An odd legal case-Only in America??

Don't knock it, there's some big money to be made there by the lawyers. I'd hate to see them starve.
 
I don't agree with her...but it's a private enterprise and she has the right to rfuse service....are we returning to the stage of Kindergarten where everything has to be reported and solved by "benevolent" authorities?
 
This is a more complicated issue than it appears from the article. Two questions need to be proposed:

1. What if the couple instead of being of the same sex but were of different ethnica color groups? Would the private enterprise have the right to refuse service?

2. If it were a pharmacy or doctor who disagreed on the perscription or treatment based on religious beliefs, would they have the right to refuse medicine or treatment?

3. To what extent is the practice of a faith harmful to others and should individuals be allowed to use particular issues of faith as an excuse to perform or not to perform in commercial transactions?
 
That's what honesty gets you: a lawsuit.

Although I disagree with the photographer's views, I disagree with the lawsuit.

If somebody comes up to me and asked me to photograph the Michigan Militia or Britney Spears, I'd refuse because I do not agree with what they stand for.

A bottomless can of worms this is.
 
It's just another 'outrage-du-jour' on yet another blog. Check out the photoshopped pick of Hillary Clinton in the right margin. That should tell you all you need to know about the site.
 
Yes, a shame what you can be sued for in this (US) country. Gabriel, and others... if something like this should come up, just lie and say you have too much work already around that date and wish them well as you hand them a short list of other photographers that may be available...
 
I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably claim that they had been harmed by the photographer refusing to take the job. The "harm" would be having to find another photographer. If the studio broke an otherwise valid contract, that is another story and they could be sued for damages.

Based on info provided (often a big issue with internet "news stories" like this one), I don't see how anyone could be taken to human rights court. In matters of housing discrimination, these sorts of cases are often adjudicated in favor of the plaintiffs. But there is a big difference between needing a place to live and hiring a photographer.
 
It's not the refusal of service. Just saying "no" to the job would have been fine. Giving the reason that was cited in the article moves it into another realm ... discrimination and, depending on local laws, hate.
 
Another frivolous lawsuit. The photographer should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I hope the plaintiffs lose and have to pay the cost of bringing the lawsuit. That would stop the stupidity.
 
This sounds more like a deliberate attempt to harass institutions that do not agree with same sex marriage. Why on earth would you want to hire a phtographer who doesn't like you, your marriage or what you are doing? It would be very easy for that person to ruin the photographs, or just take bad ones. They would almost certainly be likely to make you miserable. Seems to be the first common sense rule of hiring a photographer. So, I would say this has been deliberately contrived to harass those who do not support same sex marriage. If I were that photographer, I would now take the job and hand the happy couple a card of massively overexposed and useless images, while keeping their money. She who laughs last, laughs best. :D:D:D

/T
 
Regardless of the outcome, this should be welcome. It will set the precedent (someone has to do it first), and it will at least furhter discussions about discremination. We are know for sure that discrmination agaist age, race, ethnicity, gender and religious belief are not acceptable, perhasp sex-orientation or other forms shall be discussed at least. Many states do have protection law for domestic partnership.

Despite my personal view on the subject, I am afraid the couple has a lot to prove in NM, in other states, it might be different.
 
The US is a democracy, so if they have this sort of lawsuit it is because it is seen as reasonable by the majority - or at least most people are not too bothered either way.

However, given the limited information available, all the sides in the case seem to be very strange people. Is there a point at which a judge says "grow up" and doesn't let this sort of thing go forwards ?
 
Keeping in mind that the original citation came from "conservablogs.com," I would want to be very careful that I was getting the, um, straight facts before making up my mind about the merits of it.

However, given the limited information available, all the sides in the case seem to be very strange people. Is there a point at which a judge says "grow up" and doesn't let this sort of thing go forwards ?
Click to expand...

As best I can tell from the blog citation, the case is NOT a lawsuit being heard by a judge in a court. It's a complaint to a state regulatory board about a business practice.

If the New Mexico legislature has enacted a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (I don't know whether it has or not) then it would be legitimate to file a complaint against a business that refuses to serve specific customers based on their sexual orientation. If the regulatory board rules against the business, and its proprietor wants to challenge the ruling based on his/her right to freedom of expression, then it would become a matter for the court system.

Obviously the "Conservablogs" commentator would like to pitch this as an individual-rights issue. But as someone pointed out earlier, it looks somewhat different when considered as an issue of a business discriminating against a certain class of customer. Not so long ago it would have been perfectly legal in the US for a business to say, "Sorry, we don't serve colored people here," but the law has moved on.

(Just yesterday I met a lady who had lived for a time in the Netherlands and recently took a cruise on a ship of Netherlands registry. When she met the ship's captain at a social event, she greeted him in the Nederlands language; he replied disdainfully, "You speak Dutch like a Belgian," and snubbed her for the rest of the trip! So this sort of attitude presumably is not found only in America...)


PS -- I can't help thinking here that the photographer who turned down the job might have been looking to make a test case; otherwise, she simply could have said, "Sorry, I'm taking that weekend off" rather than telling the would-be customers that she did not approve of their living arrangements...
 
Last edited:
Looks like the couple wouldn't be as open-minded as they demand others to be.

I disagree completely with the blogger, but the vindictiveness of the allegedly offended couple takes this situation to weird levels.

Good that I don't deal with customers! :)
 
This has everything to do with discrimination.

There was a similar case here in Texas a couple of years back. A fellow saw his neighbor's yard man doing some work and he spoke to him about having his company do his yard. The lawn care guy agreed. When he showed up a few days later, he discovered that the home owner was gay and had a male partner. He did their yard that one time.

When the couple called the lawn care company a few weeks later to schedule another appointment., the yard man's wife (who also worked in the company) told the gay couple that they could no longer do their yard because of their lifestyle. It went against their Christian values. The gay couple filed a lawsuit.

In this case, and in the case of the photographer, all of this probably could have been avoided if they had simply declined the work without stating why. At any rate, it would have been much harder to prove discrimination if they had simply handled the matter in that way.

This is all about discrimination. I do not blame the people at all for filing a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom