NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

[NotreDame]

Would you support a restaurant denying service to a gay couple? Would you support a fashion store denying selling clothing to gay couples? How far are you willing to deny gay couples? Renting an apartment? Owning a home? Buying a car? Washing that car? How far?

Non-parallel examples because those situations you presented above, in the form of a question, do not involve potential free speech rights, specifically being compelled to speak/engage in expressive conduct.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm not seeing any of that taking place here . People are just expressing their disapproval of the photographer acting in a discriminatory manner against gay people. It doesn't make sense to act as if the perpetrator of the discrimination was the victim. Pretending that the judges were the bad gays for infringing on the bigots "right" to treat people like dirt and discriminate. This reminds me of the people claiming that the civil rights advocates speaking out against the KKK or racism are the real haters because racists merely disapprove of interracial marriage they don't actually hate the people they call "race traitors" or "abominations". Those speaking out against racism are haters in their mind for some reason.

BTW, the photographer went well beyond mere disapproval. He actually discriminated against the customer. Had he disapproved but still obeyed the non discrimination law no one would be talking about it.

What really happened is that the lesbian emailed the photographer and asked if she had a problem with doing the ceremony. The photographer responded by saying, yes, they do not photograph that type of ceremony. The lesbian never actually attempted to hire the photographer

 

[NotreDame]

It's not a first amendment issue.

To the contrary, the case did involve a 1st Amendment issue, specifically the case involved the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment. The New Mexico Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause.

We can, at least, evaluate the strength of the opinion based on the facts of the case, the reasoning of the NM Supreme Court, and the prior law in this area. What I can tell you is the NM opinion is a poor opinion because A.) The reasoning relied upon by the NM Supreme Court is weak B.) The distinction the NM Supreme Court made between this case and prior cases is untenable, and C.) The facts simply defy some of the NM Supreme Court's reasoning, which is to say the NM Supreme Court's opinion quite simply is irrational in some areas given the facts of the case.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

There is no such thing as a lawful wedding when there is no divorce prior to what would be a 2nd marriage of one or both parties. There is no State in the nation that legally permits bigamy.
New Mexico is a rare State that has no laws that either specifically prohibit or permit gay marriage.

If this photographer was asked to photograph a gay wedding , they can refuse to do so based on their religious convictions by making the true statement that there is no room in their schedule to photograph the ceremony. And there is nothing that can be done about that.

A wedding photographer, licensed as what some call a public accommodation and that exclusively photographs weddings can refuse to photograph what is not a lawful wedding by definition. Because their license denotes they accommodate lawful wedding ceremonies only.


Show me the law that you're referring to where it says a wedding photographer is compelled to photograph an illegal bigamist wedding.
There is no law that can force a photographer, or anyone else that could be retained, to accommodate an unlawful ceremony. Not one.
And a couple, be they straight or gay, who would seek to take legal recourse against someone who did refuse is just asking for not only a counter suit but a State charge when they seek to bring a charge against that public accommodation that refused their request. Because bigamy is illegal.
If one partner in the proposed ceremony is still married while seeking to enter into a lawful marriage, they're breaking the law. They'll be prosecuted. Not the public accommodation that refused their request to participate in a bigamous ceremony.
And since there is no law that permits gay weddings in New Mexico, an exclusive service for wedding photography only can refuse to photograph a gay wedding when there is no law that says gay weddings are lawful in New Mexico.

1) NM at the time did NOT have any county recognizing SSM, and the state as a whole still does not (only individual counties at this time).

2) Unless the bigamist couple tries to file for a marriage license from the state, then the ceremony is NOT unlawful anyway.

3) The law has been pointed out early in the thread and discussed. If you would like, I can go find it again? (Should be, like, page 4 or 5, somewhere around in there.)

I do recall the NM anti-discrimination law specifies one cannot discriminate based on "spousal affiliation" (otherwise known as marital status). Thereby, if one wanted to try and push it, one could sue a photographer based on that, and the precedent set in the case we are currently discussing, for refusing to photograph a ceremony simply because one member of the couple is already married to someone. Since they are not filing for a license, it is not unlawful (as I stated above).

5) But so far as I can see it, the case states that a photographer can NOT tell a couple that they will not photograph a ceremony based on religious preference and ideals because they are gay.

Telling them (true or not) "my booking is full" is not what the photographer did, and is not at question here. Sure they could do that, but that is not what was ruled on.

If the photographer offers the business as a public accommodation (which was the case here), then are bound by state statutes on discriminatory practice. In NM these include sexual orientation, spousal affiliation, age, gender, etc.

The lesbian couple were not seeking to enter in a "lawful marriage", only holding a ceremony. The situation is the SAME as that of the theoretical bigamist couple - so long as they were not seeking a marriage license via the ceremony.


So will you please answer what was asked now, instead of simply saying it is "absurd" since it really isn't that absurd (theoretically speaking, anyway)?

 

[BlunderAngel]

You clearly don't get how this works:
1) NM at the time did NOT have any county recognizing SSM, and the state as a whole still does not (only individual counties at this time).

2) Unless the bigamist couple tries to file for a marriage license from the state, then the ceremony is NOT unlawful anyway.

3) The law has been pointed out early in the thread and discussed. Go back and look, if you can't find it let me know. [I really don't want to try to find the specific statue clause again. But I will if I MUST.]

I do recall the NM anti-discrimination law specifies one cannot discriminate based on "spousal affiliation" (otherwise known as marital status). Thereby, if one wanted to try and push it, one could sue a photographer based on that, and the precedent set in the case we are currently discussing, for refusing to photograph a ceremony simply because one member of the couple is already married to someone. Since they are not filing for a license, it is not unlawful (as I stated above).

5) Clearly you don't get what the case states: a photographer can NOT tell a couple that they will not photograph a ceremony based on religious preference and ideals because they are gay.

Telling them (true or not) "my booking is full" is not what the photographer did, and is not at question here. Sure they could do that, but that is not what was ruled on.

If the photographer offers the business as a public accommodation (which was the case here), then are bound by state statutes on discriminatory practice. In NM these include sexual orientation, spousal affiliation, age, gender, etc.

The lesbian couple were not seeking to enter in a "lawful marriage", only holding a ceremony. The situation is the SAME as that of the theoretical bigamist couple - so long as they were not seeking a marriage license via the ceremony.


So will you answer what was asked now instead of simply saying it is "absurd"?

I will not be talked down to. I get it. I just don't agree with you because you are not able to accept the reality of what is in New Mexico law.
Good day.

 

[Bedford]

What really happened is that the lesbian emailed the photographer and asked if she had a problem with doing the ceremony. The photographer responded by saying, yes, they do not photograph that type of ceremony. The lesbian never actually attempted to hire the photographer

Duh, contacting the photographer is an attempt to hire the photographer.

They were denied.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Duh, contacting the photographer is an attempt to hire the photographer.

They were denied.

Inquiring of a photographer is not automatically indicative of the intent to hire said photographer.

 

[Bedford]

Inquiring of a photographer is not automatically indicative of the intent to hire said photographer.

The couple never got a chance to hire them because they were told no based on discrimination. The intent to hire was established with the first contact.

 

[MachZer0]

Duh, contacting the photographer is an attempt to hire the photographer.

They were denied.

No, contacting the photographer is research to determine which photographer you want to attempt to hire. At no time did she actually request the photographer's services.

 

[MachZer0]

The couple never got a chance to hire them because they were told no based on discrimination. The intent to hire was established with the first contact.

There was no intent to hire. The only attempt was to determine if the photographer objected to the type of ceremony planned. She received a polite answer in response

 

[SolomanVIII]

No, contacting the photographer is research to determine which photographer you want to attempt to hire. At no time did she actually request the photographer's services.

She didn't have to

Oh wait I meant "Mach's Law"

 

[MachZer0]

She didn't have to

Nobody ever has to request the services of a photographer

Oh wait I meant "Mach's Law"

Non sequitur

 

[NotreDame]

1) NM at the time did NOT have any county recognizing SSM, and the state as a whole still does not (only individual counties at this time).

2) Unless the bigamist couple tries to file for a marriage license from the state, then the ceremony is NOT unlawful anyway.

3) The law has been pointed out early in the thread and discussed. If you would like, I can go find it again? (Should be, like, page 4 or 5, somewhere around in there.)

I do recall the NM anti-discrimination law specifies one cannot discriminate based on "spousal affiliation" (otherwise known as marital status). Thereby, if one wanted to try and push it, one could sue a photographer based on that, and the precedent set in the case we are currently discussing, for refusing to photograph a ceremony simply because one member of the couple is already married to someone. Since they are not filing for a license, it is not unlawful (as I stated above).

5) But so far as I can see it, the case states that a photographer can NOT tell a couple that they will not photograph a ceremony based on religious preference and ideals because they are gay.

Telling them (true or not) "my booking is full" is not what the photographer did, and is not at question here. Sure they could do that, but that is not what was ruled on.

If the photographer offers the business as a public accommodation (which was the case here), then are bound by state statutes on discriminatory practice. In NM these include sexual orientation, spousal affiliation, age, gender, etc.

The lesbian couple were not seeking to enter in a "lawful marriage", only holding a ceremony. The situation is the SAME as that of the theoretical bigamist couple - so long as they were not seeking a marriage license via the ceremony.


So will you please answer what was asked now, instead of simply saying it is "absurd" since it really isn't that absurd (theoretically speaking, anyway)?

What your post ignores is the free speech issue in the case, specifically the notion the photographer being forced by the law to photograph a wedding is being compelled to engaged in speech, i.e. compelled to engage in expressive conduct.

 

[katautumn]

Ah, crux issue. Is it right to allow people to deny service to someone they have a moral objection to? Society and the law, generally says no. And if a commercial photographer who happens to be Jewish were hired by the KKK, I'd say the same to them, too.

I would like to reiterate my original point, however, that given how easy it would be for any given artist to make a mess of a commission, I'm not quite sure why a client would WANT to hire an artist who had made it clear they had some sort of issue with the client. But, as others have said, if its a case of "only game in town", or the client wants the services of a particularly well thought of artist, I guess it makes sense.

I don't think anyone is being hypocritical here, either. I'd support a white supremacist demanding the services of a black wedding photographer here too, or, indeed, a KKK wedding photographer being hired for a black person's wedding. If you offer a commercial service, you're not allowed to discriminate against people because of their beliefs or lifestyle choices. Its really simple as that.

At least your viewpoint is consistent, as is mine. We simply disagree over whether or not people who provide a service have a right to refuse taking money in exchange for said services where their presence would cause great discomfort or a moral dilemma. I, personally, do not believe that should be considered discrimination.

 

[NotreDame]

The couple never got a chance to hire them because they were told no based on discrimination. The intent to hire was established with the first contact.

Well, the denial was based on the photographer not wanting to engage in expressive conduct. In other words, the photographer didn't want to engage in speech, said speech occurring when she photograped the wedding. She does have a right, after all, not to engaged in speech/expressive conduct.

 

[Joykins]

Wedding photographs may be art but school photographs are not. You should see the horrible job they did on my kids last year. We had to re-do them ourselves to give the grandparents something worth framing. Should a Christian school photographer be allowed to turn down a photography session at an Islamic school? Would it be within Christian ethics to do so?

Discuss!

 

[katautumn]

Wedding photographs may be art but school photographs are not. You should see the horrible job they did on my kids last year. We had to re-do them ourselves to give the grandparents something worth framing. Should a Christian school photographer be allowed to turn down a photography session at an Islamic school? Would it be within Christian ethics to do so?

Discuss!

I would much prefer to discuss whether or not it was within Christian ethics in the 80s for my mother to make me use the "library" background for my school photos when I really wanted the laser beams like all of my friends got.

 

[BlunderAngel]

The couple never got a chance to hire them because they were told no based on discrimination. The intent to hire was established with the first contact.

Inquiry is not a reflection of promise nor commitment.

 

[BlunderAngel]

No, contacting the photographer is research to determine which photographer you want to attempt to hire. At no time did she actually request the photographer's services.

Indeed.
I use to have a side line business and if I could pursue every single person that contacted me asking about my rates with breach of promise because I took their inquiry as intent to hire, I'd have been in for a lot of money.

That's just not how free enterprise and free inquiry of services work.

 

[Joykins]

I would much prefer to discuss whether or not it was within Christian ethics in the 80s for my mother to make me use the "library" background for my school photos when I really wanted the laser beams like all of my friends got.

We always got some blue looking drape that made it look like an old lady clothing store threw up behind us. No lasers or libraries. I would have loved a library, though because I was a nerd.