NM Supreme Court Rules Refusal to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegally Discriminates

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Aug 23, 2013.

  1. geauxgator1
    Offline

    geauxgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,855
    Likes Received:
    1,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,753
    yes, exactly. it's still my right, (even though the state may disagree), not to service those, for whatever reasons I may have, bigoted or not. Let the public decide to use my services or not to use thm. The state should not force that obligation upon me.
  2. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,407
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,055
    Are you of the opinion that we should all just do as our conscious tells us, and as long as we are following our conscious then there is no real right or wrong?
  3. JohnC1908
    Offline

    JohnC1908 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +786
    When it comes to a private business taking pictures...yes.
  4. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,195
    Sometimes wrongs can be righted without the need for lawyers . . . or their fees.
  5. Spurffelbow833
    Offline

    Spurffelbow833 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    9,214
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,521
    If there weren't wedding photographers who welcome gay business, I could understand this. But there are too many good photographers out there who aren't going to turn their backs on a business opportunity for the government to force everyone to do it. I guess when pedophilia is legalized, you won't be able to refuse to take pictures of men carrying boys over the threshold, either.
  6. JohnC1908
    Offline

    JohnC1908 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,063
    Likes Received:
    777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +786
    No no, you see we should force morals onto people. THAT'LL LEARN EM!
  7. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,059
    I'm saying that there is something unseemly about the state forcing someone to act against their conscience, even if their inclination is to act unjustly (or in this case, not to act at all). It's all a bit Clockwork Orange to me, even if the intention is good. And I agree that public conveyances should not be denied to people for unjust reasons, but photography is not something that warrants the same state concern and agency as, say, access to restaurants or retailers. Photography is more of a personal and artistic service rather than a simple case of goods for sale. So I find it to be a gray area in this case. I see both sides. I think a better solution would be to find another photographer that is not prejudiced, rather than going to the trouble of suing them clear up to the NM Supreme Court.
  8. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    Proctologist's appointment -- although that might be like throwing chum in the water.
  9. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
  10. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,592
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +585
    But in this case, the business is performing a public accommodation. Restaurants too are a private business, but they cannot discriminate on race or sexuality for the same reason the photographer cannot. Running a business that is open to the public comes with rules and regulations you have to follow depending on the state, county, and municipality you are located. It is a cost of doing business.

    Now I agree that the energy spent on the lawsuit could probably be better spent elsewhere, but the law is rather clear.
  11. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,059
    You are hiring the eye of the photographer -- so do you really want to hire an eye filled with disgust?
  12. rpmGator
    Offline

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,702
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +579
    If the guy is the only one with a camera in the entire state, I could see it. But forcing one person to do a job they don't want to do, is not making people like your lifestyle.

    If I were forced to do a job the results would have been a computer crash taking out all the photo's and the lifetime of memories.

    Freedom to choose can't be lost just because other's want you to do it. It only breeds more contempt for pushing others around.
  13. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,007
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,677
    Folks that think like you and me will soon be the only 'unprotected class'.
  14. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,314
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,898
    I understand what you and the law as written are saying, but the law in this case is wrong and violates the free exercise clause. The law should be worded differently. I have a problem with restaurants that refuse service or retailers, etc. on the basis of sexuality, especially when the nature of the business it usually conducts has nothing to do with the sexuality of the person or any sort of relationship they may or may not have with another person. But I do not have a problem with said businesses refusing a special one off event that for many is inextricably tied to a deeply held legitimate religious belief shared by much of the nation. What is next? Forcing a church to perform the ceremony?
  15. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,178
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +835
    Good point. But wanna bet you would see an inside of a court room for your inferior product? It is a no win situation when dealing with the new American aristocracy.
  16. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,178
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +835
    Bingo. Happens all the time. Again, you may still have to defend yourself in court. Gays pull a lot of government weight now a days.
  17. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,178
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +835
    Another good point. If gays were threatened with the possibility of not a single photographer willing to take wedding pictures then they have an argument. But that is so far from the real world. Money talks in what is left of our capitalistic society.
  18. rpmGator
    Offline

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,702
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +579
    The guy should have had a conflict with another photo shoot. Where there is a will, there is a way.
  19. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,884
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +821

    Was that a great play on words for two gay women getting married or did you get lucky?:whistle:
  20. kygator
    Offline

    kygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +219
    Lesbian couple: We'll be getting married next year and need a photographer
    Photographer: I'm sick

    I don't think the courts would believe that one.

    Also, if the photographer is opposed to gay marriage on moral principles, then they are probably opposed to lying. I would also hope they would be opposed to intentionally providing a crappy product.

    I don't really agree that the government should be able to force a business to participate in an event that is against their morals. I also don't believe that the actions of the photographer are equivalent to a restaurant refusing to serve gay people. However, the court seems to disagree and they have legal authority while I don't. Given that, here are some options that might comply with the law and the photographer's beliefs.

    Tell the couple that I am morally opposed to gay marriage but my business will not turn them away. If they choose to use my business, any profits will go to an organization that actively opposes the legalization of gay marriage.

    If they still choose my company, I would outsource the work to another photographer. I don't think that would be illegal. The court can say that my business can't deny service to a gay marriage but they can't dictate which photographer actually takes pictures as long as I'm not intentionally hiring a bad photographer.

    Anyone here think I would be violating the law? Can the courts force me personally to be actively involved?

Share This Page