Comments on: Elane Photography loses appeal

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:02:21 +0000

Hear hear Scott.

By: Scott Smith

Scott Smith — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:54:01 +0000

The applicable law in New Mexico is clear about public accommodation by businesses who advertise their services to the public. Regardless of whether you feel the law is fair or not, it’s still the law in our state.

Even further, as the owner of a licensed business in Albuquerque she is required to agree to abide by local, state & federal laws. This is a case of someone (Elane) wanting to avoid the consequences of her actions.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:42:29 +0000

This seems similar to a hypothetical situation where a Muslim photographer declines a request to photograph a Jewish ceremony, like a Bar Mitzvah, or a Christian baptism. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate* for them to sue the Muslim, despite the fact that they are in a protected class. What is your opinion? Perhaps there comes a time when anti-discrimination laws threaten freedom.

*I am not sure of the law(s). By appropriate, I mean “what should be.”

By: Krsitie

Krsitie — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 05:58:13 +0000

What I find interesting is the initial email the couple sent to the photographer. In it they say, “If you are OPEN to helping us celebrate…”. Clearly, from that wording, it makes it seem as if they understand and even anticipate that the photographer may not be open to participating in their wedding and that is fine. But, when she did express her objection, then they seemed to feel that she should take them on as clients regardless of whether she was open to participating or not. Personally, I think that she’s a bigot, and I don’t think refusing them simply because they were gay was right, but I still feel like she should have the right to do it. Of course I am one of those “naive, wrong-headed” Libertarians, so I generally don’t care for the state trying to use it’s might to legislate the morality of adults in general. If I had been in the couples position, I would have taken my business elsewhere to someone that wanted and deserved my hard earned cash. Then, I would have had no problem telling everyone I knew that the photographer who refused, did so because she has a bias against gay marriage.I’m just not totally comfortable with the government telling people who they must associate with.

By: Brawny71

Brawny71 — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:38:43 +0000

So, your position is, if you’re a SMALL business, it’s okay to say “We don’t serve your kind.”?

If she didn’t want to photograph an interracial marriage, this would be more all over the news.

She can solve future problems by simply proclaiming “Fundamentalist Christian Photographer.” on her business cards and ads, and she’ll never get asked again.

P.S. Twenty years from now, there will be no doubt that this woman was in the wrong–just like we used to be on the fence about a person not approving of interracial marriage being a racist. I think we’re all pretty sure he/she is now!

By: Jarred

Jarred — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:24:19 +0000

In my opinion, pushing this lawsuit only creates animus, and is never helpful in the long run.

The photographer made it clear that she would not take the job because it was a same-sex wedding. That in itself implies animus. Suggesting that the couple created the animus that was clearly pre-existing simply isn’t truthful.

By: Désirée

Désirée — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:32:44 +0000

I agree with Stretch as well that the idea that wedding photography isn’t creating a message is bogus. It reduces the photographer to no more than unskilled labor. If that were the case, then why hire a wedding photograph at all and not just get your friend to shot some snapshots? Photography is art, whether it is being sold as a service or not. So what this ruling does in effect, is force an artist to create art that goes against her beliefs. Yay us :-/

By: Désirée

Désirée — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:29:11 +0000

Hunter: a law that says “everyone must worship at a Christian church” also applies equally to everyone, but is obviously not fair. Fair is the opposite of equal. you can be one or the other but rarely both. This law may be equal, but is not fair.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:19:37 +0000

Timothy Kincaid: “As I stated, I think the law is unfair and should be amended.”

In what way is it unfair? It applies the same way to everyone, as the court found, and that’s as fair as the law can get. If certain people are exempt from certain laws, then the laws are not fair.

By: strech

strech — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:07:00 +0000

While I don’t agree with the product/services distinction, I do disagree with the ruling handed down on the compelled speech reason. Photography is creative work, and Elaine is being compelled to create work celebrating something she disagrees with. The court distinguished this here:

Similarly, unlike the parade organizers in Hurley, here, Elane Photography is not the speaker. By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

I think this is wrong.

Work-for-hire is still creative work, in which you become a speaker; you aren’t merely a “conduit”. Elaine is still distributing the photographs – at the least to the family and anyone else that would be listed in the contract. Could Willock demand she do the job but not demand Elaine send anyone the photos?

And while the KKK is not a protected class, the Christian Identity Church, the Nazi Party (in some areas), and so on are. The “conduit” logic also applies beyond wedding photography – graphic design, freelance writing, and so on.

Seriously people, do you think a white supremacist group would bother to hire a black photographer in the first place?

I think they’d love to have a black guy running around doing work to glorify them, particularly if they were spoiling for a legal case. (And it wouldn’t even have to be a black guy, anyway; a hell of a lot of people would object to doing that work). It is a direct implication of the ruling and you can’t handwave it away because you don’t like it.