NM Supreme Court rules, Photogs can't refuse Gay Weddings

[NotNow]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

But if you put it in the context of the  photog not refusing her services due to their sexual preference, but as to what she was being asked to shoot, then they shouldn't have a case at all.  Hence my issue with the entire series of events.

This is why I bring up the issue outside of race or sexual preference. 

If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige.  The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings.   So the case is about what happened in this instance.  Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics.  Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed.  It is the law in New Mexico.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

But if you put it in the context of the  photog not refusing her services due to their sexual preference, but as to what she was being asked to shoot, then they shouldn't have a case at all.  Hence my issue with the entire series of events.

This is why I bring up the issue outside of race or sexual preference. 

If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige.  The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings.   So the case is about what happened in this instance.  Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics.  Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed.  It is the law in New Mexico.

If you've read my previous posts you'd already know that I've read the emails, the original complaint and the judgement.  I agree with the original complaint; I disagree with the judgement.  I think it sets a horrible precedent.

And again, how can the state dictate what 'types' of business the photographer is 'supposed' to accept?  Had the same couple asked for some general head shots, there wouldn't have been a problem, so technically it's not a 'person' being discriminated against, but an activity that the photog refuses to shoot.  Maybe she won't take pictures of a traditional Baptist baptism (full body immersion), but takes pictures of the more subdued Methodist version (holy water sprinkling on the forehead), should she be forced to take pictures of both?

I can give you plenty of scenarios from both sides, it doesn't change my opinion, and if I had a JD and a valid license to practice law in NM, you bet your ass that I'm quitting my job as an ambulance chaser and taking up the 'equal rights' fight for the 'protected classes' in NM.

Edit:

Are you gay, black, jewish?  Need wedding pictures?  Call 1-800-Ask-Tony for your free wedding photos with a side of a civil trial. 

[NotNow]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

or straight. or a celibate priest, or impotent, or hermaphroditic. 

It is not clear what you are trying to say here.

Here goes the pissing contest.... 

Let me help you out, NN:   therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual or straight. or a celibate priest, or impotent, or hermaphroditic. person because of their sexual preference

Thanks NRW, now I see what he was trying to say.  I am not familiar enough with the New Mexico law to agree or disagree with the statement.   The New Mexico Supreme Court ruling clearly identified the portion of the statute which applied to this case and clearly defined the protected class:

The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain
defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add "sexual
orientation" as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws,
ch. 383, § 2. "Sexual orientation" is defined in the NMHRA as "heterosexuality,
homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived." Section 28-1-2(P). In this case,
we are concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because
of that person's real or perceived homosexuality—that person's propensity to experience
feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.

So "straight" or heterosexual would seem to be a protected class, but there is no mention of celibacy, impotecy, or hermphraditic, so I can only assume they would not be protected by the law. 

The New Mexico ruling can be found here:

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

[NotNow]

NRW,

New Mexico has a state law which lists particular classes of persons (protected classes ) that it is illegal in that state to discriminate against.   Federal law (and all states) list race, sex, and religious belief as protected.  New Mexico has added homosexual and bi-sexual to this list, therefore, a public business can not refuse their services to a homosexual or bi-sexual person because of their sexual preference.

But if you put it in the context of the  photog not refusing her services due to their sexual preference, but as to what she was being asked to shoot, then they shouldn't have a case at all.  Hence my issue with the entire series of events.

This is why I bring up the issue outside of race or sexual preference. 

If you read the complaint you will see that the plantiff proved that the discrimination was based on the photographers religious objection to same sex marraige.  The photographer emailed the plaintiff verifying that she did not photograph such weddings.   So the case is about what happened in this instance.  Homosexuals in New Mexico enjoy the same protection as if the photographer had notified a hispanic that they did not photograph hispanics.  Whether this is a good policy or not is not discussed.  It is the law in New Mexico.

If you've read my previous posts you'd already know that I've read the emails, the original complaint and the judgement.  I agree with the original complaint; I disagree with the judgement.  I think it sets a horrible precedent.

And again, how can the state dictate what 'types' of business the photographer is 'supposed' to accept?  Had the same couple asked for some general head shots, there wouldn't have been a problem, so technically it's not a 'person' being discriminated against, but an activity that the photog refuses to shoot.  Maybe she won't take pictures of a traditional Baptist baptism (full body immersion), but takes pictures of the more subdued Methodist version (holy water sprinkling on the forehead), should she be forced to take pictures of both?

I can give you plenty of scenarios from both sides, it doesn't change my opinion, and if I had a JD and a valid license to practice law in NM, you bet your ass that I'm quitting my job as an ambulance chaser and taking up the 'equal rights' fight for the 'protected classes' in NM.

Edit:

Are you gay, black, jewish?  Need wedding pictures?  Call 1-800-Ask-Tony for your free wedding photos with a side of a civil trial. 

Please explain how you agree with the complaint but disagree with the judgement?  The business provides a service.  The state has a law that you can not refuse business based on trait described in that law.  The business refused service based on one of those protected traits.  The business was required to pay the legal bills of the plantiff.  In this case, the plantiff declined any punitive damages and simply wished to make the point.

Now, one may or may not agree with adding "sexual preference" or any other trait to the state's list of protected classes, but that is another matter.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

All well and good, NN, but I still can't agree with the ruling for the simple reason that ,technically, a person or person(s) was/were never discriminated against, but photographing an act by those people was refused.  And the court decided to interpret that as a discriminatory act against the plaintiff. 

Here's my simplified long and short of it:

If a gay couple had asked for a straight wedding to be shot, no problem.

If a straight couple had asked for a gay wedding to be shot, not happening. 

No person has been discriminated against.  A photographer is choosing what she will or will not take pictures of.  She will do business with anyone, but she has just been bitchslapped by the NMSC and told that she has to shoot certain events as asked or risks going back to court. 

IMO, a horrible precedent to set. 

What happens when she turns down another couple for a ceremony, stating busy schedule, but doesn't have the paper trail to back it up?  Is she discriminating on purpose or is it truly a scheduling conflict?  What about if she changes her price?  Is it only because the next client is black or did she really raise prices across the board? 

[NotNow]

I see.  But that is why we have courts.  So that when someone feels they have been slighted and they feel they have legal recourse it is up to the courts to decide what the truth of the matter is.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I see.  But that is why we have courts.  So that when someone feels they have been slighted and they feel they have legal recourse it is up to the courts to decide what the truth of the matter is.

No doubt. 

In this case in particular, I feel the court is incorrect. 

[NotNow]

I think the court is correct.  I'm not so sure about the law. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I think the court is correct.  I'm not so sure about the law.

I can see that being a fair assessment as well. 

Either way, after a bit more research, I believe that the NMSC erred to the side of caution on this one, which BTW was settled in '08, because of the many contentions in their 'vague' laws defining what constitutes a legal marriage:

New Mexico county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
Posted by Justin Snow
August 21, 2013 12:32 PM | Permalink
A county clerk in New Mexico announced Wednesday that he would start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in what is the latest development in years-long saga regarding the state's ambiguous marriage laws.

ellins.jpgDoña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins said after carefully examining the state's marriage laws he has determined that they are gender neutral and that same-sex couples are permitted to marry in New Mexico.

"Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act," Ellins said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry."

New Mexico is the only state in the nation that does not recognize nor prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages, which has led to a long history of challenges to New Mexico's ambiguous marriage laws. On Feb. 20, 2004, the clerk in Sandoval County, N.M., issued marriage licenses to 64 same-sex couples before ordered to stop by the state attorney general. Since that decision, county clerks have not issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the state has been vague about whether state law permits same-sex marriage, leading advocates to take their fight to the courts and Legislature.

In March, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss and City Councilor Patti Bushee announced that they would sponsor a resolution calling on county clerks across the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and a series of lawsuits seeking to legalize same-sex marriage have been pending in the state.

In July, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the federal government's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) announced a new effort to go directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court to clarify the state's vague marriage laws. Earlier this month, New Mexico's highest court denied that request in order to allow lower courts to consider the issue first. The New Mexico Supreme Court has now been asked to consolidate all cases regarding same-sex marriage in the state in order to get a prompt lower-court decision and take the issue to the high court.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/08/new-mexico-county-clerk-to-issue-marriage-licenses.html

[NotNow]

Agreed.  They have a mess out there.  But God, what a beautiful state.  I love that part of the country.