Me, too. Hence my disclaimer while I was typing over the phone.
Well…what if…someone from the Black Panther Party, wanted me, a (pretend here) photographer to provide services and I wanted to refuse them? Am I discriminating on the basis of race if I reject a fringe political-racial organization? Can I turn down the KKK?
Good point.
I was thinking of federal law. Not sure why I had that in my head.
The NM law also mentions ‘spousal affiliation’, which I always took to mean single v. married. I could be wrong, though. I’m clearly not a lawyer.
Check again -it says
“because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”
Doesn’t mention political ideology at all.
The compelling government interest is in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I will certainly not say that there is no art involved, however, there’s a reason that the phrase “commercial photography” exists. This is not a photographer who is taking photographs that please her artistically and then hoping to sell then. If she wants to do that , she is perfectly free to show up at any ceremonies she chooses (and free to not show up at the same-sex ones) and then try to sell the photos to the participants. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, ( and no doubt the equivalent in any state prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ) what she is not free to do is open a business, advertise her services to the general public and then refuse to provide them based on sexual orientation. Her business, and it is a business, has to play by the same rules as the catering hall and the florist - and so does the DJ or band.
According to the Bible, the Holy Word of God is named Jesus (cf. John 1:1-14). And if you plan on quoting Romans 1:26-27 to condemn gay people, you might tale a gppd look at Romans 2:1-3. Christians are saved by grace, the unearned gift of God, and told to follow Christ’s commandments. Your performance here, GEEPERS, makes me wonder if you sincerely intend to keep them.
We’ve already fished out that red herring in the other thread re:this news story. Belonging to the KKK or the Black Panthers is something you choose. Being gay or black is what you are. The latter is protected, the former isn’t.
I’d see no issue with refusing to make photos for the Panthers based on their Panther-dom alone. It would be thorny to demonstrate that you did in court if you’d also never done work for “regular” black folks though, I should think.
But the issue at hand was same-sex marriages - and the State of NM doesn’t give them.
Unfortunately.
While I agree that freelance photography and commercial photography are a little different, most people who do commercial photography do it out of love for the art form. (Not counting JCPenny chains and stuff.)
I think she was refusing to provide services based on the sexual orientation of the ceremony itself. And a same-sex ceremony in a state that doesn’t do same-sex marriages is a public statement, no?
What do you think about what I said about First Amendment rights? Or do you think that when you open up a business, you waive some of them? Certainly if I had a business I couldn’t discriminate against my employees based sexuality. But what if my employee wanted take leave because their same-sex spouse was sick and I denied it? Can I do it? Neither my state nor Federal law offers that privilege.
I’m really seeing the irony here. New Mexico doesn’t allow discrimination of services because of sexual orientation but they will allow discrimination of marriage licenses based on sexual orientation. :smack:
Yes, it does; just like opposing interracial marriage did. It’s a position purely motivated by bigotry.
It’s a common belief that religion is under attack and endangered in America. Christianity has always tended towards a persecution complex. And along those lines, Christian bigots tend to interpret any attempt to restrain their bigotry as religious persecution. In their eyes, being restrained from attacking others is an attack on them.
Except when it is in accordance to the Holy Word of God. Mark 12:31 certainly set the standard against racism. Romans 1:26-27 does not support homosexuality. Sorry, it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
So what? Bigotry is bigotry regardless of whether or not a bunch of barbarians a few thousand years ago wrote in support of that bigotry. It would still be bigotry even if your god actually existed and personally condemned homosexuality; doing so would just make him a bigot. Being written in a book or proclaimed by a god doesn’t make a position moral.
Being gay is definitely not a choice. Getting married to someone of your gender is. Thin line, but I didn’t see other thread. It wasn’t meant to be a red herring, either. It was a legitimate inquiry.
Like I linked upthread, the Christian firefighters that were forced to participate in a gay pride parade won their lawsuit. Perhaps the sticking point in this case is that Elane Photography is a business, not a person. That actually saddens me a bit because if someone wants to do what they love for a living and that love is some kind of art form, they may be subject to serious liability if they aren’t willing to be neutral.
If this is the case that I think it is, just now getting settled, then there is a legitimate complaint: In the one I read up on, the photographer signed a contract and accepted a deposit some months earlier to photograph a commitment ceremony, then tried to cancel the contract on religious grounds the week before when they found out it was a same-sex ceremony. For obvious reasons this seriously inconvenienced the couple. I trust you can see why a suit was appropriate in that case.
This must be a different one. The woman emailed back right away and said something like, “We don’t do same sex ceremonies! Thanks!” or some such.
Really stupid on behalf of the photographer, btw. If you’re going to discriminate, just say you’re booked that day. Duh.
If they were smart they probably wouldn’t discriminate like that in the first place. This gains them nothing after all; it’s an example of pure malice. There’s no profit motive and no power to be gained, just the indulgence of cruelty.
I’m sorry if I sounded snappy - well, I probably *was *snappy at that (due to stuff outside the forum) and that was unwarranted. My apologies.
That being said, I didn’t mean “red herring” in a negative way nor was I trying to imply that you were deliberately trying to mislead or anything of the sort. Would “false equivalence” have been a more neutral expression ?
Yup, and there’s nothing wrong with that that I can see. The fire station was wrong to try and force them to take an active part in an event they were against.
But I guess I don’t really see the relevance here. Taking pictures isn’t really taking part, is it ? The news crews filming a gay pride aren’t participating in the pride or expressing support for it or anything of the sort for example.
And snapping pictures at a gay wedding doesn’t imply support of it, either. Unlike mandatory marching in a demonstration, it’s not being required to express anything nor voice opinions you don’t really share. It’s not enabling gay wedding, either - the wedding’s going to happen whether the cameraman is there or not.
So what does refusing to do it accomplish, besides outing oneself as a 'phobe ?
shrug That’s what they get for giving a fuck when it ain’t their turn to give a fuck, I suppose :). Mixing business and politics is generally bad for business. And not all that good for politics, now that I think on it.
If you use that standard, then religion shouldn’t be a protected class, since belonging to a religious group is a choice. Or do you not protect people who convert to a religion but do the people born into it? Or you can say being a particular religion is something you’re born into, but practicing the religion is a choice, so religious practice is not protected?
SSM marriage is not a characteristic of being gay- they are simply gay humans who want to marry, just like they are gay humans who want to buy houses, get jobs etc. There are not gay mortgages, gay jobs etc.
Pure malice? It’s pure malice for force someone to personally witness an act that is morally offensive to someone’s sacred beliefs. Would you like it if you were forced to take photographs of something that offended you greatly?
I was considering your statement and running it through logically in my head. I wasn’t putting a word in your mouth, just forming my own opinions based on my interpretations of your ideas.
And while the Constitution does protect religion, those protections have been extended to include gender, sexual orientation and race, which (if I remember correctly) are not enumerated in the Constitution.
