Christian photographer dragged before court for refusing to cover gay "wedding"

Because I'm cynical?

I remember that. It was hilarious!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

There are already laws in place for breaking contracts. The "human rights violation" crap is just catering to hurt feelings.

Short version: One idiot sued another idiot, and some more idiots think it means the Gay Fascists are coming to enforce mandatory buttsex and make us all listen to Broadway showtunes.

Seriously, Clark?

I've just googled the photographer. There's only one article from a (presumably) reliable news source - thousands of blogs. Anyway, it appears you may be correct. No mention of broken contracts.

People are assholes. We really need to live in a world where people can't win stupid lawsuits.

We need more details. Was there a contract first or did the photographer turn it down as soon as she found out who the spouse was going to be and hence no contract?

I'm thinking it was turned down before any contract was signed.

ahhhhhh found some info on it:

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015

So there was no contract.

There is no case here. You can't force someone to do business with someone else.

tripod hasn't let people hotlink for what, a decade?

you're 3 minutes too late.

That's because I took the time to read and post an article for all to see.

Yea ... I'm too lazy for that. :lethe:

I tried to find a more reputable source for this story, but the best I could find is the Washington Times... Anyway, from what I can find, it looks like the gay couple is in the wrong on this one. They made an inquiry and were denied and they decided to sue. Since this lawsuit was taken to the NM Human Rights Division, they are REQUIRED to at least open an inquiry to investigate this request. This is standard for ANY complaint lodged with agencies such as these or EEO. It doesn't give merit to the case, so I wouldn't blow this out of proportion, other than it looking like this gay couple thinks they are entitled to something they are not.

They will lose (or have their case determined to have no merit), as well they should. This is not the only photographer available and there are no extenuating circumstances that require them to use this particular photographer, so if they refuse business, that's too bad for the couple. Yes, it's a waste of time and money, but ANYONE is allowed to lodge complaints with this division. The overblown homophobic reaction to this (on numerous Christian sites, no less), however, shows people that are just as in the wrong as this couple though, IMO.

Creatively edited quote of the week!

At least Volpone knows where not to go for the pictures when he finally 'weds'.

I'm sure I recall oh, a thousand voice on the left assuring me that just because Gays got toleration did not mean that a religious person would EVER be forced to act against their conscious and that such predictions were just "homophobia"...

And they still won't be. Some idiots filed a groundless complaint, which happens every day in courts across the country, and it'll be struck down.

And I'm sure I recall a thousand voices on the religious right assuring me that Fred Phelps is not representative of their views or part of any broader movement to strip gay people of any and all rights...

Yep, this is exactly what they should have done. Now, I don't support the action taken against them (though apparently, it's pretty little at this point), but when it all comes down to it, this will be the cheapest lesson about business they will ever receive. Politely refuse, even with a little white lie, and there won't be an opportunity in the world for anyone to fuck with you.

Oh, see, the sign doesn't matter, because what it actually says is perfectly true. You may, of course, refuse service to anyone, for any reason under the sun. However, having a sign making people aware of your rights doesn't mean that it prevents you from being held accountable for expressing them.

You have the right to say that you're going to kill someone. You are not then protected from having an investigation levied against you, First Amendment or otherwise. Now, of course, there's that fun legal ground about legitimate threats and all that, but that's one of the many things a courtroom can be used for.

Try putting that sign up at a bar, then throwing someone out because he's black. You can throw him out for all sorts of reasons, with no reason at all, or even by saying that you thought he looked like he was aiming to misbehave, but if you say "Get out of here you nigger," you're done, and whether or not you end up winning, you're still out a hell of a lot of money because you couldn't just bite your tongue.

Which, I have a feeling, is exactly what happened here. Well, with Apostle's preferred epithet of "faggots" rather than Tasvir's preferred epithet of "niggers." Now, it hasn't cost the photographers a lot of money yet, and I doubt it will, which is why they should learn to pick their battles now before their pocketbook takes the brunt of the blow.

And they would have every right to. Even if the contract had a provision saying that the photographers could not be held liable for such an event, the provision would be unenforcable, as contracts do not protect the contractor from their own gross negligence or incompetance.

Or should contract law only protect heterosexuals?

We had that idiotic Neutered Zone Refugee back three years ago trying to get advice in the Blue Room about what he could do to find a legit reason to fire a flamboyant gay guy without grounds for a lawsuit. If a complete homophobic reject with the brain the size of a pea had enough sense to do things on the sly, certainly so could this woman, and there would be no problem.

It was a freaking e-mail request even.

Thankfully, that means the request and responses will be documented and there will be evidence to support whichever side needs it and will outline whichever side was acting like fools.

But you can force them to ignore certain aspects of a potential employee/tenant, those are private affairs.

I wonder how this will turn out.

Oh, you mean like that idiot in Washington DC that sued a couple for 54 million for losing his pants?????????
Seems to me it took a hell of a long time to get that one struck down. And the poor couple lost a lot of money and a lot of their businesses to defend themselves.
When the groundless complaints get thrown out right away, and the complainant (?) forced to pay for all court costs and lawyers' fees, then I'll start to believe in the civil judicial system

LAGALABATATA!!

La-guh-luh-buh-tah-tah!!!

For some reason saying that makes me smile... could be the TATA at then end reminding me subconsciously of tatas, and then my background thought processes calling forth mental images of tatas... Yeah, its the tits.

No, no, I promise I've always been this dumb. I've just been posting more.

I'll try to avoid doing that in the future.

This is a prime example of why it's embarrassing to own up to being sympathetic to liberal causes. The ubiquitous hypocrisy that is part and parcel of what is spun to be the 'enlightened' political mindset is wholly shameful.

So, you have this photographer standing on principle (regardless of how foolish it may or may not be), and people are throwing a hissy fit because they've chosen not to do business with homosexuals. Personally, I think it's a mistake because these people have network that beats the band, and even if you didn't like their life choices, as a business person the referrals alone should be reason enough to hold your nose, shut your mouth and accept their money.

It's not as though you're going to attend their shindig and be forced to sing showtunes and dish about Liza Minelli. You get to leave with your straightness intact.

On the other hand.....

Some bleeding heart here pointed out that Ford Motor Company had "gay friendly" policies at one time. Really, this distinction is silly. A company should have human resource policies that are favorable to every employee, dealing with each person as though nothing at all was known about their personal or private lives. No discrimination, no favor. However, you will notice that the gay community will come rallying around a business which goes "on the record" as being sympathetic to homosexuals.

Wait a minute: I thought gays wanted to be treated just like every one else. Why the rush to point out that they are different than other empolyees?

That notwithstanding, the homosexual community has never pulled any punches about supporting 'gay friendly' business or in picketing or boycotting ones which refuse to make such a distinction, or whom have taken some stand opposing the lifestyle.

So, is the lesson we're supposed to learn from a situation like this that it's inappropriate for those whom oppose the gay lifestyle to act on their conscience while it's perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to do that as they please?

Come on.....

People are not throwing a hissy fit, this couple is. I don't mean to speak for all liberals, but I get the impression majority do not agree with what this couple is doing.

If a business has gay-friendly policies they are more likely to see me as a customer, just as if they have anti-gay policies they are decreasing the chances of me being a customer. But I'm not about to sue them either way.

If it's getting press, somewhere there's a hissy fit being thrown about the issue. It wouldn't be worthy of a by-line if it weren't

Thanks for illustrating my point. It's astute that you're not going to sue, but you don't feel that there's anything wrong about letting your dollars follow your conscience, do you?

There should be no consequences for this photographer, or any business person who does the same.

I'd ad that many gay organizations intimate that a business is 'anti-gay' if they don't make a distinction that they're sympathetic to them. A few years back, I received a solicitation letter from a gay organization at Pennsylvania State University. They were having a GLBT celebration, and had asked for a donation. Typically, I donate something to charitable organizations, as business allows, without hesitation (save for PETA related organizations). The thing that stopped me on this occasion was the following :

Umm...not that year.

I'm worthy of any customer's patronage simply because of how I run my business. I treat everyone the same. I don't care if you're purple with a dick growing between your eyes, unless you're a four star asshole when you walk through my door, I'm going to treat you with respect, and as though you're a valued customer, which you are until you prove otherwise. (Even the four star asshole gets treated well as I'm politely showing him or her to his or her car).

Even the subtle suggestion that a business doesn't pass muster because it's owner or manager has decided, for whatever reason, not to make a donation or otherwise take a stand on the issue, is the very worst kind of hypocrisy.