Photographers Refuses Service To Gay Couple, Court Rules

In recent times, you'll notice that there's a lot of talk regarding issues like gay marriage, equal rights, and other matters that could very easily fall into similar categories. Well, there's a pretty interesting issue coming to a close in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a wedding photography company refused to take pictures of a gay couple's ceremony. The two women who seeking out photography services for their ceremony had filed a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission back in 2006. The owners of the company had responded by claiming that taking pictures of the two women would violate their rights of free speech as well as their religious rights. The deputy Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union had this to say. “When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs." Fortunately for the two women, the court system agreed and ruled in their favor. Curious as to what the verdict was? We hope so!


Photo via WSJ

Because we're about to tell you. The court ruled that the owners of the photography company's decision was an act of discrimination. Now, gay marriage isn't yet legal in New Mexico although there is a dispute as to whether or not state law prohibits it but either way, you're simply not going to get by with refusing service to someone if it is in regards to their race, sex, religion, or sexual preferences. See more here .

Recommended Reading:

• Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images
• Best Business Practices for Photographers
• Photographer's Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age

PhotographyTalk wrote: --snip--

where a wedding photography company refused to take pictures of a gay couple's ceremony.

--snip--

The court ruled that the owners of the photography company's decision was an act of discrimination. Now, gay marriage isn't yet legal in New Mexico ...

--snip--

.
Sensitive subject ...as indicated by the reluctance of readers to respond.


So they are "a wedding photography company" . . .and they are discriminating by refusing to photograph a 'pretend wedding'..??

Though to be fair ...the court opinion (as quoted in the linked article) calls it a "same-sex commitment ceremony". ...good grief.


Interesting. Strange times we live in.


...tom...

The way to refuse gay wedding photography if you're against it due to religion (a category I'd fall into):

"Sorry we're fully booked for that day."

The fact you're religiously against something isn't a factor in the USA it seems. You have no religious rights anymore. Next they'll ban the Bible because it's "hate speech". Don't get me wrong, I'm not FOR discrimination. But I'm AGAINST forcing people to do (or not do) things just because someone gets offended.

Serious, the USA is litigation mad.

I've been pondering this since the FB posting showed up.

The problem here is that there is a history of folks (not just in America) using religion as an excuse to deny people all sorts of things, to try to control them, to attempt to make them out to be less than human. In many of those cases the issue was a result of something that people had absolutely no control over (e.g. skin color, heredity, cultural background, etc). And I think we would generally agree that that was wrong on many, many levels.

As I see it, there's an assumption (not trying to start an argument here) that being homosexual is not a choice. Most Judeo-Christian types insist it's a choice. The bleeding hearts in the judicial / legislative system have decided that it's not.

Um, deal with it?

Not sure what else to say, other than figure out how to decline or fire your customers in a non-specific way. It's business, keep it that way.

As always, my $0.02.

I personally think homosexuality is something some people have a genetic tendancy towards, but I don't think they HAVE to act on it. Just like me being tall doesn't mean I HAVE to play basketball.

So even though I'm a Judeo-Christian type, I actually think it's a bit of both.

As for people using religion to do bad stuff. Yeh that happens. Also atheistic regimes have killed a lot of people. Misusing any ideology for wrong is... wrong...

garyrhook wrote: I've been pondering this since the FB posting showed up....

Me 2.

I can't disagree with the court's decision. I can't disagree with the plaintiff's position. I can symphathise with the defendants' position ... but ... if you set yourself up in business to do wedding photography, and you advertise, or otherwise promote, your wedding photography business to the public, then you have to comply with anti-discrimination law.

They didn't.

The lesson to be learned here, for all of you who are promoting your service to the public, is: if you promote to the public, you have to take on all comers, or have a nondiscriminatory reason for refusing service ... (easy enough to do .... you're busy elsewhere... not "you're booked" elsewhere, you're just "busy" elsewhere.

It's easy enough to refuse a job in a non-discrimatory manner. Defendants fu'kd up.

Yeh I agree. The defendants perhaps went out of their way to point out why they wouldn't serve them. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Why would anyone want someone taking their wedding photo's that didn't want to? I don't think they would. This sounds to me more like a way for a gay couple to make a couple bucks without doing anything other than being gay. So the answer is if you offer services to the public they have to be for everyone? That doesn't cut it for me either. Ever see the sign in a restaurant that says, "we reserve the right to serve you"? Different standards there? And about religious belief's, I have none but don;t see why people that do can't abide by them. If that's their belief, that's their belief. Seem's to me we are coming full circle. I recall the days when the gay people stayed in the closet. Now if your belief say you can't abide gay people, hide in the closet and give some BS excuse for why your not gonna do it. We are being sensitive aren't we? To the feeling of the gay, not the photographer. Absolutely no body get's hurt by saying I have religious beliefs against gays, sorry. The photographer loses a gig and the gay couple pay someone else to do it.

if the court is going to say the photographer wronged them then at the same time it should say now you have to use them.God forbid they get what they asked for!

I don't see how a business can pick and choose customers, at least not in this way. How could you set up at an art show and sell a print to this person but not that person? Of course that's different than the time commitment of covering an event, but still, certainly you can't do it and give a reason the way it was done in this case - for reasons of religion, race, etc. This case seems to have been an effort to make a point, maybe because declining seemed discriminatory the way it was done.

I've always worked in a public school or for a public agency where we didn't pick and choose our classes or caseloads, we served whoever qualified for services. If a child had two moms then that's the family I'd be working with - I wasn't there to judge their life, it was up to me to be professional and objective in a variety of situations.

I think you can market your business in places where you'd be likely to attract customers who are compatible with your style of photography.

icepics wrote: I don't see how a business can pick and choose customers, at least not in this way. How could you set up at an art show and sell a print to this person but not that person? Of course that's different than the time commitment of covering an event, but still, certainly you can't do it and give a reason the way it was done in this case - for reasons of religion, race, etc. This case seems to have been an effort to make a point, maybe because declining seemed discriminatory the way it was done.

I've always worked in a public school or for a public agency where we didn't pick and choose our classes or caseloads, we served whoever qualified for services. If a child had two moms then that's the family I'd be working with - I wasn't there to judge their life, it was up to me to be professional and objective in a variety of situations.

I think you can market your business in places where you'd be likely to attract customers who are compatible with your style of photography.

You can't say people can't pick their clients and then give a bunch of examples that don't fit the category. That's not logical.

Photography (mostly) is one individual giving a service to other individuals or a small group. It's not a shop or a government run institution. If they don't feel comfortable with a client or the client is being unreasonable, why should they be forced to work with them? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I agree that the refusal to photograph had to include a lot of negativity and a detailed explanation that wasn't necessary. The best business plan would be to refuse the gig without explanation other than, "I cannot fit the shoot into my schedule."

My reference was to work I've done in public jobs where everyone who qualifies receives services because that's how I'm used to providing services; it isn't the same for a business. But businesses here have to follow anti-discrimination laws applicable in the US and this case seems to be defining another applicable category; services can't be denied based on race, sex, age, or religion, and this case is about including sexual orientation to that. The way services were declined seem to be what was problematic in this case.

I agree with the statement as to why would you want someone doing your photography who didn't want to do the job. But don't the photographers have the same right a restaurant has when they have the sign that they reserve the right not serve someone? But I think the best way to deal with this is to have previous bookings for that day. What gives the courts the right to tell you that you can't refuse to do a event ? Also what do the plaintiffs gain from the courts decision ?

fotobygoodyear wrote: But don't the photographers have the same right a restaurant has when they have the sign that they reserve the right not serve someone?

Not in the United States, they don't.  Signs in the window aside, there are certain parameters that you can not use in this country to deny service to someone. I don't photographers can use "no shirt, no shoes, no service" as a point of refusal.

In my opinion private businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone. That said, I wouldn't hire a company that discriminated against gay couples. It works both ways. They can state their opinion loudly and reject a customer and we can loudly speak out against the actions as wrong in our opinions. I don't think courts even necessarily have to get involved in the discussion.

On the day my current state passed a law allowing same sex marriage the photography company I just got hired on for posted a congratulatory message and said they are excited to photograph same sex weddings in the future. I'm very happy to be working for them. Someone who is against same sex marriage might see this message and choose to go with a different company just like I would see this company refusing to do this type of wedding and avoid using them. I'm a big fan of speaking with my wallet on these topics.  I'll support companies that align with my views and reject those that don't.