This is in relation to a newspaper article that appeared in an American newspaper a few days ago. I found it whilst trawling one of my regular haunts, the photography forum DPReview.
The link to the article is http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8893673 but the basis of the article is thus: a photographer was asked to take photos of a same-sex commitment ceremony in New Mexico, America. As a Christian, she refused due to religious objections about same-sex couples – it’s against the Bible and all that jazz. The couple then took this photographer to court and the State’s human rights commission instructed the photographer to pay US$6637 for her decision to refuse to do the job as it violated New Mexico’s discrimination law.
Now over on this website people started getting a little bit heated. What started off as a discussion about the so-called stifling of rights in America, it descended into what could only be described as ‘gay-bashing’ by a few members. I’ll get to that later, but first, the rights issue.
I am by no means an expert on American law. In fact, I don’t know the second thing about it. I do know, though, that they have discrimination laws which are supposed to keep people and businesses treated on an equal footing. I am also fairly sure that the laws are different in every State. Based on this particular news article though, it appears that it is a straightforward case about discrimination based on sexual orientation which as stated in the article directly contravenes N.M.’s discrimination law.
Unfortunately, there is not much more information to be had from this article. It tells us that the photographer refused based on her religious beliefs, but it doesn’t tell us how she refused. Did she simply say, “I’m sorry, I can’t photograph your commitment ceremony.” That is short, simple, to the point. It doesn’t give any reasons and to be fair, she is not required to. If she had said that, then the couple in question would have no excuse to file a complaint against her.
However, because a complaint was filed against her, I wonder if she said something a little bit more controversial. Something along the lines of, “I’m sorry. I refuse to photograph your commitment ceremony. I simply can’t do it. You see, you two are gay. Lesbians. A same-sex couple. I’m a Christian. I believe in God and I follow the Bible. And guess what? The Bible is against gays. It’s true. In fact, you should read it; it may help you change back to being normal again. Seriously. What it really comes down to though is that I just won’t take photos of you and your ‘partner’ because, a) I don’t want to end up in Hell which is where I’m sure I’ll end up for dancing with devils such as yourself, and b) You are sub-human, abnormal freaks, and I don’t want to get infected with your disease.”
Of course, the photographer could have just said, “I’m sorry, but I can’t accept this job as I don’t think I would be able to do my best professional work when I disagree with the situation.” If she had said that, then it could have swung either way – you know what Americans are like; always spoiling for a fight or failing that, someone to take to court. Yes, I know it is a gross overgeneralisation, but you have to admit that there has been an increase of cases where people just want to try grab some easy money. But that is for another time and another discussion.
Now we get on to the issue of the rights, something that Americans hold so dear to their hearts.
The First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, says that the government may not compel people to express views that they don’t endorse. You could then make the argument that being paid to photograph a same-sex ceremony – something that you are morally opposed to – would be endorsing it to some degree. Therefore, refusing to take photos of the ceremony based on religious/personal views because you don’t want to be seen as ‘endorsing’ it is legal.
However, and this is where things get murky, as a business operating in the United States, the photographer can not refuse service to someone over something that they are not able to control such as race, handicaps, sexuality, and the like. In fact, the Federal Civil Rights Act states, “…full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Some states have a Civil Rights Act that provides broader protection than the Federal one, and so include sexual discrimination.
Where does that leave us then? Do we choose to honour the First Amendment or do we suck it up and take photos of the event because it is discriminatory to refuse to? In this particular instance it appears that the photographer chose the first option (no pun intended).
Of course, what makes this case all the more unbelievable is that although New Mexico ruled in favour of the same-sex couple, the state itself chucked out a proposal to allow for domestic partnerships after critics said that it would be akin to recognising gay marriage. Where’s the discrimination there I wonder? How can a state have an anti-discrimination law – and force people to follow it – when they don’t follow it themselves? Sure, they allow ‘commitment ceremonies’, but that is still a backwards way of looking at the issue. Reading through that thread I found that there are still so many people that discriminate against gays because of their sexuality. The following is taken directly from one of the posts:
Gays and their supporters are way out of control, and are doing their best to shove their abnormal behavior onto everyone else…
Many homosexuals, and a lot of others, live their lives with a chip on their shoulder and are just spoiling for a fight. They wave their freak flag high, as though that's going to make their abnormality normal. It won't.
If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force it on me or convince me that it's normal. The same goes for religious wackos. Leave me out of it and we'll get along fine. I don't try to force anything on anyone else and I don't expect anyone to live the way I do.
This is by far one of the most disgusting of the posts there, but someone else posted a comment about gays now having the rights to adopt children. He goes on to say that giving them that right is a bad thing and says gays are selfish for wanting that right. What the hell? Is he honestly saying that gays make worst parents than ‘traditional’ parents?
It is just scary to me that people out there still have such strong views about gays, and it’s not all related to their religious beliefs. Some people genuinely believe that homosexuals are ‘abnormal’ and ‘freaks’.
I honestly hope that this particular viewpoint is on the way out, but I’m afraid that it will never go away. It’s these same intolerant people that label Islam a threat to civilisation as everyone who follows that religion is hell bent on destroying their precious little world.
It could be that they just aren’t educated (and let’s face it, the American education system isn’t all that crash hot), but what can we do about it? I’m afraid of what the answer to that question is.
The link to the article is http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8893673 but the basis of the article is thus: a photographer was asked to take photos of a same-sex commitment ceremony in New Mexico, America. As a Christian, she refused due to religious objections about same-sex couples – it’s against the Bible and all that jazz. The couple then took this photographer to court and the State’s human rights commission instructed the photographer to pay US$6637 for her decision to refuse to do the job as it violated New Mexico’s discrimination law.
Now over on this website people started getting a little bit heated. What started off as a discussion about the so-called stifling of rights in America, it descended into what could only be described as ‘gay-bashing’ by a few members. I’ll get to that later, but first, the rights issue.
I am by no means an expert on American law. In fact, I don’t know the second thing about it. I do know, though, that they have discrimination laws which are supposed to keep people and businesses treated on an equal footing. I am also fairly sure that the laws are different in every State. Based on this particular news article though, it appears that it is a straightforward case about discrimination based on sexual orientation which as stated in the article directly contravenes N.M.’s discrimination law.
Unfortunately, there is not much more information to be had from this article. It tells us that the photographer refused based on her religious beliefs, but it doesn’t tell us how she refused. Did she simply say, “I’m sorry, I can’t photograph your commitment ceremony.” That is short, simple, to the point. It doesn’t give any reasons and to be fair, she is not required to. If she had said that, then the couple in question would have no excuse to file a complaint against her.
However, because a complaint was filed against her, I wonder if she said something a little bit more controversial. Something along the lines of, “I’m sorry. I refuse to photograph your commitment ceremony. I simply can’t do it. You see, you two are gay. Lesbians. A same-sex couple. I’m a Christian. I believe in God and I follow the Bible. And guess what? The Bible is against gays. It’s true. In fact, you should read it; it may help you change back to being normal again. Seriously. What it really comes down to though is that I just won’t take photos of you and your ‘partner’ because, a) I don’t want to end up in Hell which is where I’m sure I’ll end up for dancing with devils such as yourself, and b) You are sub-human, abnormal freaks, and I don’t want to get infected with your disease.”
Of course, the photographer could have just said, “I’m sorry, but I can’t accept this job as I don’t think I would be able to do my best professional work when I disagree with the situation.” If she had said that, then it could have swung either way – you know what Americans are like; always spoiling for a fight or failing that, someone to take to court. Yes, I know it is a gross overgeneralisation, but you have to admit that there has been an increase of cases where people just want to try grab some easy money. But that is for another time and another discussion.
Now we get on to the issue of the rights, something that Americans hold so dear to their hearts.
The First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, says that the government may not compel people to express views that they don’t endorse. You could then make the argument that being paid to photograph a same-sex ceremony – something that you are morally opposed to – would be endorsing it to some degree. Therefore, refusing to take photos of the ceremony based on religious/personal views because you don’t want to be seen as ‘endorsing’ it is legal.
However, and this is where things get murky, as a business operating in the United States, the photographer can not refuse service to someone over something that they are not able to control such as race, handicaps, sexuality, and the like. In fact, the Federal Civil Rights Act states, “…full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Some states have a Civil Rights Act that provides broader protection than the Federal one, and so include sexual discrimination.
Where does that leave us then? Do we choose to honour the First Amendment or do we suck it up and take photos of the event because it is discriminatory to refuse to? In this particular instance it appears that the photographer chose the first option (no pun intended).
Of course, what makes this case all the more unbelievable is that although New Mexico ruled in favour of the same-sex couple, the state itself chucked out a proposal to allow for domestic partnerships after critics said that it would be akin to recognising gay marriage. Where’s the discrimination there I wonder? How can a state have an anti-discrimination law – and force people to follow it – when they don’t follow it themselves? Sure, they allow ‘commitment ceremonies’, but that is still a backwards way of looking at the issue. Reading through that thread I found that there are still so many people that discriminate against gays because of their sexuality. The following is taken directly from one of the posts:
Gays and their supporters are way out of control, and are doing their best to shove their abnormal behavior onto everyone else…
Many homosexuals, and a lot of others, live their lives with a chip on their shoulder and are just spoiling for a fight. They wave their freak flag high, as though that's going to make their abnormality normal. It won't.
If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force it on me or convince me that it's normal. The same goes for religious wackos. Leave me out of it and we'll get along fine. I don't try to force anything on anyone else and I don't expect anyone to live the way I do.
This is by far one of the most disgusting of the posts there, but someone else posted a comment about gays now having the rights to adopt children. He goes on to say that giving them that right is a bad thing and says gays are selfish for wanting that right. What the hell? Is he honestly saying that gays make worst parents than ‘traditional’ parents?
It is just scary to me that people out there still have such strong views about gays, and it’s not all related to their religious beliefs. Some people genuinely believe that homosexuals are ‘abnormal’ and ‘freaks’.
I honestly hope that this particular viewpoint is on the way out, but I’m afraid that it will never go away. It’s these same intolerant people that label Islam a threat to civilisation as everyone who follows that religion is hell bent on destroying their precious little world.
It could be that they just aren’t educated (and let’s face it, the American education system isn’t all that crash hot), but what can we do about it? I’m afraid of what the answer to that question is.
