p.9 #1 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
mr. peepers - homosexuals were added as a protected class in New Mexico sometime after 1955. Forgive me for not clarifying. I assumed that was a given - my bad.
My analogy didn't connect. The point was, I sign that says "I can do what I want" isn't worth the paper it's printed on when there's a law that says the opposite. Certain laws prohibit refusing service, which is the point of this thread.
Really I don't need to many any arguments on anyone's behalf as I don't have a dog in this hunt. The ruling was by a panel of 3 appointed commissisoners - the photography business was in violation of state code. Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund will appeal the case in state District Court.
It should be noted that this case was unique. Usually the complainant asks for damages - not so here.
Edited on Apr 12, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Apr 12, 2008 at 04:16 PM
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.9 #2 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
tomKphoto wrote:
I discriminate. If you tell me you're getting married in a venue I hate at 12 noon in mid-August ... "I'm booked that day". Somehow I think this fits.
Hehe, me too I guess. Never thought of it that way before though
Edited on Apr 12, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Apr 12, 2008 at 04:32 PM
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.9 #3 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
You can refuse service to anyone in the US and do so legally I believe. Just depends on why you refuse to serve them.
If your reasoning is discriminatory, you will be liable.
p.9 #4 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Saad Syed wrote:
Lesbian is not a race, it's more of a choice regarding lifestyle and sexuality. However, some people have claimed to have been born homosexual. ::shrug::
Moreover, this is about morals and religious values. The Christian photographers have morals where they see the ACT of homosexual practice as bad or disagreeable. There is no ACT of being African American or Latino.
There is something that these two women are doing that these photographers do not agree with. These days, we paint everything with a large brush of political correctness and assume everything is racism.
If there is a potential client that you find out sells drugs or eats too many chocolate snicker bars or uses foul language or tickles you in a way you don't like to be tickled... and if any of these actions are against your values, beliefs, and religion... then by all means, you should have the right to deny service.
There are restaurants that don't offer service if you don't have a shirt and shoes. There are plenty of crazies that can walk in barefoot, get denied service, and then sue for discrimination because not wearing shoes is part of their no name religion. This day and age, they might actually win.
Lastly, EVERYONE has beliefs. The lesbian couple BELIEVES what they are doing is right and the Christian photographers are wrong. The Christian photographers BELIEVE what the couple is doing is wrong and that they are right to deny service. It's all about beliefs. So now, the court has to literally sit there and JUDGE whose BELIEFS are more significant and correct.
p.9 #5 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Saad Syed wrote:
Lesbian is not a race, it's more of a choice regarding lifestyle and sexuality. However, some people have claimed to have been born homosexual. ::shrug::
Did you choose to be straight?
Moreover, this is about morals and religious values. The Christian photographers have morals where they see the ACT of homosexual practice as bad or disagreeable. There is no ACT of being African American or Latino.
I suppose some might see the ACT of heterosexual practice as bad or disagreeable. Should they be able to refuse service?
There is something that these two women are doing that these photographers do not agree with. These days, we paint everything with a large brush of political correctness and assume everything is racism.
What these women are doing is confirming their love for each other. A love that is as natural to them as a man's love for his wife (and v. versa). It is not some insidious plot to destroy America's families and tear apart the foundations of society.
If there is a potential client that you find out sells drugs or eats too many chocolate snicker bars or uses foul language or tickles you in a way you don't like to be tickled... and if any of these actions are against your values, beliefs, and religion... then by all means, you should have the right to deny service.
The problem with this comparison is that these are all choices one can make. Again, did you choose to be straight?
Lastly, EVERYONE has beliefs. The lesbian couple BELIEVES what they are doing is right and the Christian photographers are wrong. The Christian photographers BELIEVE what the couple is doing is wrong and that they are right to deny service. It's all about beliefs. So now, the court has to literally sit there and JUDGE whose BELIEFS are more significant and correct.
No it is not about belief. It is about discrimination. If you believe that blacks are inferior and refuse to serve them, you may be following what you believe, but you are still discriminating based on something no one has control over. A black person cannot change the color of his/her skin and had no choice in the matter. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It is something innate to a person. Science has been bearing this out for years now.You no more choose to be gay than you choose to be straight. Unless you also like to believe that people can be "cured" of homosexuality.
And regardless of what your beliefs may be, in the state of New Mexico it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Don't want to do their wedding because they're gay? Guess what, you're breaking the law.
p.9 #6 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
I honestly wouldn't care if my female fiance and I were turned down by a homosexual photographer on the basis that he or she didn't agree with my actions. Everyone now days just has to be the victim of something don't they?
p.9 #7 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
> And regardless of what your beliefs may be, in the state of New Mexico it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Don't want to do their wedding because they're gay? Guess what, you're breaking the law.
Frankly, I think this could be overturned on appeal to the District Court. Same sex marriages aren't legal in New Mexico, so what the gay couple asked for wasn't Wedding Photography, it was event photography outside of the scope of Elaine Photography's service menu. If same sex marriages were recognized by New Mexico, then a clear case of discrimination could be made. Now, if Elaine Photography had a reputation for photographing public events of all kinds, and closed the door at this gay event - then there's discrimination. It seems based on Elaine Photography's record of service to the public.
p.9 #8 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
adamp88 wrote: Did you choose to be straight?
The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1][2]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.
Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races, are social constructs.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
p.9 #9 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Devin Hillam wrote:
I honestly wouldn't care if my female fiance and I were turned down by a homosexual photographer on the basis that he or she didn't agree with my actions. Everyone now days just has to be the victim of something don't they?
That's fine if you don't care, but the law wouldn't be so cavalier about the whole thing.
p.9 #10 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
tomKphoto wrote:
> And regardless of what your beliefs may be, in the state of New Mexico it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Don't want to do their wedding because they're gay? Guess what, you're breaking the law.
Frankly, I think this could be overturned on appeal to the District Court. Same sex marriages aren't legal in New Mexico, so what the gay couple asked for wasn't Wedding Photography, it was event photography outside of the scope of Elaine Photography's service menu. If same sex marriages were recognized by New Mexico, then a clear case of discrimination could be made. Now, if Elaine Photography had a reputation for photographing public events of all kinds, and closed the door at this gay event - then there's discrimination. It seems based on Elaine Photography's record of service to the public....Show more →
That's actually a very good point. Hmm.
If Elaine Photography had accepted other, straight clients who wanted "commitment ceremonies" photographed (maybe agnostics/atheists,new age hippies, who knows ), then that would be a problem, though.
p.9 #11 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
A private photographer should be allow to accept or decline work for any reason or no reason. Race, sexual orientation, economic class, religious persuasion, whatever.
p.9 #12 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
John Power wrote:
A private photographer should be allow to accept or decline work for any reason or no reason. Race, sexual orientation, economic class, religious persuasion, whatever.
No, this is not correct. A photographer is a business when it comes to the declining and accepting of work. Declining a job on the grounds you suggest is racist discrimination.
Preventing such discrimination is but one reason people have organized themselves into societies with (generally) well considered laws.
p.9 #13 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
John Power wrote:
A private photographer should be allow to accept or decline work for any reason or no reason. Race, sexual orientation, economic class, religious persuasion, whatever.
The 'any reason or no reason' portion of your response is - as I am reasonably sure you are aware - a paraphrasing of a US supreme court ruling regarding an employer having fired an employee on discriminatory grounds. That phrase has subsequently found its way into many boiler-plate disclaimers of dubious validity.
p.9 #14 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Interesting thread, with some interesting but misinformed thoughts.
Personally I would refuse to accept this assignment because I would do a lousy job if I were doing it-- because I would find it disagreeable. I was actually queried once to do this kind of ceremony this year. BTW, every same-sex ceremony I've seen photographed (here on FM) looks like a reserved, dull ceremony with a lot of emotional baggage/reservations. Even Eminavin did a below-his-own-standard job of photographing a same-sex ceremony.
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Nope - not at all. You do not do boudoir. You make no discrimination. If you advertised that service and then declined on the basis of sexual orientation - that is discrimination.
Tom, one of the basic lessons of the new testament is that we all sin, no matter what. To quote Wikipedia, "the Greek word in the New Testament that is translated in English as "sin" is hamartia, which literally means missing the target." (the New Testament was originally written in Greek). The Law is impossible to follow perfectly for your whole life, because it is impossible to be perfect. The point is to strive to follow the law, that your heart is in the right place even if you do miss the target. And the whole reason for Jesus is to forgive us for that sin.
Steve Spencer wrote:
When Christians provide services for others they are never condoning the beliefs and practices of those to whom they are providing services. Christians are responsible for their actions in providing the services. They are not responsible for the actions of their patrons or how they use the services.
Steve: Jesus didn't sit down with the people selling their baubles at the temple and buy + sell stuff, then calmly tell them that he disagreed with their actions. He didn't participate in the actions-- he refused to accept it. That is our example.
And to RWR: Do you propose the Boy Scouts allow girls to enroll? Or the Girl Scouts to allow boys? By your logic, you should be allowed to shower in the girls locker room (discriminate on gender), American Airlines should allow 90 year olds to fly airplanes (discriminate on age), and doctors with advanced Parkinson's do brain surgery (discriminate on disability).
Also to RWR: the US constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. The authors themselves did not deny this. All governments form their basis of law on some basic, general principles- don't kill, respect property, etc-- where do the principles themselves come from? They come from God. Of course there's a lot of difference in how it's encoded and especially how it's enforced, but even Hitler's 3rd Reich had murder and robbery as crimes on the books.
p.9 #15 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
No, this is not correct. A photographer is a business when it comes to the declining and accepting of work. Declining a job on the grounds you suggest is racist discrimination.
Preventing such discrimination is but one reason people have organized themselves into societies with (generally) well considered laws.
Are you not getting this? A photographer is essentially a PRIVATE business. A PRIVATE can choose NOT to photograph you because you might be butt ugly. Is that racist? Or just petty? You can argue all you want. This decision WILL inevitably get overturned. Mark my words. Capito?
p.9 #16 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
> This decision WILL inevitably get overturned
Some of the most certain cases never go as planned. Don't wager your money on jury (or Judge) outcome. It's an inexact science at best.
Edited on Apr 12, 2008 at 09:58 PM
Apr 12, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #17 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Interesting thread, with some interesting but misinformed thoughts.
Steve: Jesus didn't sit down with the people selling their baubles at the temple and buy + sell stuff, then calmly tell them that he disagreed with their actions. He didn't participate in the actions-- he refused to accept it. That is our example.
Andrew I think you missed the point of the money changers being thrown out of the temple. The point is, as I see it, they were desecrating the temple with their actions and the temple needed to be protected and restored to it proper function. The modern day application of this text is within the community of believers. Those who are openly corrupting that community need to be thrown out for the good of the community. Sadly this lesson has often been ignored. Immorality is often ignored (think of the sex scandals in recent decades). Fraudulent money grubbing is often glamorized (think of many tele- evangelists). It is these people that deserve the outrage that Christ showed for the money changers in the temple. Christians need to hold those within the community to high standards, but this in no way negates the command to love the neighbor. To apply this passage to how people outside this community should be treated I think is to fundamentally misunderstand the passage.
A far better example is how Jesus treated the woman at the well in John 4. In this passage Jesus meets a woman who He knows is living in sexual immorality. He waits on her by getting water for her from the well--something that was against the customs of the day. He kindly engaged her in conversation and treated her with respect despite the fact that she was a despised outgroup member (a samaritan) among his own group (Jews). He then told her to turn back from her sin but again with kindness, understanding, and respect. Let this be the example that Christians follow, and save the outrage for those within the community who are desecrating the name of Christ and preventing the Church from functioning as it should.
p.9 #18 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Boy Scouts allow girls to enroll? Or the Girl Scouts to allow boys? By your logic, you should be allowed to shower in the girls locker room (discriminate on gender), .
In fact they do now. And, then there is the notion of reasonable accommodation.
p.9 #19 · Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony
Andrew Welsh wrote:
All governments form their basis of law on some basic, general principles- don't kill, respect property, etc-- where do the principles themselves come from? They come from God. .
