Photographer sued for refusing to provide service...

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by RocketRick

He sells wedding photography to the public. He can't refuse to sell his wedding photography services to blacks, Jews, women, or -- in New Mexico -- gays, because they are black, Jewish, female, or gay, without it being illegal discrimination.

As you said, Elane Photography sells wedding photography to the public. What the couple asked for was not wedding photography. I don't exactly know what it is, but according to the state of New Mexico, it's not a wedding.

[sbay]

Originally Posted by keithdewey3

It is only illegal in New Mexico currently and that is still being debated as it goes through the courts. It would be good for purposes of discussion if those of you who make statements like "It is illegal to...." keep that in mind.

Sexual orientation is protected in nearly half the US states. Categories like race, religion, ethnicity are protected federally in all states. A photography business refusing to provide service to a protected class is going to find itself in hot water wherever such services fall under the states definition of public accomodation.

Originally Posted by keithdewey3

I made this point earlier but I want to make it again. New Mexico, where this case began has a law that gives people who are gay certain protections. Photography is not listed.

Photography services, such as those offered by Elane Photography, are absolutely covered in NM. From the NMHRA:

"public accommodation" means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private;

This covers pretty much any service business that advertises to the public at large (e.g, through internet, yellow pages, etc.)

I haven't checked all the other states, but i'm guessing that more than a few define public accommodation to cover services in a similar fashion.

Originally Posted by keithdewey3

Second, New Mexico doesn't recognize same sex marriages. The state doesn't sanction them so New Mexico judges won't conduct services for same sex couples. Why? Because they are gay. However, the same court that won't conduct a ceremony for a same sex couple says that a photographer, if asked, must photograph the ceremony. The one that is not recognized in New Mexico.

I agree this is stupid and inconsistent. But laws take time to evolve.

Originally Posted by keithdewey3

Besides all the other reasons for not wanting to cover a gay wedding this seems to be reason the law in New Mexico is idiotic. It is not being applied equally and doesn't even apply to government itself which the Civil Rights Acts were first put in place for.

Exactly which law or laws do you think are idiotic in New Mexico? There are many that are in play in the Elane Photography case such as:
- the law including sexual orientation as a protected class
- the law defining public accommodation to include services
- the civil rights act
- some other law?

AFAIK there is no law in New Mexico explicitly banning same-sex marriage. So one solution might be to enforce their Human Rights Act, recognize/perform (civil) same sex marriages, and remove the inconsistency.

[stef@apl]

Originally Posted by sbay

Exactly which law or laws do you think are idiotic in New Mexico?

Selling liquor to a minor, even by accident, is a felony.

Buying liquor as a minor is a misdemeanor. Police are hiring minors to go try to buy liquor from servers just to jail them.

But I digress.....

[Ed Shapiro]

I don’t know why I keep returning to this thread. I guess I was a bad boy and now I am accepting my punishment. Whatever!

I would like to speak to y’all as an individual person and a long time wedding photographer. As an individual, suffice it to say that I ain’t gonna open a studio inthe State of New Mexico- nor would I care to live there what with their laws. I do agree that there should be laws to protect all people from unfair treatment, abuse and bigotry. I do however feel that laws alone can not change feelings and actions that are motivated by years of ingrained prejudice and perpetuated by long time attitudes of racial, religious, and all kinds of sectarian hatred including sexual discrimination. Since photography is not a life saving or essential service, I can’t even understand why any wedding couple would want a photographer who has issues with their chosen lifestyle and their very being to attend at the wedding regardless of any law. As others have stated; I am sure there are photographers in their region who would be more than pleased to do business with them.

This is my outlook on the political and legal part of my opinion so let’s agree to disagree on what ever I have written that does not agree with y’alls opinions. We are all entitled to our opinions in a free society.

As a LONG TIME wedding photographer, I think I have photographed every kind of wedding that may take place in North America. There are more similarities in weddings of different religious, cultural and lifestyles groups than differences. Basically a couple will enter a room, walk down an aisle and/or gather in front of a congregation or members of their community, stand before a clergyperson or an official who is ordained or authorized to perform wedding ceremonies,exchange their vows, exchange rings or other tokens , perform certain symbolic or ritual acts and the celebrate the day. There are variationx such as sipping wine, setting fire to rice wine, reciting prayers (or not), blessing the couple with benedictions (or not) but there is nothing really all that different or that bizarre in any of the weddings I have worked at,. Any wedding shooter worth his or her salt can bone up in any of theses rites, customs, traditions or celebrations without a degree in psychology or comparative religions, theology or sexual behavior in human beings. I have done ceremonies ranging form simple civil affair at a court house to a Russian Orthodox ceremony held in an elaborate church, with a marvelous choir, incredible chandlers and an intricate ceremony that lasts the better part of 2 hours in a sanctuary with no pews or seats- just kneelers so all the attendees have to stand or kneel for the entire time.

I have done a number of so called gay weddings, some of them were held in churches where same sex weddings are perfectly acceptable and are not considered in the least bit sinful. Some of those wedding were held at a city hall, private homes or hotels and were non-denominational. When my first assignment came in, I decided to shoot it the same as I would at any other wedding. My goal is always to create and artistic interpretation of the event with care, kindness, sensitivity, romance and dignity. I had no previous experience with such a wedding in the beginning but have, in the past, attended at many double weddings- 2 couples being married at the same time. I have photographed 2 brides together, both grooms together, the bride and her maid of honor or the entire group of bride’s maids and the groom with all his groomsmen; so I decided to draw from those experiences and forget about any stupid preconceptions that were being bandied about my office. With men- in my mind’s eye I imagined theses guys looking like they just stepped off the cover of GQ or a high priced formalwear catalog. The girls- just total elegance all the way.

I would NEVER under any circumstances ask a gay couple about there sexual roles during intimacy any more that I would ask a heterosexual couple intimate details of their sex lives. That is their very private business and nothing I need to know to do a great job at their wedding. I have never included blatant sexual content or suggestive material in any of my wedding coverages or albums, so why would I start now? Sexual preference and orientation has very little to with exhibitionism.

Nowadays, wedding couples of all cultures and orientations are wanting more casual and impromptu photographs of their celebrations. I still pride myself in elegant and casual portraits but many “must have” and stilted images of yesteryear are no longer always required or wanted. One does not have to make the same images at all weddings and images that are not appropriate or logical for certain kinds of weddings can be forgotten. Images incorporating affection are fine. Some of my early mentors used to tell me that customers love pictures of all kinds of kissing. I found that caressing or other interpretations of love and affection look better than kisses where the couple appears like they are attempting to suck in each other’s heads. I shoot ‘em if I see ‘em but the clients' choices are usually the ones that are more delicate. The look in your subject’s eyes can express more love and emotion than action shots overzealous smooching! We don’t cover honeymoons!

I don’t ever feel that photographing a same sex wedding is tantamount to participating in an illegal, evil or amoral act. If I did not feel good about any kind of celebration or felt I could not, in good conscious, handle the event or know how to do it successfully, I would admit it to the inquiring client without a word of lie and thank heaven that I don’t reside in the great State of New Mexico.

One of my hobbies is going shopping for expensive items and dressing down in my grubby clothes- the stuff I used to don to clean my old wet darkroom. If the sales staff did not acknowledge my presence of give me a good demo; I don’t do business with them. Who wants to give their money to people they don’t like or who don’t like them.

Dats all folks! Ed

[stef@apl]

Other than the fact I live here, it's not such a bad state.

They have a huge percentage of PhDs, are simultaneously old-west and progressive high-tech. They're not overly democratic nor republican... over all recent history they've voted the winner in presidential elections (except Gore, but he got the popular vote in the US). There's a very high percentage of Catholics, yet most people believe that religion belongs in the home.

The problem is that goofy laws get through now and then and the system gets abused. And there are some people who believe in punishment, for punishment's sake. Not because it will solve anything... they just want to hurt people. This happens all over the place, but our lawmakers are pretty bad in many respects.

There's nothing in NM that couldn't happen in most other states. If you blatantly discriminate, you could end up on the wrong end of the lawsuit. While Ed doesn't have the US first amendment protections (being in Canada), it's a wake-up call that running a business means that other people's rights might trump yours, if you discriminate hoping that first amendment will protect you.

[Ed Shapiro]

Stef- Sorry 'bout dat! Did not mean to demean your State. I am a duel citizen- US and Canada! I was born and raised in Brooklyn on the rough side of the tracks. In those days we did not worry too much about issues of discrimination and the constitution. We were having enough problems convincing some of our neighbors that MURDER , armed robbery, auto theft, home invasions and gang wars was/is against the law. I suppose we figured that once the carnage stopped we could start with all the other important issues of the day.

Up here in Canada, we are still in the British Commonwealth but more loosely nowadays. In the 1980s Canada got it's own constitution and Charter of Rights with all the good stuff and we are no longer part of the British North America Act.

After my military service I came home to turmoil. The Viet Nam war and the series of assassinations that transpired during that era had the U.S. was at an all time low in moral,. The vets were treated poorly and many of them left for others places to get some peace and perhaps a bit of respect. That is how I ended up here and the fact that Canada is my wife's home country. I remember being on the business end of discrimination having been called a baby burner and a looser based on my Viet Nam experience. That is why I have a particular disdain for violence and discrimination.

I come back home every now and again to visit relatives and once in a while to visit the WALL to pay my respects to the guys who never made it back to the world.

Ed

[stef@apl]

No problem, Ed... it deserves some demeaning and I'm usually first in line to both praise and criticize this state. At least we got Mississippi, so now we're only 49th in education. Bizarrely, we have a big tech industry, a decent university, tons of art, outdoor activities, and lots of filmmakers. Instead of Hollywood, we call it Tamalewood. But we're also on, what we (affectionally) call "Indian time". We move slower. We actually talk to strangers. We shake hands and actually "feel" the other person's hand... on purpose.

NM has its charm. I've done a lot of travelling around the US and world, and still like it here if nothing else than the food. But I'll be the very first to point out stupid laws to the stupid lawmakers we have here. There's a strange mix of puritans and progressives. Like most New Mexicans, I blame all the bad stuff on California and Texas

I was just digging through my letters to my attorney last night, trying to find references to this case. Alas, I couldn't find the letters, but I remember having an interesting discussion with him about it and the legal issues involved. I eventually came around to believing it was the right decision only because all the other alternatives were worse... I'm not particularly happy with my conclusion.

[patterfr]

Quote from Ed's post:
"I do agree that there should be laws to protect all people from unfair treatment, abuse and bigotry. I do however feel that laws alone can not change feelings and actions that are motivated by years of ingrained prejudice and perpetuated by long time attitudes of racial, religious, and all kinds of sectarian hatred including sexual discrimination. "
Ed
Now I do think we have a problem.
WHo are you to put yourself above all in all things morality.
You're above the Pope?
You"re above the the teachings of the Church?
I'm sorry if the Catholic church is against gay marriage and you aren't.
I'm going to follow the Catholic Church's teachings as that is my right, my responsibility, and my duty.
I don't openly discriminate against anyone and I'm not a wedding photographer so I'll never have to make a choice. You stated your opinions and some of us have stated ours. Last thing I need is a scolding for having different opinions than you and I do t need to be told that my beliefs are out of hatred or bigotry or prejudice.
Just because you type in bigger font or have been a photographer for 50 years doesn't make you the morality guru.
How dare you!

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by patterfr

Ed
Now I do think we have a problem.
WHo are you to put yourself above all in all things morality.
You're above the Pope?
You"re above the the teachings of the Church?
I'm sorry if the Catholic church is against gay marriage and you aren't.
I'm going to follow the Catholic Church's teachings as that is my right, my responsibility, and my duty.
I don't openly discriminate against anyone and I'm not a wedding photographer so I'll never have to make a choice. You stated your opinions and some of us have stated ours. Last thing I need is a scolding for having different opinions than you and I do t need to be told that my beliefs are out of hatred or bigotry or prejudice.
Just because you type in bigger font or have been a photographer for 50 years doesn't make you the morality guru.
How dare you!

Sounds like Ed stated his beliefs very clearly here about discrimination. It is WRONG! Don't know how much clearer it can be said. I don't know about anyone else but I put myself above the Pope or the Catholic church or any other religion when it pertains to ME. I don't need anyone else telling me how I should live my life, what to eat, and when to eat it. I don't need someone telling me I need to pray to some enty by whatever name and follow rules set down thousands of years ago by men of questionable values. I can, and do think for myself. You may hold whatever beliefs you chose to, that is the beauty of this country and it's Constitution but why do you think you (the church) should try to pass laws based upon your beliefs that everone should follow just because you (the church) believe in them. You say you don't OPENLY discriminate which must mean that you do but just don't say it. There is a word for that kind of attitude.

I've often wanted to ask this question of religious types. Why don't you belong to the Morman religion or the Muslim religion, or Jewish, or some other? Just taking a guess here but I would say it's because you don't believe in what they teach and/or you donn't want to follow all their rules and regulations. Well I have set my own rules and regulations and as long as they do not break any laws I feel good about it. Very clearly discrimination is wrong and it's also just as wrong to put your religious views above everyone elses when those views are based upon faith alone.

Dwight

[patterfr]

Thats great Dwight I believe you can do whatever u want
Just don't tell me that I can't or that I'm full of hatred, bigotry, or prejudice.
I treat gay people like I treat heterosexual people without hatred or prejudice. They can't be married in the Catholic church is all and that's all I'm saying. But me and the Pope don't need to be told we are wrong as that is a matter of opiniOn.