SubscribeWe advertise all of our weddings! It's part of what we do and to not advertise a same-sex wedding? Well, that would be discriminatory.Now, I don't see anywhere in the article itself where he acknowledges that refusing gay customers would be discriminatory. It's all about whether or not it will make him more money, and how offending his homophobic clientele might affect his business, and whether the whole thing is just a big headache for him. So why the sudden attack of conscience when it comes to not advertising that he'll shoot gay weddings?
We often work for couples who go to very conservative churches that oppose gay marriage. I hesitate to think what would happen to some of my most reliable sources of income if I photographed a same-sex wedding.I don't know what he expects anyone to say in response to this. If his customers are that bigoted, then the problem is his customer base. There are still lots of people in this country who dislike interracial marriages; I don't hear wedding photographers wringing their hands about that. Why is this a different problem?
Put aside for a moment your own values. Would it hurt or help your business to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies or weddings?Welcome to Conservatism. Your personal values are relevant only if you profit by them; be it in cash or in votes.
"Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have policies that protect against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in the public and private sector.Regarding federal protection, there is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) working its way through the system.
Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin have state laws that protect agaist discrimination based on sexual orientation only. Fifteen other states have laws that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons.
Only New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community."*
"Over fierce post-session attacks from Christian groups like Focus on the Family, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D) signed a bill (S.B. 200 [PDF]) into law on May 29, 2008, adding sexual orientation protections, including gender identity, to non-discrimination statutes for 23 areas, including the denial of membership in a union or labor organization, housing practices, public accommodations, eligibility for jury service, managed health care plans, publicly financed projects, school districts, merit systems and the availability of family planning services, among other areas. Sponsored by Senator Jennifer Veiga (D) and Representative Joel Judd (D), the law will also add sex, marital status, disability, age, national origin, ancestry and religion protections to those non-discrimination statutes as needed. The law takes effect immediately. Unlike other bills, which are signed with public ceremonies and separate news releases, media reports indicate that Ritter simply signed the bill in his office.
The law expands upon another law (S.B. 07-25) enacted during the 2007 legislative session amending Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation (including gender identity) or religion. That law, which provided workplace protections to homosexual, bisexual and transgendered employees, went into effect on August 8, 2007. Besides Colorado, 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting both sexual orientation and gender identity. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington in the public and private sector. Another seven states, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin, have laws prohibiting discrimination just based on sexual orientation. Prior to the amendment, the Anti-Discrimination Act only protected employees based on race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, and ancestry.
The 2008 legislation, which does not focus on employment discrimination per se, instead concentrates on providing housing and public accommodations protections to individuals based on their sexual orientation."
"'Some courts have found that clean-shavenness is a bona fide occupational qualification in certain businesses and, in those situations, as long as the employer's grooming requirement is not directed at religion, enforcing the policy is not an unlawful discriminatory practice.'"
1: And the LORD spake unto Adam and Steve.
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man doth give alms to the gay, he shall be destined for eternal damnation.
3: And whosoever toucheth the hand of the gay in the exchange of goods and services, he shall rot in Hell.
4: Ye shall offer no exchange with the gay for it shall not be acceptable for you.
5: And ye shall never purchase or sell shrimp of the gay, for ye all shall rot in eternal damnation.
"This change in position is not because Rothman had a Jim McGreevey moment; Rothman had a Dick Cheney one. One of Rothman's stepdaughters is lesbian. As a former mayor of Englewood, Rothman performed many marriage ceremonies. In a phone interview Wednesday, he said the 'issue of gay marriage has been on my mind' ever since those days. Yet despite his two biological children often telling him that "of course, gay people should be able to be married," he still would respond, 'I'm not there yet.' What got him there was a new marriage, and with it, the addition of three stepchildren to his family. His evolution on same-sex marriage is not unusual. When someone knows an openly gay or lesbian person, his or her views on equality broaden. Rothman is embracing a brave, new lavender world because like any parent, he wants his children to live happy, productive lives. 'Life can be short and hurtful for some,' he said. 'Anytime anyone in the community speaks out against discrimination, it advances the cause of ending discrimination.'"
In 1967 the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional, thus stricking down laws that forbid interracial marriages. Prior to that time not only were laws used to justify discrimination against such interracial couples, but also were the frequent citations of Biblical verse by conservative Christians (much like they do today to justify their bigotry against same-sex couples).No need for discussion of religion per se. No need for Biblical citations. Simply what do you think; how would you feel, if the two scenarios were true?
konolia, you have a white daughter and an African-American son-in-law who also have a mixed-race child (which I believe was conceived out-of-wedlock). As a mother and a Christian, would it have been justified for them being treated "differently" in society (e.g. refused service, be ostracized in segments of our society, be subjected to potential slurs, taunts and possible violence), if they had had their child and been married back in 1963. If so, how do you "square" such with yourself? If not, why ... and, how should your grandchild be treated -- by you, a grandparent and by society-at-large in 20 years when he or she "comes out" to you and announces he/she is marrying his/her same-sex partner?
Vanessa Willock sent to Elane Photography the following e-mail on September 21, 2006, a year in advance of her ceremony:We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.Elaine Huguenin responded:
This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we’d like to receive pricing information.
Thanks.Hello Vanessa,Willock wrote again:
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer’s portfolios.
-Elaine-Hi Elaine,Huguenin in conclusion:
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I’m a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
VanessaHello Vanessa,
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine
"If Elane wanted to maintain her ability to refuse service to individuals based upon her personal prejudices she should not have registered herself legally as a public business; instead, she should operate as a single invidiual who works as a independent contractor unassociated with any legal business entity. She was not working as a freelancer but as a vender [who] provides a service."
3. Ms. Willock brought a claim of public accomodation discrimination based on sexual orientation against Elane Photography, LLC, alleging that Elane Photography refused to offer its photographic services to her because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA.The finding goes on to state that Ms. Willock established a prima facie case of discrimination with both direct and indirect proof.
4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable parts, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accomodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accomodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation ..." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F).
5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived..." NMSA 1978 § 28-1-2(P).
6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accomodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accomodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that by its nature and use distinctly private..." NMSA 1978 § 28-1-2(H).
7. A similar prohibition against the discrimination of members of protected classes in public accomodations is contained in Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (1994 ed.) Section 2000a (a) provides the following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodations of any place of public accomodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a).
8. Federal adjudication may be relied on for guidance in analyzing a claim brought under the NMHRA. See Oceana v. American Furniture Co., 2004-NMSC-018, §23, 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967So, if your business was found to be a "public accomodation" and a plaintiff was able to prove direct and/or indirect discrimination based on his/her protected status, then, yes, you'd be found to have violated the law.
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Ethnicity
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Genetic Information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Political affiliation Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
"County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies."*
In the Elane Photography case the New Mexico Human Rights Commission "...found that Elane Photography, as a commercial business, provided a public accomodation and could not, under law, discriminate based on sexual orientation."*
Elane Photography registered and operates as a business which the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found to be a "public accomodation."
A commentor elsewhere says it well:
"If Elane wanted to maintain her ability to refuse service to individuals based upon her personal prejudices she should not have registered herself legally as a public business; instead, she should operate as a single invidiual who works as a independent contractor unassociated with any legal business entity. She was not working as a freelancer but as a vender [who] provides a service."
Claim of Public Accomodation Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation3. Ms. Willock brought a claim of public accomodation discrimination based on sexual orientation against Elane Photography, LLC, alleging that Elane Photography refused to offer its photographic services to her because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA.The finding goes on to state that Ms. Willock established a prima facie case of discrimination with both direct and indirect proof.
4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable parts, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accomodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accomodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation ..." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F).
5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived..." NMSA 1978 § 28-1-2(P).
6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accomodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accomodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that by its nature and use distinctly private..." NMSA 1978 § 28-1-2(H).
7. A similar prohibition against the discrimination of members of protected classes in public accomodations is contained in Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (1994 ed.) Section 2000a (a) provides the following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodations of any place of public accomodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a).
8. Federal adjudication may be relied on for guidance in analyzing a claim brought under the NMHRA. See Oceana v. American Furniture Co., 2004-NMSC-018, §23, 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d
"I suspect that Elane Photography's appeal will seek to prove that freedom of expression, freedom of association and/or freedom of religion trumps this current ruling. As well, they'll likely try to argue that Elane Photography is not a 'appealpublic accomodation.'"
« Older Elvis rode to fame on one of her covers and Janis ... | Little kids are cute.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 2:21 AM on June 20, 2008 [39 favorites has favorites]