I think you know that it’s short hand for a same sex commitment ceremony.
Fair enough - except they aren’t performed there. She’s not in the commitment ceremony business. She’s in the wedding business. And portrait business. And neither of those things were solicited from her.
Then it’s strange that Elane Photography made that comment in response to a request to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. I was making a direct quote from their emails. I guess that whatever you want to call it - and it was obvious what I was saying - Elane won’t photograph a ceremony for a same-sex couple whether it’s a legally recognized ceremony or not. They plainly understood what they were being asked to photograph and refused because of the identity of the participants.
But you know, it’s sort of too bad they didn’t try this metaphysical excuse. “Your ceremony doesn’t exist, so we can’t photograph it.” It would’ve made as much sense as “they don’t discriminate against gays, they just don’t photograph same-sex marriages.”
You’re now inventing excuses even the plaintiffs didn’t make. First email from Elaine photography:
“Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.”
Second email:
“Yes, you are conect in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!”
They photograph a variety of events, including weddings and engagements. Just not ones that include same-sex couples. It’s not because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage and not because they don’t do commitment ceremonies. It’s because they don’t approve of gay marriage and don’t want to take pictures of gay getting married or committed.
Then she would need to show evidence that’s she’s refused to do/never done a hetero commitment ceremony, or 40th anniversary party, or any life cycle event other than weddings and portraits.
She’s admitting her exact rationale for not doing this event and it flies in the face of the law. She’s not claiming these other reasons. She’s offended by gay marriage so won’t do this event (whatever it’s called).
Well…
Then her partner emails and asks about services for a wedding without specifying the genders and because Elaine was willing to do business, she’s sued. I wonder if they sued anyone else (obviously not) or if Elane Photography was the only company that refused.
edit: Now that I think about it, I can see how a Jewish person would refuse another Jewish person of a different sect a photography bid. Photography isn’t allowed during a synagogue service (bar mitzvah, wedding, etc) in a lot of circles. Mine doesn’t allow it. Another may, but what if the photographer objected because of Jewish law?
I’m guessing Elane was the only studio that turned them down explicitly because they were a gay couple. I’m not sure what you were attempting to illustrate with the bolding. The plaintiffs asked them to photograph the commitment ceremony and the studio responded that they don’t do same-sex weddings, clearly understanding the two things to be basically equivalent and indicating they are objectionable for the same reason. They didn’t refuse to photograph the event because the ceremony isn’t legally binding or because they thought it was a wedding and not a commitment ceremony. They refused because it was a same-sex couple. So they’re discriminating against gays.
I’m not quite sure what scenario you are thinking of here. If you’re saying the photographer won’t do Jewish weddings because he won’t take photographs in synagogues (and won’t let someone else do it for his company), then I can see an issue. If he won’t accept assignments in synagogues where he might have a problem because the sect doesn’t allow photography in the temple, I don’t think that’d be a problem.
Actually, the couple solicited photography services for both a “commitment ceremony” and a “wedding”. From testimony in the record:
[QUOTE=Vanessa Willock]
We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.
This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day
we 'd like to receive pricing information.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=the other partner, Misti Collinsworth]
Hi Elaine,
I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel
to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates?
Thanks!!
[/QUOTE]
The response to the first inquiry:
[QUOTE=Elaine Huegenin]
Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and
several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.
[/QUOTE]
The photographers also testified at trial that they had…
If it was left at that, there might be merit in your argument that they “don’t do commitment ceremonies”. That wasn’t it, though:
Incidentally, I found the appellate court’s opinion upholding the HRC’s ruling (which was unanimous, for what it’s worth.) Of note:
This particular case is so clear cut that one could almost wonder if the photographer and the couple were in collusion to bring the most obvious case for a legal test.
To turn this case into something other than exactly what it is requires complex mental gymnastics.
As a matter of practicality, it’s very difficult to prove discrimination cases like this unless the defendant admits that they discriminated (as here), or there was written evidence (as here). Generally, such things come down to a he-said, she-said deal, in which case the plaintiff will usually lose (having the burden of proof).
Thanks for your posts of the decisions, RNATB.
Seconded.
Sorry. I’ll explain:
Conservative Jews don’t allow photography during bar mitzvahs. So let’s say a Conservative or Orthodox Jew did photography for a business. They do all kinds of Jewish and non-Jewish weddings and functions. As a policy, they aren’t open for business on the Sabbath, but that’s not a problem.
Then they get an email from a Reform Jew who asks if they’d be available to photograph the bar mitzvah celebration? Oh, of course! Wait, you want me to photograph during the ceremony? In shul? That’s prohibited according to my sect; sorry. We are happy to provide services for your bar mitzvah party but my religious beliefs prohibit me from doing this during the service.
Will the conservative Jew be held liable?
Both groups are Jews, the conservative photographer does Jewish events, but only within the scope of their religious beliefs. The Reform Jew is a protected class, the bar mitzvah is on a Sunday, and their synagogue allows photography.
It’s an interesting example. If you’re saying they’ll photograph any religious ceremony except a Jewish one, it seems possible that would run afoul of the law. In real life I have trouble imagining someone with those kinds of beliefs getting into this kind of business given the obvious potential for conflict with their religious views.
Could a photographer be compelled to shoot a porn shoot? Or a swingers party? I mean to not to would be to discriminate based on lifestyle… Some absurd arguments I’m seeing here. There is not an inability for them to get a photographer. But not every photographer wants to shoot something against their personal beliefs. Some photographers might only shoot weddings in a specific church (often done), or a specific building. Does that mean they have to expand their scope of shooting.
I’m someone who thinks personally the state has no authority to ban civil unions between homosexuals… largely because the state only deems your marriage as a literal contract between two parties. It has then no legal authority to prevent certain classes to enter into a contract, while others can not…
but the state in the same respect can’t force you to enter into a contract… and by the way, that’s what they are doing here. Completely different end of the spectrum. I mean can the state require you contractually get married by the age of 30? Of course not. Then why can it contractually require you to perform a service against your beliefs? What is this freedom we like to talk about in the US, if you don’t have that freedom?
Swingers and porn stars are not protected groups.
No and no. The law says the photographer can’t discriminate against certain classes of people, not that they can’t turn down any job.
A porn film isn’t a lifestyle.
That’s not the issue, although if every studio can refuse to photograph the ceremony, they absolutely could find themselves unable to engage a photographer.
Yes, we know. And they can’t do that if they are offering their business to the general public.
Again, no.
No, it isn’t. All of this has been covered more than once.
It can’t. It can say that as a business, you cannot offer your services to the public and then refuse to do business with certain types of people.
[quote]
What is this freedom we like to talk about in the US, if you don’t have that freedom?
[QUOTE]
What about the freedom of minorities or unpopular people not to have access to the same business as everybody else and not live like pariahs?
Okay, aside from your stupid question about requiring someone to film pornography – a question that you wouldn’t have had if you’d even bothered to glance at the rest of the thread – as a matter of law, in the US, in some circumstances you do not have the freedom to discriminate against particular groups that have experienced and continue to experience unfair treatment.
If the freedom to discriminate against LGBT people is that valuable to you, I suggest you not move to one of the few states where you might legally face consequences for doing so. And frankly, I don’t see myself shedding a lot of tears for people who are only committed to “freedom” when we’re talking about the freedom to deny opportunities to groups that have already dealt with enough shit.
Pity.
Not at the present time. Who knows what groups the left will decide to award special privileges to in the years to come?
In the Constitution I can find the guarantee of freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech quite easily, whereas I cannot find the freedom to force businesses to come to your wedding and perform a service there.