pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal
#1
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356...ling-beard

By Sterling Beard
August 22, 2013 4:39 PM

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.”
Live Free or Die
Reply
#2
And so ends the right of a private business owner to serve whom they want IF they want..... Now government is telling us that we HAVE to provide a service to others no matter what our personal feelings are about it.....
You want to take my guns away ???? SCREW YOU ............
Reply
#3
You're only as free as the government and their favored special interests let you be.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#4
I wonder if the court would rule the same way if a gay photographer refused to photograph a Christian wedding?
Reply
#5
streaker69;116281 Wrote:I wonder if the court would rule the same way if a gay photographer refused to photograph a Christian wedding?

They shouldn't be ruling in either case, if you don't want to service a particular group of people for any reason it is your right as a business owner to not service them.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#6
we can certainly thank parts of the civil rights act for utterly destroying property rights.
[Image: quotes.php]
Reply
#7
andrewjs18;116288 Wrote:we can certainly thank parts of the civil rights act for utterly destroying property rights.

I agree, but I do have to wonder why as gun owners we are allowed to be discriminated against? Owning a firearm, IMO, is a civil right, so we shouldn't be discriminated against if we wish to carry into a business. Same as a business shouldn't be allowed to ban blacks, chinese, gays, or any other "recognized" group.
Reply
#8
It's interesting that it matters WHO you are rather than WHAT is being done.

For instance, a Christian photographer may turn down an opportunity to photograph a racy bachelor party (just as an example). The photographer would probably not get in trouble since the people were "straight" and "white" even though maybe they were doing "offensive" things that the photographer did not feel comfortable photographing. The photographer could just say "I do not photograph bachelor parties" and that would be that.

However, if it's a gay couple that wants a photographer to photograph them kissing and hugging and getting married, NOW the photographer is being forced to do so, whether or not his policy is to photograph gay weddings.

Interestingly enough, it says the gay couple found a better, cheaper photographer for their wedding. Yet, they still filed the complaint. Sometimes I wonder if these people seek out Christian business owners in order to make some sort of statement.

When I used to be in the cake decorating world....I know that I personally turned down orders for certain cake designs that I didn't agree with. It was my right to NOT make a naked woman cake if I didn't want to. But now it seems that if the person is gay and wants you to make a cake, suddenly you have no recourse but to make what they want or get sued. (Incidentally, I did fill cake orders for gay people. But of course being in PA I never had to make a wedding cake so that controversy never came up.)
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#9
I think if they had just refused to shoot the wedding they would have been fine. The photographer must have said I won't shoot a gay wedding 'cause you're gay, which the court interpreted as discriminatory. I don't agree with the ruling, because you have every right as a business owner to do biz with whom you see fit IMHO, but I think that's what it must have come down too. Could you imagine the lawsuit if a black couple were told by a photographer "I don't shoot n*%!#r weddings!"?

Yet someone could easily say sorry I don't want your business, or I'm booked as far as your concerned for the next 10 years. I think a complaint would be hard to file without an outright refusal based on being a "protected class".

That said, WTF have we come to? Can we colonize Free Mars yet?
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply
#10
LostCyborg;116291 Wrote:I think if they had just refused to shoot the wedding they would have been fine. The photographer must have said I won't shoot a gay wedding 'cause you're gay, which the court interpreted as discriminatory. I don't agree with the ruling, because you have every right as a business owner to do biz with whom you see fit IMHO, but I think that's what it must have come down too. Could you imagine the lawsuit if a black couple were told by a photographer "I don't shoot n*%!#r weddings!"?

Yet someone could easily say sorry I don't want your business, or I'm booked as far as your concerned for the next 10 years. I think a complaint would be hard to file without an outright refusal based on being a "protected class".

That said, WTF have we come to? Can we colonize Free Mars yet?


It's not always that easy. A person can write a cake decorator or photographer and say "I'm getting married on November 10th. Do you have an opening?" The business owner then says "Yes! Would you like to set up a consult?" The prospective client then sets up a meeting for the next week.

But then at the consult, the photographer learns that something is involved that he is against. But to even get the consult, he had to have availability...so now it is too late to say "no" without getting into trouble. In the wedding business, this is how it works more often than not....so you end up getting details AFTER you have already admitted that you have an opening.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama’s FBI Cancels Due Process for Illegal NICS Denials sgtsandman 6 780 01-26-2016, 08:55 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Update to the gay cake fiasco... Updated again 8/23 Emoticon 101 7,856 07-22-2015, 11:13 PM
Last Post: Emoticon
  The Insane Way the Supreme Court Just Made It So Police Can Search Your Home without das 4 756 02-11-2015, 12:01 AM
Last Post: shademtarmory
  U.S. Rep Chaka Fattah Stole NASA Grant Money to Repay Illegal Campaign Loan ArcticSplash 9 1,628 09-04-2014, 12:04 AM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power das 6 851 06-26-2014, 08:21 PM
Last Post: das



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.