NM Supreme Court: refusing to photograph Gay wedding a Violation of Human Rights.

[cpwill]

Precedent Alert.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).
The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.

Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”


The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Bosson wrote. Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”


Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”
...

 

[avery45]

Precedent Alert.

You would think the need for money would trump any prejudice.

 

[cpwill]

You would think the need for money would trump any prejudice.

:shrug: every once in a while, people get the crazy idea that in this country we recognize the freedom of conscience.

 

[StillBallin75]

Not a violation of human rights, but possibly one of discrimination law?

 

[avery45]

:shrug: every once in a while, people get the crazy idea that in this country we recognize the freedom of conscience.

It would be compared to the civil rights movement and colored bathrooms.

Don't people get quotes from different sources and then select the best one? What if the defendant just would have said not available that day?

 

[JayDubya]

How is it that we let so many illiterates have the job of upholding a plain English document?


Coercing someone to give custom when they do not wish to is the only rights violation here.

 

[lizzie]

Not a violation of human rights, but possibly one of discrimination law?

I wouldn't think so, assuming that the photographer is free to photograph whatever and whomever he chooses, and based on a professional fee for his/her services. Iow, if I am a professional photographer, and I have an ethical or moral issue with fighting dogs, but someone wants to pay me for photographing their championship fighting dog, am I legally obligated to do so?

 

[Perotista]

Precedent Alert.

With any law passed, some portion of the population loses some of their freedoms. One must hope that a vast majority of the population gains rights from the law passed or greatly benefits the vast majority over that minority that loses some of their freedom.

I am assuming Elane Studio’s is white owned and everyone knows what they say about assumptions. But would Elane Studio’s refuse to photograph the marriage of a black couple, a mixed race couple? There was a time in our history when refusal to do so was legal and perfectly acceptable.

Being Elane studio’s is a private business, shouldn’t they be able to pick and choose whom they offer their services to? Elane’s isn’t government run. Do anti-discriminatory laws actually lead to the end of discrimination? Or do they just give everyone access to goods and services offered by whomever while the prejudice remains adamant in the hearts of those providing the service? Have we, as a nation really progressed in that area of hate and bigotry or has our laws just put this hate and bigotry below the unseen surface by making by law, private business serve one and all?

Have we become a society with smiles on the outside and daggers pointed at the heart on the inside. Of some anyway, where true feelings and actions lay hidden. I really don’t know.

 

[Quag]

Why would you want a photographer that doesn't want to photograph you? Wouldn't you expect to get inferior service in this case lousy pictures from said person?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Precedent Alert.

Here is the real question, why did they refuse to do it? Was it for religious purposes? If so, that wasn't a violation of ANYTHING.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Are they going to force guests to come to the wedding?
Are they going to force guests to bring a gift?

Next up, they are going to force doctors to perform abortions.

Are there really so few photographers that they had to harass this one because they didn't want to do their wedding?

 

[TiredOfLife]

Here is the real question, why did they refuse to do it? Was it for religious purposes? If so, that wasn't a violation of ANYTHING.

That's not actually true. If you run a hotel and an interracial or unmarried couple comes to stay and you refuse them on religious grounds, you're screwed. It's a balance between the needs of others and your religious freedom. In the case the balance falls on the money of what you don't approve of is just as good as what you do and your are a business so take the cash, it's business not personal.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Why would you want a photographer that doesn't want to photograph you? Wouldn't you expect to get inferior service in this case lousy pictures from said person?

That could be a concern but when you hire a professional you expect them to act professionally.

 

[Quag]

That could be a concern but when you hire a professional you expect them to act professionally.

I would agree but by expressing their desire to not take you on as a client because of their personal bias they have already acted in a non professional way

 

[brothern]

Here is the real question, why did they refuse to do it? Was it for religious purposes? If so, that wasn't a violation of ANYTHING.

The motiviation of discriminatory actions is not considered in New Mexico law:

28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

- See more at: Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. - New Mexico Statutes

 

[CanadaJohn]

I have to say I don't in the least see how a photographer has any grounds for withholding services based on the sexual orientation of the client.

Now, that's not to say that any business person shouldn't be able to reject a job offer from any person, but to specifically state that it's because of sexual orientation seems odd to me. How about Muslim weddings - are they out of bounds too? Divorcees remarrying without a church annulment - are they out of bounds?

Too many people today are far too judgemental of other people.

And I'll tell you what, from what I've read and heard, gay people getting married or doing most anything are often pretty affluent and spend lots of money on such things and they spread around good reviews to their wide circle of friends and acquaintences and bad reviews spread even faster and wider. So it's a pretty dumb business move to lop off a big chunk of business and create bad publicity.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

That's not actually true. If you run a hotel and an interracial or unmarried couple comes to stay and you refuse them on religious grounds, you're screwed. It's a balance between the needs of others and your religious freedom. In the case the balance falls on the money of what you don't approve of is just as good as what you do and your are a business so take the cash, it's business not personal.

Racial issues and gay issues are not equal. Just saying.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The motiviation of discriminatory actions is not considered in New Mexico law:

That makes the statute unconstitutional.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Racial issues and gay issues are not equal. Just saying.

I believe that they are since they all have the same lofty goal, Equality.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I believe that they are since they all have the same lofty goal, Equality.

But then anyone can scream equality for ANYTHING and have it treated as equal. :roll:

 

[TiredOfLife]

But then anyone can scream equality for ANYTHING and have it treated as equal. :roll:

That's not true either. I can't demand that you photograph my **** fights, they're illegal, but my gay wedding, it's a wedding and it's legal.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

That's not true either. I can't demand that you photograph my **** fights, they're illegal, but my gay wedding, it's a wedding and it's legal.

In some places. I have the right to deny service to anyone. I am not required by the Constitution to do anything I believe against. I have freedom of religion and free excercise of that religion. Not to mention that lately liberals have changed the definition of discrimination to say sexual orientation. It's absurd.

 

[TiredOfLife]

In some places. I have the right to deny service to anyone.

Where? And there always has to be a reason, a very good one as a matter of fact, not just I don't like blacks or Jews and it's my hamburger joint.

 

[brothern]

Coercing someone to give custom when they do not wish to is the only rights violation here.

Humans deserve rights, not ideologies. The photographer was not being abused because of her religion, she was using her religious beliefs in a confrontation in the hopes of getting Christianity a special consideration in the public. Meaning that it's not about her rights, it was about the right of her religion to discriminate. We cannot allow any ideology to be given that consideration. If ideologies are protected, what happens to the people that contradict or fail to abide by those ideologies?

Beliefs do not have the right to take rights away from other people. Human rights are about protecting individuals and not religions, ideologies and beliefs.

 

[JayDubya]

Humans deserve rights, not ideologies.

The human rights of the photographer ARE violated if the government forces her to give custom.