Photographer fined by judge for refusing to photograph gay commitment ceremony

I've actually been encountering a lot of very civil and thoughtful right wing posts today. It's been a two way street.

 

That's the first that I've ever heard of it. Sex discrimination in the Constitution has always been used to describe gender. Gays are not a gender. They are not even a PEOPLE as there are no definitive traits used to define them as such. Because who counts as gay exactly? Apparently, fudgepacking convicts don't. What about bisexuals? Do they get extra civil rights for going both ways? How is that fair? This judge should be fired for misinterpreting the law, and if I were that lady, I'd tell the court to shove that fine up the judge's ass.

 

Oh I'm sorry. I was talking about a severe alcoholic 4 foot 6 inch girl who is extremely shy. No public health risk. Nice try by going on the fringes though...

 

Holy crap! someone with guts. ha ha ha

 

It's ALWAYS a two way street, if you just know it, my good friend.

 

To be honest with you 95% of the issue most people in America sorta agree upon. I think most people would think it's a bit odd that you would be forced to take pictures of just about EVERYONE that walks through your door. I kind of understand why the law is that way when I sit down and think about it. The problem in life is there is a lot of gray area out there. You end up in situations where someone is going to have their liberty impinged upon. I know I am a bit homophobic, but at the same time I also realize that once the courts allow me to bow out of one situation then someone can decide to not serve me in another situation and then I retaliate against that group and so forth. Pretty soon you are going to need a discrimination app for your iphone to figure out where you can get your oil changed.

 

Well, there's the law and there is my feelings in regards to the law. Drugs are criminalized, and I don't agree with that, either. Just as I've said that I don't think anyone should be compelled (gay photographer-Catholic wedding, Catholic photographer-gay wedding), I also think that there could be some sort of middle ground found without the government's intervention.

For example, "I'm booked that day."

That would have been the nicer approach.

I don't think its a right to have photography, though. To eat? Yes. Housing? Yes. Photography? Not so much.

 

right she could have rolled over and accepted the fact her freedoms are being stomped on by a judge who can't read the Constitution.


There are no gay rights in the Constitution. There are religious rights. Just another far left nutball judges who can't read the very document they swore to uphold.

This will be overturned if it gets to the Supreme Court which is should.

 

No, but it is mean to tell them that you can't go to the bar with them because people who drink are abominations and sinners...or imply that.

When someone asks my truthful opinion then, I agree. When they don't, then I would prefer not to pluck the beam from my brothers eye because I'm kinda blind from the beam sticking out of my own.

Look man, there are still poor people, sick people, widows and orphans to take care of. When I've got all of the hungry children fed then I'll comment on homosexuality as a lifestyle.

 

Maaaybe. But that would mean they would have to give up all other forms of commerical photography, for example senior photos, family portraits, etc etc etc. As soon as you generally take pictures of stuff, you're screwed under the law.

I think there is some confusion here regarding current laws. In part because things have been changing

In 2009 Barak signed a law adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes under hate crime laws. He also used an executive order to make any hospital getting medicade or medicare to grant marriage equivalent rights to same sex couples. There is something similar preventing discrimination in housing in federal funds are recieved. Bill Clinton made an executive order banning employment discrimination in federal jobs. You probably heard about the recentish military thing.

However on top of that individual states have a slew of anti-discrimination laws and more are being created regularly, I believe some municipalities do as well. New Mexico being on of them, and the photographers are clearly in violation of it. Given the long history of such laws and the federal laws and executive orders in place I'm extremely doubtful the supreme court would find that law unconstitutional.

For individuals like Grokmaster if you plan on doing anything other than saying gays are great than you might want to spend some time going over the federal laws and routinely check for changes in your state or municipality or you could wind up on the losing side of a lawsuit. That goes double if you own a business, as now you're really on shakey ground because you may have some instances in public record (heck, including this forum) where you've demonstrated a bias against homosexuals.

So if you don't hire someone who is gay, don't give them a contract, etc etc etc they could potentially sue you and you'd be in a weak position in court. Either give any homosexual whatever they want or have clear documenation of why you didn't.

Hurm. Selectively documenting why you didn't hire a certain class of people might constitute near proof of deliberate discrimination. You're probably want to get a lawyer and consult with them on these matters.

 

Naw what I meant is I tone it down a lot when good posts come my way. Bickering endlessly is pointless particularly when all of us feel kind of the same on most issues. All of us recognize it is a bit odd if you are sitting in your studio if someone comes in and says get your camera and come and take pictures of two gay guys kissing. It seems kind of odd that you have no choice in the matter. I've dealt with gay people before in the course of business and it had no effect on how I conducted my business. But then again it did not involve me taking pictures of them kissing and embracing. Frankly I never thought about that scenario.

To me I think this was a perfect storm. Both parties obviously have an agenda. The photographer could have easily used the marriage certificate excuse. The gay couple could probably have found another photographer. Really if we as private citizens sorted stuff out between ourselves there would be no need for so many lawsuits and trial lawyers. But a small minority of people have a chip on their shoulder.

Most gay people are busy enough they would just find a different photographer. Most photographers are hard up enough in this economy they would have just taken the money and asked their priest for forgiveness or whatever they needed to do to "make it right" with God.

 

No you say the "wedding package" is only available to people with a valid New Mexico wedding license. Family portraits are not "wedding" pictures.

It's like in the porn example someone tried to use. With porn you must fill out and keep on file a ton of paperwork. But just because a director says I will not film porn without the requisite paperwork doesn't mean he will require everyone to sign a statement that says they will perform oral sex if he happens to film a sweet sixteen birthday party.

 

That might work if it was just a matter of a discount or something (i.e. you have a special for weddings and you don't want everybody using it for everything).

However the couple might go for the "party" package, or a generic "portraits" package, and any business would probably have a "custom" package.

Additionally trying to sidestep the spirit of the law is a good way to lose in court. For example if a business said they'd only hire people with a selective service card (i.e. men), they'd probably lose the resulting lawsuit in short order.

 

Trust me I've had tons of annoying experiences where regardless or discounts or whatever they sell a particular "package" and that's it end of story. No substitutions no exceptions. Try using a smartphone on at&t with no data package. They wont allow it. If you go and buy your own phone from a third party and take the SIM card out of your at&t "feature phone" and put it in your new smartphone they will automatically add a data package regardless of whether you use data or even have it activated on your device. They do it all the time.

Well none of those is a "wedding package." A wedding is not a party or a portrait sitting or a "custom package." You need to go out and deal with businesses. I've made all kinds of reasonable requests at businesses and been told no. And those were a heck of a lot more reasonable than what you are suggesting. My advice is try that with a photographer and see where that gets you. You typically sign a contract before any work is done. If you sign a contract for a portrait sitting then you need to show up at the photographers studio. You can't bring in a bunch of guests and a priest or shaman or whatever. If it is a location shoot the photographer will show up and orchestrate the shoot. You can't just decide on location to throw in some guests an organ and a priest. That's not how photo shoots work.

Anyway who would go through that level of deception on their wedding day?

 

If the photographer is private business, then he should be able to pick and choose whoever he wants to photograph and refuse service to anyone. It does not mean he is not a bigot, racist, etc... but I DO NOT like the government dictating to businesses how they will perform on this sort of level.

 

One of my thoughts with these scenarios is why anyone would want to not know who is a bigot. Without them telling you that they don't want your business you could be giving people that think you're a piece of garbage thousands of dollars instead of putting in the hands of someone who would appreciate your business.

 

Word can easily get out through social media. If someone is a bigot, racist, etc... let them be... and let their business suffer for it.

 

In principle a business can do all sort of capricious things, except against the protected classes, as in this case.

If a cell phone company wants to make you buy a data plan they can. If they won't let blacks have the "lost or stolen" insurance than it's lawsuit time. Attempting to skirt the law by not allowing the plan for people living in a predominantly African American communities might fly for a while, but if you neglected to apply the same policy to a predominantly white trailer park with similar theft rates than you're probably about to loose a lawsuit.

I don't know their businesses, but I highly doubt they structured it so they couldn't shoot a Quinceañera just because they didn't have an exhaustive enough set of packages that they narrowly restrict themselves to.

In any case, attempting to skirt anti-discrimination laws with various maneuvers is commonplace after they are passed and historically that just makes for a good way to lose a lawsuit.

Much as I think the libertarians are nuts that philosophy might be for you. I guess you don't have to go whole hog libertarian to just want some "small government" type stuff in regards to these issues.

 

A Quinceañera is different. There is no need anywhere to get a license for one of those. And who in the world wouldn't shoot one of those?

I think Libertarianism, socialism, and capitalism all have pros and cons. I like ideas from various economic and political ideologies. I did not mean to suggest that I would not shoot a gay wedding. I never thought about it to be honest. I do business with gay people all the time. Fortunately sexual orientation doesn't factor into any of it.

My point was that photographer could have avoided the situation. She took the 100% toughest road. What's right and what's wrong? I don't know. What I do know is the easiest way to avoid the situation. Saying the wedding package is only available to people with a valid New Mexico wedding license gets rid of 99% of your problem. I personally like money too much to turn down business... but that's me.

 

A business has a right to refuse service to anyone they want. The judge had no right to do this.

 

So, does everyone have me on ignore or something? I explained this quite clearly, and then come these posts...

...

THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE DID NOT APPLY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HE DECIDED THIS CASE UNDER NEW MEXICO STATE LAW WHICH DOES, IN FACT, PROVIDE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

He made the right decision based upon New Mexico state law. Sheesh.

Actually, under current United States law, no, a business does not have that right. That's what desegregation was all about.

 

The problem is you are educated in the law and you're trying to explain the law to a bunch of monkeys throwing poo at each other.

 

But... but... In my spare time, I teach Constitutional Law at a local college... Isn't that the same thing?

 

Ok. Those things called "laws" that they pass from time to time? They are important. The elected officials of New Mexico made laws that specifically said businesses cannot refuse to provide their service to someone because they are gay. Given that, this case was clear cut and the judge had little choice.

Similar laws are being passed state by state and city by city. You should also know that there are various laws in force where you can go to jail for saying hateful things to someone because they are gay.

That is the legal reality.

The point is that by offering such services, which a photography company would certainly want to, you'd have to be willing to shoot a gay couples "civil ceremony" under the law.

You might be able to make them buy the "party" package instead of the "wedding" package, but not turn them down cold unless you don't shoot other parties and events.

 

I'm having a hard time getting around the part where the state doesn't allow for same sex marriage or civil unions... so in a sense discriminates against same sex couples... yet does not afford the photographer a right to object based upon her religious views.