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

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. If they refused to photograph a clan event or a neo-Nazi event they would face the same discrimination claims.

This thread is about the NM Photographer, and at this point the governing ruling is the NM Supreme Court which addressed that very issue:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would meanthat an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku KluxKlan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political groupmembership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.
See
§ 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.​

So no, if a black photographer refused to photograph a Klan rally because it was a Klan rally, they would not face the same legal charges under the NMHRA because as a political group they (The KKK) are not covered under the law. Now if the photographer was dumb enough to say "I don't photograph white people" (and they were in a Public Accommodation business), then they could call under the law. However if the response is "I don't photograph Klan rallies." then they are good to go.

Remember this thread is about NM law and not California law which had the Unruh Act expanded by the CA Supreme Court to cover all discrimination.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


>>>>

 

[AGENT J]

this is so easy i dont get it

in the PUBLIC realm we all have to play by the same rules/laws of a public access business

if a person is to bigoted and or uncivil to play by these rules the solutions are very easy and common sense based

1.) you dont go into public access business
2.) you dont do anything that may offend you so easily or its counterparts. IE if you are christian you can say you wont do gay weddings but then do bar mitzvahs, you option is to do NOTHING religious
3.) open up a private practice like out of your home or online like the bakery did

they were smart and learned from their first mistake, it was stupid to be a bakery and do wedding cakes and thing you wouldnt get a wedding you disagreed with so now they run there company on line so they arent public access and or dont know their customers


if you break law there will be repercussions

 

[maquiscat]

if you break law there will be repercussions

This here is the heart of the argument. We're saying that the non-discrimination laws should not exist, nor the current legal idea of "public access business", that they are a violation of private property rights.

 

[AGENT J]

This here is the heart of the argument. We're saying that the non-discrimination laws should not exist, nor the current legal idea of "public access business", that they are a violation of private property rights.

yes i get this pot and logically i could never stand behind that opinion nor is there anything logical that can make me agree with it
i just cant support things like that empower bigots and discrimination in that fashion.

the laws are already on the books, state constitutions and precedence (mention the 14th) already exist and i hope it expands.
Like in my state there are laws and ordinances in most cities but its not state wide yet, well for sexual orientation its not. I hope it is.

of course im not saying "you" SUPPORT that either but it would definitely empower it. No thanks, never. I could never even think about condone that in this country.
Im totally fine with the common sense solutions in post 577.

now mind you if you want to talk P.O.T., philosophy, opinions and theories im fine with that as long as it starts from an honest place which YOU seem to do IMO.

Are you one of those people that believe a public access business or org should be able to discriminate/hire/fire as they want for any reason?

 

[Deuce]

Wrong. If they refused to photograph a clan event or a neo-Nazi event they would face the same discrimination claims.

But those claims would fail because "racist" is not a protected classification like race, religion, or in some cases sexual orientation.

 

[maquiscat]

Are you one of those people that believe a public access business or org should be able to discriminate/hire/fire as they want for any reason?

I don't believe in the concept of a "public access business". It's either a private entity or a government entity. To claim anything else, IMO, is to be dishonest over private property rights and to create a legal fiction as to what is private and what isn't.

 

[AGENT J]

I don't believe in the concept of a "public access business". It's either a private entity or a government entity. To claim anything else, IMO, is to be dishonest over private property rights and to create a legal fiction as to what is private and what isn't.

so thats a yes, you are one of those people that believe a public access business or org should be able to discriminate/hire/fire as they want for any reason?

i am not and never will be because i could never support that type of discrimination and bigotry.

where is your line at?

should st lukes hospital be able to deny me visitation rights to my wife if we werent married under their religion? what about not treat gays in the ER?
should a company be allowed to not hire any minorities or whites or women simply based on that?

im driving in the Midwest, say im priest, im in my religious dress, i dont have a cell phone and i have diabetes.
i finally make it to a gas station i need to use the payphone and by orange juice cause im having an episode, the owner is a muslim, he doesnt allow me in and says im an infidel. not having access to that phone or sugar i die, this what you want?

now did i lay it on thick in that story? absofreakinglutley
is it soaked in an appeal to emotion? yep that too

but the reality is that could happen and i dont want laws empowering things like that

the reason why we can have this discussion is basic, you admit that you are just stating your opinion which ties into your honesty

 

[The Baron]

Wrong. If they refused to photograph a clan event or a neo-Nazi event they would face the same discrimination claims.

Oh, I very much doubt that!

 

[The Baron]

I'D WRITE A CONTRACT that if tose images are used in public in any shape form or way I could sue their asses off for several reason one of them being if my business is associated with those organizations known hate groups it would be detrimental to my image that I have invested time and money into. Gays are not a known hate group.

No one is claiming that they are a hate (although what they did to this couple is certainly hateful). They are just a group as is any other.

But you and disneydude both agree that not only should they be forced to photograph a same-sex wedding but also Nazi events, KKK events and "kill white-y" events.

And, frankly, I'm a little shocked by that.

 

[TiredOfLife]

I got a question. Where does it end? What if this same couple did not want to photograph a Klan event? Or a Nazi event? Or didn’t want to take pictures of people celebrating Luis Farrakhan’s Annual “Kill a White-y” day (O.K., I just made that one up)?

They’re Christian and don’t approve racism. Is it acceptable to not allow them to participate in those activities? I think that we would all agree that it is. So is it only acceptable for them to not participate in activities that the politically correct elitist deem acceptable but not others that they deem unacceptable?

Now whose rights are being trampled? Now who’s “ruling” over whom?

This gay couple was not denied life-saving drugs or procedures. They were not denied something that is provided to everyone regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation like a Happy Meal. A Christian just didn’t want to take pictures of something that is offensive

Then don't take wedding pictures because some of them are now gay, and legal, but refusing someone service because they are gay isn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. If they refused to photograph a clan event or a neo-Nazi event they would face the same discrimination claims.

Oh, I very much doubt that!

You are correct. The court addressed that very scenario:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku KluxKlan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally."​

The Kan as a political organization is not protected, according to the NM Supreme Court, under the law. If the photographer said they refused because the people at the event were white, then they would have been in violation of the law. However to refuse based on the Klan as a political organization is perfectly legal.



>>>>

 

[Rickey]

I would like to say you that why would you want a photographer that doesn't want to picture you wouldn't you anticipate to get substandard service in this situation awful images from said person...........!!!

 

[winston53660]

I would like to say you that why would you want a photographer that doesn't want to picture you wouldn't you anticipate to get substandard service in this situation awful images from said person...........!!!

A photographer is only as good as their last shoot.

 

[winston53660]

You are correct. The court addressed that very scenario:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku KluxKlan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally."​

The Kan as a political organization is not protected, according to the NM Supreme Court, under the law. If the photographer said they refused because the people at the event were white, then they would have been in violation of the law. However to refuse based on the Klan as a political organization is perfectly legal.





>>>>

I would take the Klan gig. They might not like the image I made they might even refuse to pay but I would make sure the image is put out into public

 

[maquiscat]

The Kan as a political organization is not protected, according to the NM Supreme Court, under the law. If the photographer said they refused because the people at the event were white, then they would have been in violation of the law. However to refuse based on the Klan as a political organization is perfectly legal.

So then a person would be allowed to refuse service to the Black Cacaus(sp?) or even the NAACP since they are political organizations and are not protected, correct?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Klan as a political organization is not protected, according to the NM Supreme Court, under the law. If the photographer said they refused because the people at the event were white, then they would have been in violation of the law. However to refuse based on the Klan as a political organization is perfectly legal.

So then a person would be allowed to refuse service to the Black Cacaus(sp?) or even the NAACP since they are political organizations and are not protected, correct?

The answer to your question is containing the the very text you quoted.

If the person cites a reason as "no I won't serve them since their are black people", then they would be in violation of the law. In the other hand if they won't provide a service to the political organization - then that is permitted under the law as stated by the NM Supreme court. It doesn't matter that one political organization is the KKK and the other is the NAACP.


>>>>

 

[maquiscat]

The answer to your question is containing the the very text you quoted.

If the person cites a reason as "no I won't serve them since their are black people", then they would be in violation of the law. In the other hand if they won't provide a service to the political organization - then that is permitted under the law as stated by the NM Supreme court. It doesn't matter that one political organization is the KKK and the other is the NAACP.

So then by stating that one does not politically believe that same sex marriages should be allowed, while not noting anything about gyas specifically, then they are covered.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The answer to your question is containing the the very text you quoted.

If the person cites a reason as "no I won't serve them since their are black people", then they would be in violation of the law. In the other hand if they won't provide a service to the political organization - then that is permitted under the law as stated by the NM Supreme court. It doesn't matter that one political organization is the KKK and the other is the NAACP.


>>>>

So then by stating that one does not politically believe that same sex marriages should be allowed, while not noting anything about gyas specifically, then they are covered.

You really aren't serious with this are you? Go to NM open a florist shop, refuse to provide services to an interracial marriage and try that line in court. Bring your check book.

God, I can't believe I even need to explain this. The KKK and NAACP are incorporated on non-profit political organizations. It has nothing to do with "political belief", it has to do with the organization not being protected.


>>>>

 

[maquiscat]

You really aren't serious with this are you?

I am serious insofar as I see this as an outright abridgement of individual association and property rights. While it entails the opposite end of the spectrum, these laws are exactly the same as Jim Crow laws in that they remove the right of the business owner to choose whom and whom not to do business with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am serious insofar as I see this as an outright abridgement of individual association and property rights. While it entails the opposite end of the spectrum, these laws are exactly the same as Jim Crow laws in that they remove the right of the business owner to choose whom and whom not to do business with.

Don't confuse discussing a law and how it functions as "support" for the law, it's a common mistake. Just because I agree that a law is unjust, doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. However being "constitutional" does not mean they should be in place and under the 10th Amendment state have the power to create laws managing business practices within the state as long as those laws have general applicability.

I agree, in opinion, and support the repeal of federal and state level Public Accommodation laws. Private business owners should be able to determine how their personal property and services are provided to the public. For business owners: If a florist doesn't want to provide flowers to an interracial marriage - that should be legal, if a photographer doesn't want to photograph a same-sex wedding - that should be legal, if a Jewish deli owners doesn't want to serve a brisket sandwich to a Muslim - that should be legal, if a guy wants to have a "no females allowed" bar - that should be legal. Etc.

As I said in another thread, we used to have:

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 50 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 2 generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 2-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination.

But in general the widespread issues from 50 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List other photographers in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>