So, churches won't be forced to do gay weddings?

[280plus]

The point is:

Did the photog have at least a verbal contract with the couple PRIOR to her finding out it was a gay wedding? If so she violated her contract, plain and simple. Plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with anyone forcing her to do anything. She forced herself by agreeing to photog the wedding. She then renegged on the agreement when she found out it was gay. Sure, she can do that, but she's violating an implied contract and that gives them recourse.

Same with me, I could back out of my contract because I discriminate against the gay community (sorry, I don't) but she would have legal recourse to sue me. Not because I'm discriminating against her but because we have a contract that I failed to honor. It's all very legal. And at least in CT a verbal contract is every bit as binding as a written one. Besides, her money is just as green as everybody else's.

What she needs to do in the future is inquire as to the nature of the wedding and if it doesn't suit her fancy just say no to it. She doesn't have to give a reason. Or she could say, Sorry, we don't do gay weddings." Maybe she should just put "We refuse to photograph gay weddings" plainly in her advertising and on her cards.   

[AmbulanceDriver]

280, I would tend to agree with you if there had been a contract.  Even if it were a verbal contract, I'd tend to agree with you.  BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS NOT SUED FOR VIOLATING A CONTRACT!

Instead, she TOLD the complainant that she wouldn't photograph their wedding because they were gay.  Exactly what you were suggesting they do.  And the gay couple filed a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The commission found that the photographer's business was a "public accomodation", and therefore COULD NOT CHOOSE who they did business with.  From the linked article:

The commission viewed Huguenin's business as a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or a store.

[wmenorr67]

So maybe that is a way for CCW'ers to get around the places who ban CCW in their places.  Because the right to self defense is a basic human right.

[Perd Hapley]

And AmbulanceDriver nails it.  I haven't seen any reports that they broke a contract.  If 280 has any, he should share.  The info that I have states that they are being hassled for discrimination. 

In the meanwhile, let's be careful not to call anything an abomination, unless 280 says so.  Sorry God, this guy on the internet tubes said you were wrong, so...   

[BrokenPaw]

For the record, since I tend to be the one who comes out (so to speak) in support of a lot of gay causes here, I'm entirely appalled that someone in business should be forced to do business with someone else, by the state, regardless of why.

If the photographer does not wish to do business with a certain segment of society, that is her right.  She will gain goodwill with some potential customers who support her position, and she will likely lose the potential business of other gay customers (which she doesn't want anyway), and whether that is a sound business decision is something that the market should decide.

It's a nasty inconvenience, to be sure.  If she backed out right away when she found out it was a couple she did not want to work with, then that's where it should end.  If she waited and waited, and backed out at the last minute, then that's pretty darned rude.  (Last summer I was called upon to do an emergency marriage ceremony for a Pagan couple whose officiant canceled out five days before the wedding -- he'd known about their faith for five months, but didn't tell them he could not work with them until the very last minute.  What he did was entirely his right, but it was still unconscionably rude).

Even if there was a verbal contract in place, that was made before the photographer was made aware of the full circumstances of the gig, then she was within her rights to back out.  If she made a written contract, knowing the couple was gay, and then backed out, she's in breach, and it's actionable.

The couple in question should really be happy that she backed out; another possible outcome would be for the photographer to (whether consciously or not) sabotage the results.  Better to find a new photographer that would not have a negative mindset toward the couple, than to force the issue with one who does.

-BP

[RocketMan]

Good summary, BrokenPaw.  You put it together nicely.

[SteveS]

280, I would tend to agree with you if there had been a contract.  Even if it were a verbal contract, I'd tend to agree with you.  BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS NOT SUED FOR VIOLATING A CONTRACT!

Instead, she TOLD the complainant that she wouldn't photograph their wedding because they were gay.  Exactly what you were suggesting they do.  And the gay couple filed a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The payoff for a civil rights violation is much greater than for a breach of contract.  That being said, without seeing the contract, I don't know what claims are valid.

[taurusowner]

Oh, murderers, rapists, child molestersthat whole lot,,,I'll agree those people are an abomination in God's eyes.

So now you're saying that it IS ok to call something an abomination, so long as the world uses YOUR definition?

[taurusowner]

Good point BrokenPaw.  But you're assuming the couple in question simply wants to have some nice photos taken and be done with it.  However, the amount of fuss and lawyering over this leads me to believe their is a lot of vindictive emotion against the photog and her ideals.

They aren't suing for breach of contract and physical damages;having to find a new photog, new date, pay more money, etc.

They are trying to punish someone for having ideals that are opposed to their own.  And they are trying to use the hammer of .gov to force the photog and her ideals into submission.

[gunsmith]

Ok! thats it!
I'm calling FLDS & telling them!

rapists, child molestersthat whole lot,,,I'll agree those people are an abomination i

Seriously, I'm guilty of this too but I would never admit it.
I do not pick up young people that dress like gang bangers in my cab, I used to, but they proved themselves incapable of both paying and being nice, & the police simply shrug their shoulders over 5 dollar fares,  20 of them adds up quickly.

There was a Democrat Convention in Reno recently, I gave a political lecture ( to a D delegate in my cab ) about how I stopped voting Dem after 20 years of loyal voting due to 2A.
The captive audience theory.
Why would gay people WANT someone who dislikes them being their photog
anyway? 
Whats to stop the Westboro cult from forcing gay photogs to cater to "God hates fags"  parties?

[Balog]

An excellent point gunsmith. Would you still have your panties in a bunch there 280 if an incognito WBC member hired a gay photog to shoot a "God hates fags" themed event and the photog reneges on the contract? And given how lawsuit happy the WBC'ers are, doing that just to have grounds to sue isn't unfathomable.

[gunsmith]

An excellent point gunsmith.

Of course it is, I am incredibly intelligent, as well as really, really humble.

[Balog]

I attended a conference a few weeks back and had the privilege of seeing a very cool man named Dr. Gish speak. After a glowing introduction he began his remarks with "Yes, I'm a very humble man and I want the whole world to know it."

[BrokenPaw]

Good point BrokenPaw.  But you're assuming the couple in question simply wants to have some nice photos taken and be done with it.  However, the amount of fuss and lawyering over this leads me to believe their is a lot of vindictive emotion against the photog and her ideals.

I was mostly speaking about this sort of situation in general; I didn't actually read the article.  If this particular couple is playing the victim card simply because the photographer was up front and told them "sorry, I can't work with you", then I've no sympathy for the couple at all, and I hope their bid to win the Civil Rights Violation Lottery fails miserably.

In fact, kudos to the photographer: she knew that she had a moral problem with the couple, and she probably also knew that if she swallowed her principles and shot the gig anyway, she'd have a negative attitude during the whole thing, and the results would not be her best work.  And a couple that hires a photographer deserves that photographer's best effort.

I, as a minister, have turned away a couple who wished me to perform their wedding ceremony.  Not for anything as general as this, but because I knew that I could not place myself and my reputation in the position of endorsing a union that I believed to be wrong.  The photographer was doing the same thing; refusing to put her reputation and support behind something she believed was wrong.

Whether the couple has reason to feel vindictive toward this photographer in particular, or toward The Man in general, is immaterial to the case; if the photographer dealt honestly, then she should be on the right side of the law.  The fact that the couple had been made to feel disenfranchised by others (speculation on my part) is not the photographer's fault, and not the photographer's responsibility to make good.

-BP

[Dntsycnt]

Bigotry cannot be legislated away.  It has to be a voluntary process.  The photographer should not be forced to do anything, unless a breach of contract was made.

[280plus]

Well, apparently I read too much into the article. I see it does not say that she had a contract but it appears she refused outright when first asked. Maybe next time she'll make up some lame excuse instead. I thought she had agreed, showed up, found out it was gay and THEN walked off. Still if the state has an anti discrimination law and she violated it, well, that's the way it goes. If she'd like to have the law changed she needs to do something about it. I wish her luck in her appeals. I can tell you I was refused an apartment because I had a beard. The NAACP said I had a case, I didn't feel like pursuing it, I probably should have. Discrimination is discrimination and in some places it's been made illegal because enough people don't like it. I'm one of them.

Oh, murderers, rapists, child molesters that whole lot,,,I'll agree those people are an abomination in God's eyes.

So now you're saying that it IS ok to call something an abomination, so long as the world uses YOUR definition?

Don't think I didn't see that one coming. Yes, in my humble opinion murderers, rapists and child molesters are an abomination in God's eyes and that's about it. Two consenting adults who are productive law abiding members of society and are doing nothing illegal but violating someone else's ideas of morality are not. That's MY opinion, if yours differs there's not a lot I can do about that but I know I won't be changing mine to suit yours.

Now, the photog's lawyer is screaming first amendment. What about this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Does it say, "with the exception of the gay community" in there anywhere? If the gay community finds happiness in being able to marry one another, who are we to put restrictions on them? Like I said, too many people in this country concern themselves with things that are really none of their business. I think it's a big bunch of BS over what amounts to nothing more than semantics. If they had called me, I would have treated them with the same professionalism and respect as everybody else. I find it disheartening that so few people seem to feel the same way.

And quite honestly, if the photog lived in my neck of the woods, it's be a cold day in hell before she got any of my business.

[BrokenPaw]

I can tell you I was refused an apartment because I had a beard. The NAACP said I had a case

The National Association for the Advancement of Chin Pelts?     Why would the NAACP have a dog in the fight over whether a you were a victim of whisker discrimination?  Or was the beard thing merely a canard so as to not have to claim you weren't the right shade of Western European to live there?

-BP

[Dntsycnt]

While I agree with you almost completely, 280, and think that if the .gov is going to step in on discrimination at all, they should include sexual orientation, I don't think the government has any place dictating who private businesses work with.  Doubtless this may inhibit the homosexual's exercise of his/her constitutional rights, but the constitution limits the government, not the people and their private agreements.

[MechAg94]

Does it say, "with the exception of the gay community" in there anywhere? If the gay community finds happiness in being able to marry one another, who are we to put restrictions on them? Like I said, too many people in this country concern themselves with things that are really none of their business. I think it's a big bunch of BS over what amounts to nothing more than semantics. If they had called me, I would have treated them with the same professionalism and respect as everybody else. I find it disheartening that so few people seem to feel the same way.

And quite honestly, if the photog lived in my neck of the woods, it's be a cold day in hell before she got any of my business.

Hey, thats great.  If you choose to help them, more power to you.  That is your choice.  Same for you choosing to not give that photographer any business.  For the same reasons, it was her business to choose not to accept them as a customer; her choice. 

No one is stopping gay couples from getting married either, but there is already another long thread on that, no reason to expand on it here. 

[280plus]

Well, then you need to get together and start a grass roots effort to get all the anti discrimination laws around the country rescinded. Maybe they're right, maybe the supreme court will strike down the NM law as unconstitutional on that basis. That people's first amendment rights are being violated by anti discrimination laws when they cite their religion as a reason for the discrimination. Fascinating.

Remember, we the people put the laws in place, not the gov. Interesting arguments though, I can see the point if you look at it as the "gov" doing it, but when you realize the people are the gov it takes on a whole different light. Enough people in her area felt it prudent to put an anti discrimination law on the books, she chose to violate that law. What can the gov do? It must uphold the law. They're saying what she did was no different than a restaurant refusing to serve them because they are gay, or black etc etc...

[Perd Hapley]

"To each his own, that's all. It's their business, nobody else's. I would have just done my job because I'm a professional. I suppose I should tell the lesbians I'm working for right now that I'm walking off the job because of something occurring in their private lives that doesn't concern me at all. People just got to learn to get along."
-- 280plus

"And quite honestly, if the photog lived in my neck of the woods, it's be a cold day in hell before she got any of my business."
-- 280plus


Wait.  I thought you were a professional, and you just did your job.  What does this lady's choice of clients have to do with whether her AC works?  Why can't you just learn to get along?   

[Perd Hapley]

That people's first amendment rights are being violated by anti discrimination laws when they cite their religion as a reason for the discrimination. Fascinating.

Actually, I think of it as their basic liberties being violated by being forced to serve someone they don't wish to serve.  Religion really has little to do with it.  And yes, although there are bigger fish to fry, there should be a grass-roots effort to allow discrimination in private business, for any reason.  It's something called freedom.  I support the rights of religious conservatives, homosexuals AND racists. 

I can see the point if you look at it as the "gov" doing it, but when you realize the people are the gov it takes on a whole different light.

No.  No, it doesn't.  Neither the people, nor their elected officials should be forcing a homosexual Buddhist to photograph a traditional Catholic wedding, or vice versa.

[mek42]

I'm against the State forcing religions to marry anyone they do not see fit to.  The State, however, should not have the same luxury, but that was a different thread.

There's still some things missing here.  How did the photog people decline?  I can see "ZOMG you're lesbians?!  You evil scum need to be burned!" could lead to a "Well, yeah?  You too and my attorney / gov stick is bigger than yours." type of response.  If the photogs were jerks, the lesbian couple, not having anything to lose and wanting to be jerks back were fine bringing up the suit.  Eye for an eye and all.  If however, the photogs were more like, "Um, you know, we haven't ever done something like this and aren't sure we could do proper justice to your special day, let me call a couple colleagues who have done this in the past though," then the couple must've just been a real prick (collectively) to bring the suit or were making a political statement - still a pricky thing to do, to answer politeness with a big stick.  The real situation is likely somewhere in between.

According to NM law, "sexual orientation" is one of the conditions it is illegal to discriminate against with respect to "public accommodation".  The court decided that "public accommodation" included the services of a photographer who, otherwise, generally offers their services to the public.  I looked a little bit and failed to find a NM definition of "public accommodation" with respect to the NMHRA.  Assuming that said definition cannot be reasonably interpreted as a business offering services to the general public somehow not being a "public accommodation" then this was a correct decision in compliance with NM law.

[280plus]

Wait.  I thought you were a professional, and you just did your job.  What does this lady's choice of clients have to do with whether her AC works?  Why can't you just learn to get along?

You're misinterpreting. I said SHE wouldn't get any of MY business. Not the other way around, although I'll admit if I knew of her discriminatory ways prior to my engaging in work for her I'd be inclined to give her a dose of her own medicine. Why not? What I'd do differently would be quote her an astronomical price. That's how we tell each other we don't want certain business, not, "I don't do gay weddings."

Religion really has little to do with it.

Religion has everything to do with it, she's claiming her religious beliefs preclude her from photographing the wedding. How is religion not involved here?

Neither the people, nor their elected officials should be forcing a homosexual Buddhist to photograph a traditional Catholic wedding, or vice versa.

That's fine, but until you strike the anti discrimination laws from the books that's exactly what you have.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

these "commisions can be a hoot. 1978 was hauled before one to answer to charges that i/we only served black folks carryout whilr allowing white folks to sit. bear in miind that this would be financial suicide in new carrolton md. and ignore the fact that it was a black guy who owned the majoity of the place