NM Human Rights Commission: photographer discriminated

what a load of crap! the photographer has the right to decline shooting pictures to anyone. the NM human rights commission is dead worng on this.

sorry for the mispell...it should be "wrong"

The photographer should have just fess'd up and told them she didn't want to invest in a super-wide angle lens.

LMAO! So what if the photographer did? He's allowed to accept any "job" he wants and can turn down any job he wants.

I'm all for equal rights, but c`mon. This doesn't sound like discrimination...again I say, put your big girl panties on and get over it!

what concerns me is using gestapo tactic and get the gov't sicked on you if you don't want to do business with anyone you don't agree with.

would the commission have said the same thing if it was a "gay photographer" refusing shooting a catholic wedding?

The photographer has the right to refuse service to any body for any reason. His rufusal did not cause harm to the couple or prevent them from finding another photographer. Next they will be filing charges because a straight individual rufuse's advances by a gay individual would that be a human rights violations as well.

Are we in Canada? There are plenty of gay photographers who would be pleased to do the job. If the National Man Boy Love Association gets recognized by the courts do photographers have to shoot their kiddie porn?

What a joke! I thought that only the gov. could violate your constitutional/human rights, not individuals. I see businesses all the time with signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Is this really a violation of human rights? If they found another photographer, why complain?

mad wrote:

what a load of crap! the photographer has the right to decline shooting pictures to anyone. the NM human rights commission is dead worng on this.

There was a doctor who was being sued by several women for sexual harassment. In the same hospital, a lady was suing the same doctor for discrimination because he hadn't "hit" on her.

Did the photographer enter into a contract with prior knowledge of the clients' orientation? If yes, it was an act of discrimination to break the contract. The article is unclear on that point. One assumes that given the ruling, prior knowledge was there. But it's just an assumption.

This is the court that Bill built. I don't know what looney or loonies he put in charge but they are determined to use no brains or common sense whatsoever. No intelligence allowed! This is the mantra for the NM Human Rights Court. They are scared to death of gays and blacks.

dramatech01 wrote:

Did the photographer enter into a contract with prior knowledge of the clients' orientation? If yes, it was an act of discrimination to break the contract. The article is unclear on that point. One assumes that given the ruling, prior knowledge was there. But it's just an assumption.

Entering into a contract and breaking it is commonly referred to as "Breach of Contract" which is where one or more parties does not fulfill their part of a legal agreement. Discrimination just happened to be the issue because the photographer was naive enough to tell them the truth.

Fasthike wrote:

<quoted text>
Entering into a contract and breaking it is commonly referred to as "Breach of Contract" which is where one or more parties does not fulfill their part of a legal agreement. Discrimination just happened to be the issue because the photographer was naive enough to tell them the truth.

Please don't confuse him with the law and reality..

How about " I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Find someone else.

I wouldn't do a good job, because I wouldn't feel comfortable.

Suing because I didn't want your money?

Ludicrous.

say-tsar shah-vez wrote:

The photographer should have just fess'd up and told them she didn't want to invest in a super-wide angle lens.

You're quick.

Yet another reason to continue to ban gay marriage- The couples just aren't photogenic enough...

I saw more of the story somewhere else. The photographer refused up front for religious considerations. It simply wasn't something she wanted to be a part of. The other side of the story is that the complainant is or was recently working for UNM in their EEO office. Just the kind of EEO we need. Militant lezbo's forcing their beliefs on others.

Pretty simple case if you're not leftwing brained. If you own a business you can't descriminate due to age, gender, race,religion & now sexual orientation. It's like owning a Mexican food restuarant & refusing to serve white people even if they treat Mexicans like crap. Its still illegal.

This is ridiculous! People should not have to give up their religious beliefs just because they own a business. Time and time again, I am amazed at the stupidity that keeps NM in the national news! The photographer did the right thing by professionally informing the "couple" she would not photograph their wedding. I guess the photographer could have saved a bundle in legal fees and the judgement if she would have just taken the job, and produced less than stellar photographs of the "couple." We, as citizens of the US, should NEVER have to leave our values and morals in the dust due to fear of the legal repercussions! COME ON! This one should be APPEALED!