Photographer sued for refusing to provide service...

[Steven G Webb]

Just don't send rate cards to vague inquires. Insist on details. Socratic questioning goes a long way.

[sbay]

Originally Posted by keithdewey3

Surely there must be more to the case against him. I think the court went too far in equating a photographer's services to a restaurant or public place.

In the article they state "Appellate court Judge Tim Garcia said a 1981 state Supreme Court case expanded the concept of public accommodation to include nontraditional and non-historic businesses." It seems reasonable to me to apply the same standard as a restaurant to any company that solicits business from the public (I'm guessing the studio probably has a public store front, ads, yellow-page entries, etc.).

[joekolero]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

It's easy to say that you shouldn't give a reason, but what happens when the client asks for a reason?

It's not really that difficult. It just takes a little tact. If one can't wield diplomacy on the fly, then wedding photography is probably not the best career choice.

This is not a new issue. Protected group classifications have been around for many decades. And for just as long, bigots have been lying about why they won't hire or be hired by a particular gender, race, religion, or sexual preference.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by sbay

In the article they state "Appellate court Judge Tim Garcia said a 1981 state Supreme Court case expanded the concept of public accommodation to include nontraditional and non-historic businesses." It seems reasonable to me to apply the same standard as a restaurant to any company that solicits business from the public (I'm guessing the studio probably has a public store front, ads, yellow-page entries, etc.).

Except the 'client' wasn't asking for a studio shot. They were asking for 8 to 10 hours of photographic coverage plus editing.

If anybody thinks that a studio shoot is anything like a wedding, well, I don't know how to continue that sentence without being rude...

[Steven G Webb]

The courts decide if a precedence extends to a new circumstance. Therein lies the uncertainty of civil life. There doesn't seem to be any logic or parallel involved as long as some element can [or can be distorted or bent] be somehow similar.

Constitutional rights seem to mostly be directed to limit the power of Congress in making public law. These begin with, "Congress shall make no law.....". Sadly, we have encompassed those things to regulate both the public and private sector. The very protections the Constitution establish seem trod underfoot by way of applying federally protected status to individuals in the private sector to the same degree they are protected in the public sector. Frankly, I think we have legislated far too much and in so doing now we are litigating far too much.

Steve

[gryphonslair99]

Frankly this one sounds simple to me. If you are going to be in business it is good to know the laws in your City, County and State as well as any applicable Federal Laws and either follow them or start your business somewhere else where the laws are more to your liking.

The courts ruled that this photographer violated the States Anti-Discriminaton laws. Pretty much the Rosa Parks Case of Photography in New Mexico with this one, at least according to what was reported in the article.

[sbay]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Except the 'client' wasn't asking for a studio shot. They were asking for 8 to 10 hours of photographic coverage plus editing.

If anybody thinks that a studio shoot is anything like a wedding, well, I don't know how to continue that sentence without being rude...

Obviously the legal ruling depended critically on the definition of "public accomodation" and it appears that in New Mexico it is defined much more broadly than something like a restaurant (or photo studio).

However, for me personally, it doesn't matter whether the business is in a fixed location or just offers services in private/elsewhere. The way I see it is

If you are a business AND
you solict customers from the public

THEN

you should not be able to discriminate against protected classes.

I think it is fair discriminate for all sorts of other reasons (like the client would be difficult to work with or you think they won't pay up).

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by sbay

Obviously the legal ruling depended critically on the definition of "public accomodation" and it appears that in New Mexico it is defined much more broadly than something like a restaurant (or photo studio).

However, for me personally, it doesn't matter whether the business is in a fixed location or just offers services in private/elsewhere. The way I see it is

If you are a business AND
you solict customers from the public

THEN

you should not be able to discriminate against protected classes.

I think it is fair discriminate for all sorts of other reasons (like the client would be difficult to work with or you think they won't pay up).

In that case, if you are a consumer AND
you require a service from somebody else

THEN

You should not be able to shop anywhere else other than me.

That is absurd...

[gryphonslair99]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

In that case, if you are a consumer AND
you require a service from somebody else

THEN

You should not be able to shop anywhere else other than me.

That is absurd...

You are correct, what you posted is absurd.

However need I remind you as a Texan that you along with several other states, pretty much the ones that thought they would secede from the Union quite a few years back, are under a Federal Mandate that all changes in voting laws, district boundaries, etc must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Government. IE: 42 USC § 1971 - Voting rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

Same principal seem to, at least in New Mexico, apply. They have designated protected classes of citizens and this photographer knowingly violated the Arizona statutes by discriminating against one of their protected classes of citizens.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by gryphonslair99

You are correct, what you posted is absurd.

However need I remind you as a Texan that you along with several other states, pretty much the ones that thought they would secede from the Union quite a few years back, are under a Federal Mandate that all changes in voting laws, district boundaries, etc must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Government. IE: 42 USC § 1971 - Voting rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

Same principal seem to, at least in Arizona, apply. They have designated protected classes of citizens and this photographer knowingly violated the Arizona statutes by discriminating against one of their protected classes of citizens.

A photographer was offered a job and declined. That should be the end of the story.