New Mexico Guarantees Gay Couples’ Rights to Some Really Mediocre Wedding Pictures

Exhibit A for the follow-up suit about the quality of the work.© Purmar | Dreamstime.comThe Supreme Court in New Mexico made official what appeared to be inevitable: It is legal to force somebody who hates you to photograph your wedding. Or, rather, the courts have determined that opposition to same-sex marriage is not a government-approved reason for declining to shoot a gay couple’s wedding. From the Associated Press:

A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday.

Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business's principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

The court held that "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients" is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples."

I wrote about the case last summer. Elane Photography has lost every step along the way, so the outcome isn’t much of a surprise. The argument on Huguenin’s side was that being forced to shoot the wedding violated her rights to free speech and religious expression. The court disagreed, as Huguenin was not being compelled to show actual support for gay marriage, and the judges believed it’s unlikely that others would perceive her hired photography as a show of support.

Ken White at Popehat posted the full decision (pdf) for those who want to read it. White makes note of a special concurrence written by Justice Richard C. Bosson, who acknowledges the reality that this decision does have an impact on the Hugueinins’ freedom of conscience to some degree and notes that couple is not trying to stop anybody from getting married. They just want the right to be left alone and decide who they can choose to have as customers. After touching on important legal moments in the history of the intersections of religious liberty and law, Bosson concludes:

All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

White blogged about the decision in the context of asking why there are some who are outraged when laws force businesses to serve gays but are not equally outraged about laws that force businesses to serve all races or the other categories associated with public accommodations. A Rasmussen Poll from July indicated that 85 percent agree that the Huguenins’ have the right to refuse to shoot gay weddings. That number is interesting, in that it means there’s a significant number who support recognizing gay marriage but nevertheless feel photographers shouldn’t be required to shoot the wedding.

I would suggest maybe White is caught up in looking at the wrong categories. I think the answer lies in not what or who the law protects but rather what the law counts as a “public accommodation” versus what the individual perceives as a “public accommodation.” Does anybody have a right to a wedding photographer? If the poll question had simply asked “Can a paid photographer refuse to shoot a wedding for any reason?” and left it at that, what would the numbers be? Would the public differentiate between bigoted reasons versus other considerations?

Sticking to gay marriage, what if we changed what was asked? “Could a doctor refuse to provide medical treatment to a gay couple?” “Could an attorney refuse to represent a gay couple in a lawsuit?” “Could a supermarket refuse to let a gay couple shop there?” The responses to each question may vary not just because of a person’s attitude toward gays and lesbians, but also by their attitude of what counts as a “public accommodation.” People need food and medical care to live. Wedding pictures, not so much.

Even so, there’s still a very fundamental issue that still does not seem to get answered in these conflicts over discrimination and consumption and employment and other private situations: Does the existence of discriminatory behavior, even severely bigoted behavior, necessarily require government intervention to resolve? As I noted when I wrote about this case last year, the plaintiffs had other options that were even directly marketing themselves to same-sex couples. Bosson states, “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

The mistake here is thinking that the world of the marketplace and commerce is smaller than our society as a whole. It’s not. The marketplace is not a subset of society. A Venn diagram is insufficient to show the relationship. Imagine two parallel planes in a space with a constant immeasurable interactions between them. Bosson assumes that if the Huguenins aren’t required by the government to “leave space” for these gay couples, then there will be no other solutions forthcoming that will get these couples what they want. There is a significant amount of marketplace evidence that suggests otherwise.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Number 7||

    Can I say that the 2 guys who sued these photographers for not taking their pictures are pussies, or is that some sort of violation of New Mexico Human Rights Act?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey Dude / Dudette, In today’s internet-driven era you can say what you want, pretty much, and Government Almighty will leave you alone… As long as you do NOT threaten Emperor Obozo, who is more equal than all the rest of us put together! Other than that, you can say what you want, pretty much… It’s only when you want to make a dollar or two, like by making photos of weddings, that you fall into the Wrath of Government Almighty. Didn’t you KNOW that money is EVIL, except when it is moved around by Government Almighty? What the hey, here, did you fall off of the turnip truck yesterday!?!?

  • $park¥||

    Would that make them lesbians?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Freedom of screech is greater than freedom of speech. Or association. Or anything else.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    If forced to photograph a wedding I objected to doing, they'd get some amazingly composed candid shots of everyone's shoes, and very over-exposed images of the wedding party from about the chin down, and not much else. And they'd better feel lucky to get that much after using force.

  • Robert||

    But they didn't care about the quality of the photos. The whole idea was just to make the photog come & watch.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Scienfoology Song

    Government loves me, This I know,
    For the Government tells me so,
    Little ones to GAWD belong,
    We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
    Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
    Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
    And gives me all that I might need!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

    DEA, CIA, KGB,
    Our protectors, they will be,
    FBI, TSA, and FDA,
    With us, astride us, in every way!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
    My Nannies tell me so!

  • flye||

    ...it means there’s a significant number who support recognizing gay marriage but nevertheless feel photographers shouldn’t be required to shoot the wedding.

    Present.

  • SomeGuy||

    only thing i am against gay marriage is on how that will oppress other people's rights like forcing pastors to wed gays.....which it looks like my fear is coming true. I could careless if gay people get all the legal recognition as straights but redefining marriage and forcing that on others is a no go, which it is clear is their intentions.

  • Cloudbuster||

    If I was a pastor who was forced to wed gays against my will, I'd go ahead and have some fun with it.

    "Dearly Perverted Freaks, we are gathered here today to blaspheme God by pretending to sanctify Bob's love of B*ttf**k*ng Fred under the guise of Holy Matrimony. I now pronounce you husband and husband. You may now disgust me with a public display of affection."

    I mean, I have freedom of speech, right?

  • Bean Counter||

    Not if you're going to say bad things about politically favored groups. That's right there in the Constitution, just after the part about anything that Obama does is legal by definition.

  • PACW||

    Here.

  • Irish||

    OT: Bob Filner gives resignation speech, calls himself a 'victim,' claims to have been forced out by a 'coup' and to have been hounded by lynch mobs.

    He also took credit for saving San Diego from seal feces.

    Remember: Those in the ruling class are your superiors and you should trust them.

  • Almanian!||

    Wow. That's....something.

  • Agammamon||

    As sucky as the ruling is, its construed as narrowly as possible to be consistent with prior law. If the law puts you in a protected class, no-one can refuse to serve you. If you're not in a protected class then the basic right to associate/not associate applies.

  • $park¥||

    Three cheers for protected classes.

    Hip Hip HOORAY!
    Hip Hip HOORAY!
    Hip Hip...

    Ahhh, fuck it.

  • The Heresiarch||

    Everyone is in a protected class, insofar as everyone has a gender, color, race, nationality, etc.

  • LynchPin1477||

    But not all genders/colors/races/nationalities are protected. Go try to sue someone for denying you service on the basis of being a white male 3rd generation American of European descent. If you really want to screw yourself over, make some money, too.

  • The Heresiarch||

    I practice in employment law. Trust me, everyone is in a protected class. Of course, some protected classes are more favored by juries than others.

  • Agammamon||

    Yes they are - and you can't deny someone accommodation due to their being part of a protected class, unlike denying them because they're fat for example.

    Its part and parcel of this whole 'some people need government power to equalize things' thinking that is so prevalent.

    We've trampled down 1/3 of the 1st amendment to the sound of cheers.

  • Paul.||

    Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

    It will leave a tangible mark on everyone with every conceivable view.

    Gay organizations, prepare yourselves to be forced to allow straight people into your midst in leadership roles.

  • Agammamon||

    This might be possible - sexual orientation is a protected class. So gay/lesbian bars can't refuse to accommodate straight customers, for example.

    SO I guess if people want to piss them off, get a bunch of straight dudes to hang out at the local lesbian meat-locker.

  • $park¥||

    I don't think it would work. A straight guy getting beat up by a bunch of butch lesbians isn't a hate crime.

  • Agammamon||

    Heh, no - but he could then take the bar to court and sue.

  • ||

    Can't say I've ever spent time in a lesbian bar, but I've hung out at several gay bars over the years, and never been othered for my breederism.

  • dinkster||

    I used to go to gay night every Wednesday just because it happened to be on Wednesday and I'm an alchy. In five years, I was only hit on once. Sad really.

  • DRM||

    "Thank you for choosing us to photograph your gay wedding. We of course are required by the law to accommodate you, but please be advised that we lill be handing 100% of our proceeds from all such shoots directly to the Westboro Baptist Church."

  • DRM||

    "Whom, of course, we will be informing of the time and place you've chosen to have us arrive to photograph."

  • Killazontherun||

    You, sir, have the best response possible for this travesty.

  • prolefeed||

    Don't forget the "we will point the camera at your friends and relatives acting like drunken assholes, miss all the shots of you and your partner exchanging vows, and generally take the most unflattering portrayals of you and your mulleted ilk we can" approach.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    A wonderfully-composed picture of someone drinking, but all you can see is the glass, nose and chin?
    And don't forget to overexpose everything three stops just in case there are a few good shots in there.

  • SomeGuy||

    ah man i am sorry i had forced iso 6400 on the whole time outside in the day light. Everything is just a white photo with lots of grain. I also has the shutter left on 1 second -_-

  • DRM||

    That might work, but . . . doing a deliberately, unprofessionally bad job can be lawsuit bait. Or get you featured on a web page with "Look what a bad job these people did!" with no mention of the why.

  • Paul.||

    hat sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world.

    I owe no one my respect. Respect is earned. This is totally depressing.

  • $park¥||

    Every person is worthy of respect, but we're all within our rights to withdraw it.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't, for example, *owe* Illinois Nazis any respect.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    We don't *owe" others respect. We must *tolerate* others - that's it.

    We can respect at our own discretion. As long as others behave within the law, we must tolerate them.

  • Killazontherun||

    And freedom of association is the law of the land. There may be conflict with the 14th amendment in a very convoluted manner that requires you to make distinctions in regard to commercial association that happens also not to be mentioned. However, sexual orientation is not a covered class. Equal protection can only be asserted as a negative right. When it comes in conflict with association, it must demur. Set up a constitutional convention if you want to change the law instead of insisting on a tyranny based on fashionable causes. One day fashion will grow bored with you and will turn on you, and where will your law be then?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world"

    Yeah, the discord afflicting France because the government lets women choose whether to wear burkhas. Or the discord afflicting Malaysia when it allows Christians to say "Allah" in their newsletters.

    No, wait, that's exactly backwards, the discord comes when the government tries to shove its preferences down someone else's throat.

  • dbcooper||

    I bring you a live one. A genuine Obama superfan. Have at it:

    https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama

    And here's his conspiracy theory flow-chart to connect the dots with that dastardly Greenwald and Snowden:

    http://i.imgur.com/BfHqByZ.jpg

  • ||

    Do not want.

  • Finrod||

    What he said.

  • Irish||

    Jeff Gauvin ‏@JeffersonObama 4m
    @dirk_warren @LibertyLynx @Green_Footballs @TheScottFinley Greenwald to be fair is a CATO "Socialist"

    What's that? A socialist that believes in civil liberties?

  • Irish||

    Oliver Willis ‏@owillis 4h
    Russian President Outlaws All Protests At Sochi Olympics http://bit.ly/16WtzrM snowden's freedom wonderland

    These people are unbelievable hacks. Apparently we shouldn't listen to Snowden because he wasn't willing to turn himself in for a 40 year prison sentence.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    Jeff Gauvin
    @JeffersonObama
    Political Aficionado & Malfaisant. Art of War Wonk. Red Wine Bon Vivant & Investor. Polls, Econometric Data, Elections.

    I want to punch him in his fucking throat.

  • ||

    Yeah, everyone knows artisinal deep-dish mayonnaise is where it's at.

  • Hopfiend||

    Dijon ketchups

  • Killazontherun||

    I want to punch him in his fucking throat.

    That must be why I see so many assholes wearing chokers these days.

    Uhm, due to unforeseen circumstances of my sister finding a really quality Concorde grape vine on her property (likely from the previous owner getting old and letting his gardens go fallow back to woodland conditions) I've got ten gallons brewing at the moment. I assure you it wont be vivant in the least, and will be distilled into coyingly sweet brandy.

  • $park¥||

    Bosson assumes that if the Huguenins aren’t required by the government to “leave space” for these gay couples, then there will be no other solutions forthcoming that will get these couples what they want.

    Are you trying to say that the possibility exists that gay only ceremony photographers would spring up? Dude, that's discrimination.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "It is legal to force somebody who hates you to photography your wedding."

    I disagree with two things in that sentence - the misuse of "photography" and the misuse of "hate."

    Suppose I go to a kosher deli and say, "hi there, buddy, could you whip me up a BLT?" And the guy says "I am sorry, it is against my religion to sell bacon. I understand that Bob's Sandwich Shop down the block has bacon on its menu."

    And I say, "that's hateful! I'll sue!"

    Which one of us, in that scenario, is *really* the hater? The one who refuses to do what I tell him, or the one who threatens to sue him for how he runs his own business?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Incidentally, can the kosher deli guy be sued in New Mexico for discriminating against gentiles?

  • $park¥||

    Do you know for a fact that the photographer doesn't hate gays?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The sentence to which I was replying is, "It is legal to force somebody who hates you to photograph[] your wedding." The sentence is about the legal principle enunciated by the NM supreme ct, which is not limited to these specific people.

    So let me ask, is everyone who refuses to assist at a gay wedding a "hater" of gays? Is my deli guy in the hypothetical above a gentile-hater?

  • $park¥||

    Using the newly minted legal definition of "hate," yes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think I know now where this idea of "hate" comes from. It's from people who, possibly from the experience of lax parenting or possibly from bad logic, have concluded that "not doing what I demand" = hate. Or from a passionate dedication to a politics of demonizing one's opponents, they project and assume that anyone who disagrees with them politically hates them, since they sure hate *their* political opponents.

    Remember the chick who badgered her father into giving up his Limbaugh hat. When he gave in, she proclaimed it to the public as an example of familial love. He did what I want, he must love me! If he had persisted in not sharing my views, that can only be because he hates me!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The hate probably comes in based on why the person did not serve someone.

    Even to use your example if the deli guy did not serve you because he thinks bacon eating Gentiles are horrible abominations I can see where someone might infer hate is going on. Likewise if this photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding because she thinks gays are an abomination then likewise.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Even to use your example if the deli guy did not serve you because he thinks bacon eating Gentiles are horrible abominations I can see where someone might infer hate is going on."

    Gee, that's pretty harsh. Do you think such viewpoints are widespread among kosher deli operators?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know, I doubt it. But I have some suspicion that the photographer thinks same sex weddings are an abomination.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    She may think sodomy is an abomination.

    The deli guy may think bacon is an abomination.

    Some people think that voting Democrat is an abomination.

    But how do we interact with real-world people, believing as we do that they may have been guilty of one or more of these abominations? Does a libertarian hate his* Democrat or Republican friends and relatives, believing as he does that Democrats are basically slavers?

    *Or, I suppose, her

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -She may think sodomy is an abomination.

    She was not asked to photograph sodomy.

    Look, I think a person can oppose gay marriage or even homosexuality in general and not hate gays in a sense. But I also know where people who think that get that idea. When you refuse someone because you think that what they do is an abomination then it forms a basis for people to think you hate them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There are lots of people who think their loved ones' drug use is an abomination. Is that hatred? (even if the drug use turns out not to be as harmful as the person thinks)

    There are lots of people who think their loved ones' politics will lead the country into being enslaved by statists/corporations/. Is that hatred?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There certainly are a lot of people who hate 'druggies' or drug addicts or users, no?

    As I said, I think it is possible to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage and not hate gay people, but the two can be seen to go together, no?

    Remember that gay relations is kind of what gay people 'are,' so someone who says 'I think gay relations are a sick abomination' can be understood to mean that is what gay people are.

    It is complicated.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    For many people, politics is what they are. Consider the Limbaugh-hat chick. Do you think she's clear on the concept of thinking her views abominable without considering *her* an abomination? She seems to think that way about people of opposite views.

  • Calidissident||

    "For many people, politics is what they are. Consider the Limbaugh-hat chick. Do you think she's clear on the concept of thinking her views abominable without considering *her* an abomination? She seems to think that way about people of opposite views."

    I'm not sure what point you're making here that pertains to this argument. That lady wasn't exactly embraced by the commentariat. I would say that most people here find someone who makes the personal so political, as she does, to be loathsome.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was suggesting that the concept of hate=disagree *leads to* attitudes like those of the hat lady. I know the H&R people (rightly) disagree with her. I would call her *views* abominable, by the way, but I would be (theoretically) open to liking her personally.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't really think she's someone I (or most people here) would like personally. Not because she has different political views, but because of how she views those with different political views.

    I don't think it's a particularly apt comparison. Note that I don't think everyone who opposes gay marriage, or even homosexuality in general, hates gay people. But many do, that's simply a fact. And it seems pretty easy to me to figure why someone might think someone who disagrees with something like one's sexual orientation, hates them. Sexual orientation for the vast majority of people isn't something they have much control over. And most people aren't going to be too happy going through life either celibate, or pretending to be sexually attracted to something/someone they're not. By saying you disagree with someone's sexual orientation, you're essentially saying they should deny themselves happiness. Now, Christians feel that this is worth it, because gay people will otherwise go to Hell. I don't really blame gay people for not being too receptive to that argument, for obvious reasons.

    Again, I'm not saying everyone who opposes gay marriage or homosexuality hates gay people. But it is easy to see why that stereotype exists, and I don't think the comparison to the hat lady is very apt

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -For many people, politics is what they are.

    And for all, not many, gay persons gay relations is what they are (in terms of being gay).

  • $park¥||

    But how do we interact with real-world people, believing as we do that they may have been guilty of one or more of these abominations?

    Why do you believe that hate is a barrier to civil interaction? I work with people I hate every day, I still manage to be civil and get work done.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, you can get along even with people you hate. But I was going back to an earlier part of the pipeline and considering the definition of hate.

    The examples of non-hate I used tended to involve relatives and friends, not jerks at work.

  • $park¥||

    I think the same still applies. I hate my sister, her views are almost directly opposite mine on everything. That being said, when she visits at holidays I can still manage to be civil even when she cannot.

    And the guys at work aren't jerks, they're perfectly decent people who just suck at the job.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ah, but I hope you might reconsider your definition of hate re your sister - it sounds that you just find her unpleasant to be around. The same could be said of babies without hating them!

  • $park¥||

    Nope, I hate her. Thankfully she lives far away and visits rarely.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The hate probably comes in based on why the person did not serve someone.

    So Bo, get over here and suck my dick, or you're a hater.

  • $park¥||

    Now you're getting it. Stupid people assume malice where only apathy or disagreement exists.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I may have missed the snark in your original comment - if so I beg your pardon.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think he is agreeing with you, but I am rather snark challenged myself at times.

  • $park¥||

    It is a dual purpose comment. If you take it as malice against you, then you're calling yourself stupid. Or, you could take it as agreement with your point, which it very likely is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, so it 'goes both ways.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    So to speak.

  • ||

    Is my deli guy in the hypothetical above a gentile-hater?

    Slightly different. The Deli guy never offered a bacon service. It's not like he is withholding something he normally does for others.

    Regardless. Fuck all protected classes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Deli guy never offered a bacon service. It's not like he is withholding something he normally does for others.

    He offers to make sandwiches and refuses to make sandwiches that include bacon.

    The crhistfat bitches offer to make photographs and refuse to make photographs of gay spouses (or whatever).

    It's an apt comparison.

    And beyond that. It demonstrates the socialist stupidity of gay rights activists. In the real world, the comparative advantage of non discriminatory photographers would quickly put the discriminatory ones out of business. An effect that gay rights activists could have hastened by publicly boycotting discriminatory photographers.

    Instead, their ham fisted attacks on those people will likely be the best advertising that they ever had.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think that is correct. The analogy to the court's ruling would be if the kosher deli refused to serve you something on its menu.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The deli has sandwiches on its menu, doesn't it? How can it serve one kind of sandwich (say, chicken) while refusing to serve another kind (say, bacon)? Sounds like discrimination to me! And he doesn't even have the excuse of having a different definition of "sandwich" since he acknowledges a BLT is a sandwich, while these wedding photographers don't concede that a same-sex union is a wedding.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    She advertised for photographing 'significant life events.'

    And of course the court equated same sex unions with 'weddings.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That wasn't the basis of the court's decision. If it was, she could simply change her advertising - "we photograph birthdays, graduations, yada yada, and weddings" followed by an asterisk with their own personal definition of weddings at the bottom.

    Under the court's decision, even if they did that they would be scofflaws who could be assessed damages.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you read the original decision of the NM Human Rights Commission that fact was conceded.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OK, I'm confused, what is the relevance of the fact that she said "significant life events" - would the NM court allow her to avoid the ruling by a change of wording? If not, then what's the point of mentioning it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I mentioned it to correct your analogy.

    Unlike the deli guy you proposed who did not have BLT on the menu she had 'significant life events' as one of her services.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OK, the deli guy advertises "sandwiches" on his shop and only takes it down when he's accused of fraud. Then he persists in refusing to serve BLTs. Does that improve the analogy?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If the photographer advertised for 'pet photos' and she turned down someone who wanted wedding photos then under the Court's ruling she would be fine, as I understand it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The way she gets in trouble is to offer to photograph 'significant life events' of even 'weddings' if the Court finds same sex unions to fall into or be equivalent of that.

    I would rather such laws did not exist at all, but I see the logic of applying it here.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I would rather such laws did not exist at all, but I see the logic of applying it here."

    Oh, I see their logic, all right. I'm just trying to apply it in other contexts.

    I mean, because of some guy's religious hangups, I must be forced to go down the block for a BLT? If my religious preferences were the same as his, he'd give me the kind of sandwich I wanted. But because my religion is different, he's going to impose his religion on me?

    I mean, like the concurring justice [almost] said, "The Jews are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead....

    "In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Jews have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different."

    What I'm trying to say is...make me a sandwich!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I mean, because of some guy's religious hangups, I must be forced to go down the block for a BLT?

    With respect I am not sure you got my examples.

    If the Deli guy said 'I am not going to serve you blintzes for your gentile function' then that would be the same as what happened here.

    She said she photographed significant life events and weddings and the court found a same sex union to be the former and the gay equivalent of the latter. In their reasoning she was not being asked to do something 'off the menu.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    All right, but my question is what would happen if she made clear her opposite-sex definition of marriage?

    Now, to our deli owner - you mentioned a "gentile function." What if that function was a barbecue (the pig kind)? What if he he doesn't think that he should assist in a barbecue, even if he's not personally touching pig meat? (I don't know the real-world Jewish teaching on catering barbecues - this is a hypo). This is comparable to wedding photographers not wanting to photograph the commitment ceremony, even if they don't actually have to photograph the act of sodomy.

    Can we tell the deli guy that he's just being over-scrupulous or (like the court) that he must subordinate his scruples to the greater good. I mean, he'd cater a kosher dinner, wouldn't he?

    If you say he has the right to define the scope of his own business, what if his definition of the scope of his business happens, for practical purposes, to have a *disparate impact* on gentiles? Like the opposite-sex definition of wedding services has a disparate impact on gays?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have hit on the crux (or at least one) of the disagreement. Is she refusing to serve the customer because of what they are asking for or because of who/what the customers are? In your, and her, opinion it is like she is being asked to serve a BLT when she only serves kosher foods, to people who think it is the second it is more like the kosher deli that refuses to serve food to a gentile.

    I think reasonable people can disagree, but once she held out her business to photograph 'significant life events' I think the jig is up there.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Perhaps, but she could always take down that sign or change her advertising. I don't think that will help her under this ruling.

  • Killazontherun||

    I think reasonable people can disagree, but once she held out her business to photograph 'significant life events' I think the jig is up there.

    Good Lord, I would have flunked set theory if I debased my solutions like that. The customer gets to decide what constitutes 'significant life events' in all instances then? No input from the person forced to do business with them by the implicit threat of losing their right to do engage in commerce in the way that maximizes their utility? Some families really love their pets. Can they make you film their collie giving birth because it is a 'significant life event' to them? If that example seems to trivial for you, what if a manic-depressant wants you to film his suicide? You can't argue away that isn't a 'significant life event' now can you? You call 911 instead, you got a lawsuit on your hands, buddy.

    Say, if your store advertizes 'we have candy bars!' and I go in there and find out there is no Butterfingers available can I now sue you because you did not include all candy bars in your store therefore your advertisement was misleading? Any fair reading of 'significant life events' would take it as a given that there are limits to the events the photographer would willingly film instead of this zero tolerance non-sense. Zero tolerance is totalitarian and many leftist seem alarmingly fine with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But they'd have to give up photographing opposite-sex marriages.

    I suppose if the kosher deli guy advertised "bread rolls" and turned down someone who wanted a bacon sandwich, maybe he too would be in the clear.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If the photographer advertised for 'pet photos' and she turned down someone who wanted wedding photos then under the Court's ruling she would be fine, as I understand it.

    Bo, are you ok with this kind of micromanagement by the government?

    The libertarian position is that fee enterprise and freedom of association means that any photographer is free to reject any job for any reason.

    The progressive position is that economic activity is separate from civil rights and therefor is legitimately subject to any degree of state intervention.

    Libertarians rightly see economic activity as a subset of civil liberty, and therefor morally exempt from government intervention.

    Your posts imply a progressive world view.

  • paranoid android||

    Bo clearly said upthread that he would rather such laws not exist at all.

    He only seems to be arguing that the law is being correctly applied, even if the law is (from a libertarian point of view) wrong in principle. A position with which I would have to agree.

    From the court's point of view (meaning in light of the letter of the law and existing court precedent), this is no different from a white proprietor denying service to a black customer. Even if you believe that anti-discrimination laws such as the New Mexico Human Right Act are misguided and a detriment to liberty, the law is pretty well-established in this area.

  • Killazontherun||

    That precedent in law is based on the 14th Amendment classifications of protected classes, and sexual orientation isn't one of them. If it comes up in the Supreme Court as it is now constituted the left will have a very sad day on their hands. I think we all know that, as well as the fact leftist in the lower courts and HRCs are trying to get away with as much as they can to tangle up the precedent before that day of reckoning comes down.

  • The Heresiarch||

    I thought the ruling is based on a state anti-discrimination law. There is no need for recourse to the 14th amendment in that instance. California has a similar law - the Unruh Act.

  • BigT||

    Would she photograph my vasectomy? It was a significant life event.

    How about emptying my colostomy bag for the first time? ( should I ever need one)

  • Killazontherun||

    Previous rulings have narrowed state laws in effect to equality matters that go beyond the 14th amendment to zilch.

  • Scott S.||

    I fixed the typo. The "hate" reference is deliberate literary hyperbole.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That usage is literally the worst thing ever in the history of the universe.

  • ||

    That usage is literally the worst thing forever in the history and future of all the universes.

    There, that's the most improved sentence there forever could be.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's nothing so desirable as a hostile wedding photographer.

  • crashland||

    Exactly. So what happens when the pics are nothing but blurry shite?

  • $park¥||

    My guess is they don't get paid and the state backs that decision. Nothing like having blown an afternoon for no gain.

  • jdfinct||

    My guess is that they would probably go one step further and sue them again.

  • Robert||

    The people who brought the suit didn't care about the photos, they just wanted to humiliate the photographer.

  • MJGreen||

    No means no!

    Unless you don't have a government-approved reason for saying no.

  • Train||

    If written in twenty years this article would never see the light of day on reason.com, just like we never hear about anti-discrimination law against Blacks and how un-libertarian it is. Anti-discrimination law is very destructive, not just to "racists" but the honest businessmen who now has to make sure everything he does doesn't lead to a "disparate impact." I'm just saying, I wish the subject were covered more.

  • $park¥||

    Anti-anti-discrimination is usually brought up loud and often in the comments. There are plenty of us around who can see what the real root of the problem is.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    Yeah the whole thing is pretty absurd. They find their way around it though with that "public accomadation" bullshit. sad.

  • Jason A||

    Tolerance according to homosexuals = one way street!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No bi-tolerance?

  • Jason A||

    Homosexuals desire tolerance to their lifestyle choice. Yet, as this case highlights, they are not willing to show tolerance towards people that may disagree with them for whatever reason.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They would argue that they are not failing to show tolerance here but would be if a gay photographer refused to photograph a straight wedding.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Tolerance isn't the same as acceptance or validation or agreement. Tolerance is about where you draw the line at using force against people who are operating outside of what you personally accept.

    Libertarians are the most consistently tolerant political group that exists. PC liberals are even less tolerant than racists and homophobes, though it may be a function of political ascendance and power.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What I mean is that their view would be 'everyone should have to serve everyone' and intolerance is when someone does not serve someone, not when someone has to serve someone (to them, that is tolerance, albeit forced, in action).

    -Tolerance is about where you draw the line at using force against people who are operating outside of what you personally accept.

    They would not accept that premise as the entire logic of public accommodations anti-discrimination law is otherwise.

  • Finrod||

    Gay people very frequently loathe bi people more than straight people do.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    So...can I force a black photographer to take pics of my White Wedding (cue Billy Idol)?

  • Calidissident||

    That's been the law for a long time. Also, I think the number of black photographers who would refuse to photograph a white wedding would be a lot lower than the number of Christian photographers who would refuse to photograph a gay wedding.

    SLD goes here

  • ||

    I have to agree with this.

    I don't think that blacks face a lot of overt discrimination, but the fact is they are a minority in a racially divided country, and that limits the market for their services, no matter what profession they enter. It's just going to be harder to get clients as a black doctor, dentist, photographer, or whatever, just because white people are going to shy away.

  • ||

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    OT: I'm working with a guy who is, in addition to being intelligent, the most deep end prog I've talked to in a long time. The fact that he's intelligent actually makes him way scarier, because his hatred of people like me is not impulsive or poorly thought out. He has the best of intentions, and will only use power for good, but gladly volunteers that he wants to control society, and by violence if necessary, and has given a lot of thought as to how it should be done.

    Even racists have some room in their worldviews for "one of the good ones." But that's because they're motivated by plain old xenophobia, not by the light of ideological zealotry. I'm pretty sure if he figured out that I'm one of these anarcho-capitalists that the good folks at the SPLC warned him about, and if he really understood what I believe, he would be eager to get me into a cell--for my own good, of course, and the protection of all of society.

    He's a gentle guy. I can't imagine him touching a gun or throwing a punch, but practically speaking, he is potentially one of the most dangerous and violent people I've met. I've decided my best bet is to avoid politics and stay off his shit list, but it's going to leak eventually.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I hope he has some redeeming traits, because the idea that, upon your coming out of the closet, he'd decide you belong in prison is exactly the stereotype he probably has about SSM opponents.

    I suppose it might not be a good idea to mention the would-be assassin who used the SPLC hate map?

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Yes. One of the first things that scared me about him was his eagerness to try anti-gay activists for hate crimes. Because no one should ever have to face that kind of hatred.

  • $park¥||

    He has the best of intentions, and will only use power for good, but gladly volunteers that he wants to control society, and by violence if necessary, and has given a lot of thought as to how it should be done.

    Don't you see? He's super-smart, so he KNOWS the way people are supposed to be. And anyone who doesn't do it his way is obviously ignorant and thus needs to be controlled.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    You don't have to walk me through his argument, he already said as much. Although he's smart enough not to see himself as one of the TOP. MEN. who need to be making all the decisions, but he gets super excited about being on their team.

  • $park¥||

    Apparently he's not smart enough to understand that the smart lackeys are the first ones under the bus.

  • ||

    Apparently he's not smart enough to understand that the smart lackeys are the first ones under the bus.

    Yep, just ask Nikolai Yezhov.

  • ||

    He needs to watch Hayek in action. I can see this guy as a George Orwell / Trotsky type. Once the machine of the state is set up, the ruthless rise to the top and guys like him are the first to get purged.

  • JW||

    stay off his shit list

    Is he your superior? No? Then fuck him.

  • $park¥||

    Then fuck him.

    NTTAWWT

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    If he has the means and motivation to have my house raided, that's motivation enough for me to be scared of him.

  • JW||

    Then stop working for the Dept of Education.

    I work in the arts and you don't get any more leftist than that. I manage to avoid political discussions as a rule.

    Learn to smile and nod and change the subject with authority.

  • General Butt Naked||

    he is potentially one of the most dangerous and violent people I've met.

    Then get him to be violent. Let the world see him for what he is.

    You can do it.

  • Finrod||

    “I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." -- CS Lewis, from The Screwtape Letters

    Your friend would fit right into that very well.

  • Raven Nation||

    OT: CBS news reporting WH is preparing cruise missile strike on Syria. Tweet posted at Zero Hedge:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/

  • ||

    Coming again to save the motherfuckin' day yeah!

  • Nazdrakke||

    Fucking awesome, we've been short one pointless middle east clusterfuck for a while now and I'm thrilled to see that Obama has decided that it's time for more needless death and expendatures that to change.

  • Finrod||

    From Beyond The Fringe:

    "I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war."

  • Xenocles||

    It seems like that could just mean that they're developing options in the event that they choose to go that way. I'd expect the military to be working up contingency options knowing that hitting Syria is a possibility down the road.

    It's not necessarily going to happen tomorrow unless there were more details in the actual story not posted on Twitter.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I'd expect the military to be working up contingency options knowing that hitting Syria is a possibility down the road

    Unless radical incompetence has infected the military since my day those plans are already around and are being updated constantly.

  • Xenocles||

    I agree, but they're probably just getting more attention now.

  • ||

    CNN is reporting an update to the target list.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Looks like they're preparing and positioning, not just planning.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Oh, so Congress finally voted to declare war, huh?


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

  • CatoTheElder||

    How quaint!

  • CatoTheElder||

    I suppose this could be construed to be on-topic. After all, the Assad regime doesn't require photographers to serve at same-sex weddings.

  • Rich||

    such an attack won't happen until the president gives the green light.

    The "green light" used to be necessary but not sufficient. 8-(

    Launching cruise missiles from the sea would not risk any American lives.

    In *that* attack, perhaps; subsequently, not so much.

  • FYTW||

    Public accommodations laws are evil. If people want a say in how a private enterprise selects its customers or conducts its affairs, those people can pony up and buy an ownership stake. Beyond that, their recourse is market pressure.

    And beyond that, they can shut the fuck up. Bigots suck; tyrants suck worse.

  • ||

    Is it okay to choose a moniker based on a meme? This could get confusing.

    Why?

    FYTW!

    Huh?

    What's the vector Victor?

    Get the clearance Clarence.

    Roger.

    Huh?

  • Finrod||

    No, I'll never get over Macho Grande.

  • JW||

    Does the existence of discriminatory behavior, even severely bigoted behavior, necessarily require government intervention to resolve?

    Only if the state is the bigot, which it frequently is.

  • JW||

    it is the price of citizenship

    Forced labor? I don't recall being a citizen of that country.

    What I don't understand is why they just didn't say that they are booked for that day. It's not like they run a cafe.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They made the mistake of being honest.

  • Xenocles||

    I wonder if they're professional enough to actually do a good job under compulsion. I wouldn't be. If I were good enough of a photographer I could ruin your wedding album and it would look like a total accident. If I didn't want to bother I would just call in sick on the day of. Making the point would even be worth refunding you 105% percent.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, I would prefer there not be laws like this. Not only do they violate rights of association but they are likely counterproductive (people do not come to respect people by being forced to serve or associate with them, that breeds further resentment).

    Having said that, her LLC should just sub the work out.

  • Harvard||

    [they are likely counterproductive (people do not come to respect people by being forced to serve or associate with them, that breeds further resentment]

    And can, in certain circumstances, even result in dragging the occasional lavender clad soul behind a pick-up.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I work in a profession that allows me to pick and choose clients. Occasionally, I turn down work simply because I don't like the client. They strike me as difficult or demanding or our styles are incompatible. I'm rarely honest about why I won't do the job. I tell them I'm overbooked or make another acceptable but polite excuse. I don't return phone calls or give them outrageous estimates.

    This photographer could've done the same. Her mistake was honesty.

  • Nazdrakke||

    This photographer could've done the same. Her mistake was honesty

    Which, for my money, tends to create a self-perpetuating cycle of fear, resentment, suspicion, and distrust far more painful and damaging than working out these conflicts in the open.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Sorry, I'm not understanding you. You're saying not being frank about why I won't do a job breeds a cycle of fear and resentment?

    LOL - no. Telling a potential client they have a bitchy personality and I just don't like them wouldn't be less damaging than just not returning their phone calls.

  • $park¥||

    Being punished for honesty is a pretty powerful motivator to not be honest. I'm with Naz, a world like that sucks to live in.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I could have made that clearer, for sure. What I'm saying is that manufacturing a society where honesty is the path to damage or destruction is a recipe for the above mentioned miasma. I can understand why someone would behave exactly like you describe, but it is unhealthy for a society to embrace it as whole, which is what we've done.

  • Sevo||

    ..."but it is unhealthy for a society to embrace it as whole, which is what we've done."

    If this is pedantic, someone will call me on it.
    LB is ducking a client for the very good reason that LB's experience says this is not going to work out well (meaning LB's not gonna make any money after LB factors in the agro time). That's circumstance (1) and I applaud that; time and money saved all around.
    The second is a guy lying to avoid government sanction; circumstance (2) and I agree. When we as a population find it best to lie to government questions, we have a poor government on out hands and it should be changed.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Agreed, Sevo.

  • Overt||

    Right but the problem is that we create a world where the fear of being honest leads the person being refused work believes that the refusal was because they are (for example) gay or black.

  • ||

    Of course, they may not have disclosed the fact it was a gay wedding until after they discussed availability.

  • LynchPin1477||

    This is despicable. And the plaintiffs here must be pretty damn depraved, to basically argue to the courts that the photographers ought to be slaves to their desires. Why not just go to a different photographer? Who spends this much time and effort to force someone to go against their conscience? And libertarians are the ones who are accused of not caring.

  • $park¥||

    What's the point of being in a protected class if you don't get to flex your government approved muscles once in a while?

  • Nazdrakke||

    It's vengance dressed up as righteousness.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think it is necessarily vengeance.

    The gay activist experiences a world where gay people have and still do suffer considerable discrimination which involves inconvenience, humiliation, insult, etcetera. They want to see that become a thing of the past.

    I would like to see it become a thing of the past too. My issue with them is that some of them think force is the way to do that and I do not.

  • FYTW||

    For the record, the photographer was appealing from an adverse decision by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which fined her in response to a complaint by the lesbian couple who tried to hire her. The lesbian couple wasn't a party to the case; they were just bitchy enough about being turned down to want to see the photographer convicted by some kangaroo court for a thoughtcrime.

  • JW||

    Why not just go to a different photographer?

    You don't get to project asymmetrical power and control over others by behaving like a civilized person.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    “Could a doctor refuse to provide medical treatment to a gay couple?”

    Interesting question. The law allows doctors to refuse to perform procedures that conflict with their morals. But the classic professions (lawyers, doctors, priests) enjoy certain historic privileges that other occupations do not.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Has this actually happened? Have doctors actually refused to treat gays for, say, AIDS, cancer, etc., etc?

    Even if a doctor thought being gay was a really bad lifestyle, doctors encounter the consequences of bad lifestyles all the time. Their income might be as much as halved without the consequences of bad lifestyles.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If I recall, there was some stink in the 90s about dentists refusing to treat HIV/AIDS infectees for fear of transmission. The court ruled against that reasoning and said that it was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was some legislation in Michigan stipulating that doctors could refuse to treat homosexuals as a matter of conscience. California doctors explicitly cannot refuse to treat gays as a matter of law.

    As to lifestyle choices, I haven't heard of anything in the US, but I know in the UK there has been a long-running conversation about doctors refusing to treat smokers or the obese. Allegedly, they cost the NHS too much money and don't deserve treatment based on their obviously poor choices.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's not a nice development.

  • ||

    The law allows doctors to refuse to perform procedures that conflict with their morals.

    Well, yes and no.

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's also probably worth pointing out that it isn't a Christian refusing to serve lunch to a gay couple at a restaurant. Weddings in a society are ceremonial, and often (usually?) involve at least a little bit of religion. That makes it a more significant burden on freedom of conscience.

  • ||

    Here's what I'd find interesting. I'd like to see an interview with some prominent black leaders to see what they think about this decision. I suspect it would be entertaining.

  • Killazontherun||

    What's that country we have always been at war with?

    I love it when administrations break out a flood of news copy war on Friday evenings.

  • $park¥||

    Because of your broken link we may never know.

  • ||

    That link must have been declared an unperson.

  • Sevo||

    The link refused to link for Killaz, since, uh, something.

  • Almanian!||

    I think that link is homophonic, and should be forced to....perform its service for Killaz.

    Cause - teh lawz.

  • Almanian!||

    Wow - look how close the "n" key is to the "b" key. It's, like, RIGHT next to it.

    Substitute "b" for "n" above as you see fit.

  • $park¥||

    What is a homophonic libk?

  • ||

    If homophonic isn't a word, it should be.

    Man sounds?

  • Sevo||

    "If homophonic isn't a word, it should be."

    Exactly cromulent.

  • $park¥||

    Sure it's a word, here's a list of words that are homophonic:

    hey - hay
    write - right
    marry - merry
    cue - queue

  • $park¥||

  • ||

    That's funny. I didn't even bother to check. I should have noticed there was no squiggly line when I typed it.

    I learned something today. Now I can drink.

  • Whahappan?||

    UH, marry and merry aren't homophones.

  • Ted S.||

    What's that country we have always been at war with?

    Canada?

  • ||

    Middleastia, and the correct word is "aid", we've always been at aid with Middleastia.

  • Killazontherun||

    There are individuals who are suppose to alert me when this happens -- significant humor being indulged in on this site at my expense. A break down in communications, much like my link, such is the nature of war.

  • Sevo||

    LynchPin1477| 8.23.13 @ 9:09PM |#
    ..."Who spends this much time and effort to force someone to go against their conscience?"

    If I were the photoger, the job would be done well, and the price WOULD REFLECT THAT!

  • Sevo||

    Oops. I now see the alt text pre-empted my solution.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Three Teenagers Accused of Murdering Chris Lane Won't Be Charged With Hate Crime

    District Attorney Jason Hicks acknowledged Friday that tweets from James Edwards Jr. seem racial in nature, but he said the case will not be prosecuted as a hate crime.

    “At this point, the evidence does not support the theory that Christopher Lane was targeted based upon his race or nationality,” Hicks said in a statement.

    Three days before the shooting, Edwards wrote on Twitter, “With my n****s when it’s time to start taken life’s” — a line from the Chief Keef rap song, “I Don’t Like.” Back in April, he tweeted, “90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

    Remember, when you say that you hate white people, and then kill a white person, it's not a hate crime. You're just lashing out against the racist-patriarchy of America.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Good. Hate crime laws are fucking evil.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    How long have you been an evil racist member of one the SPLC's list of hate-based, evil racist groups?

  • ||

    Remember, Zimmerman should be prosecuted by the Feds for civil rights violations because he racially profiled Trayvon Martin, but this was just a poor, dumb kid being victimized by our culture of violence and guns.

  • Calidissident||

    That's not enough evidence that Lane was targeted based on race (and yes, I realize some people would feel differently the other way around). I also read somewhere (not sure if it's true) that their next target was a black guy. Also, the driver is white, and the other guy (not Edwards) is half-white

  • Mickey Rat||

    On the one hand, I don't like hate crime laws because a person's life was taken, that should be more than enough to put those who committed that act for a long time. However, I don't think that the reasons this is not being classified a hate crime has anything to do with a principled opposition but rather an unequal application of law, perhaps in the service of hushing up what motivated the criminals to act.

  • Calidissident||

    Given that one of the guys is white, and the other half-white, I find it unlikely that they chose this guy based on his race

  • Calidissident||

    *that should say another instead of "the other" because there were three guys

  • ||

    I find it unlikely that they chose this guy based on his race

    Can't speak for all of them, but taking this guy at his word, I'd say it isn't too far fetched.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others."

    No, it really does not. It teaches us that some people(the protected classes) have more rights than others and do not have to accommodate the values of those that disagree with them. Since what the Huguenin's were refusing to serve was a ceremony they had a philosophical disagreement on whether or not is appropriate. It would have been easy for the plaintiffs ton simply go elsewhere to find the service they desired. The plaintiffs were not refused service because they were homosexuals but because the photographer thinks the ceremony is a grotesquerie of marriage. They wanted to hurt those who did not share their values, not the Huguenin's.

    "...and the judges believed it’s unlikely that others would perceive her hired photography as a show of support."

    Why in the world not? At the very least, it seems to be evidence that they do not disagree with homosexual marriage. Of course, now that it is illegal in New Mexico for a business owner to conduct yourself as if disagree with homosexual marriage, I suppose it is not, though you'd probably have to explain it to the casual observer. The judge's are now claiming to precog mind readers, or devotees of a bizarre form of logic, because I cannot see how they came to that conclusion.

  • Sevo||

    ""...and the judges believed it’s unlikely that others would perceive her hired photography as a show of support."

    Why in the world not? At the very least, it seems to be evidence that they do not disagree with homosexual marriage."
    ----------------------
    Agree with your point but whether she 'agrees' with anything is irrelevant to her choice of selling her labor or not.
    Maybe she didn't like the guy's haircut; so what? She would rather not work for him. That's all that need be said.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except that that what judges were addressing in the passage quoted was whether the New Mexico law compels speech, whether the photographer disagrees is kind of relevant to whether they are being compelled to approve.

    Under the ruling I don't think the Hugeunin's saying they simply did not want to work for Willock would legally fly. It would have just made it harder for Willock to prove.

  • cw||

    Makes you question what progs think private property means.

  • Finrod||

    Simple. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    ever since smoking bans, the left has more or less revealed that they do not care about private property

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The mistake here is thinking that the world of the marketplace and commerce is smaller than our society as a whole. It’s not. The marketplace is not a subset of society.

    As a (quasi) Agorist, I would go even further. The marketplace is society. There is no valid definition of society other than peaceful voluntary exchange between consenting parties.

  • Sevo||

    "As a (quasi) Agorist, I would go even further. The marketplace is society. There is no valid definition of society other than peaceful voluntary exchange between consenting parties."

    In "The History of Money", Weatherford begins a chapter with a quote (I think it was G. Stein of all people);
    'Money is what separates man from the other animals'.
    In thinking about it since, I can see a strong case there.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I seem to remember reading that some zoologists have observed chimpanzees bartering for various services, including sex. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we discover the most intelligent primates, other than us, have worked out a system where they trade shiny things for services.

  • Sevo||

    HM,
    I highly recommend that book, One of the reasons is the statement and the evidence of how money qua money revolutionized human society.
    Yes, there may well be barter among the other animals, but that ain't *money*, and that makes all the difference.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thanks.

    I added it to my Amazon wishlist; however, it will probably be a while till I get a chance to read it. I'm in the beginning stages of research for a case study I want to do, and for the literature review I am reading about a book a week until mid-October-ish!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I seem to remember reading that some zoologists have observed chimpanzees bartering for various services, including sex."

    Primate prostitutes? Wow, thanks so much for that image!

    "Hey, sailor, is that a banana you've got or are you just happy to see me?"

    "Hey, get a load of that tail."

    And the jokes just deteriorate from there.

  • Harvard||

    Brings to mind seedy "Red Ass Districts" throughout the jungle.

  • IceTrey||

    So if the KKK asks a black photographer to take pictures at a cross burning they have to do it?

  • Mickey Rat||

    I guess that would depend on whether the KKK could prove the black photographer refused them out animosity towards their race.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is it just "race" or can ideology impel under NM law now?

    Would I be forced to do business with a dirty, stinkin' Commie, if I didn't want to?

  • Mickey Rat||

    It would seem that if New Mexico made an ideology a protected class, then yes. In fact, I think to ceratin extent in the case of homosexuals, they have. However, I don't think that they have protected Commies...yet.

  • ant1sthenes||

    At present, no, but I think if enough people openly discriminated against Democrats for being liberals/socialists/Democrats (or even rephrased probable racial and sexual prejudice as prejudice against the left) they would make it a protected class. Then, with some sympathetic judges, we could completely fuck them with their anti-discrimination bullshit.

  • Warrren||

    Italian businessman waits until his workers are on vacation, then packs up the factory and legs it to Poland in search of a better business climate.

    The usual suspects are predictably outraged.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin.....qus_thread

  • Sevo||

    “If I had told the unions that I intended to transfer production to Poland, they would have had my property confiscated, just as they tried to block the lorry,”
    You know who else tried to keep capital from leaving (Italy)?
    So a semi-godwin

  • JW||

    “Employees are not lemons to be squeezed or machines which you can move around at your pleasure in the name of profit,” said Giancarlo Muzzarelli, a regional politician.

    OTOH, business owners, are.

    I would definitely buy the owner a few drinks. Good on him for escaping socialist hell.

  • Irish||

    “We are fighting not just for ourselves but to prevent our company from creating a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country,” one of the employees told the local press.

    Hey, dipshit. You already set a dangerous precedent. That's why businessmen have to flee the country in order to keep from going out of business, you parasite.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Well, I'm back from vacation. It will be so nice to get away from the kids and finally have a chance at a nice nap...mama mia, where did the factory go?"

  • Duke||

    I lol’d at the "mama mia” part.

  • Harvard||

    Uh, the "vacation" time is mandated by the government in the first place.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I'm amazed that anyone's able to operate a business in Italy at all.

    -jcr

  • Robert||

    Isn't there some sincerity requirement in the law that says if you sue someone out of spite, especially seeking out a victim to sue as in this case, it doesn't count? My udnerstanding is that the plaintiffs went out of their way just to find an unwilling photographer to get their goat.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I wouldn't say there's a sincerity requirement as such. If the other guy did you an actual injury (as defined by the courts), then the fact that you're spiteful, or even doing a test case, isn't enough to stop you.

    I mean, throwing out lawsuits because the plaintiff is spiteful? Who ever heard of such a thing?

  • Robert||

    That's a problem with the legal system, then. You shouldn't be allowed to "draw a foul". Many sports have a rule that if a foul appeared to be deliberately contrived by the opponent, it doesn't count.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Isn't there some sincerity requirement in the law that says if you sue someone out of spite, especially seeking out a victim to sue as in this case, it doesn't count?

    No -- what would make you think there was?

  • Sevo||

    That goddam Peace Prize must allow the idiot to do what he pleases:
    "The Pentagon is moving naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a possible decision by President Barack Obama to order military strikes, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested on Friday."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol.....757274.php
    I wish that "cowboy" were out of office so we didn't get involved with so many military 'kinetics', but since that 'hope-and-change' guy didn't win, we'll have to put up with that damn Bush!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Al Gore likens skeptics to racists, slavery, homophobes.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Climate Change Causing Climate Models to Fail

    "Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change," says Dr. Manyard Michael, the lead scientist behind the study. "The current 16 year pause in global warming illustrates just how serious this situation has been; if not for climate change, we now know that we would have been able to accurately predict the current break in warming and clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast - not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community." Dr. Michael also noted that they stumbled on this important finding almost by accident. "We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It's a very strong positive feedback."
  • Dweebston||

    Cross-posting links isn't like cross-dressing, Archduke. It's not going to make you popular around here.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    I'm not here to be popular.

  • Dweebston||

    But you could still put on the fishnets, if you want. Just sayin'.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Amusing, but I wonder how many people will miss the sarcasm and get outraged.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    A splendid example of Poe's Law.

  • Tejicano||

    These guys just want to put The Onion out of business. I can remember times when this would have been over the top for The Onion - they would have had to tone down the sarcasm as being too far into fantasy-land.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Richie Sambora fired

  • Warrren||

    Goddammit Obama!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Bernie Ecclestone tells CNN the New Jersey Grand Prix is off

  • Dweebston||

    That Hillary documentary really riled up the right.

  • ||

    "....the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs,..."

    In other words " think what you like, but do as I fucking tell you". Yeah, that is freedom of conscience.

  • RBS||

    Pretty much, but I'm sure most people who read that part of the decision will think he sounds completely reasonable.

  • Rich||

    Well said. "It's all in the mind."

    We'll see if this principle gets implemented in other areas. "But Fatima, just *believe* you're wearing your burka in our photo!"

  • robc||

    Im not reading thru 222 posts, but I think a certain Iron Law absolutely applies here.

  • Duke||

    I’ve been telling everyone this was the inevitable outcome of “teh gay agenda.” And I’m sick and tired of being the one labeled a “bigot” when it’s the militant gay-apologists who are trying to force their religion (the religion of I must be tolerant of their views, but they don’t have to be tolerant of my views) down my throat. The solution is actually quite simple and elegant -- don’t comply with the law.

    The sooner people grow some balls and refuse this tyrant court’s edict the sooner those worthless judges will realize they are not our lords and masters. Civil disobedience IS the solution here.

  • wareagle||

    what place is short of photographers. But the hell with that; let's instead find someone we know we'll say no so we can sue them and show how oppressed we are.

    I am supportive of gay marriage but this sort of grievance shit cuts into that. If the idea is to spawn a lawsuit industry, I'm jumping the train. One photog saying no creates opportunity for another to gain new business.

  • Robert||

    No, the idea was not to show how oppressed they were, but how powerful.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Their "power" is entirely derived from straight people's guilt and straight politicians desire for campaign contributions.

  • lap83||

    The really absurd thing about this is that plenty of straight people have been discriminated against in the wedding industry. Many churches will not wed you if you're the wrong denomination, not a member, or fail the minister's assessment. Wedding planners won't work with you if you don't make enough money or they don't like you. This is just another in a long line of anti-discrimination measures from the left that conveniently ignores all of the discrimination that already exists because it's not politically expedient.

  • Jose Chung||

    So, in New Mexico, gays now have the right to be photographed by someone that would literally rather be anywhere but at a gay wedding. I look forward to the next lawsuit alleging violation of contract because the photographs were intentionally poorly framed, lit, and focused because the photographer felt they were forced to do participate under threat of lawsuit.

    I would prefer a world where people felt free to express their prejudices and hatreds so long as they are not expressed violently. They would provide much needed and appreciated market signals that those are people with whom I do not want to do business.

  • Anders||

    Why are they compelled to contract with gays anyway?

    Restaurants can refuse to serve you for no reason whatsoever. Now if they say we don't serve the gayers, that's an issue. Otherwise, they can just say leave.

    Sounds like these photogs were trying to make some moral point and landed on their asses.

  • Brett L||

    So, let me get this straight (no pun intended), you want an angry photographer who feels like he's been conscripted shooting your wedding? Good plan. Can't see what would possibly go wrong.

    "Sorry I fucked up your wedding, here's your money back."

  • RBS||

    I've thought about that too. I'd imagine they get sued again.

  • ||

    So the next step is they have to shoot your wedding, and *they damn well do a good job of it too*, and they have to smile and say "cheese" like they are actually happy about it.

  • Brett L||

    I see my point was made sooner and better upthread.

  • ||

    Where is Tony when his commentary would actually be interesting?

    I'm curious as to whether he, or the general gay community, really thinks it is ethical to force anti-gay photographers to shoot gay weddings. Or if the majority thinks this is stupid.

    I hold out hope that there are a significant number of gay activists who think this is a stupid distraction.

  • Tony||

    I don't think antidiscrimination laws are unconstitutional, if that's what you mean. States-righters must feel the same in this case, as the violated law was at the state level. Laboratories of democracy! My thoughts are that it is not illegitimate to require people who choose to provide services for profit not to discriminate against minorities while doing business, but that (as the court said) they are perfectly free to express their opinion in whatever way they wish. I can understand the argument against but the state-level law was clearly violated and I have no problem with the sentiment that one of the costs of doing business is to restrain from contributing to a discriminatory society. This country's history is hardly lacking in examples of economic disenfranchisement, so the principle is sound.

  • ||

    I think this argument fails because "doing business" is not just something that you can choose or not to engage in. One's choice of profession is your livelihood as well as a matter of self determination. Everyone, in some sense "does business" as soon as you engage in trade, seek employment, or do anything that involves interaction with other people. To make self-employment, or opening a small business conditional upon exercising the correct religious or moral views is to effectively deny people the basic right to self-determination.

  • Redmanfms||

    My thoughts are that it is not illegitimate to require people who choose to provide services for profit not to discriminate against minorities while doing business, but that (as the court said) they are perfectly free to express their opinion in whatever way they wish.

    So, what you posted in a thread a few days ago about you and other "liberals" not believing in forcing people to do things is basically all bullshit?

  • Homple||

    I wonder where the stereotype of gays as whining drama princesses came from. Probably Christians in the Middle Ages. Odd how it has lasted so long with all current evidence to the contrary.

  • RightNut||

    Headline should really be:

    Some big gay assholes force photographer to photograph their big gay wedding.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Bosson screwed this up. The price of civilization is refraining from attacking each other, not acquiescing to being compelled to labor for someone else.

    This woman doesn't want to shoot the plaintiff's wedding. The state seeks to force her to do so under threat of violence. The state is wrong.

    -jcr

  • cavalier973||

    The photographer should say, "I'll be happy to take your money, and I'll do my usual excellent work, but understand that I do not consider your ceremony to be a genuine wedding, nor your relationship to be a genuine marriage. Setting my personal views aside, I would counsel that you not expect to find personal fulfillment through marriage. Fulfillment can only truly come from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by accepting by faith His substitutionary sacrifice on your behalf, to save you from eternal separation from God. Here, let me show you something I find meaningful from the Scriptures:"

    And so on, for however long it takes for them to beat feet for the nearest justice of the peace.

  • cavalier973||

    The photographer can also decide to work only by referral.

  • cavalier973||

    I wonder if a couple wanted Elane Photography to shoot their porno wedding, if they would be able to refuse based on religious beliefs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    White blogged about the decision in the context of asking why there are some who are outraged when laws force businesses to serve gays but are not equally outraged about laws that force businesses to serve all races or the other categories associated with public accommodations.

    This is really a completely unfair comparison. Being forced to attend a gay wedding is quite different from being forced to serve a meal to a gay couple. Restaurants have pairs of straight men eating dinner together all day so who gives a shit, but a gay wedding cuts right to the heart of religious beliefs. There really isn't an analogy for race.

    “Could a doctor refuse to provide medical treatment to a gay couple?” “Could an attorney refuse to represent a gay couple in a lawsuit?” “Could a supermarket refuse to let a gay couple shop there?”

    These questions completely miss the point in a way that's common for liberatarian supporters of GM; they confuse the idea of individual rights with a very different idea of "couple rights". I've never heard of any doctor, other a fertility doctor (n/a for obvious reasons for gays), treating a couple. Doctors treat individuals. Likewise grocery stores sell to individuals. Not sure about the attorneys -- hard to imagine how a lawsuit could arise where a couple is jointly sued or suing in a way that crucially depends on their status as a couple.

  • ||

    It also shows the slippery slope in the term "public accommodation". It goes from being a public accomodation if you operate a hotel or a restauraunt offering services to the public, to being a public accommodation if you offer any kind of service whatsoever.

    The original point of this was that denying blacks services at restaurants and hotels made it difficult for them to travel, and was a highly public way ostracizing them.

    By contrast, not taking pictures of someone's wedding doesn't prevent them from marrying, nor does it even make a public statement of disapproval since
    nobody is going to know about it except the photographer and the gay couple.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    In most business transactions, the sexual orientation of those involved is inconsequential. With wedding photography, it is not.

    While I'm against these anti-discrimination laws either way, there is a huge gulf of difference between not serving a gay guy a hamburger and not taking his wedding pictures.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement