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.
None of this would be happening if the photographer had had the good sense to just say "sorry, I'm booked up that day" instead of saying "I won't shoot dyke weddings." I mean what, would you sue claiming discrimination based on who asked first?
And I don't think a lawsuit was the right tactic here. If I had been the couple involved, I'd have simply found someone else, but made damn sure everyone in town and everyone on the internet knew which photographer had turned down my gay dollars. I think the lawsuit just makes the couple involved look petty and overly litigious. Which doesn't do the overall gay and lesbian community any favors.
Posted by: Dan | Jul 3, 2008 12:00:22 PM
You're so right, Dan.
These dykes should have rolled over and played dead. How dare they bring a law suit based on sexual orientation discrimination when they could have just posted their woes on MySpace? They're hurting the gay community by bringing litigation against an anti-gay bigot denying services to us! I mean, I know Vanessa Willock is an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity "where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment" but really, what the fuck does she know?
Silence = Death, tool.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 3, 2008 12:13:22 PM
I've always found that calling people "tool" or "troll" or, worst of all, a "Log Cabinoid," is a fantastic way to get people to see your point of view.
Hooray for public discourse!
Posted by: crispy | Jul 3, 2008 12:28:39 PM
Anti-discrimination law 101:
First, in order to be protected under the law, you must be a member of a "protected class". This can include the elderly, the disabled, national origin, religion and sometimes sexual orientation (depends on the state--no federal guidance here), among others.
Second, your business must be declared "a public accommodation". That is, your business is "a walk-in arrangement" among other tests, where you cannot know the character of your clients until they request your business, or which the public at large would expect to be open to all (such as restaurants).
Third, the request/commitment cannot place any "undue burden" on your business. For example, you cannot claim discrimination if you walk into a small restaurant and demand they cook breakfast for 1000 fellow churchgoers.
Fourth, depending on the states, very small businesses are generally exempt.
Fifth, "expressed policies concurrent with other rights are allowed". For example, a Jewish print shop can have an expressed policy that they will only print materials in Hebrew. Such policies must be posted or readily made available (No shoes, no shirts, no service!).
Finally, states allow exemptions for protected classes as "first amendment organizations" (read "religions and non-profits") to have broader scope under expressed policies.
Remember that immoral acts aren't always illegal.
Posted by: anon | Jul 3, 2008 12:30:02 PM
Silence = death when you're dealing with matters like AIDS, gay bashing or addiction.
Not so much with wedding photography.
Besides, no one said that the lesbians should be silent. Just that filing a lawsuit looks silly, seems likely to fail and feels like an an over-reaction. There are other ways to "speak" than going to court.
Don't trivialize the stuff that's important, tool.
Posted by: Namu | Jul 3, 2008 12:33:38 PM
Completely agree with the people who think the photographer has a right to refuse any job she wants. I'd really like to see someone who disagrees address Buster's argument: Should a gay printing business be forced to print religious material denouncing homosexuality as immoral?
Posted by: Mark Wickens | Jul 3, 2008 12:38:16 PM
How can one compare a photographer taking pictures at a wedding to photographing a KKK event, for one the KKK event is illegal if I am not mistaken, same as taking an order to print hate materials, we in Canada have hate crimes and those individuals would be prosecuted. I agree totally with the women who have filed the case... We all deserve to be treated equally and with the same respect as straight heterosexuals.
Normally the USA is ahead of other countries and pride themself on democracy, tolerance, however they certainly fall short in the scheme of a GAY person. Canada, the most of Europe have certainly gone way beyond what the USA has done to equalize Gays and hetero's..
Posted by: Robert | Jul 3, 2008 1:11:22 PM
ROBERT, in these tools' minds, taking photos of a gay wedding IS equal to photographing a KKK rally. The analogies are laughable.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 3, 2008 1:30:12 PM
I think love is a message we should all be working to advance.
Posted by: Scott | Jul 3, 2008 1:36:16 PM
Given a lot of the comments on here, I can see why the USA is trailing behind in GAY rights.
Time to wake up and stand up for our rights as gay men and women, and to expect to be treated in the same fashion as a hetero is expected to be treated.
I must say that from most of the people I speak to in Canada, most would welcome Obama as President of your country and that Gay rights would prevail with him as President.
Instead of hiding behind the Red White and Blue, stand behind your rights as gay men or women.
My comments are not intended to bash anyone, however it is hard to sit back and see how gay people are still treated in the USA.
Posted by: Robert | Jul 3, 2008 1:39:01 PM
Robert, this is the first amendment (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution of the U.S.:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As for Hermes, I simply asked Buster for a more valid argument in order to avoid assumptions. There ARE laws in place which protect both the consumer and the businessperson, but again, without Federal protections in place for "us", States are required to walk the tightrope on a case-by-case basis with precedent. It appears, and I will not make an assumption, that Vanessa Willock is attempting to create precedent. Whether she will be successful or not remains to be seen and I do not have tremendous faith that she will succeed. Visibility may very well be the more pertinent issue at hand, but I have not had the personal opportunity to speak with Vanessa to know that for a fact.
Buster, your variation on the theme is at least more to the point, and I hardly disagree with you about instituting laws which may backfire, but additionally, without appearing obtuse, the interpretation of what you said could be refuted entirely in a court of law. The bible makes no printed reference to the term "fag" "homosexual" "queer" or otherwise. The bible therefore has not said "All fags are going to hell." Subjective interpretation of a much-debated text after so many editorial decisions which occurred over 1,500 years ago is conjecture and opinion, not fact. As a business owner, I could fully prove that my integrity would be questioned and my business threatened if I were to so knowingly participate in a falsehood which was being printed with the intent to harrass others which is contradictory to my established business plan and mission statement which are prominently displayed. In other words, I won't print anything for anybody if it's meant to cause trouble.
Pardon my tangent ;)
The root issue is indeed a need for Federal protection against discrimination, but I stand by my original argument, and Hermes, in 50 years, YOU may very well be "irrelevant" but I would hope that future generations may look back at us and thank us for the contributions we made in order to provide equality for all, not just a chosen few.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jul 3, 2008 1:46:52 PM
This is not about gay rights. This is about the right to make a decision about who you want to work FOR.
Like it or not, photographers and sign printers and artists are in "work for hire" situations, NOT public places (restaurants and stores) that are supposed to treat each human fairly. Read your laws about the differences. A photographer has the right to refuse taking pictures of anyone for ANY reason they can think of, even just being in a bad mood.
Sorry, this is another silly case of we gay people going a little too far with the "my rights" stuff. Just hire another photographer and get on with your life, gals. This is not life-altering.
If they had already paid a deposit and had a contract, that's a totally different situation. Then, they are well within their rights to take the case to court for breach of contract.
Posted by: johnny | Jul 3, 2008 1:51:29 PM
KKK meetings are not in and of themselves illegal. Neither is printing hate materials. These may not be things most people would approve of, but we all have the right, under the Constitution, to peaceable assembly and free speech. What the government CAN restrict is violent action, but generally NOT meeting to discuss, or writing about, one's dislike for some other group of people.
I find it funny (and scary) that people have such a poor understanding of their Constitutional rights. I suppose that's why Bush finds it so easy to trample them.
John in Manhattan -- to some people a gay wedding is far worse than a KKK rally. To understand the issue, you need to be able to look at it from another point of view. But then, you seem to have trouble conceptualizing analogies. So don't worry your small mind about it.
Posted by: Namu | Jul 3, 2008 1:54:15 PM
Here's how the NM statute defines public accomodation:
“Public accommodation” means any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment which is by its nature and use distinctly private.
A commercial photographer then falls under the statute's definition of public accommodation (as it would in many other jurisdictions--its public nature is often more important than what good or service it offers). The photographer unlawfully discriminated against a member of a protected class because of class membership and is a public accomodation, therefore she clearly broke the law, as the NM Human Rights Commission ruled.
Now, the photographer would have been better off just declining the commission without saying why. But because she offers her services to the public in exchange for money, she is acting as a business and not as an individual. and commercial rights are extremely limited in comparison to individual (i.e., consumer) rights. The state of NM has obviously decided that equal treatment of consumers is more important that commercial discrimination and speech.
Posted by: matteo | Jul 3, 2008 1:55:46 PM
A stupid lawsuit brought by Ms. Willock does nothing to advance the cause of equal rights. Even though the judge ruled in Ms. Willock's favor, I don't see how this case can avoid being thrown out on appeal. Unless there was a contract signed prior to the wedding, Ms. Willock has no case and I am surprised that the judge found in her favor.
Posted by: mike | Jul 3, 2008 1:58:10 PM
A stupid lawsuit brought by Ms. Willock does nothing to advance the cause of equal rights. Even though the judge ruled in Ms. Willock's favor, I don't see how this case can avoid being thrown out on appeal. Unless there was a contract signed prior to the wedding, Ms. Willock has no case and I am surprised that the judge found in her favor.
Posted by: mike | Jul 3, 2008 1:58:46 PM
DAMMIT. Can't. Leave. It. Alone...
Just so I'm not misunderstood if in fact anyone is even remotely interested, I am not in any way disagreeing with Buster OR Hermes. I also think that to bring a lawsuit against an establishment which is not required to provide service by law, is most likely a strategic attempt to bring negative publicity to a businessperson who, by non-legal means, discriminated against a lesbian couple. Any publicity is NOT necessarily good publicity.
Really though, what is the fine line that determines acceptability when not considering food, clothing, and shelter? And how long are we all going to accept the loopholes of free speech when it is blatantly obvious how that "speech" is being used to harrass, even terrorize others?
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jul 3, 2008 2:11:43 PM
crap.
Thank you Matteo for the excellent summary, and I am horribly embarrassed for not having read the entire article.
So, what this boils down to now on appeal by Huguenin is religious protection. Either way, Vanessa was just exercising her right to the benefits of the state law as written.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jul 3, 2008 2:19:31 PM
Buster needs to do some research. Public accomodation is public accomodation. Uncle Charlie cannot refuse to hire a straight dancer based on his being straight (but can refuse based on bad dancing), Aunt Sally may refuse accomdation to anyone in her own home but may not refuse accomodation in any property other than her primary residence regardless of its size. If you are providing a service to the public you must respect the laws governing that practice. Period.
Posted by: sammyseattle | Jul 3, 2008 2:27:25 PM
Well, thanks to Matteo and Anon for bringing some clarity to the anti-discrimination law. On the merits, as they cite them, it looks like the photographer broke the law in New Mexico, and I support her being held to account for it if for no other reason than the law is the law.
I remain troubled by the question Buster raised about whether and how a print shop owner could refuse to print materials condemning gay people. Specifically, I think some responses have too readily dismissed the issue he raises and the question of whether business owners ever have the right to refuse business on grounds of personal morality or taste.
The fact is that KKK rallies are not illegal, and there are a lot of opinions (and related printed material for the purposes of the print shop owner scenario) that are hateful and objectionable to many on moral grounds but expressly NOT illegal to hold or express. So there's no safe harbor for the photographer or print shop owner there.
Does that mean there is no right to refuse service to someone who asks you to do something you find personally objectionable? How about if someone asked you to photograph their son's first deer hunt and wanted a good, up-close photo of the kill shot? I don't think that the fact the request is unlikely makes it an insignificant question.
For all its passion, Fizziekruntnt's rejoinder to Buster strikes me as not a principles-based argument but rather, if I understand it correctly, his own personal opinion of how he could defend a refusal to print a biblically-based condemnation of homosexuality on the grounds that the Bible is equivocal on the issue and that it'd be bad for his business. I could be wrong, but it doesn't strike me as an argument based on the law--either in theory or fact.
And Fizziekruntnt, how about skipping the ad hominem attacks next time. It just sort of takes the pleasure out of an otherwise enjoyable discussion.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jul 3, 2008 2:49:32 PM
If the NM law stands on the side of the lesbian couple, then I guess the law is the law.
But...
Why would a lesbian couple WANT their pictures taken by an anti-gay photographer??? "OK, you don't like gays, let us find a photographer that does and we'll give him our hard-earned money. Next!"
I see the points made by those who think this is a slippery slope and soon we'll be in leg irons and marched off, but I just don't happen to agree with that line of thinking on this particular issue.
Posted by: johnny | Jul 3, 2008 3:08:35 PM
JOHNNY, if you think the lawsuit is because the lesbian couple wants their wedding photos taken by an anti-gay photographer, you're stupider than NAMU.
I'd bother to teach you that it's about discrimination based on sexual orientation but the holiday weekend has begun and I'm out the door.
Happy 4th, y'all!
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 3, 2008 3:21:50 PM
Maybe the law shouldn't make private businesses serve gay people, or black people, or people with physical differences; but there are ways to get back at those businesses. No small (or large) businessman wants bad publicity. He doesn't want protests outside his establishment (espeically by drag queens and drag kings). Even when those who agree with his prejudice say they will continue to support him, it always seems NOT to work out in his favor.
Make the discriminating bastard pay in other ways.
...and why am I using the example of a bigoted male businessperson when in this case it was a homophobic woman's business? Because I'm more bigoted against bigoted male businessmen. That's why.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 3, 2008 3:34:44 PM
Wow, I go off to work for 4 hours, and look what I come back to! Apparently, I'm a troll *and* a Republican! I had no idea!
But still not convinced that making anti-gay folks take gay business is the right thing to do. The fundies always complain about having gay stuff "crammed down their throats". I might be starting to see their point.
Oh, no...now I'm self-hating!!
Posted by: chris | Jul 3, 2008 3:34:45 PM
Are gays and lesbians a protected class in NM? I'm guessing yes, based on the judge's ruling.
However, the photographer could have created a policy such as "I only photograph state sanctioned weddings." As long as the photographer stuck to the policy, the lesbian "wedding", not state sanctioned, would have fallen outside of the policy and thereby allowing the photographer to deny the business. I'm guessing they failed to create such a policy or uphold it.
Obama might be able to add GLBT to the federal non-discrimination laws, but the exceptions are based on a balancing test with other federal rights, so Catholic hospitals will probably not be forced to perform abortions, etc. (NY has tried to get around that particular exception by denying the hospitals state monies unless they do. So far, this has been upheld by state judges.)
Posted by: anon | Jul 3, 2008 3:47:33 PM