Thoughts on this decision?
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled earlier today that Elane Photography, LLC cannot discriminate against same-sex couples and cite religious beliefs. The case went to the courts after the company's co-founder, Elaine Huguenin, refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of Vanessa Willock, a resident of Albuquerque.
A complaint was subsequently investigated by the state Human Rights Commission, which dubbed the decision discriminatory. That decision was then upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June of 2012 before being appealed again to the state supreme court. Elane Photography argued that, because photography is an "expressive" medium, it is subject to protection under the First Amendment. The ACLU, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Willock and her partner, argued that,because the photographs were being sold as part of a business, the company was subject to the same regulations as would a normal company." A commercial business cannot solicit customers from the general public to buy its services as a photographer for hire and then claim that taking those photographs is a form of its own autonomous expressive activity," they said on their official website.
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/new-mexico-supreme-court-says-wedding-photographer-cant-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples.html
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A complaint was subsequently investigated by the state Human Rights Commission, which dubbed the decision discriminatory. That decision was then upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June of 2012 before being appealed again to the state supreme court. Elane Photography argued that, because photography is an "expressive" medium, it is subject to protection under the First Amendment. The ACLU, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Willock and her partner, argued that,because the photographs were being sold as part of a business, the company was subject to the same regulations as would a normal company." A commercial business cannot solicit customers from the general public to buy its services as a photographer for hire and then claim that taking those photographs is a form of its own autonomous expressive activity," they said on their official website.
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/new-mexico-supreme-court-says-wedding-photographer-cant-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples.html
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Replies
-
For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is a little silly.0 -
Good choice yay home state...it would be no different than someone refusing to take a picture of an interracial wedding, Muslim, Jewish, African American, or Native American ceremony.
Not a good business decision that's for sure.0 -
For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is ridiculous.
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.0 -
I'm not a fan of gov't policing business. I'm a gay marriage supporter, but my feeling on this case is that people can take their business elsewhere rather than sue. It's rotten to say no same sex couples, but it's free enterprise. They can be free to ruin their own business with their choices.0
-
Good choice yay home state...it would be no different than someone refusing to take a picture of an interracial wedding, Muslim, Jewish, African American, or Native American ceremony.
Not a good business decision that's for sure.
The difference was that the photog was citing having a religious objection to SS couples.0 -
For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is ridiculous.
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.
I am conflicted though.
If a couple went to a restaurant and were refused service because of same sex, I'd be pretty upset about that.0 -
Good choice yay home state...it would be no different than someone refusing to take a picture of an interracial wedding, Muslim, Jewish, African American, or Native American ceremony.
Not a good business decision that's for sure.
The difference was that the photog was citing having a religious objection to SS couples.
So what if it was a physician saying they had religious objections to offering a service to a SS couple? What if she said I don't offer my service to Mormons because I have a religious objection.
It certainly is a stupid business choice and hope this person is prepared to lose it all.0 -
For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is ridiculous.
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.
I am conflicted though.
If a couple went to a restaurant and were refused service because of same sex, I'd be pretty upset about that.
I guess I'd rather know and not give them my money. Forcing them to serve a same sex couple because its the law won't make them any less bigoted or hostile. I'm a huge libertarian though--the less the government is involved in anything the better.0 -
Good choice yay home state...it would be no different than someone refusing to take a picture of an interracial wedding, Muslim, Jewish, African American, or Native American ceremony.
Not a good business decision that's for sure.
The difference was that the photog was citing having a religious objection to SS couples.
So what if it was a physician saying they had religious objections to offering a service to a SS couple? What if she said I don't offer my service to Mormons because I have a religious objection.
It certainly is a stupid business choice and hope this person is prepared to lose it all.
They should be able to... And then face the financial consequences.0 -
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.
Agreed0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I agree with the states' decision. Pro LGBT and also believe that if a company wants to offer a service they should offer equally to all. (And absolutely loathe people who use religion as a basis for hate- regardless of which religion and what their reason to discriminate).
That being said, I do also agree that it's ridiculous to sue for everything (i still get angry thinking about how someone won a case for a company not warning that their coffee would be hot... If it doesn't say Iced, u should reasonably assume it would be hot...).0 -
That being said, I do also agree that it's ridiculous to sue for everything (i still get angry thinking about how someone won a case for a company not warning that their coffee would be hot... If it doesn't say Iced, u should reasonably assume it would be hot...).
Just cause this gets brought up all the time and coincidentally occurred in New Mexico. That woman had a 3rd degree burn over 10% of her lower half including her crotch spending over a week in the hospital. She had to have extensive reconstructive surgery and is now permanently disabled. There is a reason she won that case.0 -
^^^ This.For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is ridiculous.
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.0 -
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.
Agreed
Agreed II
Agreed III0 -
"Sorry, I have a religious objection to photographing your wedding, because you are each a different race."
I'd have a problem with the above, personally. I have a problem with the photographer's objection, on the same grounds. And, no, I don't think the comparison is unfair or inappropriate.0 -
Oh and to the people saying government should stay out consider this, it wasn't very long ago that private business could tell black people where to sit, what door to come through, what times to come in so they wouldn't "offend" white customers, and which bathrooms to use. This was the same government that voted this unconstitutional.
Something to consider.
PS same government also told private and public universities they couldnt bar women or minorities from the campus or taking certain classes such as medicine or engineering.0 -
I don't necessarily believe that a business should be forced to take on customers, but also I don't think they should be allowed to just come out and say "we don't want business from your kind". I wouldn't want anyone taking my photo/serving me food who thought they were better than me.
Maybe they should be forced to pay a prejudice tax or something. At the same time, if they're going to be prejudiced, they should be forced to advertise it so people can avoid them appropriately.
Clearly I am conflicted on this issue.0 -
On the one hand, it is hard for me to wrap my mind around someone refusing a SS couple service because I feel no problems with same sex marriage. But why on earth, knowing society, not just say "Sorry I am booked up on that date" even though the real reason was that she did not like the subject matter? She will definitely experience a decline in business due to this where if she had declined due to scheduling conflicts or any OTHER reason, it never would have come out.
It is okay to have an opinion, in general (though I feel opinions like this one are crappy), but it is not okay to voice it every time you think you should open your trap. Especially when it could put your business in jeopardy.0 -
the business could refuse service if they werent so damn vocal about why they were refusing service. They should have just made some other reason up. But they wanted to fight the good fight...so screw them. The company should be ashamed of itself.0
-
I agree with the states' decision. Pro LGBT and also believe that if a company wants to offer a service they should offer equally to all. (And absolutely loathe people who use religion as a basis for hate- regardless of which religion and what their reason to discriminate).
That being said, I do also agree that it's ridiculous to sue for everything (i still get angry thinking about how someone won a case for a company not warning that their coffee would be hot... If it doesn't say Iced, u should reasonably assume it would be hot...).
I agree with the courts on this one. You can't just selectively trot out the religion excuse every time you have a personal objection to something.
And as for the woman who sued McDonald's over the hot coffee - she spilled the coffee in her lap and suffered extremely serious burns resulting in the need for skin grafts, and it was found that the coffee was in fact dangerously and unnecessarily hot. So not completely frivolous. She also offered to settle for $20,000 and McDonald's refused, so it went to court and she got $640,000.0 -
the business could refuse service if they werent so damn vocal about why they were refusing service. They should have just made some other reason up. But they wanted to fight the good fight...so screw them. The company should be ashamed of itself.
LOL the good fight. It wasnt like by not taking a pic they were going to get millions of people to say you know what this is wrong.
I just cant believe they were OK with the loss of revenue! We all know gay weddings are the best and I'm sure they would have spent a pretty penny on that picture package.0 -
the business could refuse service if they werent so damn vocal about why they were refusing service. They should have just made some other reason up. But they wanted to fight the good fight...so screw them. The company should be ashamed of itself.
LOL the good fight. It wasnt like by not taking a pic they were going to get millions of people to say you know what this is wrong.
I just cant believe they were OK with the loss of revenue! We all know gay weddings are the best and I'm sure they would have spent a pretty penny on that picture package.
lol I was being sarcastic when i typed "the good fight"0 -
I'm agreeing with the courts based on the interpretation from the ACLU.
That said, I don't know why anyone would turn down business because it's not something they religiously believe in. There are catholic divorce lawyers, hindu store owners who sell beef jerky, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I'm suprised this thread is going so well.0
-
For the record, I'm strongly on the side of LBGT rights.
However, this is ridiculous.
This. They own a private business and they can take whatever clients they want. Let paying customers decide whether they want to spend their money with them or not.
I was about to post the same. However, if it were a cafe owner refusing to serve someone because they were black, would you feel the same way?0 -
I'm suprised this thread is going so well.
Well Duh lol. Of the 15 posters or so that have put their opinions for all to see, all of them agree.
As for me, I think, they have a right based on their beliefs to not support the lbgt community by refusing to take the pictures of the "wedding". But we all know that those rights as Christians dont mean much anymore especially if they go against the liberal progressive agenda. Just sayin...0 -
I highly support gay rights and such.
However, I also support the right of a business to refuse to service to anyone, for any reason. If they wanted to refuse to photograph their commitment ceremony because they believe that homosexuality is wrong, then that is their choice and their inherent right, in my opinion.
That being said, it is also the right of the person who was refused service, to tell others why they were refused service, giving others the information they need to decide whether or not to do business with the photographer in the future.0 -
I highly support gay rights and such.
However, I also support the right of a business to refuse to service to anyone, for any reason. If they wanted to refuse to photograph their commitment ceremony because they believe that homosexuality is wrong, then that is their choice and their inherent right, in my opinion.
That being said, it is also the right of the person who was refused service, to tell others why they were refused service, giving others the information they need to decide whether or not to do business with the photographer in the future.
Bravo!!!0 -
I'm suprised this thread is going so well.
Well Duh lol. Of the 15 posters or so that have put their opinions for all to see, all of them agree. Just sayin...
Well no there are those that think buisnesses should be able to serve who they want, and those that think its discrimination.
So far everyone is being pretty civil about it though. That is very surprising for a subject of this nature0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions