Photographer fined by judge for refusing to photograph gay commitment ceremony

I had actually never heard of that law before. Not that my opinion matters or makes a difference but I don't think I'm a fan of the law. Anything short of harrassment or physical harm you just can't legislate or force people to be nice.

 

Inconsistent, to be sure. But the state has constructed its laws this way, and thus the judge's decision was correct.

Do I agree? No... I think everyone should be allowed to get married so long as everyone getting married is a consenting adult, and businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone (and people should be allowed to stand outside with a sign telling everyone else what a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty business it is).

 

If someone owns their own business they should be allowed to choose who they take on as a customer. These people could have gone elsewhere to get their photographs, but they didn't.

At the same time, if a business owner can refuse to serve a person whom they have a problem with, we'd be allowing racists to refuse service to black people, and I have a problem with that.

I do think these guys should have gone elsewhere, rather than try and say that their photographs are worth more than a persons religious beliefs, whether you agree with them or not.

 

Well, if a person refuses to serve a black person I would say they are racist, for sure, but they shouldn't be forced to provide service to everyone, they have the right to choose.

 

What if they wouldn't photograph balck people? Or Jewish people?

 

I get back to that thing about a Closed Society.
Let's give this the Litmus Test......Is the judge attached to this case, gay? What "Law" was the judge excersising? Are gays a "protected species" under our UN chater agreement? Constitution? If they are, what new species of critter are they?
Do we or do we not have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Lawyers have the right to refuse business, bars have the right, restaraunts have the right, simple stores have the right......If not, we are indeed a Closed Society without Rights and can take no actions without G'ment permission....

 

You do not have the right to refuse service to anyone on discriminatory grounds. The courts have ruled on this. States determine those groups that are protected and in this state gays and lesbians are included. Maybe not in your state, but in this one.

I don't agree with this on principle because I think that is too authoritarian, but I neither live in this state nor made those laws in such a way that they were open to such an interpretation. While I find it anti-liberty that someone can tell anyone else that they must do a job, alas others disagree.

Reverse this role and it is a gay photographer who would not want to photograph a heterosexual Catholic wedding because he feels discriminated against by Catholics. Is it fair that he pack up his equipment, drive across town, take pictures of the happy couple smooching, dancing, eating cake, and basically spend his whole day absorbed in Catholic tradition? No. This isn't fair, either. However, we live in the US and nothing is really fair anymore.

The government will never make laws to give back authority, to give you back liberties. They simply never have because we vote the same type of people in each and every time. Democrats and Republicans are like sixteen year old girls on prom night.

"You love me, right?

I'm (*)(*)(*)(*)ing you, aren't I?

 

...this is horse crap...for example, I will be starting a home business for foot problems...biomechanics only, I don't want the headache of dealing with old people and diabetes problems...and you know what, you can't make me deal with diabetic patients BECAUSE I don't want to plain and simple...and there should not be a need for "any way around it"...I don't care if you liberals want to make changes that ONLY IMPACT you, but you are making changes that also impact me and that's why the pilgrams came over here in the first place, to get away from people forcing them to do stuff they didn't want to do...


Kabuki Joe

 

What difference does that make?

I've already explained this. A New Mexico state law that makes it illegal for public accommodations to discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality.

See above. Under New Mexico law they are a "protected class."

Under New Mexico law, which is similar to most other state laws in the United States, no, we do not. Now, I happen to disagree with that, but under those laws, that's how it is.

Under current law, none of those places have the right to refuse service to someone on the basis of their race, gender, creed, religion, sexuality, or nationality.

 

discussed this with a lawyer friend of mine this morning. He specializes in business law and said it all depended on what the local laws were. Gonna email him the link to the story and get his opinion tomorrow

edit - did a quick search on my own and from my poin6t of view the photographer is guilty


http://www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=10477

now the question is more along the lines of 1st amendment. Any militant gays here want to go to N Mexico and try and get married in a Baptist Church ?

 

DUDE! There ARE federal laws on discrimination based on disability there are ALSO federal laws based on age discrimination. If you wish to do that you NEED to get a lawyer! You might just have no chance of opening a business with those policies, but maybe a lawyer could wrangle something up where you claim your lack of training could make your services a potential hazard to people in certain at risk medical conditions. But I'd want a competant lawyer doing that. It doesn't matter if they say it's OK, what matters is if you can actually win a case against you.

In any case if you just hang a sign that says "people over 60 and people with diabetes not welcome" you will get sued and you will lose!

You're right. It does seem odd doesn't it? Sit back and watch the new laws come by as the state slides down the slippery slope. I expect civil unions in a while if not skipping straight to marriage.

It turns out you can. It's all about what voters will allow. You have no rights at all except what the people will defend. Even the constitution can be amended or ignored.

I'm sure their feelings were hurt by the photographers, and I'd bet they feel like they're furthering a righteous cause by putting the hurt on this company as a warning to others.

I'm sure the couple DID go somewhere else for a photographer and had a lovely ceremoney. It was just made all the sweeter by being able to wreck someone else.

 

Silly forum isn't letting me edit my last post. Anyway I missed one of the replies:

Currently the laws are at the state and local levels. They are a new species of "critter" that I believe is defined as those having a predisposition to be attracted to those of the same sex. Meaning they don't actually have to be in a relationship to get the protection, just the predisposition.

It is very clear that you do NOT have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are a multitude of laws on the books to that effect at all level of government. Lawyers, bars, and stores have a right to refuse business for many reasons. But they cannot do so just because the person belowings to a class protected by law, which in recent times frequently includes sexual orientation.

I guess draw your own conclusions as to what that means.

 

What you are not taking into account is most of these laws about discrimination came into effect in the 60's, because of racial tensions, but simple affiliation in many cases were also included. Anti establishment movements, when most businesses were owned by mom and pops and localized business owners, began to discriminate against the police, government employees, military personnel, and even republicans (say it ain‘t so!). This was the actual reasoning behind most discrimination laws and why they were initiated.

What they didn't realize at the time was that by protecting their own right to use services, it also included the protection across the board for just about every body, racial, religious, sex/sexual, or even the unreasonable treatment towards/of the dreaded hippies (or anyone who emulated them by sported wild tie dyed clothing, long hair, beads/flowers, and/or those bell bottomed jeans).


Freedom works both ways in a free country, and the courts are supposed to be blind when it comes to it‘s people.

 

...you obviously don't know anything about what I'm talking about otherwise you'd know the problems that come with diabetes...I don't want to be held responsible for someone loosing a leg because they didn't take proper care of themself...and you can't force me to take on the liability that comes with a diabetic...whether it hurts someone's feelings or not, this is total BS forcing people to support something they don't want to...


Kabuki Joe

 

I don't understand why the photographer was fined at all. Why can they not refuse business for any reason they wish? People don't have a right to other peoples business.

 

Your analysis is incorrect.

A business owner is FREE to refuse service to ANYONE she wants to, EXCEPT for the protected classes. So if you don't like someone in your diner wearing hippy tie-dyed bell bottoms, you can tell them to go away.

Business owners have a wide degree of latitude in choosing their customers. This case would have been MUCH tougher if the photographer had simply said "I don't like YOU" to refuse them service rather than enumerating their protected (in New Mexico) group in her refusal to do business.

Then the victims would have had to prove that the business owner regularly "doesn't like" gay couples.


The philosophy behind the anti-discrimination laws is there is an obscenity to PUBLIC racism, sexism, etc.

You can do WHATEVER you like in private, or in a private business (not advertised in the public square, such as phone books, sign on the street, etc.).
But the price of being a PUBLIC BUSINESS in the USA, you need to not be do particular acts deemed inappropriate in public business. This includes porno, nudity, drugs, and racism and sexual discrimination.

People who wish to PUBLICLY display their racism need a new country.

 

because of this

http://www.santafenm.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=10477

according to a lawyer I know it is a state/local matter.

 

Really not a fan of that kind of BS. I totally understand the need for government to not discriminate, however the average person/business owner should be able to be as much of a bigot as they want. That's just part of living in a free society.

 

So you are not refusing them service,but only looking out for their best interest (although it seems confusing who you really care about, them or yourself?). Would you at least direct them to another person who was more qualified to assist their needs?

 

Calm down dude. I said "within reason." You don't have to go all ape. Businesses choose to not serve certain markets all the time. It's the reason you exclude that can be the issue. I just said the person could say we only do the wedding package for people with valid New Mexico wedding licenses. So guess what? I just said they could legally exclude some people. They just can't say I, "I hate f@gs. Get out." Take a chill pill. I mean "the pilgrims?!" Really?!

 

if that woman who denied a vet to rent her apartment then this photographer has the right to do business with whom she chooses.

 

like I said it will be interesting to see how far the judicial system is willing to manipulate the 1st amendment when a gay couple challenges a minister who refuses to marry them. In fact I hope this case makes it to the SCOTUS. Does the government have the right to force you to do something that your religion finds to be a sin ? That is just the otehr side of the coin from government telling you that you have to go to a government approved church in my opinion

 

That woman who refused to rent an apartment to a vet was breaking the law of Ma. They have laws to protect service members. However he never filled out or returned the application.So who knows how that case will turn out.

 

The analysis is sound, and reflects the nature of courts actions pertaining to these types of situations.

As posted earlier;

The courts use this precedence in states that maintain such laws. The courts have and still do make decisions based solely on businesses that discriminate based on hatred of the individual or their affiliation. I don’t create/interpret the law, just pointing out how the law works. You certainly do not have to agree with the law either, you have a right to your own opinion as do I, but that isn’t what I was discussing.


So a business owner “can” choose to discriminate, but they are also free to be challenged on that decision and can be sued for their hatred/intolerance of others if the court agrees with them based on that single incident.

 

...my passion is foot orthotics...functional rigid foot orthoics in particular...start to finish, plaster work and plastic/laminant fabrication...I just love it...I've helped people (when I was last doing it) that had severe plantar fasciitis go from "hobbling" to no discomfort what-so-ever when walking...you can't correct someone with diabetes, only accomodate it (give them a crutch)...diabetic foot problems with severe neuropathy are scary IF THE PATIENT doesn't aggressively take care of themselves...another thing that's annoying is when you have someone that's 100lbs over weight crying about how bad their feet hurt...really?...you have no idea why your feet hurt?...I don't walk around handing out tissues to people that have nothing better to do then cry...yes, I'm insensitive to people that make poor choices...


Kabuki Joe