Should a photographer be required to shoot a gay wedding?

[WriterDom]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

Oh good grief. That's putting the "injured party" a shtick a bit too far. I wonder if the photographer told the couple that when they approached her to photograph the wedding or if the photographer backed out at the last minute.

If it was the former, no harm - no foul.

 

[intothewoods]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

I haven't read this story, but my first thought is, okay, they're suing. Doesn't mean they won anything.

Putting that little fact aside, the situation is kind of interesting. A business can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender ... is sexual orientation in that state's discrimination law? If you had said the photographer refused to photograph a couple because they are black, you know that would be a much different case.

On the other hand, photography, particularly wedding photography, isn't like selling widgets. The photographer often becomes very close with the couple, even seeing them in various stages of undress in some instances. I also think even homophobes are entitled to their opinions, including that homosexuality is wrong. I disagree with the opinion, but they are entitled to it.

Here's a question I'd ask the photographer - does she look into the "sins" of every straight couple who comes to see her, or is it just gay people?

 

[WriterDom]

I looked for a link but couldn't find one. Just heard it on Faux news.

Depending on where it happened, shooting a gay wedding could potentially hurt a photographer's business. Small town America isn't very gay friendly. Outside of Key West.

 

[YourCaptor]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

If this happened on the wedding day, as in everyones all ready for the photo and the photographer backs out. Then that photographer deserves a hit to the business. However if the couple wanted the higher the photographer, but the photographer refused, then a nice stain on the record would be appropriate.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Putting that little fact aside, the situation is kind of interesting. A business can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender ... is sexual orientation in that state's discrimination law? If you had said the photographer refused to photograph a couple because they are black, you know that would be a much different case.

On the other hand, photography, particularly wedding photography, isn't like selling widgets. The photographer often becomes very close with the couple, even seeing them in various stages of undress in some instances. I also think even homophobes are entitled to their opinions, including that homosexuality is wrong. I disagree with the opinion, but they are entitled to it.

Here's a question I'd ask the photographer - does she look into the "sins" of every straight couple who comes to see her, or is it just gay people?

Lit's Perry Mason has spoken.

 

[midwestyankee]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

Let's see the whole story before we jump to conclusions.

It's my view that anyone who raises an issue like this for discussion has a civic responsibility to provide the facts of the matter. Otherwise it's a case of fomenting angry discourse for no good reason.

 

[graceanne]

If I was gay, I wouldn't want someone that anti-gay at my wedding. I think they're both the sue happy kind.

 

[Netzach]

If she wants to kill her own business I suppose that's her problem. However if she didn't make up some excuse for why she wasn't comfortable doing the work rather than informing them they're going to hell, she's a double idiot. You never HAVE to work with anyone, "I'm busy" usually suffices. It's called tact.

As for the couple, oh for F's sake. Yes, there are bigots in the world. Go get mad at Guantanemo or China or your stupid state laws that probably prohibit your little exercise in partying from having any actual legal standing. You know how you had to pay 250 for a name change and get lawyers and I didn't have to because my partner has a penis? THAT's the thing to get mad about.

People's priorities are really dumb.

 

[graceanne]

If she wants to kill her own business I suppose that's her problem. However if she didn't make up some excuse for why she wasn't comfortable doing the work rather than informing them they're going to hell, she's a double idiot. You never HAVE to work with anyone, "I'm busy" usually suffices. It's called tact.

There is that, too. I mean if they really wanted to they could just make sure that everyone knows what's going on, and her business will drop drastically. And a social lie would have got her out of it. "I'm busy." is a good one, but so's "I'll be on vacation."

 

[DeservingBitch]

If she wants to kill her own business I suppose that's her problem. However if she didn't make up some excuse for why she wasn't comfortable doing the work rather than informing them they're going to hell, she's a double idiot. You never HAVE to work with anyone, "I'm busy" usually suffices. It's called tact.

As for the couple, oh for F's sake. Yes, there are bigots in the world. Go get mad at Guantanemo or China or your stupid state laws that probably prohibit your little exercise in partying from having any actual legal standing. You know how you had to pay 250 for a name change and get lawyers and I didn't have to because my partner has a penis? THAT's the thing to get mad about.

People's priorities are really dumb.

Yeah, that.

Unless she is the only photographer in town, in which case her refusal to offer her service to them has a little more consequences, why in hell would you want to work with, let alone pay someone who's a homophobic asshole?

Sure it's discrimination, sure it sucks, but like Netzach said, priorities people. I would be more inclined to sue these assholes.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I'm certainly not about to judge the merits of the lesbian couple's case against the photographer since I have no information beyond the original post.

That being said, the photographer is entitled to decide who they accept contracts to do business with at their own discretion. Period. End Of Discussion. NO PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER anywhere, is required by law, to provide their services to everyone who asks.

However, IF (and this is the ONLY "if" that should have any bearing in the case) there was a signed contract, then the photographer should have gone and completed the assignment, or given reasonable notice (and in the case of a wedding, to ME reasonable would have been 4 to 6 weeks out, 2 would be cutting it close, any less than week would be clearly unreasonable, but I am not the judge in this case and we don't know if any notice was given) that they would not be able to complete their portion of the contract.

That's it. WHY the photographer didn't fulfill the contract is grounds for adjusting the judgement against the photographer if found at fault for breech of contract. But if the photographer refused to even take the contract, then this is a frivolous law suit at best. Though obviously the couple found an attorney to take the case so perhaps it has some merit.

Bigots abound. Pinheads, jerks, dickweeds, and asshats. The world is FULL of haters and ultra fanatics of all political, economic, sexual and social orientations.

If you don't subscribe to their beliefs, you don't do business with them. Kinda like one of our local Barbeque magnates. The man makes absolutely BRILLIANT barbeque. I LOVE the stuff. But several years ago he started putting out white supremacist and uber conservative, right-wing Christian pamphlets in his restaurants, flying the Confederate Battle Flag in front of ALL of his restaurants, etc. Fuck it. He's not gotten one dime of my business since he started that crap.

The NAACP called for a tourism boycott of my entire state over the battle flag flying at the statehouse, and called for a boycott of the barbeque business too. But it certainly hasn't seemed to have majorly hurt his business with the blacks in the local community. I go by his stores everyday and see African-American managers, servers, and customers... but I have to go with my conscience, and I'm voting with MY dollars going to other barbeque places.

Soooo... if the photog signed a contract, sue them and good luck. If they didn't sign a contract, quit whining and go elsewhere. There are other shutterbugs who would be grateful for the business.

 

[snowbyte]

From what I recall, you typically have a contract with your wedding photographer. If both parties signed the contract and the photographer backed out (especially if it was at the last minute) the couple has good cause for a lawsuit. Without the contract, they can still sue, but they're effectively screwed.

 

[Netzach]

The public bus driver here though, who would not drive because the local gay paper had an ad on the side of the bus?

Fire her ass.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

The public bus driver here though, who would not drive because the local gay paper had an ad on the side of the bus?

Fire her ass.

In that case, you have a worker refusing to perform their assigned duties. IF the worker can justify their refusal on religious grounds (similar to a Quaker in the military refusing to carry a weapon as a "conscientious objector") then you re-assign them a bus and they drive. But if it's the only bus available and the route needs to run, then they need to suck it up and drive.

If reasonable accomodation attempts have been made and the driver still refuses to drive, well then, fire her happy hiney indeed.

 

[WriterDom]

I agree with you EG about the battle flag. It has no business at the courthouse. And I'm glad Georgia changed our flag.

The flag alone wouldn't keep me from my favorite BBQ place. But uber conservative, right-wing Christian pamphlets? Not cool.

 

[intothewoods]

I dug around and found this discussed elsewhere, but not a real news story. At any rate, it appears that there is a New Mexico Human Rights Commission that is supposed to investigate claims of discrimination in emloyment, housing and public accomodations. The photographer was fined the cost of the couple's attorneys fees. They obviously wanted to make an example of her, not literally force her to photograph their wedding.

At any rate, I'm just wondering if a service provider is different than a restaurant. A privately owned restaurant cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender, and sometimes sexual orientation if the state constitution or law covers it. So are photographers treated differently under the law? It sounds good to say that the person is a private businessman, but so is the restauranteur. I guess I'm just not sure.

 

[EmpressFi]

I dug around and found this discussed elsewhere, but not a real news story. At any rate, it appears that there is a New Mexico Human Rights Commission that is supposed to investigate claims of discrimination in emloyment, housing and public accomodations. The photographer was fined the cost of the couple's attorneys fees. They obviously wanted to make an example of her, not literally force her to photograph their wedding.

At any rate, I'm just wondering if a service provider is different than a restaurant. A privately owned restaurant cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender, and sometimes sexual orientation if the state constitution or law covers it. So are photographers treated differently under the law? It sounds good to say that the person is a private businessman, but so is the restauranteur. I guess I'm just not sure.

I thought most private businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...

around here the big thing was when Geno's steaks refused to take down their sign that said orders must be placed in English... the sign's still up.. courts said he could keep it up..

 

[intothewoods]

I thought most private businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...

around here the big thing was when Geno's steaks refused to take down their sign that said orders must be placed in English... the sign's still up.. courts said he could keep it up..

This is kind of a good explanation. http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13721.html

I think the key may be public accomodations, like a restaurant, rather than an individual service provider. There's kind of an expectation that a restaurant will generally serve most people, whereas a photographer picks and chooses. I do feel like the photographer's freedom should be respected, but I also kind of think if you're any kind of business, you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, and whatever ele is protected under your state's discrimintion laws. It seems like it should be an expectation of doing business.

 

[Netzach]

This is kind of a good explanation. http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13721.html

I think the key may be public accomodations, like a restaurant, rather than an individual service provider. There's kind of an expectation that a restaurant will generally serve most people, whereas a photographer picks and chooses. I do feel like the photographer's freedom should be respected, but I also kind of think if you're any kind of business, you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, and whatever ele is protected under your state's discrimintion laws. It seems like it should be an expectation of doing business.

If you can't handle taking the cash of people you may not agree with, you may need to go look for a less pluralistic society to be in.

 

[Netzach]

In that case, you have a worker refusing to perform their assigned duties. IF the worker can justify their refusal on religious grounds (similar to a Quaker in the military refusing to carry a weapon as a "conscientious objector") then you re-assign them a bus and they drive. But if it's the only bus available and the route needs to run, then they need to suck it up and drive.

If reasonable accomodation attempts have been made and the driver still refuses to drive, well then, fire her happy hiney indeed.

She's not being asked to kill anyone she's being asked to drive a bus. What they put on the side of it is their business. Muslims have to drive with beer ads, I would hace to drive with an ad for the republican convention, it's a degree of suck up and cope that modernity demands.

As a kind of creative, though I can sort of see her point. You are conflated with your work as a photographer or a designer or a speechwriter in a way that you're not when you're just driving the six route. So these decisions driven by reputation and not just cash become a bit more nuanced. If I were totally paranoid about being tainted with gay marriage cooties, I'd probably not take the job. Again, how you turn it down, and what the cost of turning it down can be should be weighed.

Frankly people are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that this IS going to happen. Whatever road blocks you want to put up, gay people have been falling in love, making lives together, and bonding for millenia with worse challenges. Might as well cash in.

 

[snowbyte]

I thought most private businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...

Signing a contract to deliver services is a completely different matter. I don't have to (typically) sign a contract to eat at a restaurant. If I did, I would be on pretty good grounds to sue them if they did refuse to service me.

 

[JMohegan]

A lesbian couple is suing a photographer for refusing to take the pictures based on her religious beliefs. The way I see it its the couples responsibility to find someone willing to do the work.

The way I see it, it's the photographer's responsibility to comply with anti-discrimination laws in her state.

The way I see it, this has absolutely nothing to do with the photographer's right to personal religious beliefs and practices, and everything to do with the photographer's prejudice, absence of moral fiber, lack of common decency, and urge to impose her own religious beliefs on other people.


From the website of the group supporting the photographer:

ADF to appeal N.M. commission's ruling against Christian photographer

April 09, 2008

ROSWELL, N.M. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission Wednesday because of its “stunning disregard” for the First Amendment. The commission found an Albuquerque photography company, run by a Christian husband and wife, guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination under state antidiscrimination laws for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

“Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs anymore than anyone else should,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission’s decision shows stunning disregard for our client’s First Amendment rights, and we will appeal this ruling in state court.”

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that the two women wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico.

Elaine Huguenin declined because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The commission held a one-day trial in January (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4369).

Wednesday the commission issued an order finding that Elane Photography engaged in “sexual orientation” discrimination prohibited under state law and ordered it to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the two women who filed the complaint.

“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”

A copy of the commission’s order in Willock v. Elane Photography is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElaneRuling.pdf.

 

[intothewoods]

Signing a contract to deliver services is a completely different matter. I don't have to (typically) sign a contract to eat at a restaurant. If I did, I would be on pretty good grounds to sue them if they did refuse to service me.

Not really. There is an implied contract when you eat at a restaurant. It's just not written.

 

[midwestyankee]

We still don't know the whole story here as the link that JM provided was to documents put up by the legal team defending the photographer. That said, I'll take these documents at face value and infer that the photographer refused the business of the couple in question during their initial meeting and that this was not a case of a broken contract of any kind.

We still don't know:

• What the anti-discrimination laws of New Mexico have to say about the behavior of for-hire businesses such as a photographer.
• The manner in which the photographer refused the business, though the motivation has certainly been made clear after the fact.
• The motivation of the litigating couple. Often a lawsuit like this is filed in order to challenge the constitutionality of existing law. Since there appears to be a law regarding discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, it doesn't seem likely that the couple is trying to challenge the law (unless it's perceived to be too weak?).

I'm very reluctant to discuss a specific legal case without knowing many more of the particulars than we have here. Until we know more, I'll opt out of discussing this case in particular.

However, as a private for-hire business person, I know that one of the privileges that I treasure is the ability to say no to an inquiring client. If I think that I have reason to not want to work with someone - and it's usually for reasons of differing business philosophies since that's an important part of what I do - then I respectfully say that I don't think we'll have a good enough rapport to do effective work together. As far as I know, I'm not bound by any laws regarding this kind of choice on my part.