Should a black photographer be forced to work a KKK wedding?

[Katzndogz]

The photographer should have gone and had some fun with it. Start with the parents of the two getting married.

"You did such a bad job raising these two that they grew up mentally defective. Now smile for the camera you failures."

 

[Sunshine]

I think this may have more wrinkles in it than NM is willing to acknowledge. Think about it. Recent tests: Pharmacists who are religiously opposed to birth control, nurses who believe abortion is immoral, assisted suicide of terminal cancer patients, conscientious objectors to war. There are a lot of issues that have a religious moral component. Religious convictions usually win out. Unlike racial issues which were big in the 50s and 60s. You can't refuse service to someone because they are black. That is racial. Providing services which violate your religious convictions is a horse of a different color. The SCOTUS has upheld countless examples of refusals to do certain things on religious grounds. The foundation of this case was gender discrimination. I think the photographer likely needed a better lawyer. It may have gone differently. Whether the SCOTUS hears argument on this case is a craps shoot, though. If they don't want to hear it, the ruling will stand as precedent for NM. It will also be cited by people in other states as the issue grows legs and moves around the country.

 

[Sunshine]

Oy. What happened to "we have the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Damn. I miss the 70's.

It's over with. You cannot refuse a publically offered service based on race, gender, age, or religious persuasion. This case was made into a gender discrimination case. But there have been other cases on point which do not allow a person to be forced to do something that violates their religious and/or moral beliefs.

Dress code still applies. "No shoes, no shirt, no service."

 

[Katzndogz]

The ruling was not bad and gave clear instructions as to how to avoid having to perform objectionable services.

 

[hjmick]

Before continuing you need to read this. VERY interesting.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

I got two things from reading that...

One, Vanessa was fully aware that some folks may not be interested in photographing her commitment ceremony...

We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.

This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information.

Thanks

Two, Elaine has shitty taste in coffee shops. Satellite is subpar...


And, okay, this is three... I know I said two... This whole thing strikes me as some sort of set up. I mean, Vanessa initiates contact and say, "If you are open to helping us celebrate..." Really? Okay, she starts out realizing that some people aren't down with her plans, she gets polite confirmation of such from Elaine, then refuses to move on. Okay, it's not nice that not everyone agrees with you, but that's life, move on. Tell your friends what jerks this company was, they'll tell two friends and they'll tell two friends, and so on and so on... I wouldn't give these people my business based on this incident, I don't care for their choice, but it is their choice based on their religious dogma.

I don't know. I am not suggesting any anti discrimination laws be repealed, but there has to be some middle ground that does not infringe on the religious beliefs held by some people of faith...

 

[Sunshine]

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

But you can't be forced to do something that violates your moral code. I think this case still has a way to go.

 

[Sunshine]

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

that is not how the law works though...

its all or nothing... you cant pick which pet cause you want to support.

This is not about how the law works, its about what we think should happen, and I think that if the photographer had to develop the photos of the wedding (not take them) then she should be expected to, but actually going to the wedding, and witnessing it, taking pictures when you disagree, then that is not the same thing and she should have the right to back out if she wanted.

Of course there is always, 'I'm over booked now.' I had an alteration lady who used to tell her customers who were a pain in the butt that she just couldn't work them in because she was already over loaded.

 

[S.J.]

I would have taken the job, shown up late, taken slightly out of focus pictures, off centered shots, cut off the tops of their heads, etc. Their photo album would be a constant reminder not to force somebody to do something they don't wanna do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

It's a slam dunk but not in the way you probably assume. Since you reference the NM case let's go with that state.

1. The State Public Accommodation law defines the classes subject to such Public Accommodation laws. Typically they include such things as race, gender, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, and (in NM's case) sexual orientation.

2. The KKK is not a race, the KKK is not a gender, the KKK is not an ethnicity, the KKK is not a country of origin, the KKK is not a gender, and the KKK is not a sexual orientation.

3. Assuming the photographer is a professional and advertises services such as providing photographic services for weddings and has a history of providing such services, then in NM the photographer would fall under that States Public Accommodation laws.

4. Also we can assume that as a professional the photographer has a body of work showing that (s)he has photographed weddings and other events for white people in the past (assuming that your reference to the KKK means "white").​

Now your premise is that the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract, which is false:

1. The photographer is not required to accept the contract because the KKK is not a protected class under the law. If the individuals file a complaint they will loose because all the photographer has to do is show a body of work where white people were photographed showing that the turn down was based on the engagement being for the KKK (not a protected classes) and not based on it being white people (a protected class).

2. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if they already have another booking, thereby removing they "have no choice".

3. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if they will be out of town during that period, thereby removing they "have no choice".

4. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if their business is normally closed and they don't provide services on that day (for example Sundays, Christmas day, etc - as long as they can show a history), thereby removing they "have no choice".​

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a slam dunk but not in the way you probably assume. Since you reference the NM case let's go with that state.

We could save time and go with you being wrong.

1. The State Public Accommodation law defines the classes subject to such Public Accommodation laws. Typically they include such things as race, gender, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, and (in NM's case) sexual orientation.

The decision was not based on the public accommodations law, it was based on the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

2. The KKK is not a race, the KKK is not a gender, the KKK is not an ethnicity, the KKK is not a country of origin, the KKK is not a gender, and the KKK is not a sexual orientation.

Never said it was. I a pretty sure, however, that the KKK falls under race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap, age, sex, ancestry or serious medical condition. In fact, I see them covered under mental handicap and color.

But feel free to keep proving how you can twist around when you try to support the government.

3. Assuming the photographer is a professional and advertises services such as providing photographic services for weddings and has a history of providing such services, then in NM the photographer would fall under that States Public Accommodation laws.

Didn't you just try to argue that the KKK isn't covered by the laws? If the laws actually place a burden on a business, what difference does it make if it is the KKK or the IGLYO?

4. Also we can assume that as a professional the photographer has a body of work showing that (s)he has photographed weddings and other events for white people in the past (assuming that your reference to the KKK means "white").

I don't assume that KKK means white, they declare it quite proudly.

Now your premise is that the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract, which is false:

This is going to be incredibly stupid.

1. The photographer is not required to accept the contract because the KKK is not a protected class under the law. If the individuals file a complaint they will loose because all the photographer has to do is show a body of work where white people were photographed showing that the turn down was based on the engagement being for the KKK (not a protected classes) and not based on it being white people (a protected class).

The law does not protect specific classes and leave others out to dry. It is specially written in order to apply to everyone equally, and has been found to do so in court.

2. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if they already have another booking, thereby removing they "have no choice".

Except for the fact that #1 doesn't apply, you made a good point.

3. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if they will be out of town during that period, thereby removing they "have no choice".

Wow, you get stuck on a stupid argument, and you stay there, don't you? Is your entire defense of your position based on the misapplication of New Mexico law?

4. Obviously since #1 applies others are not needed, however the photographer is not required to accept the contract if their business is normally closed and they don't provide services on that day (for example Sundays, Christmas day, etc - as long as they can show a history), thereby removing they "have no choice".
>>>>

Because no one ever has weddings outside your head, or on Sundays.

Brilliant.

 

[Noomi]

I would have taken the job, shown up late, taken slightly out of focus pictures, off centered shots, cut off the tops of their heads, etc. Their photo album would be a constant reminder not to force somebody to do something they don't wanna do.

Nah, they'd have sued her, claiming she messed up the photos on purpose.

 

[bripat9643]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

 

[bripat9643]

This seems like a slam dunk to me, but the courts disagree. since the law makes it illegal for a business that provides a public service to refuse to provide that service on the basis of race, and this would fall under that provision, the photographer has no choice but to accept the contract.

If the previous paragraph offends you you should be offended by the article below.

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal | National Review Online

The OP has committed a false analogy fallacy, and the premise of his thread fails accordingly.

Unlike homosexuals, the Klan does not constitute a class of persons, the Klan is not a ‘race,’ nor is it representative of any race in general.

What is false about it? The law in New Mexico prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap, age, sex, ancestry or serious medical condition, not on the basis of class of persons. If you think that doesn't cover the KKK you have your head up your ass.

That prevents the clan from discriminating against black people, but it doesn't prevent black people from discriminating against the clan.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

This is ridiculous.

No one is ‘forced’ to attend a wedding, and no law compels anyone to attend a wedding.

Taking photographs as a professional photographer of a wedding is not ‘attending’ a wedding, it in no way condones the ceremony, it does not endorse same-sex couples marrying, and it in no way ‘violates’ the religious tenets of the photographer.

This is merely a lame and inane excuse for those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law, motivated by their fear, hate, and ignorance of homosexuals.

 

[Noomi]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

Which, if you read my previous posts, you would have realised that I disagreed with that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

This is ridiculous.

No one is ‘forced’ to attend a wedding, and no law compels anyone to attend a wedding.

Taking photographs as a professional photographer of a wedding is not ‘attending’ a wedding, it in no way condones the ceremony, it does not endorse same-sex couples marrying, and it in no way ‘violates’ the religious tenets of the photographer.

This is merely a lame and inane excuse for those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law, motivated by their fear, hate, and ignorance of homosexuals.

Of course it means that she must attend. Do you seriously not understand the meaning of attend. You cannot take pictures of a wedding that you are not present at.

She is legally forced to attend wedding in which she does not want to by virtue of being a photographer. That is black and white with absolutely no wiggle room. It is absolutely wrong as well. Force usually is as rare as it is for the liberal to admit it.

Again, and for the last time, YOU do not get to determine what violates and does not violate a person’s religious convictions. The arrogance of that, demanding that you know what her convictions should and should not be, is absolutely astounding.

@ brip – this is the CDZ – please conduct yourself accordingly.

 

[FA_Q2]

The ruling was not bad and gave clear instructions as to how to avoid having to perform objectionable services.

Yes it was. Quite frankly, trying to give options to skirt the law is backwards. Lies or skirting the issue should not be required, period. She should have the right to not attend or attend based on her personal religious convictions period. Anything less than that is simply wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is what happens when the government gets in the middle of this type of bullshit. I can’t believe that the couple won this asinine claim let alone filed it in the first place. I don’t see where the advantages are in requiring people to photograph a wedding that they are religiously opposed to.

This is one of the reasons that people opposed gay marriages in the first place. I have vehemently fought the meme that gays wanted more than simple equal rights yet here we are with gays openly demanding that others not only accept their ways but actually provide a service in order to assist in it. Apparently those that were against gay marriage had a point; they are not just after rights.

I actually believe that most gays would find this as offensive as we do, but that doesn't change the fact that there is actually a gay agenda being promoted by a small, but extremely vocal, minority.

And it needs to be defeated. Equality is one thing – forced acceptance and compliance another entirely.

 

[Sunshine]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

This is ridiculous.

No one is ‘forced’ to attend a wedding, and no law compels anyone to attend a wedding.

Taking photographs as a professional photographer of a wedding is not ‘attending’ a wedding, it in no way condones the ceremony, it does not endorse same-sex couples marrying, and it in no way ‘violates’ the religious tenets of the photographer.

This is merely a lame and inane excuse for those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law, motivated by their fear, hate, and ignorance of homosexuals.

[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]

And what if a cross burning were planned during the celebration? Do recall this hypothetical is a KKK wedding and the photographer is black.

 

[Sunshine]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

Regarding the gay wedding:

The Constitution of the US forbids gender discrimination. But the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld religious liberty and has not supported forced participation in a task one believes morally wrong, even war. So, the finer point of this issues is that there is a little conflict of law there. Here take a gander at the US Constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

There that should keep you busy. And when you get finished you can go for the Australian Constitution, and the Chinese Constitution. They are all online.