Ok, I don't get this.

[Touchdown]

... and frankly I'm a little pissed at the spouse to be.

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in favor of Vanessa Willock, who in 2006 filed suit against photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph her commitment ceremony because of her personal religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

The commission's April 9 ruling instructed Huguenin to pay $6,637 for Willock's attorneys fees. In an e-mail, both Willock and her attorney, Julie Sakura, said they were pleased with the verdict.

However, the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal organization, is planning to appeal the ruling. ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a statement that Huguenin as a Christian woman would not have photographed anything that went against her religion, such as showing abortion in a positive light or photographing a horror movie. Refusing service because of religious beliefs is a right protected by the First Amendment, argues Lorence.

Lorence said he will take the appeal "as far as it will go." (The Advocate)

Yes I understand discrimination and that consequences must be meted out for violations, but I'm a photographer myself, finding it pretty tough to gain clients & jobs and if given the chance to shoot commitment ceremonies I'd jump at it. Why is this woman so willing to give her money to a sanctimonious bigot knowing that this trog doesn't "approve" ? If I came to a photog, wanting to hire him/her to shoot me and the boyfriend I will probably never find to marry, and got this kind of reaction, I'd say "See yah! I'll take my $1500 somewhere else!"

You can't tell me that there are no lesbigaytrans photographers in New Mexico, or even those who would be friendly to doing a comm. ceremony. Hell, I'm in Colorado, so it's only a 6 hour drive for me.

[CC]

1. I don't see why someone wouldn't photograph

the ceremony, but then I am not a crazy fundie. I also do not see why the person would want to use a photographer that wasn't behind them 100%. I tell people they should meet with their photographer and like them, not just their photos. Even the best photographer can ruin a day if you and they do not agree on what you want.

Could you cross post this in the photogroup?

[Beregond2]

2. I am

amazed she won this suit. It is completely frivolous, IMO. Just don't give the bitch your business, for Pete's sake.

[Ian David]

3. Do you know how hard it is to find gay photographers, caterers, wedding planners and... and...

never mind.

[aquart]

7. I would think there are local journals....

Okay, I'm in NYC and nobody would have a problem with that here. But I'm reminding myself that it ain't like that in smaller places.

But, seriously, this is where the internet is a godsend. Anyone who feels in the minority at home, whether because you're gay or you want to talk particle physics, should be able to locate like-minded people on the web...who would be a reasonable resource for such things as my cousin's commitment ceremony had this great photographer, try him...

[Ian David]

4. Where is the link so we can see the rest of the story?

If the photographer showed-up, and "objected" at the last moment, when it was too late to get another photographer, then I say sue the pants of her.

If the business arrangement fell apart weeks or days before the ceremony, then I say tell her to go fuck herself and let it go.

[Zuiderelle]

9. I doubt that we know all the facts. I'm assuming that they wouldn't have won, if it had been

a situation where they could have found a replacement photographer.

[Ian David]

11. That's why they're not suing for damages. They weren't damaged.

However, it appears that the law was broken, and there may be a case for punishing the photographer.

All he had to do was say, "I can't work for you that day. I have a thing with a guy in a place," and it would have been over. Instead, he decided to tell them it was because he hates gay people. And he should have known better-- he's a member of the equal employment board.

[Zuiderelle]

12. Yeah, I've since read the article you linked below. This is great progress.

And a wonderful way of applying the law.

[Touchdown]

14. OOPS Sorry. I knew I missed something

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53375.asp

BTW: that is the whole story Advocate wrote, which is why I'm reacting this way.

Anybody need a Photographer in Denver/surrounding areas. I'm eager and have 20 years experience behind the lense.:D

[Warpy]

5. I don't get it, either

Why would this fundy loon take the money in the first place? Did she get an attack of conscience before or after she deposited it in the bank?

This just seems really odd to me. Most fundies around here are eager to announce their sanctimony within the first five minutes they meet somebody. Didn't Willock notice? When somebody starts telling me how pious they are, I check to see my wallet is still there and sprint for the nearest exit. Didn't the fundy loon know what a commitment ceremony is? Did some other fundy loon tell her after she'd accepted the job?

There are a lot of unanswered questions here. While I'm glad to see fundies get stuck with a big bill under most circumstances, I've got a lot of questions about this one.

[CC]

6. I found a link to an earlier story

on it. (WARNING-might be a fundy site. Did not look beyond this story.) http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html It still doesn't answer a lot of questions.

Some more here but not much more. http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/300004nm04-11-08.htm You will have to go through the trial pass to read it but will not have to give any info.

[Ian David]

8. Here's more...

<snip>

Until recently, Willock was an equal employment opportunity specialist with the University of New Mexico's Office of Equal Opportunity.

After considering the evidence, including e-mails, the Human Rights Bureau issued a determination of probable cause in June 2007, allowing the case to go before a panel of three of the state's 11 Human Rights Commissioners, all of whom are appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson.

State law prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation. State law does not, however, recognize a marriage between two members of the same sex.

Francie Cordova, the bureau's labor relations director, said the case fell under public accommodation.

Although employment complaints are more common, she said, several public accommodation complaints are filed annually, typically when people feel they have been illegally denied service by a business.

This case was unique, she said, because Willock only sought a discrimination ruling and attorneys' fees. "Normally, the complainant also asks for damages," she said.

<snip>

"Had the photographer ... simply said 'I don't think I would be a good fit for your ceremony,' or even said she had other obligations, that would have been the end of it," New Mexico blogger SJ Reidhead wrote on her blog,thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com, which she describes as Republican, Christian, pro-immigration and pro-Bush.

More:
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/300004nm04-11-08.htm


It looks like the law is on the couple's side. They're not suing for damages, by the way-- they just want to send this asshole and his christo-fascist friends a message.

The photogarpher WANTED to be a giant douche about it, and this is what he gets.

[Zuiderelle]

10. Thanks for the addl info. Makes perfect sense that they sued and won.

Good for them!

[Touchdown]

15. The photog is a she. Douches come in all sexes.

:hi:

[Zuiderelle]

13. So, by now, I guess you've read further and are no longer pissed that they sued?

That photographer explicitly said that she would not photograph them because they were gay. Would it have been acceptable to you if they had been black and she told them that she would not photograph them because they were black? A business should not make judgments against people who request their services. They should simply accept the work or not. They don't have to be hateful and discriminatory in the process. In fact, they are not allowed to be. That's a good thing, and this case makes that point.

[Touchdown]

16. Yeah, now I get the point of it.

The Advocate's article didn't specify what the law was or the details of the initial meeting between the parites, so there is a bit of extrapolation in just one article.

I do hope she and her partner found a good snapper for her ceremony.

[friedgreentomatoes]

17. there are many sides to this.

a business owner should have the right to refuse to serve who they dont want to.

that is why i dont agree with "why didn't the photogs say they were busy that day"? no one should be made to lie.

again, in the statement "i will not photograph a commitment ceremony b/w two homosexuals as it is againtst the teachings of my religion", lets replace "homosexual" with "black" or "black and white".
should they still have the right to decline and not accused of discrimination? will all hell break lose if such a reply became public?

[Zuiderelle]

18. They didn't have to lie. They could have simply said "No, we cannot do it."

Why add hate and bigotry to the answer? That's what the law is there to protect us against.

[GodlessBiker]

19. If the photographer also had a store, could she refuse service to gay people?