Supreme Court declines to hear New Mexico Photographer case

[TLK Valentine]

Supreme Court won't hear appeal of New Mexico gay-bias case - latimes.com

WASHINGTON -- In a victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from a New Mexico photographer who claimed a free-speech right to refuse to shoot a wedding album for a same-sex couple.
The photographer was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which requires businesses to serve customers and clients without regard to their race, religion or sexual orientation.

Thoughts?

 

[cow451]

Supreme Court won't hear appeal of New Mexico gay-bias case - latimes.com

Thoughts?

Bakers, photographers and florists are not artists. The state has chosen to expand "protected classes" of people. The court did not seem inclined to dispute that law.

There are plenty of photographers, etc. I do have concerns about having these small businesses being subjected to this type litigation. The couple had plenty of options for services.

In civil law, one has to show both the harm and that the harmful act created "loss".

 

[FuzzyBunnySlippers]

Supreme Court won't hear appeal of New Mexico gay-bias case - latimes.com



Thoughts?

Not surprising after their decision regarding gay marriage not that long ago.

Sexual Orientation is a protected class, being afforded civil rights due to one's sex life.
However, religion and the religious are also a protected class. As should be the individual Christian who then has civil rights as such. Just as the gay individual can argue civil rights, due to being a member of the homosexual protected class.
But it doesn't work out that way for Christians. It does for gays who come against Christians. But Christians protections are superseded by gays having more civil right to harass and intimidate and even prosecute Christians for invoking their protected class civil rights.
It's typical today. And it is only going to get worse.

But it is as God wills and all we can do is pray and overcome.

 

[bhsmte]

Bakers, photographers and florists are not artists. The state has chosen to expand "protected classes" of people. The court did not seem inclined to dispute that law.

There are plenty of photographers, etc. I do have concerns about having these small businesses being subjected to this type litigation. The couple had plenty of options for services.

In civil law, one has to show both the harm and that the harmful act created "loss".

It didn't surprise me the supreme court didn't touch this one, as they are basically affirming the ruling in place as not violating the constitution.

I think the harm here is quite simple, patrons of a public driven business should not be refused service based on sexual orientation and the like, because the business is indeed serving the public, regardless of whether the patrons had other choices.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have a question about the particulars for this case. In refusing service, did the photographer just say, "No," or was it, "No, because I don't do same-sex weddings?"

1) I ask, because if it was the former ... then ... wow. It would mean a business could never refuse service for anything. Couldn't I go to New Line Cinema and say, "Hey, I've got a Christian movie I want you to make." Then, when they say no, I could sue them for discrimination. I guess that goes to the comment about needing to show what loss has been incurred.

2) Second, could the photographer form a "partnership"? Then when the same-sex couple asks to shoot their wedding, the photographer could say, "Yeah, sure, here's the card of the photographer that will do that for you."

 

[Skaloop]

Not surprising after their decision regarding gay marriage not that long ago.

Sexual Orientation is a protected class, being afforded civil rights due to one's sex life.
However, religion and the religious are also a protected class. As should be the individual Christian who then has civil rights as such. Just as the gay individual can argue civil rights, due to being a member of the homosexual protected class.
But it doesn't work out that way for Christians. It does for gays who come against Christians. But Christians protections are superseded by gays having more civil right to harass and intimidate and even prosecute Christians for invoking their protected class civil rights.
It's typical today. And it is only going to get worse.

But it is as God wills and all we can do is pray and overcome.

A business is not Christian. The people running it may be. The people performing the services said business provides may be. But the business itself cannot be. It's a business. As such, the business cannot discriminate by refusing to serve homosexuals.

Similarly, a business run by homosexuals cannot refuse to provide their services to Christians.

So you are wrong; Christians have just as many protections as homosexuals. Both are protected.

 

[bhsmte]

Not surprising after their decision regarding gay marriage not that long ago.

Sexual Orientation is a protected class, being afforded civil rights due to one's sex life.
However, religion and the religious are also a protected class. As should be the individual Christian who then has civil rights as such. Just as the gay individual can argue civil rights, due to being a member of the homosexual protected class.
But it doesn't work out that way for Christians. It does for gays who come against Christians. But Christians protections are superseded by gays having more civil right to harass and intimidate and even prosecute Christians for invoking their protected class civil rights.
It's typical today. And it is only going to get worse.

But it is as God wills and all we can do is pray and overcome.

This situation didn't turn out to the liking of some Christians because the photographer dealt with people in a public business.

If this same sex couple were trying to join the photographers church, they could have been turned down with no issues of discrimination.

 

[bhsmte]

I have a question about the particulars for this case. In refusing service, did the photographer just say, "No," or was it, "No, because I don't do same-sex weddings?"

1) I ask, because if it was the former ... then ... wow. It would mean a business could never refuse service for anything. Couldn't I go to New Line Cinema and say, "Hey, I've got a Christian movie I want you to make." Then, when they say no, I could sue them for discrimination. I guess that goes to the comment about needing to show what loss has been incurred.

2) Second, could the photographer form a "partnership"? Then when the same-sex couple asks to shoot their wedding, the photographer could say, "Yeah, sure, here's the card of the photographer that will do that for you."

Your first analogy doesn't work. A public business can turn down business, if they have a legit business reason to turn it down. If they don't make that particular product, or lack expertise to perform the service being asked of them. In this case, the same sex couple asked for a service the photographer had delivered before, advertised they could perform and refused because the couple was same sex.

Your number two situation, is really the same as allowing any public business to refuse a service they provide to others, to certain people based on only the business owners discretion and not for a legit business reason.

 

[cow451]

It didn't surprise me the supreme court didn't touch this one, as they are basically affirming the ruling in place as not violating the constitution.

I think the harm here is quite simple, patrons of a public driven business should not be refused service based on sexual orientation and the like, because the business is indeed serving the public, regardless of whether the patrons had other choices.

I often chide Christians for confusing inconvenience with persecution. I look at this similarly. Having been through some wedding planning, I can attest that photographers, florists and bakers are a dime a dozen. These are often self-employed or very small businesses. So, the couple had to make a few calls. Not a biggie.

If I were on a jury looking at this as a civil case, I'd say the photographer was guilty of discrimination and the couple should be awarded $5.00 for damages and both sides pay their own attorneys.

 

[Resha Caner]

Your first analogy doesn't work. A public business can turn down business, if they have a legit business reason to turn it down. If they don't make that particular product, or lack expertise to perform the service being asked of them. In this case, the same sex couple asked for a service the photographer had delivered before, advertised they could perform and refused because the couple was same sex.

So if the photographer had said, "I don't have the expertise to photograph same-sex weddings," or "I don't produce that particular product," that would be a legitimate business reason? Seems a bit vague to me.

But you didn't really address the point. Why can New Line Cinema refuse to do my movie?

Your number two situation, is really the same as allowing any public business to refuse a service they provide to others, to certain people based on only the business owners discretion and not for a legit business reason.

So if a business employed 2 photographers, I could demand which of those 2 will do the requested service?

 

[bhsmte]

So if the photographer had said, "I don't have the expertise to photograph same-sex weddings," or "I don't produce that particular product," that would be a legitimate business reason? Seems a bit vague to me.

The business would then need to show what that legitimate business reason is. Is taking pictures at a same sex wedding something that requires a skill that taking pictures at a heterosexual couples wedding would not? Bottom line, you can't get away from one simple fact, the only difference is the same sex couple, not the actual skills needed to provide the service.

But you didn't really address the point. Why can New Line Cinema refuse to do my movie?

Very simple, movie production companies turn down many more movies than they decide to make and it is up to their discretion as to whether the script is something that would sell and something they feel is of quality. In essence, you are selling your script to the movie production company, they are not selling anything to you and it is up to them whether they want to buy your product.



So if a business employed 2 photographers, I could demand which of those 2 will do the requested service?

You could ask, but it would be up to the business to ultimately decide how they would deploy their photographers, based on their scheduling etc., that impacts their business. The business would only be required to offer you "a" photographer, to provide the service you asked for.

 

[Armoured]

photographers...are not artists.

Um...

 

[Billnew]

Seems like a simple case of out of focus pics, lense cap on,
groom one head chopped off, groom two looking away.
Being a professional I would not charge them since it wouldn't be my best work and slaves work for free.

Photographer is an artist, they need not show their artwork when government forces them to work against their will.

You want good pictures, go to an artist and don't hold a gun to their head.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is taking pictures at a same sex wedding something that requires a skill that taking pictures at a heterosexual couples wedding would not?

I think one could argue they are not the same, just as taking pictures of landscapes is different than taking pictures of a metropolitan area. Each photographer has his speciality, and unless the law is going to determine what those specialties are, it seems one could make a case for this.

In essence, you are selling your script to the movie production company, they are not selling anything to you and it is up to them whether they want to buy your product.

OK, so the difference is between selling and buying. I can get that. If my example involves an independent film distributor, then they cannot refuse to distribute my film once made - no matter the content.

You could ask, but it would be up to the business to ultimately decide how they would deploy their photographers, based on their scheduling etc., that impacts their business. The business would only be required to offer you "a" photographer, to provide the service you asked for.

So what constitutes a "business"? That's what my example did. The business offered a photographer.

 

[Resha Caner]

Seems like a simple case of out of focus pics, lense cap on,
groom one head chopped off, groom two looking away.
Being a professional I would not charge them since it wouldn't be my best work and slaves work for free.

Yeah. I thought of this too. Actually, I thought of setting the price at something like $1 million. If they pay, great. If not, I guess they need to find another photographer. That sort of thing happens all the time in my business. We ask to buy parts from a supplier. If they don't want the business, they intentionally set a high price ... ooh, ooh. Does this mean we should have been suing these people all along?

Anyway, your idea is better. Offer to do it for free and shoot crappy pictures ... or can the government force someone to accept money?

 

[FuzzyBunnySlippers]

I have a question about the particulars for this case. In refusing service, did the photographer just say, "No," or was it, "No, because I don't do same-sex weddings?"

1) I ask, because if it was the former ... then ... wow. It would mean a business could never refuse service for anything. Couldn't I go to New Line Cinema and say, "Hey, I've got a Christian movie I want you to make." Then, when they say no, I could sue them for discrimination. I guess that goes to the comment about needing to show what loss has been incurred.

New Line could refuse to produce your movie based on any excuse they wanted to make if who you were as a person was the real reason they refused. You would never be able to prove that real reason and would have to be satisfied with their contrived excuse.

2) Second, could the photographer form a "partnership"? Then when the same-sex couple asks to shoot their wedding, the photographer could say, "Yeah, sure, here's the card of the photographer that will do that for you."

Sure they could. It's a referral. There is nothing illegal about it. Happens all the time.

 

[Resha Caner]

New Line could refuse to produce your movie based on any excuse they wanted to make if who you were as a person was the real reason they refused. You would never be able to prove that real reason and would have to be satisfied with their contrived excuse.

This is probably what this ruling will drive - contrived excuses that are legal.

Sure they could. It's a referral. There is nothing illegal about it. Happens all the time.

I know. That's why I asked.

 

[cow451]

Um...

Portrait/commercial photographers are not artists. The consumer is employing the photographer to perform a service.

A photographer taking portraits that he/she might sell on the open market would be different, if that helps. The difference between an artist versus a photographer that uses creativity in delivering a service.

 

[Bedford]

But it doesn't work out that way for Christians. It does for gays who come against Christians. But Christians protections are superseded by gays having more civil right to harass and intimidate and even prosecute Christians for invoking their protected class civil rights.
It's typical today. And it is only going to get worse.

But it is as God wills and all we can do is pray and overcome.

If it does not work this way for Christians, then please show us where a Christian has been denied a photo session or a cake because they were Christian.

 

[FuzzyBunnySlippers]

This is probably what this ruling will drive - contrived excuses that are legal.

It would have to be prove the reason given was a contrived excuse born out of bigotry. That is very hard to do.
Besides, I don't think I'd want someone to work on something I had to force them to work on. Especially when I know they don't like me for some reason and they are essentially working against their will under fear of prosecution.
It also tends to spoil the good feeling when someone knows what they've had done was done by someone who hated them and was forced to work against their will.
"Mistakes" can happen that end up ruining the event because the one responsible for a particular part of it was in control, even though they were forced to be there.

I know. That's why I asked.

If you knew why would you need to ask?