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. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    380
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,597
    You could make a decent argument that you're breaching the contract by assigning it to another photographer. It's an artistic personal services contract where presumably you were hired for a reason. Essentially the argument being that they hired you for your unique artistic services and no one is a substitute.
  2. rpmGator
    Offline

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,702
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +579
    You wait until the day before the wedding and get sick...

    Or you are decent enough to just say you are better off with someone else, which apparently is no longer an option. So screw them as they indeed screwed the photographer.
  3. kygator
    Offline

    kygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +219
    At least it would be good advertisement. "The courts have ruled that no one is a substitute for my unique artistic services". :wink:
  4. Minister_of_Information
    Online

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,826
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,056
    One could easily structure the business such that no particular photographer was contracted, merely that photographic services are being provided. If a particular event violated someone's morals, another photographer could provide the service.
  5. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,194
    Speaking of douchieness. . . .


    But thanks. Really, this adds so much to the conversation.
  6. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,194
    Yep, you got me.

    Really, though, am I the only one who finds this whole conversation rather insane?

    I'd also be curious to know how much the lawyers billed in fees (or deducted from their taxes) for this case. Seem to be the only real winners in this nonsense.
  7. 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
    I'm no lawyer and my focus here isn't on the law or the lawsuit. We agree people would be better served focusing their energy on more important items. If I was getting married (God forbid) and someone told me they didn't serve agnostic white guys who are diehard cub/gator fans I'd tell them to F*** off and use another service.
  8. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,486
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,194
    And tell my friends (and anyone else if it came up) too!
  9. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    There's a reason it was prefaced with "Grammar Nazi ..."
  10. Spurffelbow833
    Offline

    Spurffelbow833 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    9,214
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,521
    So if a photographer wants to back out of shooting a straight wedding because it's impossible to work with Bridezilla, can Bridezilla force the photographer to do the job by claiming to be bisexual?
  11. 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
    Exactly, that's the way it works.
  12. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    Homosexuals are looking for validation of their choice to engage in deviant behavior. It isn't just about getting a photographer or caterer. If they were comfortable in their choice (comfortable in their own skin, as it were), they would act as you would.
  13. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,592
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +585
    Homosexuals are looking for equal treatment from for public businesses. How dare they! (Sarcasm)

    If the photographer is the best in the local area and the couple can afford his/her services, then the couple should not be denied on the basis of sexuality. That is the law in New Mexico.

    Now again, I believe energy is better served elsewhere than in a lawsuit. But that is my opinion. I'd rather hire someone who wants to shoot my wedding and badmouth the other to everyone I know as a homophobe. But that's me.
  14. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    Homosexuals are looking for validation of their deviant lifestyle -- if not, they would go get someone else who wants their business and be done with it.

    I see you use the typical smear tactic -- if someone is opposed to a man having sex with another man, they're vilified and labeled a homophobe. Might just be that the thought of that makes them nauseous.
  15. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,592
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +585
    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... And you are right, it is a smear tactic. Energy better served trying the photographer in the court of public opinion rather than an actual courtroom. Even if the law is in my side, sometimes there are better ways to deal with a problem.
  16. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,537
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,373
    The argument made here is "go find another photographer". What if this guy is the best one out there, they aren't allowed to get him? What if he is the cheapest and it means they can no longer afford to have it done? Or if he is the only one not booked that day? If they are in rural NM (and I don't know), he could be the only one for 50 miles or more, they might not be able to get one to come that far. That is why these laws draw a hard line in the sand, each case is unique - on the sliding scale of services obviously photography isn't going to be very high up the ladder, but where do you draw the line, and how does one define what is "essential" to someone? There are certainly things other people consider essential that i couldn't give two you know whats about and probably vice versa. A public service has to be defined broadly for that reason.

    As for why the sued, I find that question itself pretty interesting. State law was on their side, they didn't ask for money, and yet instead of asking "why would someone knowingly break the law", people are asking why someone would ask that the law be enforced.
    The larger question though those who disagree with this ruling should be asking is, why is this law in place in the first place? I think that gets you to why they won this case.
  17. Minister_of_Information
    Online

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,826
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,056
    Enforcement could easily be avoided, all that is required is a pretext that is not prejudiced... i.e., "I'm not available that day, sorry." Again, photography is a personal service and not a very important one. I think there is definitely a distinction between serving food or selling goods and being forced to take pictures at an event you have no wish to be a part of. I think this is beginning to cross the totalitarian line.
  18. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    Not if the homosexuals have their way. They're desperately seeking validation for their lifestyle choice from society by trying to force everyone to join in their little parties.
  19. Gator40
    Offline

    Gator40 Avada Kedavra

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,360
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +145
    This case was about two women. Maybe the photographer was a gay male and didn't want to photograph women? Could be the nauseous feeling you were citing.
  20. ncgatr1
    Online

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    Who gives a rat's arse. More liberal BS about nothing. Things like the economy don't matter.

Share This Page