p.7 #1 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
I agree about the comparison to Rosa Parks, it's not even close. Rosa Parks was not seeking to gain finacially from her actions. Rosa Parks did not have a choice to simply ride on another bus line because the first one made her sit in a seat she didn't want to.
I don't have a problem with the photographer not wanting to shoot the event. A business is allowed to choose which clients it does work with. As a registered engineer I don't have to sign & seal drawings for you just because you are going to pay me. And good luck winning any lawsuit against me.
Also, I don't have a problem with the Les. couple complaining about not getting photographed. I know that I have written many complaint letters to businesses when I've been unhappy with my experience with them. Not having been in the situation yet, I would like to think that I would be ademently opposed to anyone or group being fined just becaused I complained about something like this.
What I do have a problem with is the New Mexico Consumer Cousel imposing a 6,000 fine. Admittedly I am not a lawyer and have no idea what sort of local laws are in place; however, if I were the photographer I would consulting with a lawyer about a counter-suit against the Counsel.
P.s. - I may have mis-read what was posted earlier about doctors helping people in an emergency where it was life threatening. They are morally, ethically and LEGALLY bound to help that person. The law also guarentees them that they will get paid rendering that help. Now that's not say they need to help in every situation, just the life threatening ones.
p.7 #3 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
darryn patch wrote:
The only people who can be sued for discrimination are straight white people.
Certainly in the UK, some of the laws make it narrower than that:-
If you are not Heterosexual, you are protected. (Sexual orientation discrimination, Whichever Act that is)
If you are not white-skinned, you are protected. (Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 [Uk])
If you are young, you are protected. (The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 [Uk])
If you are old, you are protected. (The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 [Uk])
If you are disabled, you are protected. (Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 [Uk])
If you practice various mainstream religions, you are protected. (Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 [Uk])
If you are a Women, you are protected. (The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 [Uk])
Yes, I know the laws actually cover you either way but it would seem that the person least likely to win any form of action would be a straight, white, middle-aged, able-bodied, Athiest man.
p.7 #5 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Turn the tables and see if it makes sense:
Should the homosexual couple be fined if they were to refuse to provide services to a Christian group holding a marriage amendment rally?
Equal treatment under the law?
Apr 12, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #6 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
paulhodson wrote:
Well - that's OK - but if that then means that the government of Zimbabwe (as a random example) has been established by God it is somewhat disconcerting to see Robert Mugabe as an agent of God's wrath.
Well the passage does not say that everything that the ruler does God says is o.k. Reading the Bible as a whole this would make no sense at all. Even Mugabe, however, does at times carry out justice as it should be carried out. Even in Zimbabwe I would think there must me some times when actual criminals who actually commit crimes are put in prison. It might even be the case (although I haven't studied the situation well enough to actually take a position) that it was just of Mugabe to take the farms of some of the White land owners in Zimbabwe. So although it might be disconcerting, in my view it can be understood that even an awful and often cruel ruler like Mugabe can be seen as an agent of God's wrath, but keep in mind this is not a sanctioning of all the actions by this ruler.
Let me also note that the passage I quoted and others also makes it clear when Christians are to disobey the government. They are to do so when they cannot carry out God's commands and particularly His command to love the neighbor. One historical example of this principle put into practice is the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. You probably know that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and his Christianity deeply guided his convictions and his rationale for the civil disobedience. For King and the many Christian leaders in the civil rights movement, all Christians were obligated to disobey segregation laws because to not do so was not to follow God's law to love their Black neighbors who were being harmed by these laws. In a similar way Christians in Zimbabwe would likely find many laws that they would be obligated to disobey because to not do so would be to violate God's law to love their neighbors.
And this reasoning makes is quite clear why this case with Christian photographers is so different from the civil rights movement. How is denying to provide a service that you feel is good and you provide to others an act of love? I can't see how it could be understood as such and therefore the photogs should be obeying the government rules in this case.
Edited by Steve Spencer on Apr 12, 2008 at 08:52 AM GMT
p.7 #7 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
You're not reading.
First, it wasn't a Christian couple, it was a business entity which doesn't have the same individual freedoms persons do. Second, yes, if a business that catered to GLBT events quickly closed the door on the request for pricing and availability by a Christian group then they would be subject to the same judgement.
p.7 #8 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
I would think there's a strong case for an appeal here as same sex marriages aren't recognized by the State of New Mexico ... so one could argue that no wedding was taking place, and the Photography company was simply not offering a type of service, and the Gay inquiry got the same response that the request to photograph a cow branding (or other event off the menu) would get.
p.7 #9 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
On a constructive note, what should Elaine Photography's response should've been? Pretend you've gotten this request and want to comply with the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, but don't want to provide the service for personal reasons. What do you say?
p.7 #10 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
There are two things that I am inclined to consider.
First, there may be some details that we, as the public, are not aware of.
Second, if there is a legitimate law that applies to the photographers and the judge determines that they violated the law and/or prior rulings, the judge has no other choice but to assign penalties, and the legislators now have the basis for which to reconsider the viability of the law as being too broad and, therefore, necessitating amendments.
p.7 #11 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
In response to tomKphoto's question:
"Pretend you've gotten this request and want to comply with the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, but don't want to provide the service for personal reasons. What do you say?"
As several have already noted, the distinction between corporation and person is at issue here. The company could provide the service by hiring or subcontracting the work out to someone with no personal objections to the civil union. If the photographers/owners are unwilling to do this, or at least attempt to do so, they are making the legal mistake of confusing their personal rights and responsibilities with those of the company.
p.7 #12 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
tomKphoto wrote:
On a constructive note, what should Elaine Photography's response should've been? Pretend you've gotten this request and want to comply with the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, but don't want to provide the service for personal reasons. What do you say?
Glad to see the thread has not been deleted or locked, as the discussion has remained civil.
As to their response, you may have uncovered a graceful way out. They could simply say they don't cover civil unions (or cow branding) and therefore can't perform the service for them.
The question then becomes, what will the couple do? In this case, they were probably looking to create some trouble and still might take action. Then it puts the courts, or commision, in a position of determining if civil unions are equal to marriages and therefore the photographers should provide coverage. Since the government has said that civil unions are not marriage, the photographers might get out of being fined.
But then again, the courts might still fine the photographer saying that for all practical purposes the ceremony is the same. It wouldn't be the first time that the law swings both ways. Just look at abortion (not trying to create yet another controversy here, just making a point). A woman can have one legally. A man that beats a woman and causes a miscarriage is charged with murder. Yet Roe v. Wade says that aborting a fetus is not murder.
I think the real lesson here is, stick to your morals, look for a graceful way out and hope for the best. But in either case, be ready to accept any consequences.
p.7 #13 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Lynn Teague wrote:
In response to tomKphoto's question:
"Pretend you've gotten this request and want to comply with the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, but don't want to provide the service for personal reasons. What do you say?"
As several have already noted, the distinction between corporation and person is at issue here. The company could provide the service by hiring or subcontracting the work out to someone with no personal objections to the civil union. If the photographers/owners are unwilling to do this, or at least attempt to do so, they are making the legal mistake of confusing their personal rights and responsibilities with those of the company. ...Show more →
In the end, corporations boil down to people. Making someone do something against their religion is theororetically unconstituional. So as the employees of the company, they may not feel they should perform the service or even help find someone who will. If there are no other employees of the company that feel fine with the doing the service or helping find someone who will, then what?
What if the couple say as part of their business practice they don't contract out jobs; should they be forced to now?
p.7 #16 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Please forgive the confusion. You responded to my post with long prose but failed to answer the question (which prompted the "are you in politics?" question).
Pretend you've received an eMail inquiry to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. How do you respond to this inquiry, obeying the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, yet taking yourself out of a job you'd rather not do. What do you write?
This could provide some sort of roadmap to others who might find themselves in this situation.
p.7 #17 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Please forgive the confusion. You responded to my post with long prose but failed to answer the question (which prompted the "are you in politics?" question).
Pretend you've received an eMail inquiry to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. How do you respond to this inquiry, obeying the New Mexico Civil Rights Act of 1955, yet taking yourself out of a job you'd rather not do. What do you write?
This could provide some sort of roadmap to others who might find themselves in this situation.
p.7 #18 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
I thought I answered it in my initial response to your post when I stated that you may have come up with a graceful way out. The rest of the post just carried the situation further. My posts have been to get people thinking, including myself. We often hear an issue and immediately come to a conclusion about it. Except for the simplest issues, most issues have many facets. We should all step back and examine things from all sides before forming our conclusion.
But to be more clear, my response before this thread might have been similar to the photographers in question. My response now might be different, largely based on Steve's input. I really don't know. As a Christian, I want to do the right thing whatever that is.
p.7 #19 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Here's one idea ...
Dear xxxxx. Thank you for your inquiry regarding photography on <date>. We are currently available for service on that day. Attached please find a pricing menu for our services formatted as a PDF file. In the interest of disclosure, please note that XXXXXX photography has never photographed a same-sex ceremony and likely wouldn't be your best vendor choice.
