Interesting PPA article: Photographer sued for declining to shoot same sex marriage

[venchka]

Ben was Johnny on the Spot! Not too bad for one of us old Coots.

Old news. We even had a thread on how to avoid such nonsense.

Bottom line: Make appointments with prospective clients. Meet face to face. Check your appointment calendar. "Sorry. I have a previous engagement that day."

[L Stegall]

As I understand it, the NM Human Rights statute does include sexual orientation, along with the more commonly understood protected categories of race, color, sex, age, etc., all of which are more readily accepted or understood as being protected categories. It doesn't really matter if you are "public" entity like a city or county transportation system or a private company - it's a matter of public accommodation and if you are in business to offer goods or services to the general public (now, there may be some specific exceptions that this may not apply to every business, but I'm not getting into any said exceptions), then you can't turn someone who wants to buy your goods/services down on the basis of a protected category. I haven't read the statute or done any research like actually reading the opinion, but the PDN article I read had a pretty fair explanation of the facts and the court's reasoning. Given that this was a business that offered goods or services to the general public and given that the owner had, in essence, admitted that she was discriminating based on sexual orientation (i.e., saying she would not provide goods or services BECAUSE it was a same-sex ceremony), that seems a pretty per se violation of the express language of the statute. Per the article, one of the couple called to book the photographer and was told no and told why when they told the photographer that it was a same-sex ceremony and the other partner called a day or so later (not indicating it was a same sex ceremony or that the partner had previously spoken to the photographer) and the photographer accepted the job. Substitute private landlord for photographer and substitute renting an apartment or house for photographing a wedding. If a landlord, knowing someone's race (or religion or whatever) told the prospective tenant sorry, the apartment's rented and not available, but then a day or two later turns around and responds to another inquiry that, sure, the apartment is available, when do you want to see it, would that be any different? The classic way that this law was tested was to send "test" couples of different races to try to rent apartments and see what they were told.

Right to refuse service signs do not mean that someone can refuse service to another based on a protected category. While a business may refuse service based on a non-discriminatory reason (read, meaning one not listed in the statute - like a customer being disruptive or not wearing a shirt or shoes), they cannot refuse service because they don't want to serve someone of a particular race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion...and, in this case, sexual orientation. Now, defending their actions may be another issue - but being able to show a legitimate non-discriminatory reason is the key. NM is not the only place where sexual orientation is one of the protected categories, but it is not universally protected like the others. Had the photographer told prospective client #1 she was booked after learning it was a same sex union, but was then available a day or two later when prospective client # 2 called and didn't tell her it was, then she would have had to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason why she was not available earlier, but was the next day. That would have made this a bit more interesting fact pattern.

I suspect the case may be headed for a higher appeal - it sounded like the case has just made it's way to a lower level court at this point - an appeal from a Commission decision. It will be interesting to see what happens to it at a higher level appeal.

And, as for the question of why would someone pursue a complaint - like Brad, I believe that that really boils down to many people believe that discrimination because of sexual orientation is just as wrong as discrimination based on race or sex was during the Civil Rights movement days and that someone has to stand up for the rights of those who are being discriminated against. Test cases are always the way laws are tested. We'll see how this one turns out.

Whether you think same sex unions are okay or not, sexual orientation is clearly covered under this particular statute (and that is a subject that is up to the legislature to change) and, given that and the reason the couple were given as to why the booking was turned down, it seems to me that they had a legitimate complaint against a business offering goods and services to the public.

[venchka]

I suppose these signs are Taboo now?

"No shoes.
No shirt.
No service
Leave your backpack outside"

I wish I had taken pictures of all of those signs along Hwy 287 in the 60s.

[L Stegall]

No, you could tell someone they had to have shoes or a shirt to come in - that's a matter of hygiene, but apply it universally. The backpack issue can also be legitimate - wanting to make it hard for someone to shoplift or prevent stuff from being knocked over and broken by a big ole backpack knocking into it. Again, be consistent. I see signs prohibiting food and drink or large bags in stores all the time.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by angiem357

I admit I know little about the law in this regard, and was hoping someone would answer the question someone else posted about the "right to refuse service" signs we still see.

I used to see that a lot more than I do now...In fact, I can't remember the last time i saw one...I never had that sign in my store although I have refused service to others plenty of times......Ben

[ldelacruz]

I was setting up a network in a clothing store that was in a bad area and they had a cop as security who stood at the door and required anyone who entered to pull up their pants. He also made them check their bags including back packs and purses. When you walked in he said "pull up your pants, throw your food and drink away or finish it outside, no cursing, loud laughing or loud talking and check your bags. I have never seen such a thing.

[PhotoByLeal]

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

I was setting up a network in a clothing store that was in a bad area and they had a cop as security who stood at the door and required anyone who entered to pull up their pants. He also made them check their bags including back packs and purses. When you walked in he said "pull up your pants, throw your food and drink away or finish it outside, no cursing, loud laughing or loud talking and check your bags. I have never seen such a thing.

I used to shop @ that store in Downtown Houston back in the da days, I think it was called the Fire Sale store?

[labguy]

Originally Posted by crackhead

What kind of photographer has this kind of hangup in 2010?

a person that has their own opinion of morals, religious beliefs and freedom of choice.

money is not the god for all people.

[brad]

Originally Posted by angiem357

If I were going to get upset about anything, it would be that ^ statement. However, I'm going to just assume you were making a comment about the state's education policy. Right?

And a sarcastic, tongue in cheek one at that... just like your comment was also heavy in the cynicism. I know well where my kids got it from... and it was their smart-@$$ father. Its all good, wasn't attacking you.. sorry if it sounded that way.

Originally Posted by L Stegall

No, you could tell someone they had to have shoes or a shirt to come in - that's a matter of hygiene, but apply it universally.

Universally, guys have to wear shirts... women... optional.

[shutterfire]

Originally Posted by brad

And a sarcastic, tongue in cheek one at that... just like your comment was also heavy in the cynicism. I know well where my kids got it from... and it was their smart-@$$ father. Its all good, wasn't attacking you.. sorry if it sounded that way.



Universally, guys have to wear shirts... women... optional.

I dont know been to a lota beaches did'nt see a lot of tops LOL

[sbug_adam]

dont want to turn this into a debate but I have to tip-toe through the tulips to make sure i dont hurt someones FEEEELLINNGGGSS now? give me a break. How is this any different than someone saying "my business does not shoot nude males" it doesnt matter how she words it, she can say F off! its her business, plain and simple. she shouldnt have to word it anyway other than the way she wants to

[Cajungaltx]

Just to sort of bring the discussion back in line....

If I do female boudoir sessions, and decline to do a male boudoir session, or a 'couples' boudoir session - do I leave myself open for discrimination?

[Some Idiot]

Originally Posted by Jusselin

different issue entirely. The "blacks" comment had nothing to with the topic at hand here. This is a lady who owns her own Private Business, and has the right to chose who her customers are. McDonalds caters event also, lets see if they dont mind coming to my all night gay lock in where the men will be walking around wearing hardly anything, IF THAT! a business has the right to refuse a customer. This is America it is "SUPPOSE" to be a free country.

I disagree, the "black" comment has everything to do with it, we have the right as citizens of the US to not be discriminated against for our " race, religion, sex, political affiliation, or sexual preference "

Your comment about men wearing nothing (gay or not) has no relevance to discrimination based on race, religion, sex, political affiliation, or sexual preference.

[KdLaneJr]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

Just to sort of bring the discussion back in line....

If I do female boudoir sessions, and decline to do a male boudoir session, or a 'couples' boudoir session - do I leave myself open for discrimination?

Let's see... discrimination on the basis of sex, isn't that what you are staunchly against?

[venchka]

Originally Posted by L Stegall

No, you could tell someone they had to have shoes or a shirt to come in - that's a matter of hygiene, but apply it universally. The backpack issue can also be legitimate - wanting to make it hard for someone to shoplift or prevent stuff from being knocked over and broken by a big ole backpack knocking into it. Again, be consistent. I see signs prohibiting food and drink or large bags in stores all the time.

Thanks Lisa. While not illegal, the signs may not be sensitive to the needs of the garment challenged. Grinning.

Donna,

You can refuse to scedule anything you like based on "scheduling conflicts." However, you may run out of conflicts for a non date specific job. A wedding is very date specific. A boudoir session isn't. However, I doubt any court would disagree with you for being uncomfortable with a strange man in a strange location.