It's human nature.
No one, the government included, has the power to force anyone to accept mixed-race marriages. Many people of different groups still do not accept this. The government can help the situation, but that's it. Time, culture, exposure, can at first create a tolerant atmosphere which can lead to acceptance over time. There is no short cut. It's human nature.
The government can't force people to be happy about it, but it can and does prohibit businesses from discriminating against mixed-race couples. You don't have to like it.
The government can't force people to be happy about it, but it can and does prohibit businesses from discriminating against mixed-race couples. You don't have to like it.
This is not part of the discussion. The state of New Mexico, in this case, is responsible for this. Not the photographer.
You've entirely missed my point. Several people upthread have said "Why on earth would the gay couple react like this other than to stir trouble?", and my comment was to point out some of the inequities for gay couples, which in turn sheds some light on *why* something seemingly trivial could trigger a response as strong as a legal suit. Everybody has a breaking point.
The government can help the situation
Exactly. You have just 100% shattered your own argument against government intervention with that sentence...
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.
I believe a couple of people have said this in this thread.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
The board moves rather quickly so instead of digging to find Ziggy's qr I'll just post here.
I don't think the statement made by the court is not found in the link you provided but in the court of appeals - not sure but here it is:
“By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message,” the judges said. “Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.”
"While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take, in that it decides which pictures to take, which pictures to edit, and how to edit them, this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography." What the law is regulating is not Elane's artistic expression, but rather its business practice. - District Judge Alan M. Malott of the Bernalillo County District Court, a three-judge panel of the New Mexico Court of Appeals
and for some spice the court also said Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.
Now I have seen the photog's work here and I must say your work is awesome so no worries...I'll never compare your photography and business to a pay toilet!
Although the ruling on this appeal was unanimous, Judge James J. Wechsler wrote separately to point out that Elane had failed to raise a potentially valid argument under a different sentence in the New Mexico Constitution. Elane had focused its defense on the provision banning compelled participation in religious ceremonies, but, wrote Judge Wechsler, "the language of Article II, Section 11 that to me captures Elane Photography's religious freedom position is the first sentence, stating that 'every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience' and prohibiting the denial of any 'privilege on account of his religious opinion. This language, which focuses on a person's freedom to act in accordance with one's conscience concerning one's religious opinion or worship, seems broader than the First Amendment alnguage that focuses on preventing federal laws that 'prohibit' a person's free exercise of religion," he continued. However, since Elane had not expressly raised this at trial, and it would be presenting a question of "first impression" for New Mexico courts, Judge Wechsler pointed out that it was appropriate for the court to refrain from considering it on this appeal, commenting that "determination of its cope remains for another day."
Thanks, Eia. Yes, it would appear that the judges in this case are poorly choosing some of their verbage. Without knowing the entirety of the conversation it's hard to know the full implications of their comments.
In the second post, it is rather unusual to see Judge Wechsler so candid to discuss a possible new defense strategy, conceivably even a cross complaint.
Like I keep saying, the best individual strategy for our users is to seek legal advice for their own unique situations. We live in interesting times.
Wait... am I reading this right? Sounds like Wechsler is saying "here's a way you could have won, but since you didn't mention it, you lose." WTF? I thought that's what judges were for, to make the ultimate correct call, to know better than the lawyers...?
By the way, Sam, I'm surprised to hear you asserting ideals over law.... I'm guessing you're of the (correct) mindset that illegal immigration is illegal...?
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
'Thus, the court ruled, Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.'
... was at a site called, TheNewAmerican.com, and "they", The New American writers, are the ones making the comparison of photographers to pay toilets.
I don't find any other site quoting the court's statements in this manner.
The appellate court simply said, "public accommodation" which, in legal speak, is not derogatory at all. It simply defines the class of business, one which I refer to as a "public, service oriented, business".
As such, I am writing a letter to The New American, asking them to apologize to all photographers in making such a comparison. I certainly cannot accept anything that they might say as informative or factual after that inference.
Wait... am I reading this right? Sounds like Wechsler is saying "here's a way you could have won, but since you didn't mention it, you lose." WTF? I thought that's what judges were for, to make the ultimate correct call, to know better than the lawyers...?
...?
Judges are not allowed to interfere with either side during litigation. It is the responsibility of each side to provide either prosecutorial or defense strategies and counsel. The judge takes the results of the trial and then makes a determination, based on the evidence, testimony, etc., collected and generated by the trial.
There may be very valid reasons why the lawyers for Elane Photography chose their particular strategy, and not the strategy this judge is suggesting.
Ah - Ha......as usual - the devil is in the details.
Still think the good ol' Government is lookin' out for all the sheep the same?
Yep, the devil is always in the details. I foresee another legal battle soon, and using the Judge suggestion on how to challenge it from a different angle.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
I am jumping in from several pages back as I had stopped reading this thread for a while. It was said that the case was ruled on as a "Human Rights case" This is said to be the facts and we can only go by the laws of the land. I really want someone to show me where in the Bill of rights or the 14 th amendment or 15th or the cival rights act of 1964 any of the titles, state that my business has to serve any and all people mainly one of sexual preference (conduct)?? Please someone show me that. All the named laws above protect against employment and the Human rights based on age, race, sex and disability. The only laws I know of that protect people from sexual preferances are individual state laws only.
My freedom of religion can trump your protected status as long as it does not deny you a needed service such as housing employment or food. It still has held in court over medical treatments. In a non emergency situation a doctor can refuse an abortion due to religious beliefs. So why can a photographer not refuse to take photographs if it is against a paticualr belief. Apparently if your in NM you can't. I wonder about some other states???
By the way, Sam, I'm surprised to hear you asserting ideals over law.... I'm guessing you're of the (correct) mindset that illegal immigration is illegal...?
I am not sure where your getting that. Please point out where that came from.
The issue of illegal immigration is another politically correct nightmare but please let's not discuss that here. That has nothing to do with business or the rights of a photography business owner. Lets keep to the subject at hand.
Before long a photographer will not be able to turn away a pedophilia shoot because it will be a disability and that will be discrimination. O'wait it is a disability in Greece. Dont believe me....look it up. The Government has ruled it as a disability and subject to disability pay. So in a few years dont say no or you could be in trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/furor-greece-over-pedophilia-disability-174002476.html
2 Corinthians 9:15
williamspics.smugmug.com
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
The issue of illegal immigration is another politically correct nightmare but please let's not discuss that here. That has nothing to do with business or the rights of a photography business owner. Lets keep to the subject at hand.
Sam
Yes please, stay on topic!
So, since this discussion is going in it's 11th or 12th circle, I'm kinda done; I've said all I can say.
To recap, I think it all just comes down to beliefs vs beliefs, rights vs rights, but some people are seeing it as religion vs lifestyle.
* State and Federal law cannot preserve one right at the cost of another's.
* The state must choose which reasons it allows businesses to be discriminating in how they accept customers, and in this case they have deemed it an illegal discrimination.
* In my opinion, the photographer effectively said "my business chooses to discriminate against you for an illegal reason. Furthermore, this implies that I personally do not recognize your lifestyle as "traditional", which also may imply that I believe you are living a life of sin and may burn in hell for it..."
...When you effectively say THAT to a potential customer, well, expect to get sued at least some of the time!
I say "some of the time", because there is always the random luck-of-the-draw. You never know if the customer is cool about it and will just say "no problem, we'll take our business elsewhere", ...or if they're on the hunt for a lawsuit payday... Because as I said earlier, it takes two to tango.
Of course to those Christians who don't believe in "luck", but instead only believe in being "blessed", ...or for that matter to anyone who just believes "everything happens for a reason"... To you I propose:
Why, if God loves us so much, would He allow such a devastating lawsuit to ruin our business? Maybe because we're not perfect Christians, and some of us are quite sinful even. Of all the religions / lifestyles, I believe Christianity has the highest rate of divorce. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's up there!)
Have you ever thought, "If God wants to allow me to be sued out of business by a gay couple, then He must have a reason or I must have done something to deserve it." ...Or, if you don't like such negativity, think of it the opposite way: "If I just mind my business and be a good Christian, God won't allow such a thing to happen to me..."
Just (final) food for thought. My opinion? The world is grey, laws are only as powerful / correct as the people who create and enforce them. Tread carefully, be nice, or heck just believe in karma / being blessed, as a professional small business owner, especially if you happen to hold deep-rooted personal beliefs that happen to be prejudiced against part of your potential customer base...
Before long a photographer will not be able to turn away a pedophilia shoot because it will be a disability and that will be discrimination. O'wait it is a disability in Greece. Dont believe me....look it up. The Government has ruled it as a disability and subject to disability pay. So in a few years dont say no or you could be in trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/furor-greece-over-pedophilia-disability-174002476.html
Congratulations, you just posted the first reply that could get deleted!
Do you realize that you likened homosexuality to pedophilia? Think about it a minute, and tell me that's not offensive.
A note to everybody: THINK! Always ask yourself how "the other side" would see your statements. I won't delete this, at preset, because it sounds to me like you're only pointing it out as a "Look what Greece is doing" type thing, as opposed to a "this is what I believe" type thing...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
BTW, here is some reading on the subject for you, as per your recent question about the bill of rights etc...
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.
Let me begin with -- this is NOT legal advice -- follow Ziggy's admonition and seek your own counsel in your particular state! Let me repeat -- this is not legal advice.
That said -- the actual holding of this case is really limited to New Mexico. It could certainly be what is called persuasive authority (but not binding) in another state that may have a Human Rights Act similar to New Mexico's. In other words, if sexual orientation is a protected class another state court or human rights commission may find it interesting to review and consider.
Personally, aside from obtaining a bona fide legal opinion from a local attorney, I would think folks should also check out their own state's respective human or civil rights acts -- they are relatively easy to find with a simple google search. You may also want to search for XYZ state's "human rights commission" You can see what is defined in your state as a protected class, public versus private accomodation, etc.
Some other comments on the dissenting judge's mention of a potential defense that apparently was not raised or litigated at the trial court level. The Appellate Court deferred ruling on this point and kicked the can down the road to another case. This happens from time to time on appeal in all types of civil litigation. First, when on appeal courts apply different levels or types of review depending on the actual issue being considered. These are commonly called "standards of review" and it essentially outlines what level of discretion the appellate court will afford the trial court when reviewing the trial court's decision. On certain issues, appellate courts will review the entire trial court record anew -- kinda like post-processing a RAW file. Nothing is thrown away and you're free to look at it fresh. In other circumstances, they give great deference to the trial court's findings and are essentially locked into certain points -- similar to post on a JPEG. You gave a lot of deference to the camera to make the right call -- you can only change so much. A bad analogy, perhaps, but I hope you get my point.
Second, it's very common for a party appealing a trial court ruling to raise 2, 5 or 10 points of error -- any one of which could be a reason for reversal. If an appellate court finds error with any one of the raised issues, they almost always decide the dispositive issue and reverse and never even address the other points of error absent very compelling reasons.
Finally, given these two points, appellate courts almost never decide issues that weren't raised and litigated below. Remember, the appellate court isn't in a position to see and hear witnesses testify. Then there's the issue of a standard of review. If the issue wasn't properly raised decided at the trial court level -- there's typically nothing to review (in terms of actual evidence and testimony) in most circumstances.
In the end -- the dissenting judge's comments were just that -- a dissenting judge's signal that this particular jurist may find the potential defense persuasive in a future case. Not defending the ruling in this case one way or the other, just wanted to comment on the process and maybe clear up some misunderstanding that seems to be there.
Congratulations, you just posted the first reply that could get deleted!
Do you realize that you likened homosexuality to pedophilia? Think about it a minute, and tell me that's not offensive.
A note to everybody: THINK! Always ask yourself how "the other side" would see your statements. I won't delete this, at preset, because it sounds to me like you're only pointing it out as a "Look what Greece is doing" type thing, as opposed to a "this is what I believe" type thing...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
BTW, here is some reading on the subject for you, as per your recent question about the bill of rights etc...
Before long a photographer will not be able to turn away a pedophilia shoot because it will be a disability and that will be discrimination. O'wait it is a disability in Greece. Dont believe me....look it up. The Government has ruled it as a disability and subject to disability pay. So in a few years dont say no or you could be in trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/furor-greece-over-pedophilia-disability-174002476.html
I am leaving that well alone. I'll be unsubscribing to this thread now.
'Thus, the court ruled, Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.'
... was at a site called, TheNewAmerican.com, and "they", The New American writers, are the ones making the comparison of photographers to pay toilets.
I don't find any other site quoting the court's statements in this manner.
The appellate court simply said, "public accommodation" which, in legal speak, is not derogatory at all. It simply defines the class of business, one which I refer to as a "public, service oriented, business".
As such, I am writing a letter to The New American, asking them to apologize to all photographers in making such a comparison. I certainly cannot accept anything that they might say as informative or factual after that inference.
thanks Ziggy - let us know of their response. that is not good at all.
I am leaving that well alone. I'll be unsubscribing to this thread now.
Your offended. OK, understood, but why are you sticking your tail between your legs and running away? This is one guy who has vary few posts on Dgrin and posts one comment you (and many others probably) find offensive. If you run away every time one person offends you you are doomed. Many here on Dgrin have offended me. Shall I leave because all don't agree with my every word? Note: To those who say yes.....forget it.
The path to tolerance and acceptance is knowledge. When one begins to see you as an unique individual person the veils of prejudice become cloudy and will force them to reevaluate their position. One can like and support a person even if you disagree with what they do or how they live their life. While some may not accept your homosexuality they may begin to tolerate this difference. That's the start.
Example: I can like you, respect you and enjoy your company yet still side with the photographer in THIS case.
I am sorry to see you go. Your unique perspective on these issues would be very helpful and informative.
So, since this discussion is going in it's 11th or 12th circle, I'm kinda done; I've said all I can say.
To recap, I think it all just comes down to beliefs vs beliefs, rights vs rights, but some people are seeing it as religion vs lifestyle.
* State and Federal law cannot preserve one right at the cost of another's.
* The state must choose which reasons it allows businesses to be discriminating in how they accept customers, and in this case they have deemed it an illegal discrimination.
* In my opinion, the photographer effectively said "my business chooses to discriminate against you for an illegal reason. Furthermore, this implies that I personally do not recognize your lifestyle as "traditional", which also may imply that I believe you are living a life of sin and may burn in hell for it..."
...When you effectively say THAT to a potential customer, well, expect to get sued at least some of the time!
I say "some of the time", because there is always the random luck-of-the-draw. You never know if the customer is cool about it and will just say "no problem, we'll take our business elsewhere", ...or if they're on the hunt for a lawsuit payday... Because as I said earlier, it takes two to tango.
Of course to those Christians who don't believe in "luck", but instead only believe in being "blessed", ...or for that matter to anyone who just believes "everything happens for a reason"... To you I propose:
Why, if God loves us so much, would He allow such a devastating lawsuit to ruin our business? Maybe because we're not perfect Christians, and some of us are quite sinful even. Of all the religions / lifestyles, I believe Christianity has the highest rate of divorce. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's up there!)
Have you ever thought, "If God wants to allow me to be sued out of business by a gay couple, then He must have a reason or I must have done something to deserve it." ...Or, if you don't like such negativity, think of it the opposite way: "If I just mind my business and be a good Christian, God won't allow such a thing to happen to me..."
Just (final) food for thought. My opinion? The world is grey, laws are only as powerful / correct as the people who create and enforce them. Tread carefully, be nice, or heck just believe in karma / being blessed, as a professional small business owner, especially if you happen to hold deep-rooted personal beliefs that happen to be prejudiced against part of your potential customer base...
It's that "simple"... :-P
=Matt=
Your theology on Christianity is a tad bit skewed. I was going to respond to a few of those statements but thought those rabbit trails would lead us off topic especially considering that you rightfully reminded us to stay on topic. Still I enjoy a dialogue about Jesus and His Church and I say that most respectfully and humbly.
So, since this discussion is going in it's 11th or 12th circle, I'm kinda done; I've said all I can say.
To recap, I think it all just comes down to beliefs vs beliefs, rights vs rights, but some people are seeing it as religion vs lifestyle.
* State and Federal law cannot preserve one right at the cost of another's.
* The state must choose which reasons it allows businesses to be discriminating in how they accept customers, and in this case they have deemed it an illegal discrimination.
* In my opinion, the photographer effectively said "my business chooses to discriminate against you for an illegal reason. Furthermore, this implies that I personally do not recognize your lifestyle as "traditional", which also may imply that I believe you are living a life of sin and may burn in hell for it..."
...When you effectively say THAT to a potential customer, well, expect to get sued at least some of the time!
I say "some of the time", because there is always the random luck-of-the-draw. You never know if the customer is cool about it and will just say "no problem, we'll take our business elsewhere", ...or if they're on the hunt for a lawsuit payday... Because as I said earlier, it takes two to tango.
Of course to those Christians who don't believe in "luck", but instead only believe in being "blessed", ...or for that matter to anyone who just believes "everything happens for a reason"... To you I propose:
Why, if God loves us so much, would He allow such a devastating lawsuit to ruin our business? Maybe because we're not perfect Christians, and some of us are quite sinful even. Of all the religions / lifestyles, I believe Christianity has the highest rate of divorce. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's up there!)
Have you ever thought, "If God wants to allow me to be sued out of business by a gay couple, then He must have a reason or I must have done something to deserve it." ...Or, if you don't like such negativity, think of it the opposite way: "If I just mind my business and be a good Christian, God won't allow such a thing to happen to me..."
Just (final) food for thought. My opinion? The world is grey, laws are only as powerful / correct as the people who create and enforce them. Tread carefully, be nice, or heck just believe in karma / being blessed, as a professional small business owner, especially if you happen to hold deep-rooted personal beliefs that happen to be prejudiced against part of your potential customer base...
Your theology on Christianity is a tad bit skewed. I was going to respond to a few of those statements but thought those rabbit trails would lead us off topic especially considering that you rightfully reminded us to stay on topic. Still I enjoy a dialogue about Jesus and His Church and I say that most respectfully and humbly.
But your third bullet gives me trouble.
Me too. I just re-read the transcript of the NMHRC hearing. The photographer makes no such statements or inferences. So where are you getting this stuff? Just making it up? Now a bias is clear - despite the facts in evidence, many wish to continue to demonize the photographer and attribute the decision to decline the client to bigotry, hatred, misjudgement, etc. This is just a parroting of the plantiffs reaction to the e-mails - read page 6, paragraph 21 of the transcript - an unreasonable and hyperbolic reaction to the communication from the photographer.
I get that the plaintiff prevailed - I don't agree - but I can see the reasoning of the commission based on the evidence presented, as well as the statutes cited. My problem is the continued assault on the character and motives of the photographer - speaking of "simple" - what makes it so hard to understand that some people are instructed by their religious beliefs, live their lives and conduct their business accordingly while at the same time are just decent folks - and like many - hate no-one, believe in anti-discrimination, mean no harm, mow their lawn, etc. It's not necessarily bigotry - it's a belief system - quit fantasizing that we must all agree - right and wrong are subjective, and if I disagree with someone, quit fantasizing the I must therefore be a bigot and a hater.
Matt, gauged by the number and diversity of posts to this thread and the original one from 4 years ago, it is clear this matter is not "simple" To say so repeatedly is just a semantic cop-out designed to dismiss other points of views - it's lazy.
Your offended. OK, understood, but why are you sticking your tail between your legs and running away? This is one guy who has vary few posts on Dgrin and posts one comment you (and many others probably) find offensive. If you run away every time one person offends you you are doomed. Many here on Dgrin have offended me. Shall I leave because all don't agree with my every word? Note: To those who say yes.....forget it.
The path to tolerance and acceptance is knowledge. When one begins to see you as an unique individual person the veils of prejudice become cloudy and will force them to reevaluate their position. One can like and support a person even if you disagree with what they do or how they live their life. While some may not accept your homosexuality they may begin to tolerate this difference. That's the start.
Example: I can like you, respect you and enjoy your company yet still side with the photographer in THIS case.
I am sorry to see you go. Your unique perspective on these issues would be very helpful and
Your offended. OK, understood, but why are you sticking your tail between your legs and running away? This is one guy who has vary few posts on Dgrin and posts one comment you (and many others probably) find offensive. If you run away every time one person offends you you are doomed. Many here on Dgrin have offended me. Shall I leave because all don't agree with my every word? Note: To those who say yes.....forget it.
The path to tolerance and acceptance is knowledge. When one begins to see you as an unique individual person the veils of prejudice become cloudy and will force them to reevaluate their position. One can like and support a person even if you disagree with what they do or how they live their life. While some may not accept your homosexuality they may begin to tolerate this difference. That's the start.
Example: I can like you, respect you and enjoy your company yet still side with the photographer in THIS case.
I am sorry to see you go. Your unique perspective on these issues would be very helpful and informative.
Sam
I don't think it is that at all. I think it is just that, maybe,they have better things to do and they're not interested in continuing the discussion if people are going to start going down THAT road?
Comments
In general, I support the ideal of anti-discrimination and the laws to establish such. However......
I share the above concern expressed by ashrugged as my basic disagreement with the court's interpretation of law and ruling on this case. Whatever the legalese, cited prior case law, or current rulings, I disagree with the court, in this particular circumstance. That doesn't make me special or alone - there are two sides (at least) to these matters and just because one side prevails in court the other view doesn't disappear, it becomes the minority opinion and still remains valid to proponents. I may accept the authority of the court and obey the ruling, buy I will never give up my right to hold a dissenting position.
The terms Shameful, Bigot, Hater, Ignorant etc., etc. have been tossed around quite a bit in this thread, applied to those (like me) who have argued (for whatever reason) in support of the photogs right to decline the client. Really ?? Seriously ?? It's just that simple?? It's easy ?? - just connect the dots ?? I double-dare anyone to try and squeeze me into the BIGOT box using my dissenting opinion based on a concern for Liberty.
Can you see where I'm going with all this? There may be several different basis for disagreement in this case, including - but not limited to - personal/religious beliefs, and so, It is just factually wrong to characterize most/all dissenters as Haters and Bigots because they do not believe an injustice occurred - in this case. To do so indicates to me that a person is intoxicated with the rhetoric and self-righteousness that comes with a super-size gulp of political-correctness Kool-aid and is not worldly enough to understand the diverse nature of human behavior and beliefs.
Edit: Glort is, of course, an exception to my theory, Doh!
Ya know, I can't help but think this couple were just looking for trouble.
With the amount of photographers anywhere, would it have really been so hard for these people to just go find someone who was interested in taking the job and their money?
Legalities aside, I think the fact they choose to fill their lives with this bitterness and crap over something that is supposed to be beautiful and happy just goes to show they are nothing but either a bitter, sad pair of trouble makers or it was basically a set up to make some money from the shooter.
Any reasonable person would have said " We'll take our money elsewhere if you don't want it" and would have done that. Only the pathetic would carry on dragging them through court because they don't condone the choices they made for themselves. Truthfully, the Photographer probably offended them by being an attractive, married woman with nice kids and a good looking husband.
If this pair are going to be such a pair of bitches over something like this, then I'm sure their lives will be as miserable as they deserve to be if they aren't already.
Karma can be a real bitch as well and I hope this pair get their share with interest.
For the majority of gays, and certainly the ones getting married, it is not a choice.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Which takes us right back to miscegenation laws. Do you have a concern for the government that "forced" recognition and acceptance of mixed-race unions? I see no difference.
I don't think the statement made by the court is not found in the link you provided but in the court of appeals - not sure but here it is:
“By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message,” the judges said. “Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.”
"While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take, in that it decides which pictures to take, which pictures to edit, and how to edit them, this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography." What the law is regulating is not Elane's artistic expression, but rather its business practice. - District Judge Alan M. Malott of the Bernalillo County District Court, a three-judge panel of the New Mexico Court of Appeals
and for some spice the court also said Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.
Now I have seen the photog's work here and I must say your work is awesome so no worries...I'll never compare your photography and business to a pay toilet!
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
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:RelyOnVML/> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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> <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-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; 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]--> Although the ruling on this appeal was unanimous, Judge James J. Wechsler wrote separately to point out that Elane had failed to raise a potentially valid argument under a different sentence in the New Mexico Constitution. Elane had focused its defense on the provision banning compelled participation in religious ceremonies, but, wrote Judge Wechsler, "the language of Article II, Section 11 that to me captures Elane Photography's religious freedom position is the first sentence, stating that 'every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience' and prohibiting the denial of any 'privilege on account of his religious opinion. This language, which focuses on a person's freedom to act in accordance with one's conscience concerning one's religious opinion or worship, seems broader than the First Amendment alnguage that focuses on preventing federal laws that 'prohibit' a person's free exercise of religion," he continued. However, since Elane had not expressly raised this at trial, and it would be presenting a question of "first impression" for New Mexico courts, Judge Wechsler pointed out that it was appropriate for the court to refrain from considering it on this appeal, commenting that "determination of its cope remains for another day."
This is not part of the discussion. The state of New Mexico, in this case, is responsible for this. Not the photographer.
No one, the government included, has the power to force anyone to accept mixed-race marriages. Many people of different groups still do not accept this. The government can help the situation, but that's it. Time, culture, exposure, can at first create a tolerant atmosphere which can lead to acceptance over time. There is no short cut. It's human nature.
Exactly.
====
You've entirely missed my point. Several people upthread have said "Why on earth would the gay couple react like this other than to stir trouble?", and my comment was to point out some of the inequities for gay couples, which in turn sheds some light on *why* something seemingly trivial could trigger a response as strong as a legal suit. Everybody has a breaking point.
Exactly. You have just 100% shattered your own argument against government intervention with that sentence...
+1
Ah - Ha......as usual - the devil is in the details. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Still think the good ol' Government is lookin' out for all the sheep the same? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/eek7.gif" border="0" alt="" >
I believe a couple of people have said this in this thread.
Thanks, Eia. Yes, it would appear that the judges in this case are poorly choosing some of their verbage. Without knowing the entirety of the conversation it's hard to know the full implications of their comments.
In the second post, it is rather unusual to see Judge Wechsler so candid to discuss a possible new defense strategy, conceivably even a cross complaint.
Like I keep saying, the best individual strategy for our users is to seek legal advice for their own unique situations. We live in interesting times.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Wait... am I reading this right? Sounds like Wechsler is saying "here's a way you could have won, but since you didn't mention it, you lose." WTF? I thought that's what judges were for, to make the ultimate correct call, to know better than the lawyers...?
By the way, Sam, I'm surprised to hear you asserting ideals over law.... I'm guessing you're of the (correct) mindset that illegal immigration is illegal...?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The only place I could find with,
'Thus, the court ruled, Elane’s photography is indeed a “public accommodation,” rather like a pay toilet.'
... was at a site called, TheNewAmerican.com, and "they", The New American writers, are the ones making the comparison of photographers to pay toilets.
http://thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/11624-new-mexico-court-christian-business-owners-have-no-rights
I don't find any other site quoting the court's statements in this manner.
The appellate court simply said, "public accommodation" which, in legal speak, is not derogatory at all. It simply defines the class of business, one which I refer to as a "public, service oriented, business".
http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf
As such, I am writing a letter to The New American, asking them to apologize to all photographers in making such a comparison. I certainly cannot accept anything that they might say as informative or factual after that inference.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Judges are not allowed to interfere with either side during litigation. It is the responsibility of each side to provide either prosecutorial or defense strategies and counsel. The judge takes the results of the trial and then makes a determination, based on the evidence, testimony, etc., collected and generated by the trial.
There may be very valid reasons why the lawyers for Elane Photography chose their particular strategy, and not the strategy this judge is suggesting.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yep, the devil is always in the details. I foresee another legal battle soon, and using the Judge suggestion on how to challenge it from a different angle.
I am jumping in from several pages back as I had stopped reading this thread for a while. It was said that the case was ruled on as a "Human Rights case" This is said to be the facts and we can only go by the laws of the land. I really want someone to show me where in the Bill of rights or the 14 th amendment or 15th or the cival rights act of 1964 any of the titles, state that my business has to serve any and all people mainly one of sexual preference (conduct)?? Please someone show me that. All the named laws above protect against employment and the Human rights based on age, race, sex and disability. The only laws I know of that protect people from sexual preferances are individual state laws only.
My freedom of religion can trump your protected status as long as it does not deny you a needed service such as housing employment or food. It still has held in court over medical treatments. In a non emergency situation a doctor can refuse an abortion due to religious beliefs. So why can a photographer not refuse to take photographs if it is against a paticualr belief. Apparently if your in NM you can't. I wonder about some other states???
williamspics.smugmug.com
I am not sure where your getting that. Please point out where that came from.
The issue of illegal immigration is another politically correct nightmare but please let's not discuss that here. That has nothing to do with business or the rights of a photography business owner. Lets keep to the subject at hand.
Sam
williamspics.smugmug.com
Yes please, stay on topic!
So, since this discussion is going in it's 11th or 12th circle, I'm kinda done; I've said all I can say.
To recap, I think it all just comes down to beliefs vs beliefs, rights vs rights, but some people are seeing it as religion vs lifestyle.
* State and Federal law cannot preserve one right at the cost of another's.
* The state must choose which reasons it allows businesses to be discriminating in how they accept customers, and in this case they have deemed it an illegal discrimination.
* In my opinion, the photographer effectively said "my business chooses to discriminate against you for an illegal reason. Furthermore, this implies that I personally do not recognize your lifestyle as "traditional", which also may imply that I believe you are living a life of sin and may burn in hell for it..."
...When you effectively say THAT to a potential customer, well, expect to get sued at least some of the time!
I say "some of the time", because there is always the random luck-of-the-draw. You never know if the customer is cool about it and will just say "no problem, we'll take our business elsewhere", ...or if they're on the hunt for a lawsuit payday... Because as I said earlier, it takes two to tango.
Of course to those Christians who don't believe in "luck", but instead only believe in being "blessed", ...or for that matter to anyone who just believes "everything happens for a reason"... To you I propose:
Why, if God loves us so much, would He allow such a devastating lawsuit to ruin our business? Maybe because we're not perfect Christians, and some of us are quite sinful even. Of all the religions / lifestyles, I believe Christianity has the highest rate of divorce. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's up there!)
Have you ever thought, "If God wants to allow me to be sued out of business by a gay couple, then He must have a reason or I must have done something to deserve it." ...Or, if you don't like such negativity, think of it the opposite way: "If I just mind my business and be a good Christian, God won't allow such a thing to happen to me..."
Just (final) food for thought. My opinion? The world is grey, laws are only as powerful / correct as the people who create and enforce them. Tread carefully, be nice, or heck just believe in karma / being blessed, as a professional small business owner, especially if you happen to hold deep-rooted personal beliefs that happen to be prejudiced against part of your potential customer base...
It's that "simple"... :-P
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Congratulations, you just posted the first reply that could get deleted!
Do you realize that you likened homosexuality to pedophilia? Think about it a minute, and tell me that's not offensive.
A note to everybody: THINK! Always ask yourself how "the other side" would see your statements. I won't delete this, at preset, because it sounds to me like you're only pointing it out as a "Look what Greece is doing" type thing, as opposed to a "this is what I believe" type thing...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
BTW, here is some reading on the subject for you, as per your recent question about the bill of rights etc...
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Let me begin with -- this is NOT legal advice -- follow Ziggy's admonition and seek your own counsel in your particular state! Let me repeat -- this is not legal advice.
That said -- the actual holding of this case is really limited to New Mexico. It could certainly be what is called persuasive authority (but not binding) in another state that may have a Human Rights Act similar to New Mexico's. In other words, if sexual orientation is a protected class another state court or human rights commission may find it interesting to review and consider.
Personally, aside from obtaining a bona fide legal opinion from a local attorney, I would think folks should also check out their own state's respective human or civil rights acts -- they are relatively easy to find with a simple google search. You may also want to search for XYZ state's "human rights commission" You can see what is defined in your state as a protected class, public versus private accomodation, etc.
Some other comments on the dissenting judge's mention of a potential defense that apparently was not raised or litigated at the trial court level. The Appellate Court deferred ruling on this point and kicked the can down the road to another case. This happens from time to time on appeal in all types of civil litigation. First, when on appeal courts apply different levels or types of review depending on the actual issue being considered. These are commonly called "standards of review" and it essentially outlines what level of discretion the appellate court will afford the trial court when reviewing the trial court's decision. On certain issues, appellate courts will review the entire trial court record anew -- kinda like post-processing a RAW file. Nothing is thrown away and you're free to look at it fresh. In other circumstances, they give great deference to the trial court's findings and are essentially locked into certain points -- similar to post on a JPEG. You gave a lot of deference to the camera to make the right call -- you can only change so much. A bad analogy, perhaps, but I hope you get my point.
Second, it's very common for a party appealing a trial court ruling to raise 2, 5 or 10 points of error -- any one of which could be a reason for reversal. If an appellate court finds error with any one of the raised issues, they almost always decide the dispositive issue and reverse and never even address the other points of error absent very compelling reasons.
Finally, given these two points, appellate courts almost never decide issues that weren't raised and litigated below. Remember, the appellate court isn't in a position to see and hear witnesses testify. Then there's the issue of a standard of review. If the issue wasn't properly raised decided at the trial court level -- there's typically nothing to review (in terms of actual evidence and testimony) in most circumstances.
In the end -- the dissenting judge's comments were just that -- a dissenting judge's signal that this particular jurist may find the potential defense persuasive in a future case. Not defending the ruling in this case one way or the other, just wanted to comment on the process and maybe clear up some misunderstanding that seems to be there.
I am leaving that well alone. I'll be unsubscribing to this thread now.
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
thanks Ziggy - let us know of their response. that is not good at all.
Your offended. OK, understood, but why are you sticking your tail between your legs and running away? This is one guy who has vary few posts on Dgrin and posts one comment you (and many others probably) find offensive. If you run away every time one person offends you you are doomed. Many here on Dgrin have offended me. Shall I leave because all don't agree with my every word? Note: To those who say yes.....forget it.
The path to tolerance and acceptance is knowledge. When one begins to see you as an unique individual person the veils of prejudice become cloudy and will force them to reevaluate their position. One can like and support a person even if you disagree with what they do or how they live their life. While some may not accept your homosexuality they may begin to tolerate this difference. That's the start.
Example: I can like you, respect you and enjoy your company yet still side with the photographer in THIS case.
I am sorry to see you go. Your unique perspective on these issues would be very helpful and informative.
Sam
But your third bullet gives me trouble.
Me too. I just re-read the transcript of the NMHRC hearing. The photographer makes no such statements or inferences. So where are you getting this stuff? Just making it up? Now a bias is clear - despite the facts in evidence, many wish to continue to demonize the photographer and attribute the decision to decline the client to bigotry, hatred, misjudgement, etc. This is just a parroting of the plantiffs reaction to the e-mails - read page 6, paragraph 21 of the transcript - an unreasonable and hyperbolic reaction to the communication from the photographer.
I get that the plaintiff prevailed - I don't agree - but I can see the reasoning of the commission based on the evidence presented, as well as the statutes cited. My problem is the continued assault on the character and motives of the photographer - speaking of "simple" - what makes it so hard to understand that some people are instructed by their religious beliefs, live their lives and conduct their business accordingly while at the same time are just decent folks - and like many - hate no-one, believe in anti-discrimination, mean no harm, mow their lawn, etc. It's not necessarily bigotry - it's a belief system - quit fantasizing that we must all agree - right and wrong are subjective, and if I disagree with someone, quit fantasizing the I must therefore be a bigot and a hater.
Matt, gauged by the number and diversity of posts to this thread and the original one from 4 years ago, it is clear this matter is not "simple" To say so repeatedly is just a semantic cop-out designed to dismiss other points of views - it's lazy.
http://rckimaging.smugmug.com/
I don't think it is that at all. I think it is just that, maybe,they have better things to do and they're not interested in continuing the discussion if people are going to start going down THAT road?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum