New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding photographer illegally discriminated against gay couple

[bigtree]

Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM 33m
New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding photographer illegally discriminated against gay couple: http://bit.ly/152UvzK

New Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a local wedding photography business in Albuquerque violated state law by refusing to photograph a lesbian couple seeking the company's services.

The state's highest court found that Elane Photography's decision to refuse to serve the couple was an act of discrimination under the state's Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog. The owners of Elane Photography argued they were exercising their rights of free speech and religion in refusing to photograph the couple's ceremony.

read more:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photographers-discriminated-against-gay-couple-court-rules/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/new-mexico-supreme-court-wedding-photographers-discriminated-against

[Puzzledtraveller]

1. I get it, but

Why would you want people that hate you to service you in that regard? ie. wedding photos.

[bigtree]

2. I think of the town in Albuquerque, much like the town my mother grew up in

She was a black American in a segregated town and grew up with a community that had separate hospitals, schools, hairdressers, movie theaters etc. for blacks and whites. Most of her young adult life in that town was engaged in one protest action or the other to tear down that institutionalized discrimination. Some sit-ins of department stores in her home town took YEARS of action, every day, to gain the access and opportunity and to end the scourge of discrimination, once and for all.

I can't speak for the couple, but their efforts will certainly go a long way in ensuring that LGBT individuals and couples receive equal access and opportunity across the board in that community and in that state.

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. That's an excellent point.

[Warpy]

27. Really? I don't see that kind of segregation here

although I don't get out to entertainment venues. I know my own neighborhood is a very mixed bag and that's the way I like it. Most neighborhoods are mixed to one extent or another, even the McMansion district, only slightly less so.

However, the law does seem to assume brown folks are drunks and black folks are into drugs. White folks are from "good families," of course, so they "make mistakes."

[bigtree]

29. of course, it's an exaggerated example from my mother's distant past

. . . to make a point about the need for good business practices where you live.

[Ian David]

28. Very often companies that refuse to serve gay people go out of their way to cause problems.

They'll take your money, promise to show up on the assigned date, and then cancel at the last minute, just to fuck you over.

Because... you know... they're "Christian."

[JustAnotherGen]

4. A Must Read

Chip - chip - chip - chip -chip . . . It's not going to have for the GLBT community overnight - but it will happen. Just keep chipping away!

[bigtree]

5. /

[whoiswithme]

6. While I understand the reasoning here.....

How long will it be before a photographer here gets hired for a tea party convention or a gun show? What if a black photographer is forced to take pictures at a KKK rally? What about hiring a feminist to take porn pictures?

While these are extreme examples, I see no reason to force people to take part in an event that they have moral issues with. A photographer, much more so than the cake decorator or the people that refused service for cupcakes to the president - is a part of the event. I don't see how not wanting to participate in something is limiting the rights of others to hold those events. I am quote sure that there are plenty of photographers that would love to work with this couple.

This isn't a new issue either:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/deja-vu-bakery/5193ed3cfe344448d1000326

[Wait Wut]

7. A gay couple...

...is not a fake political party, a racist group or entertainment. They are human beings that deserve the same rights as anyone else.

The comparison is invalid. Would you make the same claim if the photographer refused to shoot a wedding for a black couple? Mixed race?

[whoiswithme]

8. It doesn't matter what the group is

Of course they have the right to marry. The photographer refusing to shoot their wedding doesn't prevent them from getting married. The photographer should have the free will to attend the events they wish and not be forced to participate against their will.

When does someone's right to marry who they want get to be more important than the right of the other person? Bigotry and racism are not illegal, nor should they be. We don't legislate ideas or morality.

[cbayer]

9. Here is part of the statement from the court that I think explains the difference very clearly.

The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. The sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world.

[whoiswithme]

11. We aren't talking about their conduct

We are talking about participation in an event they don't want to be at. This is different than the pharmacists refusing to sell BC due to morality issues, or the people that don't want to make cakes for gay weddings. For those people they just have to make a cake and take the person's money. Photographers are required to attend, interact with the couple, and participate.

[cbayer]

13. It's the same thing as having a sign on your door that says "No Negroes"

You just can't discriminate like that.

Lots of businesses involve interacting with the customers. Is it your general view that any business that involves interaction should be permitted to discriminate against others based on color? Sex? Religion? Country of origin? Sexual orientation?

[The Straight Story]

16. A question about that

Suppose the church/minister does not want to do the wedding because it is a gay wedding? Is a church exempt?

My base understanding is that they are (but I could be wrong), except in one case where they rented out a facility to the public (a pavilion I think) and could therefore not discriminate.

The church itself is different but ministers do get paid to perform ceremonies (and funerals, which we generally don't hear of people denying to do).

[FreeState]

20. Churches are exempt - they are not public businesses

Public businesses must, surprisingly to some, do business with all the public.

[The Straight Story]

21. I agree BTW, just wondering about churches because

as noted, in some cases, they provide services to the general public and it has been ruled in those cases they cannot deny gay weddings.

It get's blurry on what constitutes a public service when a church is involved (like homeless shelter, food aid, renting out halls and such).

[FreeState]

24. If they offer services to the public - that is public

For instance if the Church wins a bid to manage a public property that property must be offered to everyone at the same rates etc. If the church rents out its chapel for weddings to people outside the faith the church is operating a public business and must be open to all.

[The Straight Story]

25. Thanks, well stated. I wonder how many churches don't realize that

or just hope no one will notice

[FreeState]

26. I think most of them know, the conservative churches however are in denial

Many of the conservative churches see gay people as an action not an identity, thats how they justify their actions. However, in states like NM, sexual orientation is specifically spelled out as a protected group. In this case the photographers (they run a company, they are not a one man show) got bad advice and legal representation from a group of lawyers that are trying anything they can to destroy the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

[cbayer]

22. Since they are not a business selling a product, I would suspect that they are.

Ministers don't always get paid to perform ceremonies, but they often do.

But I think it's a good and interesting question.

There have been "conscience" exemptions made for pharmacists who don't want to sell abortificants and physicians that don't want to perform abortions, but those don't have anything to do with discriminating against others based on gender, race or sexual orientation.

[joeybee12]

10. Wow, enjoy your stay...

The place is a public business...being in business means you are licensed and as such you cannot deny services to ANYONE. No one is asking the photographer to approve of the couple, but simply to NOT deny service...got it sweetcheeks?

[Wait Wut]

12. So, you're saying it would be acceptable...

...for the photographer to refuse service to a black couple? If the photographer is your Aunt Harriett, maybe, but if you're working for a company it's discrimination. If you want to be a wedding photographer (there's already something wrong with you...horrible job), then you'd better be prepared to service people who want to get married. Gay, straight, black, white, etc.

Refusing to serve someone based on a political or moral reason is a right. No one can force me to design a web site for for a white rights group or a Republican (as long as I refuse service to a Democrat, as well). This is not a moral issue. This is basic human rights.

Bigotry and racism are not illegal, unless you're running a business. Hate crimes are illegal. Discrimination is illegal. We do legislate ideas and morality. This is about neither. It's about discrimination.

[whoiswithme]

14. That's not what I am saying at all.

It would be abhorrent to deny service to black people.

This is what you said:

"Refusing to serve someone based on a political or moral reason is a right. No one can force me to design a web site for for a white rights group or a Republican (as long as I refuse service to a Democrat, as well). This is not a moral issue. This is basic human rights."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But you're saying the same thing as I am. We should not create laws that force you to work with people you don't approve of for a moral reason. How is this situation different other than you approve of gay marriage and not white supremacy (I happen to agree)?

[Wait Wut]

17. The difference is...

...you're comparing a belief to a human being. White supremacists are not born that way. They choose to be bigoted/racist assholes. My refusal to do any work for them is refusing to acknowledge their hatred. If I choose to refuse service to someone that is gay, I'm practicing discrimination. There is nothing 'moral' about it, no matter what my personal idiocies may be. Using the word 'moral' in any of this debate is an insult to the community. If some RWCNJ wants to believe that he/she is 'morally' superior and can judge someone based on their sexual identity or preference, they can do so in their own home. Outside of their home it is very clearly discrimination.

Again, 'moral' has nothing to do with this.

[cbayer]

19. Here is where I think your argument falls apart.

There is no equivalency between being GLBT and being a white supremacist.

Being GLBT or black or female or Pakistani is part of who you are.

Being a white supremacist is a decision that you make about how you feel about other people.

If someone holds the position that GLBT people are people who they "don't approve of for a moral reason", those people are bigots.

[bigtree]

15. you haven't yet grasped the concept of discrimination, in general

. . . the concept of basic civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans racial segregation "by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public."

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Bigotry and racism are not illegal, but discrimination is. Courts are increasingly finding that the rights of LGBT individuals and couples are no different than the rights granted to others. Many states have passed laws rejecting businesses' 'right to refuse' services to LGBT individuals or couples. Those efforts are, however, still in flux.

The couple isn't asking the photog for anything more than any hetero couple would expect. There may well be some merit in respecting these business folks' free will to serve whoever they please, but, to me, dealing with folks you may well disagree with or even abhor is just the price of doing business. At least, that's the way many communities feel.

[whoiswithme]

23. You raise some interesting points

I had not considered some of these points. Thanks.

[dbackjon]

32. And then if everyone refused to photograph them?

So by your logic, if 100% of the hotels in a town refused to allow Asian customers, that would be fine - they can sleep in cars?

[Sgent]

31. None of those are protected classes

Now, she could be required to take wedding photos for satanists maybe, but the KKK is not a protected class of people / organization under our constitution and law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I *think* the issue should be "how big a business is it?".

I wholeheartedly believe in the right to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in private life. If you don't want to be friends with someone because they're gay (or because they're straight, for that matter), the state absolutely should not try to force you to.

But I don't think businesses should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation; if you're running a company you should not be allowed to discriminate against employees or potential employees on grounds of sexual orientation.

Your private life is your private business; your public life should conform to public standards.


So I think the question is "on what scale is the dividing line, and how big was this company"?

I don't have a terribly good answer to that, but the fact that this is described as being about "the owners of Elane Photography" rather than "Elane the photographer" sounds like circumstantial evidence that the ruling was correct.

[LearningCurve]

30. New Mexico often has the pulse of mainstream America

That is all.