We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to ANYBODY

[bedub1]

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.

The defendants' attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he's gay. But it's different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don't believe, he says.

"It's a very different situation when we're talking about promoting a message," Lorence says. "When it's 'We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,' that for me is a very different deal. It's compelled speech. You're using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you."

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

Apparently you can't refuse gays a service, because they will sue you and win. I'm sorry, I can choose who I do and don't want to provide services to. That's my choice as a business owner. If I choose to be a jackass and a bigot, then so be it. The government needs to get out of private business.

[jonesthecurl]

Much as that company would have forfeited any custom from me, I'm not sure they shouldn't have the right to refuse to take the photos.
I'm dithering on this one... what if they refused to photograph (say) Jewish weddings or black people?

[jonesthecurl]

On the other hand I would say to the couple, "Get a life. Find another photographer."

[HapSmo19]

"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

Sounds like someone needs to gain some kind of control over their "feelings".

[jonesthecurl]

That's nothing - when I got married the bar didn't turn up.

[Samuraipizzaguy]

The government needs to get out of private business.

this is my political stance right here.

[HapSmo19]

That's nothing - when I got married the bar didn't turn up.

You mean there was no alcohol?
Now there's cause for a lawsuit.

[jonesthecurl]

I'll tell you the story of the wedding sometime - talk about a comedy of errors.

[Frigidus]

I'm dithering on this one... what if they refused to photograph (say) Jewish weddings or black people?

Indeed. Would refusing to take pictures of mixed race couples be okay? I mean, sure, gay marriage is a touchy subject, but you can't refuse to serve food to gays so why can you refuse to take their picture.

[jay_a2j]

They can find another photographer. This is that thin line protecting an individuals "religious freedom". If the photographer objects to doing business with someone based on religious beliefs, that is their right. They can easily find a photographer who does not object based on religious beliefs. It's kinda like suing Hormel because their is pork in their ham. Go buy a pork-less ham!

[HapSmo19]

I'm dithering on this one... what if they refused to photograph (say) Jewish weddings or black people?

Indeed. Would refusing to take pictures of mixed race couples be okay? I mean, sure, gay marriage is a touchy subject, but you can't refuse to serve food to gays so why can you refuse to take their picture.

This may come as a shock but, people that aren't gay have rights too.

[Frigidus]

I'm dithering on this one... what if they refused to photograph (say) Jewish weddings or black people?

Indeed. Would refusing to take pictures of mixed race couples be okay? I mean, sure, gay marriage is a touchy subject, but you can't refuse to serve food to gays so why can you refuse to take their picture.

This may come as a shock but, people that aren't gay have rights too.

I think that was my point, actually. I was making a parallel.

[Nobunaga]

... It seems legally sound to me, even if it is completely wrong.

... Denying services otherwise offered to the general public on the basis of sexual orientation.

... I wonder if the same verdict would have come down if service were refused for a nudist wedding, or a Mormon wedding.

... I doubt it.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... It seems legally sound to me, even if it is completely wrong.

... Denying services otherwise offered to the general public on the basis of sexual orientation.

... I wonder if the same verdict would have come down if service were refused for a nudist wedding, or a Mormon wedding.

... I doubt it.

...

I agree, this is a tricky one. Where does one's personal religious values overshadow public business practices and vice-versa? Basically, the business should have checked into the laws of their state just to protect themselves.

In states where same sex unions are not recognized, then I would say they have grounds, because they can say this is not a true wedding and "we only do real weddings." In states where same sex unions are recognized, then I think it gets a bit touchier. Also, is this a wedding in a church, therefore a religious function, or in a public venue and not?

For my part, I would not want anyone photographing my event who was antagonistic to me. However, it will be interesting to see what happens on appeal. Something tells me that one or the other of these parties has set this up to be a legal precedent.

[jay_a2j]

... It seems legally sound to me, even if it is completely wrong.

... Denying services otherwise offered to the general public on the basis of sexual orientation.

... I wonder if the same verdict would have come down if service were refused for a nudist wedding, or a Mormon wedding.

... I doubt it.

...

Forcing the person to take the photos or suing them because they won't violates the person religious freedom. Would the same senario play out if the photographer was asked to photograph a "Satanic wedding" where vows where given before the Devil? This is a clear cut case of religious freedom.

[thegreekdog]

Two questions:

(1) Can a straight couple not hire a gay photographer?
(2) Can a gay photographer only accept gay couples?

[jonesthecurl]

The reason it's a tricky one is because it's a question of the right to freedom from prejudice vs the right to individual religiosu scruples.

I think Jay's "satanic" wedding is a good question. And the nudist question (where does the best man keep the ring?) - both touch on the same subject.

Could they refuse to photograph the wedding of people who were divorced? After all, the bible's against it.

Fair play to the photogrphers for saying why they refused though - they could just have said "Sorry we're busy that weekend", and then grumbled about lesbians after they put the phone down.

[john9blue]

I agree that this is ridiculous. Businesses are being forced to cater to minorities. Government needs to GTFO.

[Nobunaga]

... I have to disagree.

... I don't pretend to understand law beyond the realm of speeding tickets and DUI's, but it seems quite reasonable to me (even if I disagree with gay marriage) that the plaintifs have cause.

... Business is separated from personal beliefs when you put your product or service out there for the greater public to take advantage, at least that's my own take on it.

... Folks are moaning about religious rights but it was the responsibility of this business to investigate the effects and possible consequences of integrating their belief system into their business practices.

... Am I wrong?

...

[The1exile]

I'm sorry, I can choose who I do and don't want to provide services to. That's my choice as a business owner. If I choose to be a jackass and a bigot, then so be it.

Bollocks. Do you allow bus companies to refuse service to blacks because they're run by a racist?

[john9blue]

This is a small company. If they limit their customers, they're going to suffer, right? That's their decision...



EDIT: Also, apparently Clapper was voted CC's second favorite mod a little while ago...

[comic boy]

The government needs to get out of private business.

this is my political stance right here.

Frankly I dont see that religion should be part of business either, both sides are bloody idiots . Having said that the gay couple deserve special contempt for trivialising an important issue, people need to live together and stop having pissy fits over every alleged slight against them.

[thegreekdog]

The other thing to consider is that if the photographer had not indicated why he/she refused to take the job, it would have been much harder for the gay couple to win the case. I have not dealt with discrimination issues in quite a while, but it's much easier to prove discrimination when the defendant tells you they are discriminating.

[bedub1]

I'm sorry, I can choose who I do and don't want to provide services to. That's my choice as a business owner. If I choose to be a jackass and a bigot, then so be it.

Bollocks. Do you allow bus companies to refuse service to blacks because they're run by a racist?

A bus company like the city bus? That's a public service.

You can discriminate against somebody because they don't have shoes, or a shirt(no shirt no shoes no service). You can discriminate against somebody because he's a male, or ugly. (try getting into a nice bar where there is a line). Or how about against somebody because they don't have on a suit(dress codes). How about against somebody because they are white(affirmative action) or against somebody who makes too much money (low income housing). Private property belongs to the owner of the property, if they don't like you, they can tell you to get the f*ck out. I don't care what their reason is, it's their property, their building, their business etc.

[pimpdave]

Much as that company would have forfeited any custom from me, I'm not sure they shouldn't have the right to refuse to take the photos.
I'm dithering on this one... what if they refused to photograph (say) Jewish weddings or black people?

I think it depends on whether they receive any kind of subsidies and from where. If they're getting stimulus money, then they have to obey federal law and cannot refuse service based on all of the things that notice lists that hangs in every place such things are posted (like the post office).

Otherwise, I'm reasonably sure they're allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The real mistake the company made was specifying the reason why they couldn't shoot the event. PR 101, people.

I mean, what's the precedent in these kinds of cases? Can the aggrieved couple sue? What happened in that case where Denny's refused service to the black people. Does anyone remember that? Was there a lawsuit? I just remember that we were supposed to boycott Denny's because of the racism, and to this day, I've never given them a penny of my business.