Comments on: Wedding photographer loses New Mexico discrimination case

By: Latest liberty cake wreck - Overlawyered

Latest liberty cake wreck - Overlawyered — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 04:45:02 +0000

[…] baking from home. Oregon does not recognize same-sex marriage, which (as in the parallel New Mexico wedding photographer case) makes clear that the intrusion on individual liberty here arises from anti-discrimination law as […]

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:38:06 +0000

Stanmann,

It would be helpful if you did some research on this case. For example, the photographer was not a man, it was a woman. There is no indication the photographer or the complaintant ever argued over anything. There is no testimony that the photographer said anything about the couple.

You call the photographer a “bigot” based upon what? A set of circumstances you fabricated in your mind?

No, you used the term “bigot” not as a conclusion to a set of facts, but rather as a substitute to attack the photographer and in essence tell her to “shut up.”

A rather large number of people and groups wrote legal briefs in both support and against the photographer’s position. Not one of them claimed she was or is a bigot. Not one of them claimed the woman had any animus toward the prospective client.

This case involved a clash of law vs rights.

I hope that when you go to assert your rights that you aren’t attacked by people and called a bigot, racist, etc based on who they want to believe you are rather than who you are.

Situations and cases like this are difficult enough without ramping up a false narrative.

By: Stanman12

Stanman12 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:59:22 +0000

My first reaction was “Why in the world would you want a bigot to photograph your wedding?” But I’m thinking the photographer probably made a big deal about what kind of person the bride was attracted to, which is really none of his business, and so the couple chose to retaliate with a lawsuit. It’s a shame that this sort of thing can be heard by courts, but it’s really the photographer’s fault. This would have only ended up with him looking bad, courts or not. The best thing to do is say I’m not available that weekend or quote them an outrageous fee. I find it hard to believe that the photographer “agreed” with every couple marrying that he photographed before (ie out of wedlock children, multiple divorces, old man marrying a teenager, etc. I’m sure he’s seen it all). Bottom line is keep your bigoted opinions to yourself!

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:24:14 +0000

Jeffrey05, so did the gay couple–go to another photographer, not get “married”, etc. The problem here is that New Mexico doesn’t recognize gay marriage nor does it have civil unions (at the time); how can you be hauled into court because you won’t photograph something that legally can’t happen? This is forced expression/speech and should get thrown out by the Supreme Court. (of course, given the ruling in Albuquerque[?] yesterday,it could also make any decision moot.)

By: JeffreyRO5

JeffreyRO5 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:54:07 +0000

The photographer agreed to the rules when she entered the public commercial space. No one forced her to serve the public. If she doesn’t want to serve gays, or blacks, or Jews, whomever, she should get out of the public sphere or move to a state that lets you discriminate.

It’s not like she doesn’t have choices. She’s not being forced to do anything, other than do what all decent people do: follow the law!

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:15:55 +0000

I would think it more likely that they wanted to make an ideological point about how such-and-such could not be tolerated.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:31:04 +0000

The couple did not actually want the photographers to provide services. What they *wanted* was a big fat settlement check.

By: mojo

mojo — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:41:57 +0000

Chop off all the heads.

No, not literally. Photographically.

By: Sparky

Sparky — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:58:24 +0000

I exercised my artistic judgment to shoot the wedding on nitrate film and unfortunately it combusted under the enlarger lamp.

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:07:42 +0000

The media is a protected class – we can’t discriminate based on content. But I dare you to try to get my ex ( a graphic designer) to do any work for Fox News; or that other outfit that makes a big deal out of the 2nd Amendment.