You hate me, but I want you to photgraph my wedding

[Quantum Windbag]

You go to a photographer and tell him you are planning a wedding, he tellls you he does not do same sex weddings, so you sue him to force him to take your wedding photos.

So the New Mexico Court of Appeals held last week in the long-pending Elane Photography v. Willock (N.M. Ct. App. May 31, 2012). The court began by holding that the state law that bans sexual orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation applies to professional wedding photographers’ decisions not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies: Such photography businesses are “places of public accommodation” under the language of the law, and the discrimination between legally recognized opposite-sex marriages (New Mexico only recognizes such marriages) and same-sex commitment ceremonies constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The court then rejected the argument of the photographer (Elane Huguenin, the co-owner and principal photographer for Elane Photography) that penalizing her for not photographing such same-sex ceremonies was an unconstitutional “speech compulsion.” The First Amendment, Huguenin argued, has been repeatedly held to protect the right to speak as well as the right not to speak; and the right not to speak includes the right not to create artistic expression that one doesn’t want to create. And just as the First Amendment protects speech that is said for money (indeed, most books, newspapers, movies, and the like are created and distributed commercially), so it protects the right not to create certain artistic works for money, even if one is in that line of business. But the court disagreed (some paragraph breaks added):

The Volokh Conspiracy » Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

This is why libertarians will win in the end, only an idiot who is too stupid to breathe would think it is a good idea to force people who don't want to be there to take pictures of their wedding.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So the Photographer goes and takes the worst photos ever.

End of story.

 

[Conservative]

First, let me state I have no problem with same -sex whatever. None of my concern what twp others do.

However, forcing someone to do the photography for a same-sex ceremony is ridiculous. photography is a form of expression, and forcing someone to create a work of expression that they do not agree with is an infringement on their rights.

 

[hjmick]

If she was the only photographer in this town, that would be one thing...

 

[Sokar]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

Human nature 101.

It has never been in the interest of those who support gay marriage that it simply be accepted. The patron saints of this form of political correctness want to be able to force everyone to embrace and celebrate it.

 

[NLT]

Bodey and seahag will be in shortly to tell us all how bigoted we are for not agreeing with the plantiff

 

[Sokar]

Bodey and seahag will be in shortly to tell us all how bigoted we are for not agreeing with the plantiff

A sure sign of a weak argument if ever there was one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

Human nature 101.

It has never been in the interest of those who support gay marriage that it simply be accepted. The patron saints of this form of political correctness want to be able to force everyone to embrace and celebrate it.

Bingo

 

[bodecea]

You go to a photographer and tell him you are planning a wedding, he tellls you he does not do same sex weddings, so you sue him to force him to take your wedding photos.

So the New Mexico Court of Appeals held last week in the long-pending Elane Photography v. Willock (N.M. Ct. App. May 31, 2012). The court began by holding that the state law that bans sexual orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation applies to professional wedding photographers’ decisions not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies: Such photography businesses are “places of public accommodation” under the language of the law, and the discrimination between legally recognized opposite-sex marriages (New Mexico only recognizes such marriages) and same-sex commitment ceremonies constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The court then rejected the argument of the photographer (Elane Huguenin, the co-owner and principal photographer for Elane Photography) that penalizing her for not photographing such same-sex ceremonies was an unconstitutional “speech compulsion.” The First Amendment, Huguenin argued, has been repeatedly held to protect the right to speak as well as the right not to speak; and the right not to speak includes the right not to create artistic expression that one doesn’t want to create. And just as the First Amendment protects speech that is said for money (indeed, most books, newspapers, movies, and the like are created and distributed commercially), so it protects the right not to create certain artistic works for money, even if one is in that line of business. But the court disagreed (some paragraph breaks added):

The Volokh Conspiracy » Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

This is why libertarians will win in the end, only an idiot who is too stupid to breathe would think it is a good idea to force people who don't want to be there to take pictures of their wedding.

Interesting read on the judgement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You go to a photographer and tell him you are planning a wedding, he tellls you he does not do same sex weddings, so you sue him to force him to take your wedding photos.

So the New Mexico Court of Appeals held last week in the long-pending Elane Photography v. Willock (N.M. Ct. App. May 31, 2012). The court began by holding that the state law that bans sexual orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation applies to professional wedding photographers’ decisions not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies: Such photography businesses are “places of public accommodation” under the language of the law, and the discrimination between legally recognized opposite-sex marriages (New Mexico only recognizes such marriages) and same-sex commitment ceremonies constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The court then rejected the argument of the photographer (Elane Huguenin, the co-owner and principal photographer for Elane Photography) that penalizing her for not photographing such same-sex ceremonies was an unconstitutional “speech compulsion.” The First Amendment, Huguenin argued, has been repeatedly held to protect the right to speak as well as the right not to speak; and the right not to speak includes the right not to create artistic expression that one doesn’t want to create. And just as the First Amendment protects speech that is said for money (indeed, most books, newspapers, movies, and the like are created and distributed commercially), so it protects the right not to create certain artistic works for money, even if one is in that line of business. But the court disagreed (some paragraph breaks added):

The Volokh Conspiracy » Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

This is why libertarians will win in the end, only an idiot who is too stupid to breathe would think it is a good idea to force people who don't want to be there to take pictures of their wedding.

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

 

[Seawytch]

You go to a photographer and tell him you are planning a wedding, he tellls you he does not do same sex weddings, so you sue him to force him to take your wedding photos.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

This is why libertarians will win in the end, only an idiot who is too stupid to breathe would think it is a good idea to force people who don't want to be there to take pictures of their wedding.

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bodey and seahag will be in shortly to tell us all how bigoted we are for not agreeing with the plantiff

And rdweeb will trot out the race card.

 

[California Girl]

Remember when this was a free country?


No. Nor do I, but I like the concept of it.

 

[The Infidel]

Interesting read on the judgement.

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

I would find another photographer. The couple in question chose to sue...and won.

Don't like it? Change public accommodation law if you can.

And gays, wonder why alot of us are getting sick of it all...

 

[G.T.]

Remember when this was a free country?


No. Nor do I, but I like the concept of it.

It never was.

There's not been a free country in the history of man.


Anyways, seems a corny Law. Let people be haters, legally.

 

[The Infidel]

Remember when this was a free country?


No. Nor do I, but I like the concept of it.

It never was.

There's not been a free country in the history of man.


Anyways, seems a corny Law. Let people be haters, legally.

 

[G.T.]

Remember when this was a free country?


No. Nor do I, but I like the concept of it.

It never was.

There's not been a free country in the history of man.


Anyways, seems a corny Law. Let people be haters, legally.

Hey I appreciate a good rib poke every now and again, when I DONT have a horrendous head cold and massive headache and inability to kiss my 6month old goodnight, prick tits!

 

[g5000]

First, let me state I have no problem with same -sex whatever. None of my concern what twp others do.

However, forcing someone to do the photography for a same-sex ceremony is ridiculous. photography is a form of expression, and forcing someone to create a work of expression that they do not agree with is an infringement on their rights.

Accepting cash to photograph a wedding is not a "work of expression". It is a job. It is no more a work of expression than a baker writing "Happy Birthday" on a cake.

According to the New Mexican court, a professional photographer refusing to serve gay customers is the same as a lunch counter refusing to serve black customers.

That is what they mean by a "public accommodation". The photographer and the lunch counter offer services to the public.

 

[g5000]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times:

Equal rights rarely end at equal. It's just a stepping stone for preferential rights.

I am curious to know why you think asking to be treated exactly the same as everyone else is asking for preferential treatment.

If a black person asked to be served at the same lunch counter where you eat, is that asking for preferential treatment? Or has the white person who is provided a lunch service not provided to blacks been receiving preferential treatment?

Obviously the white person is the one who has been receiving preferential treatment.

It is the loss of preferential treatment which angers you so.

Is a straight couple who are provided a service not provided to gay couples receiving preferential treatment?

Yes. Yes indeed.

 

[g5000]

Tell me something honestly, if you went to a photographer and he didn't want to photograph you because you are gay would you sue him, or would you find a different photographer?

Have you never fought for something out of principle, even though it might personally cost you?