Photographers Denied the Freedom To Choose What They Photograph

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography (http://www.elanephotography.com/) with her husband. The bulk of Elane's work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock's same-*** commitment ceremonies (http://volokh.com/files/willock2.pdf), and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held (http://volokh.com/posts/www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElaneRuling.pdf) that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney's fees and costs.

http://volokh.com/posts/1207764182.shtml

More on this

http://volokh.com/posts/1207766763.shtml

http://volokh.com/posts/1207768055.shtml

[California Joe]

Why didn't she just say she had another wedding booked?

That's pretty "gay" of New Mexico.

[Nano]

I'd say this can be appealed. There seems to be some unconstitutional grounds as well. This seems oddly stupid for a business of this sort to do, but if someone forgoes business, because their client might be gay or is gay then they are really only hurting themselves. This is bad PR in any case for the business. I would probably just pay up and call it a day and hope the right wing bloggers don't run with it.

[Dasein]

Actually, no. A business is being punished for discriminating against a segment of the population the state has seen fit to protect with anti-discrimination laws. That the business happens to be engaged in 'art' is no defense - one could argue that a chef is engaging in an 'art', but that doesn't give him the right to refuse to serve blacks or Jews at his restaurant.

[helomech]

That's pretty "gay" of New Mexico.

Niiiiiiice.............. :)

[WarriorMonk]

all you have to do is this:

"whoops finger slipped."

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Actually, no. A business is being punished for discriminating against a segment of the population the state has seen fit to protect with anti-discrimination laws. That the business happens to be engaged in 'art' is no defense - one could argue that a chef is engaging in an 'art', but that doesn't give him the right to refuse to serve blacks or Jews at his restaurant.

Well that's not what the manager down at Hatey McClannington's told me.

[CantGetRight]

this is infuriating, so are many of the other cases that the alliance defense fund is countering, for america to get to this point is a shame. i almost feel its a sub-characteristic of evil to be loud outspoken and aggressive, while the majority of people sit idly

[Dasein]

this is infuriating, so are many of the other cases that the alliance defense fund is countering, for america to get to this point is a shame. i almost feel its a sub-characteristic of evil to be loud outspoken and aggressive, while the majority of people sit idly


Yeah, it's a shame that business cannot engage in discrimination anymore. Do you really pine for the days of Jim Crow laws?

[Aerosoul]

At first I thought this was going to be about photographers being told not to photograph some public area, which has been happening and I'd really love to go on a tangent about that.

But this is almost equally as stupid.

[Nano]

Actually, no. A business is being punished for discriminating against a segment of the population the state has seen fit to protect with anti-discrimination laws. That the business happens to be engaged in 'art' is no defense - one could argue that a chef is engaging in an 'art', but that doesn't give him the right to refuse to serve blacks or Jews at his restaurant.

I understand the point of anti-discrimination laws in the work place and hiring, but really lets be honest some of these laws are over stepping their point intended. Forcing someone to provide a service in return for monetary gain has some eerie similarities with slavery. If they feel so strongly why don't they hire a new photographer and take their business elsewhere altogether. The photographer comes out loosing in both public perception and their long term finances are damaged. I can tell you that this photographer probably has no business running a business. Bigots even hire and do business with people they don't like.Why? It is business nothing personal.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well it is interesting. It's obviously a very small business - the company probably couldn't just send another photographer who didn't mind the same-*** thing out to do the shoot. So then that brings up the idea of personal religious convictions - if a pharmacist can refuse to hand out the morning-after pills based on their religious beliefs - can't these folks refuse work for the same reason? Not sure what the law is in NM regarding that...just throwing' it out there.

[Surf City]

Why didn't she just say she had another wedding booked?

That's pretty "gay" of New Mexico.

CJ, New Mexico is pretty "gay".....not that there's anything wrong with that!p-)

New Mexico has bigger issues it needs to address like poverty, illegal immigration, education, unemployment, crime......mutants wreaking havoc from their caves at White Sands......

Heck, they have an idiot for a governor who's more interested in growing his beard and being in the national spotlight than taking care of his constituents.

Why should the photo studio have to pay? If they're stupid enough to refuse business (especially in N.M.) then let it be there loss. In this day and age seems "outing" this establishment as anti-gay would probably do more damage than making them pay $6000 in court. IMHO, money seems to be the motivating factor in this whole thing instead of taking the moral high ground! Just my $.02.......

[Dasein]

Well it is interesting. It's obviously a very small business - the company probably couldn't just send another photographer who didn't mind the same-*** thing out to do the shoot. So then that brings up the idea of personal religious convictions - if a pharmacist can refuse to hand out the morning-after pills based on their religious beliefs - can't these folks refuse work for the same reason? Not sure what the law is in NM regarding that...just throwing' it out there.

The difference with the pharmacist example is that the pharmacist is not discriminating against any particular group.

[Macs.]

Actually, no. A business is being punished for discriminating against a segment of the population the state has seen fit to protect with anti-discrimination laws. That the business happens to be engaged in 'art' is no defense - one could argue that a chef is engaging in an 'art', but that doesn't give him the right to refuse to serve blacks or Jews at his restaurant.

So, I must serve anyone ?

Sorry, that's just silly. No one should be pushed to do anything. If I run a business I can choose myself who I might serve and who not. The market is regulating itself.

It's not a god-given right to have people serve you. Some people are really walking on red socks.

[Bulletproof]

Human Rights Commission huh? What a joke. Just another twit who's exploiting the system for it own profit. Choosing another photographer without making a scene? Big deal.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The difference with the pharmacist example is that the pharmacist is not discriminating against any particular group.

Oh sure they are - abortion is a religious issue, and the pharmacist is practicing religious discrimination against somebody with different religious beliefs.

I do seem to remember though...that in order to do that, the customer still has to be able to get the happy pills from somebody else. The pharmacist can't say no if they're the only one there.




Major pharmacy chains such as CVS Corp., Rite-Aid Corp. and Walgreen Co. also have pledge to ensure that customers can buy Plan B, even if one employee declines to provide service for reasons of conscience.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17537102/


...so, if this is ok because of "reasons of conscience" - why isn't declining services at a crazy pants wedding?

Photography services arranged months ahead of time are hardly as critical as medication needed ASAP - so it would seem to me that the client would have ample opportunity to find somebody else.

[Henry's Fork]

So, I must serve anyone ?

Sorry, that's just silly. No one should be pushed to do anything. If I run a business I can choose myself who I might serve and who not. The market is regulating itself.

It's not a god-given right to have people serve you. Some people are really walking on red socks.

Exactly. Thats why you sometimes see these great signs in businesses.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3316/400wereservetherightpicqw6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1868/16468993105e6f2ade6un8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Dasein]

So, I must serve anyone ?

Sorry, that's just silly. No one should be pushed to do anything. If I run a business I can choose myself who I might serve and who not. The market is regulating itself.

It's not a god-given right to have people serve you. Some people are really walking on red socks.

You have the right to refuse service in certain cases, but not to discriminate against a protected class of people, generally defined by things like race, ethnicity or religon.

[Macs.]

You have the right to refuse service in certain cases, but not to discriminate against a protected class of people, generally defined by things like race, ethnicity or religon.

A protected class of people, what's that now ?

And who comes up with these rules ? God ?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You have the right to refuse service in certain cases, but not to discriminate against a protected class of people, generally defined by things like race, ethnicity or religon.

Yeah well I get that...but it seems like we selectively enforce that kind of thing. If a guy applies for a job as a Hooter's waitress, they get to discriminate against him based on his ***, and refuse to hire him. The EEOC drops those cases. Just kinda seems like these poor folks are being made an example of because they've committed the ultimate sin in our society. Well that and the fact that right or wrong, there's money to change hands and commissions to be made.

[Dasein]

Oh sure they are - abortion is a religious issue, and the pharmacist is practicing religious discrimination against somebody with different religious beliefs.

Abortion is not a specifically religious issue - it is an ethical, legal and public policy issue, but one where opinions cut across all religious lines.


...so, if this is ok because of "reasons of conscience" - why isn't declining services at a crazy pants wedding?

Because by declining said service in the wedding, one is violating state anti-discrimination laws.


Photography services arranged months ahead of time are hardly as critical as medication needed ASAP - so it would seem to me that the client would have ample opportunity to find somebody else.

Perhaps this would serve as a valid defense, I do not know the specifics of the appeals process.

[Dasein]

Yeah well I get that...but it seems like we selectively enforce that kind of thing. If a guy applies for a job as a Hooter's waitress, they get to discriminate against him based on his ***, and refuse to hire him. The EEOC drops those cases. Just kinda seems like these poor folks are being made an example of because they've committed the ultimate sin in our society. Well that and the fact that right or wrong, there's money to change hands and commissions to be made.

There's not so much selective enforcement so much as exemptions for legitimate business needs. For example, if a job requires a certain degree of physical mobility, one could discriminate against someone who is handicapped and thus unable to meet the requirements.

[Dasein]

A protected class of people, what's that now ?

A protected class of people would be a group of people with a common identifier like race, ethnicity, gender or religion who one is not allowed to discriminate against on the basis of said identifier.


And who comes up with these rules ? God ?

No, generally the applicable legislative body, most likely the state or federal legislatures.

Do you really not believe there are such things as anti-discrimination laws?

[Henry's Fork]

A protected class of people would be a group of people with a common identifier like race, ethnicity, gender or religion who one is not allowed to discriminate against on the basis of said identifier.



No, generally the applicable legislative body, most likely the state or federal legislatures.

Do you really not believe there are such things as anti-discrimination laws?

Sounds like some sad ass elitism to me. Some groups are deemed more worthy of protection than another....disgusting.:cantbeli:

[Andrew Chalmers]

Did anybody actually read the ruling? :| The link posted above doesn't even work.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElaneRuling.pdf

The New Mexico Human Rights Act is a state civil rights law and is intended to guarantee full and equal services and accommodation to all people regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, ***, ****** orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, or physical/mental handicap.

Different states have different laws & the hypos presented so far did not occur in New Mexico. But more generally, I'll suspect pharmacists in New Mexico who refuse to file a prescription will likely not violate the rights law based on religious grounds because they are not discriminating against the customer based on the customer's religious affiliation; there is no selective service/denial of service based on the customer's religious affiliation. They may however, violate other laws.

Federal law prohibits most services and accommodations from discriminating based on race. Roughly speaking, the federal Constitution has not been interpreted to protect that sort of "political speech." Bigots are free to tell minority clients of their political distaste, but can't deny them their service.

There's nothing new going on here - only new thing is that New Mexico decided to make ****** orientation, among others, a trait for which those engaging in services and accommodation cannot discriminate.

Moose Lodges that have a selective membership can still be bigoted and admit only white males.

[Dasein]

Sounds like some sad ass elitism to me. Some groups are deemed more worthy of protection than another....disgusting.:cantbeli:

Not really, no. Basically, every religion, race, gender and ethnicity is protected, as anti-discrimination laws are phrased in such a way that one cannot discriminate on the basis of any of the identifying characteristics. Thus, it's not as though Catholics, Jews and Buddhists are protected, but Muslims, Hindus and Protestants are not. Rather, one cannot discriminate on the basis of any religion (barring some exceptions, like religious organizations who can in some cases).

[Calanen]

A protected class of people, what's that now ?

And who comes up with these rules ? God ?

No, your elected representatives. It's the reason why you refuse service that is the problem, that is, because that person belongs to a protected class.

[Henry's Fork]

Not really, no. Basically, every religion, race, gender and ethnicity is protected, as anti-discrimination laws are phrased in such a way that one cannot discriminate on the basis of any of the identifying characteristics. Thus, it's not as though Catholics, Jews and Buddhists are protected, but Muslims, Hindus and Protestants are not. Rather, one cannot discriminate on the basis of any religion (barring some exceptions, like religious organizations who can in some cases).

One law already covers that, why the need to "phase" in new laws for different groups then?


A protected class of people would be a group of people with a common identifier like race, ethnicity, gender or religion who one is not allowed to discriminate against on the basis of said identifier.

There is no need to put identifiers into a law that already makes any discrimination whatsoever illegal. Discrimination is Discrimination period.

Its the eliteism of the different groups that need to pass extra frivolous laws to make themselves feel better about standing out in the crowd, that gets to me. Like hate crime laws.....what a joke. Frivolous feel good laws that do nothing but create more red tape and divide the races further.

[Andrew Chalmers]

One law already covers that, why the need to "phase" in new laws for different groups then?


There is no need to put identifiers into a law that already makes any discrimination whatsoever illegal. Discrimination is Discrimination period.

Its the eliteism of the different groups that need to pass extra frivolous laws to make themselves feel better about standing out in the crowd, that gets to me. Like hate crime laws.....what a joke. Frivolous feel good laws that do nothing but create more red tape and divide the races further.

Please... tell me which law makes "any discrimination whatsoever illegal."

[Midav]

It was their right to refuse. End of story.

How often do I see Native Preferred signs for job openings out here?

That's been going on a LOT longer.