Supreme Court Denies Appeal by Photographer Who Refused Same-Sex Couple

By Greg Stohr | April 8, 2014

  • April 9, 2014 at 1:28 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 39
    Thumb down 4

    Weren’t there other photographers available that would have been happy to have photographed the ceremony?

    • April 9, 2014 at 2:34 pm
      Dave says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 38
      Thumb down 5

      I’m sure there were other photographers available. And forcing this photographer to take pictures they didn’t want to take would obviously put in jeopardy the quaility of those photos, something you would think would be of concern to the couple. Unless of course they didn’t really care about the quality of the photos and were just about making a political statement at the expense of this photographer.

    • April 10, 2014 at 8:06 am
      KY jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      I think the only thing the potential customer did was file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. The commission then decided whether or not to follow through with a legal something. I don’t know how the commission works, exactly, but I am pretty sure the commission is the one bringing the suit, not the women who where denied services.

      • April 10, 2014 at 8:20 am
        KY jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 0

        Not enough coffee, again! I should have said “the women who were”

        I found the SCOTUS petition and copied & pasted the intro, just in case anyone was curious.

  • April 9, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    Common Sense says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, this is sad.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:08 pm
    Desi says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 36
    Thumb down 4

    I agree with Libby. This is a situation where this woman was not injured or damaged in any way by one photographer’s unwillingness to overtly endorse a lifestyle. I find it incomprehensible that the federal govenment, in so-called Equal RIghts statutes, can mandate that a private business owner MUST be willing to do basically anything that a prospective client wished. This business is not commented to have done anything wrong but we don’t know how the unwillingness was communicated. On the surface, this sounds like someone just trying to make a point at anyone else’s expense or some personal axe to grind.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:12 pm
    Wayne2 says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 3

    I have to believe it is how it is being said the customer. Why couldn’t a business owner just say they were booked, busy, closed for repairs, etc. if they truly don’t want to do business for whatever reason? I too agree there had to be other businesses happy to take their money to take pictures so this was to prove a point.

    • April 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm
      Dave says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 0

      Wayne, we don’t know the entire story and the media in general is pretty poor reporting stories anymore. I’m not saying this is what happened, but let me offer a reason whey this may have came down the way it did. Perhaps the owner of the photography business set up the job without knowing the sexual preference of the customers and then found out later. They certainly couldn’t use the excuse of being booked then. Or perhaps one of the underlings of the owner took the reservations and the owner did not find out until later. Who knows what happened, it wasn’t reported. This still begs the question of why anybody would want to have their wedding photographed by somebody who was really not into it on this very special day? Why? Perhaps they wanted to make a statement. I don’t know.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:39 pm
    CTC says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 7

    WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.

    • April 11, 2014 at 10:45 am
      J.S. says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      As an insurance professional, you should be aware that every state has laws that say your statement is not true.

  • April 9, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    jules820 says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 21

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • April 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm
      Connie says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 7

      This has nothing to do with refusing service to them because they were gay (black, disabled, etc.) This has to do with refusing to participate for profit or otherwise in an EVENT which violates the religious belief of the photographer. Had they come in asking for service to have their passport photos taken, or birthday party photos, or whatever, it would have been different. But for a gay wedding, it is the event itself that the photographers did not feel comfortable photographing. And they have a right to feel that way.

      • April 10, 2014 at 1:22 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 10

        No one is taking away their right to have those bigoted feelings, Connie.

        • April 10, 2014 at 4:13 pm
          other says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 19

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • April 11, 2014 at 8:39 am
            Libby says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 21
            Thumb down 2

            How dare you speak for God. Blasphemy!!!

          • April 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm
            other says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 9

            I’m sorry Libby, but the Bible explicitly says everything I just said.

            I only put it in terms that are much more simple.

            If you would rather I quote scripture I would be more than willing. Blasphemy would be in denying certain aspects of the bible, like oh say the section where Paul says that neither idolators, sexually immoral, those of homosexual behavior, etc will go to heaven.

            You deny that one all the time and blaspheme God.

            Do you want to have a religious discussion and discuss biblical scripture?

            Oh wait, I forgot. You don’t. Because you ignore biblical scripture and write your own…Which is…Blasphemy.

            Let’s have the convo Libby.

            Captain has a habit of trying to own God. God spoke very clearly of scripture and homosexuality.

          • April 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
            other says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 9

            And more importantly:

            Calling people who are honoring God, Bigots, is insane.

            Do you want the section of the bible that states how to treat people who sin?

            There are several.

            They do not say keep sinners in your life. They say remove them after you speak with them about it. Another says do not speak ill of them, but do not keep them in your life. Literally. It is sinful to do so.

            Saying they have done something wrong is not bigotry, and is not blasphemy. It is also not an attack.

            Humility is spoken of in the bible, and one who does not acknowledge their wrong doings is the worst of all.

            You are pushing for a gay population who refuses to acknowledge their gay behavior is against god. They lack humility in the gravest of sins, but you, what does the bible say about you?

            Cause one of my children to become lost and better for you to have a stone tied to your neck and tossed into the sea.

            I don’t blaspheme. You do though.

          • April 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm
            other says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            Let’s do this. I am very tired of you being such an intense blasphemer.

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:15-23

            John chapters 14-17. Read them. Read above.

            Note Jesus says his disciples are chosen to be one in him like he is one in his father. He prays separately for man in John chapter 16 than he does for his disciples. He tells them that which they forgive will be forgiven that which they don’t won’t. He also says that they were chosen, he also says this to Peter. That they didn’t come to know him because they wanted, it was because he wanted it. He prays that they will never leave the world (what Jesus prays for he gets) and states his authority is only with them, his holy spirit is only with them. When he says they only knew because he chose them, he says he will leave the world except for them, and that they are not of the world similar to how he is not of the world, they are for it. This shows a church is set up, which is Catholicism, (What do they think about homosexuality? It is a mortal sin rather than a Venial) but that isn’t important because I know you will never accept that.

            What is though, is that one of the disciples he just told was one in him, and had his Holy Spirit, and would have authority over that which was bound in Heaven and Earth, and was one in him like he was one in the father (Paul) later on says the phrase here:

            http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%206%3A9

            Homosexual behavior listed clearly. You cannot be a Christian without believing this, unless you aim to contradict or not rely on the bible. At which point who are you Libby, to make up what is and isn’t for God, of your own accord, and not the bible, blasphemer?

            You can only cry blasphemy if you believe in the bible to begin with.

          • April 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm
            other says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 9

            Mark 9: verse 42 onward.

            Kind of scary for people like you.

          • April 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm
            other says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 9

            I did quote the scripture for you. It should post in a day or so.

            It takes longer for posts that have many links to post. You’ll see it soon enough.

            It does a good job of explaining things. I pray it reaches you with an honest truth that can help you.

          • April 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 1

            Bob, I thought you promised in another article to never converse with me again. After you verbally assaulted and denounced me, you had cast me out of your life as the sinner I am.

            I think my response was YOU ARE NOT A GOOD CHRISTIAN. Good Christians do not JUDGE and defame others. They pray for them.

            I will pray for you that you finally find something to bring you some peace in your life. You are one tormented individual. If it is reading scripture, more power to you. But keep it away from me.

          • April 11, 2014 at 4:32 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            What’s the matter, Other? Or should I say “Bob’s your uncle!” Are you mad I uncovered your “secret identity” and you can’t rant and rave at me anymore?

          • April 13, 2014 at 11:29 am
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            “They do not say keep sinners in your life. They say remove them after you speak with them about it. Another says do not speak ill of them, but do not keep them in your life. Literally. It is sinful to do so.”

            Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus hang out with prostitutes and the lowest of society?

          • April 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. He treated people he came in contact with as individuals of great worth . He looks at you and sees what you can become, not what you are. He holds out his hand and says, “Come, accept my friendship and be my friends.”

            I have been praying for God to heal your anger and for you to find peace in this world. I do with that for you.

          • April 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            I do wish that for you.

        • April 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm
          other says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 7

          I’m curious planet,

          If it is wrong to believe someone is living a bad lifestyle.

          Are you bigoted for believing republicans are?

          And if you are not, is it because you are righteous (as in your belief is correct for some random reason) that you are not bigoted for those feelings?

          Christians have a bible to fall back on rather than their own righteous opinions.

          Playing God isn’t ok Planet.

          • April 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Bob – You ought to know by now that Captain will not respond to your posts.

          • April 11, 2014 at 2:29 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            “Christians have a bible to fall back on rather than their own righteous opinions.”

            - Jews have the Torah.

            - Muslims have the Koran.

            - Hindus have the Lotus Sūtra.

            All guidebooks on how to live a good life. Not one of them was written by God.

    • April 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm
      Libby says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 19

      I don’t believe in discrimination, but I just don’t see this situation in the same light. If they had been denied housing based on their sexuality, that would be wrong. If they had been physically harmed because of it, that would be wrong. If they were denied service, that would be wrong. But all they had to do was get another photographer for their event. The photographer is definitely a bigot, but I don’t think harm was done to this couple because she refused to shoot their event.

      • April 13, 2014 at 12:23 pm
        Destro says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        “If they were denied service, that would be wrong.”

        But photographing the event is a service isn’t it? The same reasoning could go for any other service whether it be a restaurant or whatever.

        • April 14, 2014 at 8:57 am
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Yes, and later on in this thread I changed my mind about this.

  • April 9, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    Kim says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 12

    What if her religious beliefs are against interracial marriage? That’s okay, right? Despite equality protections in the law, she can tell an interracial couple she won’t marry them because of their race(s)? How about mixed religions? Unequally yoked and all that – so I’m sure she asks if the couple belong to the same church, right? And I’m absolutely sure she denies service to those marrying after divorce.
    You can’t pick and choose your bigotry using religion as an excuse, at least not in states with anti-discrimination statutes. I guess she should move to a state where those statutes don’t exist.

  • April 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 6

    The difference between the people mentioned in jules820 message is that they do not involve a lifestyle, or life choice quite as much as gay marriage does. It now looks like the photographers’ only option is to refuse to photograph any weddings, so as not to conflict with their own beliefs, which is sad because for most photographers, weddings are a primary source of their income. These days, it seems that it is not just actions taken or not taken, but the thought process or personal belief system that went into it that has become a concern of government and of our court system. Somehow, Orwellian “Thinkspeak” seems to come to mind.

  • April 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm
    Libby says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 20

    Discrimination in any form is wrong, but all discrimination is not actionable by law. Harm must first be done. I think this photographer is a homophobic boob, but that doesn’t make what she did illegal. Where are the damages? All they had to do is get another photographer.

    If you have read any of my posts, you know I am a staunch believer in equality and anti-discrimination legislation. But some things can be taken too far. I wish it were illegal to be a bigoted douchebag, because many people on this blog would be locked up, but unfortunately you can still be ignorant and within your rights of free speech.

  • April 9, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    Rusty says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 1

    Libby: I absolutely agree with your premise on this whole matter-that not all discrimination is actionable. There has to be harm and that doesn’t just mean feeling bad (although I can’t help but saying that feeling bad might soon become actionable someday, too). Of course, if they were the only possible photographers for the wedding, the couple might have a real case, but as you said earlier, there are many others that would have taken the photos with no problem, so why bring these people to court? It seems that all too often, when some folks feel wronged today, they have to take it to court for relief (often in the form of money) – a sad commentary on our society.

    • April 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm
      Destro says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      The same thing can be said for restaurants/bakeries that want to be able to refuse service based on all that too. There are plenty of restaurants and bakeries etc. that are more than happy to serve gay folks, but the second the idea of businesses refusing service based on religious principle was brought up a politically correct sh**storm of liberal white-knights were up in arms over legislation across the country that they were told was 1000x’s worse than the reality of the proposed laws vs the existing (or lack thereof) laws.

      The inconsistency of liberals never fails to amuse.

  • April 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm
    Kar says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    My first thought was that she booked the photographer who showed up at the event not knowing it was a same sex commitment ceremony and refused to take pictures. They would not have been able to get another photographer at that point!

  • April 9, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    She wasn't smart about it says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    As Wayne2 says, she just wasn’t smart enough to make another excuse, she had to make a big deal about it. What ever happened to being kind to people?

    • April 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm
      Destro says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Whatever happened to predictability? The milkman, the paperboy, and evening TV?

  • April 10, 2014 at 8:17 am
    KY jw says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    From the petition to the Supreme Court:

    Elane Photography declined to create
    photographs and a picture-book telling the story of
    Respondent Vanessa Willock’s same-sex
    commitment ceremony because those images would
    convey messages about marriage that conflict with
    its owners’ religious beliefs.

    Respondent Willock promptly found a different photographer, and then filed a complaint alleging that Elane Photography violated the state public-accommodations statute.

    The New Mexico Human Rights Commission concluded that Elane Photography violated the statute, and the New Mexico Supreme Court agreed.

  • April 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Whats next? Bar Tender getting sued because he cut someone off? So much for the No Shoes / No Shirt / No Service signs in restaurants.
    Dress codes out the window.

    On the WGN news this Am, some guy is suing a nursing home that brought in a male dancer. The dancer was requested by 16 residences. Saying it created sever emotional distress on his mom that is an Alzheimer patient. His Girl friend is a resident of the same home. The Nursing Home a ledges that his girl friend – who is a resident of the home also – brought his mother to an optional event. His girl friend is in the photo grinning ear to ear. Guess he can sue when his mom looses Bingo.

    None the less, our legal system is just fine eh? No need for Tort Reform.

  • April 10, 2014 at 2:03 pm
    J.S. says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • April 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      That is not at all the tone of the comments. I about the most anti-discrimination voice on this blog, but I think sometimes it can be taken too far. Tell me how was this couple damaged by this discrimination? Other than the bigoted photographer hurt their feelings. They promptly found another photographer. It wasn’t right, but it shouldn’t be actionable. What’s next? You ask someone to dance and they say no because you’re ugly, do you report them for discrimination? You ask a DJ to play a song and they say no because you’re too fat, you report them? A guy asks you out and you say no because they’re not your type, do they report you? Come on people!

      • April 10, 2014 at 3:19 pm
        FFA says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 0

        Thats a good point Libby. If I am single and ask a gal out on a date and she refuses, do I sue her???

        I get chewed out by a client for a billing issue. Do I get to sue that client because they hurt my feelings?

        • April 10, 2014 at 3:57 pm
          J.S. says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 9

          What a silly set of examples. None of the civil rights movements in this country have ever come close to the type of situation you suggest.

          Next thing, you’ll be tell me that civil rights for gays will lead to people marrying their horse.

          • April 10, 2014 at 4:29 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            My only point JS is that we are so sue happy that any one will sue for or any reason.

            Why is this photographer sue-able because she did not want to be in a situation that makes her uncomfortable?

            Can I be sued because I dont want to do business in a gang area?

            As a society, we are heading in the wrong direction. Next time a client calls and crabs about a rate hike, you can point to this frivolous law suite as a reason. The couple had their feeling hurt so they are suing. Personally, I could give a damn if you want to marry your horse. I just need to keep my mouth shut about my personal feelings about it or you will sue me.

            All this Sue Sue Sue bull shit needs to end.
            Did you see my nursing home story? Sr Citizen goes to a voluntary event and then the son files suit even though it was a voluntary event asked for by the residents. Sr Citizen was escorted to the event by the girl friend of the person suing? Why not sue the girl friend?

          • April 10, 2014 at 4:41 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 5

            FFA, I don’t like all the suing either but when you run a business, there are laws about unfair discrimination and you are required to follow them.

            It’s simply wrong to discriminate based on someone’s sexual preference (I know there are those who disagree with me but that’s how I feel) Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to to continue our country’s long term tradition of improving fairness and equality under the law is to use that that tool. Is it sometimes abused? Of course, but I don’t think it was in this case.

          • April 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            FFA – this couple is not suing the photographer. They reported her to the NM bureau responsible for inforcing their anit-discrimination law.

            It is the Bureau who brought suit.

          • April 10, 2014 at 5:34 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Libby says: “FFA – this couple is not suing the photographer. They reported her to the NM bureau responsible for inforcing their anit-discrimination law.”

            if I get rejected from a girl I am asking out because she dont like bald men who do I report her to?

          • April 11, 2014 at 9:13 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Hey, FFA, you might be able to use age discrimination and report it to the human rights commission.

            just kidding!

          • April 13, 2014 at 1:26 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Oooooooo wicked burn!

  • April 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm
    J.S. says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 26
    Thumb down 22

    Tell me how Rosa Parks was hurt by sitting in the back of the bus. She still got where she was going, didn’t she?

    Making her sit in the back of the bus wasn’t right and most at the time would have argued that it shouldn’t be actionable. But she took a stand and changed the world.

    What the photographer did was wrong and using religion to justify it is wrong, just as it was wrong when religion was used to justify requiring african americans to sit at the back of the bus.

    Fighting this type of discrimination is the only way to change the world.

    • April 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm
      FFA says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      JS, would it be a change for the better or for the worse? We are not allowed to think as we want any more? Seems like everything we do, we need to concern ourselves abut getting sued.

      This is a case that, if we had the english system in place, this would not be happening.

      • April 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        No one is suggesting that you can’t think as you want. But we all need to be careful of what we do.

        I don’t care how you feel about gay people, african americans, atheists, muslims, etc. But as an insurance agent, you can’t refuse to provide service because of these things.

        • April 10, 2014 at 4:46 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 2

          JS, this whole thing stinks of one person forcing their beliefs on another. It just chips away at individualism. If my opinion / comfort zone don’t match yours, I get sued.

          • April 10, 2014 at 5:03 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            FFA, I don’t agree.

            When entering a store (or looking to transact business any other way), I shouldn’t have to wonder whether the person behind the counter (or on the phone, whatever) approves of people like me.

            In the United States, we have passed laws telling business owners that they can’t refuse to serve customers because they don’t like the color of their skin, their religion, etc. When a business owner chooses to violate these laws, they open themselves up for lawsuits.

            I don’t think this stops you from believing as you wish or takes away from your individualism or your right to practice your religion.

          • April 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Well, JS, we are going to have to agree to dis agree. This whole thing stinks of the Govt forcing people into a corner, making them behave in a manner out side the individual comfort zone in my opinion. Promotes frivolous law suite.

            Why didnt any sue Chick Fill A? Instead, their business is booming because one of the execs stated his opinion.

          • April 10, 2014 at 6:43 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            FFA, I am comfortable agreeing to disagree.

            Your Chick-Fil-A example, in my opinion, actually supports my opinion.

            To the best of my knowledge, Chick-Fil-A never refused to provide service because someone happened to be gay. They at no time dicriminated against gay people. I have no reason to believe they would refuse to hire a gay individual. Because of this, they weren’t sued.

            All that happened is that the CEO publicly expressed their opinion. This bothered some people who then expressed their countering opinion. No one broke laws on either side and the government stayed out of it. As a consequence, some people decided not to eat there and others decided to eat there more often. I don’t see any problems with this. No one was denied their right to free speech or their individualism. Isn’t this what you want?

          • April 11, 2014 at 9:24 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            FFA, J.S. is right about the Chik-Fil-A example. The CEO stated his opinion, there was public uproar, but no one was refused service OR employment. In fact, I read at least one article about a gay kid who works at Chik-Fil-A. No laws broken, no consequences forced by the government.

            I’m just curious what the actual consequences were for the photographer. I don’t think the human rights commission can actually make you close your business, so it’s probably just a fine. Well, the photographer could have paid the fine and avoided the legal fees. I’m not really sympathetic to the business owner in this case.

          • April 11, 2014 at 10:17 am
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            The consequences are being sued by a govt body that is telling her she must do something out side her individual comfort zone not to mention a bunch of legal bills and her time.

            Another example of Big Brother beating a small business over the head. They just dont care about the individual any more.

            If I get beat up for not going into gang areas, then I will proudly stand up in front of the world and state my reasons. The Black & Red scare the crap out of me. They are violent and they are killers.

          • April 13, 2014 at 4:55 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            The main difference between discriminating based on race and based on sexual orientation, is that a person can not change the color of their skin. It’s immediately apparent what their skin color is. A person’s sexual orientation isn’t apparent until the person vocalizes it. And that’s why the two are not mirror-image comparable to each other.

          • April 13, 2014 at 5:00 pm
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            And that’s not all that happened witht he Chik-fil-A fiasco. Maybe you don’t remember, or just choose not to, but at least 1 Democrat mayor in a major metropolitan city came out and publicly stated that they would refuse to allow Chik-fil-A to open restaurants in their city because of their view. That was absolutely government imposition and exactly the direction this sort of thing inevitably heads.

          • April 14, 2014 at 7:52 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Destro – I vaguely remember the mayor’s comment. However, I don’t think that is the same as being sued or fined by the government. Also, did anything actually come of that? How did Chik-Fil-A respond?

          • April 14, 2014 at 8:24 am
            Destro says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I wasn’t comparing the mayor’s statements and the photographer getting sued. But it is kind of worrying that a mayor could implement that kind of policy. Deciding who and who can’t do business in your area based solely on whether or not the mayor disagrees with your personal views.

          • April 14, 2014 at 10:27 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Destro – you must not live in the south. It happens all the time. I truly mean that literally. Granted, we don’t have many major metropolitan areas, so the publicity is more word of mouth than press release.

    • April 10, 2014 at 3:55 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 3

      I see what you’re saying J.S. You have changed my opinion in this case.

      • April 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Thank you.

    • April 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm
      Connie says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      It’s interesting that one group you would think would be very much in favor of gay marriage, if this were really similar to Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement, would be the Coalition of African-American Pastors. Yet they are very much against it. Here’s a link to their web site: http://caapus.org/

      • April 10, 2014 at 5:18 pm
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Why would I think that?

        • April 10, 2014 at 5:25 pm
          Connie says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I was using a generic “you,” so let me rephrase. “One group that it would seem would be very much in favor….” Better worded now?

          • April 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I understood your meaning and replied in kind.

            Why would you, or anyone, expect the Coalition of African-American Pastors to feel differently about gay rights issues than any other Christian organization?

      • April 11, 2014 at 9:26 am
        KY jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        There is no reason to expect a religious organization would support gay rights. We just celebrate those that do and accept that others don’t.

    • April 13, 2014 at 3:34 pm
      Destro says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Comparing this situation to Rosa Parks is a major stretch.

      • April 14, 2014 at 9:01 am
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        How so? Why is one type of discrimination more egregious than another?

        I’m being serious, as I’m struggling with this.

      • April 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm
        J.S. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she was protesting more than just seating on a bus. She was arguing that the concepts of “separate but equal”(never really equal though, was it?) for public accomodations and “No Blacks Allowed” for private businesses was wrong. Her actions stood for the concept that under the law, we are all created equal and neither government nor businesses can refuse service just because of the color of someone’s skin. Thanks in part to her efforts, the law was changed to support this simple concept.

        Now, this photographer and others want to put figurative signs in the window saying “no gays allowed.” They, and many of the posters on this site say that there are separate but equal options for them to use. And much like the bigots of the 50′s, they cite bible passages and claim religious freedom to justify their actions.

        So Destro, I don’t feel it’s a major stretch at all. The situations are disturbingly similar.

  • April 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 6

    J.S. I believe the New Mexican court misinterpreted or, deliberately stretched, the definition of “public accommodations” Look up the word, “accommodation” in the dictionary and you’ll see that its primary definition is “lodging, space, capacity to receive people -all of which referring to provision of physical space and not a service. Photographers perform a service and do not hold themselves out as providing any kind of physical space. But, with the drift in our country towards re-defining everything to fit one or another agenda, it appears we can no longer rely on what has been accepted fact or custom for decades or even centuries. Now it will be the government, either by law, regulation or the courts that will tell us what we can and cannot do (or think) as we go about our daily lives. Government overreach into our daily lives is taking hold and soon we may be experiencing a “1984″ existence. I guess this is what was meant by “transforming America”. Soon, many people will be brought to justice for unknowingly violating a new definition or regulation that has been imposed on us. For a glimpse into what our future might be like, watch the Twilight Zone episode entitled “The Obsolete Man” (starring actors Burgess Meredith and Fritz Weaver).

    • April 10, 2014 at 4:01 pm
      J.S. says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 1

      Please tell me you’re kidding. Are you really suggesting that if a restaurant with indoor seating refused to seat someone, that’s wrong because there is acapacity to receive people into a physical space but that if the restaurant only provided drive through or delivery, then it’s OK because they only provide a service.

      Or, it’s fine for the photographer to refuse to provide service because they’re gay but if the banquet hall did, it would be actionable.

      Really?

  • April 11, 2014 at 12:13 am
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    My religion subscribes to a Commandment that says “Thou Shalt not Kill”. If a a businessman I were allowed to discriminate, would it be acceptable for me to refuse service to anyone who is a member of the military or a veteran? How would this differ from the photographers claim?

    • April 11, 2014 at 8:44 am
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Just because you’re in the military doesn’t mean you’ve killed anyone. A vast number of service members never see action.

    • April 11, 2014 at 9:28 am
      KY jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Probably not the best example, but I get your point.

  • April 11, 2014 at 11:26 am
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    In a different forum, Libby says:”You can’t go around shooting gangsters to avoid innocent people from getting shot! That’s vigilante justice and it’s against the law. Just stay away from where they hang out. That’s the best way to stay safe.”

    We as insurance agents dont have that option.

    • April 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Bullshit, Agent. No-one is forcing you to go into gang territory to write a $5,000 policy. Now how much REVENUE is that??? Certainly not enough to risk your life. Good grief!

      • April 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
        FFA says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Libby, that was FFA, not agent…

        We as agents can not red line (at least in IL). I get called to go anywhere, I can not decline or I risk persecution by the Ill Dept of Ins just like this photog is being persecuted for her actions..

        • April 11, 2014 at 2:47 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          Oh, brother, FFA. Grow up. You don’t have to go anywhere you don’t want to go. I turn down business all the time for a variety of reasons – it’s not big enough, it’s not worth my time, I know the prospect is just “shopping”, it’s not a class of business I enjoy writing, or I just don’t feel like it at the time. I have other agents I will refer this business to that are a little less picky than I am. I suggest you do the same or risk your life for $500. Your choice.

          Otherwise, show me the Illinois statute that says you have to entertain every risk that calls you.

          • April 11, 2014 at 2:59 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            PA dont have red-linig rules?

          • April 11, 2014 at 6:14 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Another thing libby, I dont want to grow up… I want to be 25 again….

          • April 14, 2014 at 9:02 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            It’s not redlining, FFA. You are not obligated to write every account that comes to your agency. Carriers can’t redline.

        • April 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
          The DOI says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          FFA – the DOI only goes after “redlining” if there is no legitimate business reason. Risk of life is a legitimate business reason.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features