Photographers Discriminated Against Gay Couple, Court Rules

[rug]

August 22, 2013, 4:32 PM
By Jacob Gershman

New Mexico Supreme CourtNew Mexico’s highest court ruled Thursday that the owners of an Albuquerque wedding photography company violated state law when they turned away a lesbian couple who wanted to hire them to take pictures of their ceremony.

Upholding a lower-court ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the company’s refusal was an act of discrimination. They rejected the argument of the devout Christian owners of Elane Photography who claimed they had a free speech and religious right not to shoot the ceremony.

The decision comes at a time of turbulent debate over gay marriage in New Mexico, where a county clerk gained national attention this week by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples against the advice of the attorney general (though he’s not challenging it). As Law Blog noted earlier, gay marriage hasn’t been legalized New Mexico, though there’s a dispute over whether state law prohibits it.

Under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it’s unlawful for a public accommodation to refuse to offer its services to someone because of the person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

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

The decision:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Photogopinion.pdf

[CincyDem]

1. I get the principle here but the practice feels self defeating.

There have been a few of these example of people not wanting to provide services to couples celebrating alternative lifestyle life cycle events...weddings, anniversaries, whatever.

Seems to me that forcing a photographer to take pics that he or she doesn't want to, for any reason, is a guarantee of bad pics. There was the baker who wouldn't put the two guys on the top of the multi tier cake. I get it but why risk haven't a cake that tastes like crap when it's all over.

When you're dealing with personal services like this, I think it's hard to force good into people. OK - legally they may HAVE to take the pics but what do you want to bet that they don't live up to the same standard. Sure, sue the guy later but having done wedding photography in a past life, good luck getting a judge saying they were purposefully bad pics.

Get a photographer you love. Get a band you love. Get a baker you love. Fuck these other a$$hats.

Help me out here. Feels like a pyrrhic victory.

[cbayer]

2. I see your point and am not sure why the couple chose this particular photographer.

Perhaps they were the only ones in the area or available that day. Perhaps they had bought it through an auction for their local PBS station. Perhaps they really liked their work or their prices or their website.

For whatever reason, they chose them and were declined.

While you can't force people into doing good, you can stop them from doing bad.

Let's change this to a restaurant who doesn't want to serve black people. They might make it a relatively unpleasant experience or not put much effort into the meal or move slower than usual.

But they can't turn them away at the door. That, to me, is the bottom line.

[CincyDem]

4. I agree with your point.

...and I'm trying to see how it works on a practice individual level.

The group in South Carolina where the place asked them to leave after waiting two hours. How do you fight that chit other than via bad PR in the moment.

Golden rule in my family growing up: Don't piss off someone who is about to handle your food outside your line of sight.

I get that it's wrong but how to you win that fight in the moment.

Same with the photographer - 5 years from now, when we've all finally come to grips with the fact that you can't just deny someone service based on preferences, the guy takes the job because he/she can't say no and then you end up with a once in a lifetime moment f'ed up with lots of bad photos.

How do you win.

[cbayer]

5. Turns out the internet is great at shining sunshine on people that behave badly.

I worked in a disco in NYC in the 80's where people did unspeakable things. It has made me wary of wait staff forever.

You make excellent points. I think as a test case, this is meaningful. If you want to be in business, you can't have a "no ******" sign on your door. And if you are going to purposefully try and do a bad job, well, the internet might ruin you.

I do think you should be able to refuse to participate in things you find morally reprehensible if it's about ideology and not who a person is. For instance, I think it would be ok to refuse to photograph a white supremacist event. And I suspect the court would support you in that. But refusing based on gender or sexuality or race, that's just not right.

It's an interesting line, though.

[rug]

6. Unspeakable things in an 80s NYC disco?

Well . . . . one of these days you'll have to speak them. Sounds like The Limelight.

[cbayer]

7. Adam's Apple on 1st.

Those were the days, my friend, those were the days.

[rug]

8. I remember that place. 61st and First.

I grew up on 67th between Second and Third. The first one on that strip was Friday's. The whole area was immediately infested with yuppies. The Church of Satan was in the old Consolidated Laundry building a few blocks north.

[cbayer]

9. Yep, that's it. It's not there anymore.

And Friday's. I remeber that as well.

I loved living in that area. I was just the right age at just the right time.

AIDS (or as we called it - GRIDS) was just starting to break through. Things got very heart breaking after that.

I have probably walked by your home 100's of times, rug.

When I went back 2 years ago, I was disappointed to see that many of my old haunts were gone. I expected the neighborhood to stay just like it was... just for me.

[rug]

10. No, my block was torn down in the 70s, replaced by 11 townhouses and a 40 story luxury building.

The whole East Side east of Third Avenue became occupied by the pieds-a-terre of international capital. Very dismaying. It was for a long time before that a collection of working class neighborhoods. Here and there you'll still see a few tenements, spruced up and ludicrously expensive.

[rug]

3. The photographer here was never in fact hired.

The facts are laid out pretty succinctly in the opinion. Once it was confirmed the photographer will not photograph same sex marriages or commitment ceremonies, the complaint was made to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

It is a classic test case.

As a practical matter, you're right. They cannot be trusted, law or no.