07/03/2008
I Am A Bigoted Camera
Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin is appealing a court-imposed fine of $6,637 for refusing to shoot a lesbian couple’s wedding. The actions of Elane Photography violated the rights of bride-to-be Vanessa Willock and her partner, according to New Mexico's Human Rights Act. Her representation was the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group dedicated to quashing gay rights.
Willock (pictured) is a University of New Mexico staffer, an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity "where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment." Elane Photography picked the wrong lesbian to mess with.
AFD counsel Jordan Lorence has explained that "no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with." Responding to the filing of Huguenin's appeal, Lorence says they will take the case "as far as it will go."
It used to be everyone had their day in court; now it seems like everyone has their day in Supreme Court.
This is not to belittle the merits of this case—it cuts right down to a very basic, very American argument about civil liberty. I recall in high school an otherwise nice teacher of mine arguing that he felt he should have the right to discriminate on a racial basis when renting out a room or hiring someone to work for his theoretical small business. Where does it end? Probably not just with no wedding pictures—how about refusing to sell gay people clothes, food or health care?
Also, if your name is Elaine, why name your business Elane? That's just annoying.
Posted 9:45 AM EST by Matthew Rettenmund in Discrimination, Gay Marriage, New Mexico | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm gay and all for equality and all that stuff, blah blah blah, but if someone runs a business, shouldn't it be their right not to take a job or not? They have to be forced to take photographs of something they don't want to take?
There's something a little out-of-bounds about this.
Posted by: chris | Jul 3, 2008 10:11:26 AM
Yeah, but it reminds me of all those pharmacies where women weren't given birth control pills because of the religious convictions of the pharmacists.
Maybe all these anti-gay businesses need to start putting up signs: GAY BUSINESS NOT WELCOME.
Posted by: Roscoe | Jul 3, 2008 10:17:58 AM
you brought up a good point, Chris, but as argued by Matthew on the above post... what if I have a neighbor who owns a food market and refuses to sell to gays and lesbians. what then?
Posted by: Maloney | Jul 3, 2008 10:18:40 AM
Love the "all that stuff," TROLL! Now why don't you run off and suck Drudge's cock like a good fellow.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jul 3, 2008 10:21:13 AM
It is a matter of equal protection. Everyone deserves the right to be treated equally. There was a recent case before the CA Supreme regarding a lesbian being refused family planning services by a particular physician. The court hasn't ruled yet, but the tone of the arguments tended to indicate if the person didn't want to practice her profession of medicine equally to all people, perhaps the physician should think about another profession. This photographer has a PUBLIC business, with PUBLIC being the keyword. Taking this to the theoretical extreme, if a public business is allow to discriminate we could see supermarkets refusing to sell food to gay people. It is simply ridiculous - people need to get a grip and start treating each other with respect.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 3, 2008 10:21:59 AM
I'm filing this one under stupid. Housing and employment are human rights. Having your picture taken is not.
Conversely, photography is a means of expression; something I thought was protected under the Constitution. While Elaine has proven herself a jerk, it's completely within her rights to express or not express herself, so long as she is not maligning or harassing anyone in the process.
Advacing LGBT equality is a noble cause. Usurping other people's rights is not. While I disagree with Elain's choice, I'm rooting for her right to make it.
Posted by: whatthe | Jul 3, 2008 10:22:35 AM
I think the fundamental difference between this case and a hypthetical case of denying food, medicine, work, or housing is that the latter have a real and direct impact on your ability to live. Having your picture taken doesn't fall into this category.
As much as I feel for the plaintiffs I don't think this case will go very far.
Posted by: scott | Jul 3, 2008 10:24:03 AM
Well, let's flip it around. Suppose you ran a business printing signs. Some Fred Phelps types come in one day 'cause they are planning to protest the local gay pride march. They order 25 signs saying "FAGS SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH."
You decide that you'd rather not take on that particular job. Do you think the law should require you to print up the signs? Or suppose that YOU'RE the photographer, but the customer wants to hire you to lovingly document his local Klan rally? Shouldn't you have the right to say "no, I don't want the business"?
Most anti-discrimination laws contain exceptions for the actions of individuals and very small business to allow for situations where the ban on discrimination might conflict with what we perceive as the individual's right to maintain his personal opinions on a topic, however misguided those opinions might be. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems a reasonable way to work in a non-perfect world.
Posted by: Buster | Jul 3, 2008 10:33:51 AM
How about when you get to sit in a separate section of a restaurant because you're gay, Scott? Or how about simply being denied service at the restaurant at all because why? BECAUSE YOU'RE GAY, SCOTT. There is no hypothetical scenario going on here and you, Whatthe, and Chris have obviously missed the point of the case. You don't feel a goddamned thing for the lesbian couple because somewhere down the road, that very simplistic viewpoint of yours leads to the perpetuation and growth of institutionalized discrimination...and that DOES have a direct impact on our ability to live our lives.
We can all choose to take our business elsewhere, and that very attitude additionally sparks the growth and need for ghettos - an additional separation and a prolonged sense of distance between all people. Some people like a ghetto. Some people also lack a big-picture perspective. No thank you.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jul 3, 2008 10:41:41 AM
Buster, although I can certainly appreciate the anti-discrimination legal slant and the tightrope you're walking between legislated morality and personal duty, your argument is weak.
First of all, no Klan meeting is ever going to ask for a photographer if they're not a member of the intimate circle. Second, public professional printers would be taking great risk to print any type of material with intent to incite violence. Check the First Amendment. It would perhaps take a long court battle, but it is unlikely the hateful incitement would be the victor.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jul 3, 2008 10:52:56 AM
The point I was trying to make was that the law states that if you are running a public business you must treat all people equally. That is the law, there are no exceptions saying if you don't like a certain person you can discriminate. Think about it this way, if the photographer said: I don't like black people or women so I'm not going to take their picture. Do you think for one moment that would or should be allowed? Again, if the person wants to discriminate fine, but they can't do so when running a public business. That is the idea behind anti-discrimination laws, you can not discriminate. Who wants a patchwork of public business who pick and choose whom they will do business with? That simply isn't workable, nor should it be tolerated anyway.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 3, 2008 10:55:47 AM
Sheesh, there's some shithead opinions on here. Gay folks rationalizing discrimination against gay folks is bizarre and depressing. You can't all be Log Cabinoids?
This isn't a case of a PRIVATE individual being forced to photograph something they don't want to. Elaine Huguenin (ehuguenin@gmail.com) of Elane Photography is offering her services to the PUBLIC which includes gay folks. To deny them is discriminatory.
Judge Judy has taught me well.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 3, 2008 11:13:38 AM
Fizzie --
I don't agree with your argument, try this - change the sign to "THE BIBLE SAYS ALL FAGS ARE GOING TO HELL"
Simple statement. Not inciting to violence. Do you still want the law to make you print it if you run your own little one-man print shop?
And instead of being a photographer, say you own and operate a very small (3 employee) events coordination/PR business. An anti-gay marriage group wants to hire you to organize and publicize their rally against gay marriage laws next week in your town. Do you want to have to take on the task?
I mean, you can say that an anti-gay group wouldn't want to hire a homosexual, but then why are the lesbians trying to hire hiring a homophobic photographer? These things happen. How do you want to handle them?
The way we DO handle these things, in most anti-discrimination (race, sex, creed, national origin, sexual orientation) laws as they stand, is that there are exceptions to the public discrimination laws for solo and VERY small businesses (like under 10 employees.) If Aunt Sally doesn't want to rent the extra room in her house to a white man, she doesn't have to. But if she owns three rental apartments she does. If Uncle Charlie doesn't want to hire a straight man to dance at his tiny gay bar, he doesn't have to, unless the bar is large enough to fall under the local anti-discrimination law.
Posted by: Buster | Jul 3, 2008 11:16:49 AM
I have to agree with the people who think this is a ridiculous case. If someone doesn't want to photograph something, for whatever reason, the law should not compel them to do so. Yes, in this case it might be detestable but you're not going to win over very many supporters by going after some small business that takes pictures. Are you going to start suing everyone who looks at you the wrong way? That's certainly one way to advance your cause.
Posted by: STEVE | Jul 3, 2008 11:20:00 AM
LOL, John In Manhattan... was thinking the exact same thing... and I agree it is depressing and bizarre to see gay folks rationalizing discrimination against other gay folks. Thank goodness we don't all think that way or we would all still be cowering in the closet. The only way to stop this crap is to get the message across once and for all that it won't be tolerated. It simply isn't acceptable behavior.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 3, 2008 11:21:52 AM
If Elane Photography was booked and confirmed to photograph the wedding, and then declined to do so on the day of the event, then Elane Photography was responsible to arrange for another photography studio to document the wedding that day.
Posted by: A.J. | Jul 3, 2008 11:22:54 AM
What sort of quality of photographs do you think you'd get from somebody being forced to take your picture against her will?
Frankly, I don't want somebody who doesn't like gays being forced to take my wedding pictures! I'd much rather find somebody who does. This is a problem the market can resolve itself. A photographer with a difficult reputation will likely lose business to those with more open policies.
Posted by: SS | Jul 3, 2008 11:23:49 AM
This is a really interesting discussion with good points made from both sides of the issue in the comments above. Personally, I'm sure of only one thing--that it's not quite as cut-and-dried as some of you suggest.
Mike proposes that the photographer's being a "public business" is the dispositive element and she can't discriminate in her choice of clients therefore. I think what he's referring to is the notion of a "public accommodation." In anti-discrimination law, public accommodations include businesses and services--both government (or "public") and private--that provide, offer or deliver things that are deemed to be elemental to or central to a person's life and well-being (what some of you refer to above as "rights"); discrimination in these businesses or services in respect to race, gender, age, physical ability, etc., is illegal.
Of course, sexual orienation is only sometimes included in the list of protected classes covered by anti-discrimination law, and that is a BIG problem obviously.
But more importantly, public accommodations tend to be limited to what you might think of as necessities or the social basics: employment, housing, food, lodging, entertainment. I know of no jurisdiction that includes wedding photography as a public accommodation and I highly doubt that the black-letter law in New Mexico supports such an interpretation.
The more important point is Buster's concerning the right to decline business in view of personal ethics and preferences. Mike dismisses that point breezily but too quickly. The fact that the Klan would be unlikely to hire a non-Klan photographer is irrelevant to the dilemma Buster's question raises.
End of the day, the question is how far do we want the law to go in mandating equal treatment? Fifty years from now, in all likelihood, the notion that anyone thought unkindly about the notion of two women marrying will seem absurd--in much the same way that the now thankfully bygone anti-miscegenation laws do today. The courts rightly struck down those laws. But would they have been well-advised to force photographers to take pictures at the first few thousand inter-racial marriage ceremonies? Or better to allow time to pass and social attitudes to evolve and photographers follow where society's mores lead them?
I think the answer is clear and relevant to this discussion too. Wedding photos are not jobs, housing, healthcare or free speech.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jul 3, 2008 11:35:43 AM
One thing I'd note; I think the photography-as-art angle is misdirected in this case. Remember that Elaine's photography was being offered not as art (though some artistic flourishes and personal touches would exist, just like if you hired a dude to build you a nice rocking chair) but as a technical service—the recording of an event done to a customer's explicit direction. The printer analogy is more appropriate, IMHO.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 3, 2008 11:36:51 AM
Interesting point, SS. They might fuck up the pictures--make all gay men look like Larry Craig or phony Reverend Hutcherson.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 3, 2008 11:37:13 AM
I actually agree w/ Scott and Buster completely on this one.
And isn't doing the whole "what's next?" thing the same arguments that the other side makes about marriage equality? "what's next? marrying your pet??"
Come on guys. Oh, and just because we may not agree doesn't mean you need to resort to calling anyone names, etc. There is a pretty good discussion going on here, don't ruin it!
Posted by: gabriel | Jul 3, 2008 11:40:25 AM
By the way, I think that it should be noted that I do think she is a punk for doing this, I just don't see the legal piece of it.
Also, the fact that her job is an EEO Compliance Representative is kinda scary.
Posted by: gabriel | Jul 3, 2008 11:42:45 AM
*sigh*
GABRIEL, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is the EEO Compliance Representative.
Elaine Huguenin is the cunty photographer, and calling her a punk is name calling and an insult to the music genre.
I'm getting a headache.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 3, 2008 11:48:41 AM
Wait a minute, Gabriel, I think Ms Willock is the one of gay women who filed charges against the photographer. She works for the Office of Equal Opportunity.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 3, 2008 11:49:36 AM
Thanks guys, I read through it too fast the first time!
Shame on me
Posted by: gabriel | Jul 3, 2008 11:54:51 AM