FORUMS: list search recent posts

Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Richard Herd
Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 12:55:31 am

If so, does it mean video editors must edit anything a client requests?

To be sure, I would totally edit and photograph a lesbian wedding. Can freelancers choose jobs for whatever reasons?

Here's more information, and I know this is an international group, so maybe this bit of arcane Americana is inappropriate, if so, sorry.

Here's more info http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elane-photography-llc-v-willock/


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 1:29:58 am

[Richard Herd] "does it mean video editors must edit anything a client requests?"

I'm not sure how the status quo would be any different than before with regards to American/Arizona anti-discrimination law.

You just can't use a "religious" excuse to get around such discrimination laws.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 1:34:08 am

[Richard Herd] "If so, does it mean video editors must edit anything a client requests?"

Not at all. Individuals are free to edit or not edit whatever they like. As are small businesses.

The issue is that there are civil rights laws in place that make it specifically illegal to systematically discriminate against whole specific classes of the individuals. That's established, codified law. And there are penalties on the books that specify the circumstances that amount to such discrimination.

These statutes are usually aimed at large scale employers with interstate operations who fall under federal jurisdiction.

You're still absolutely free to refuse to edit something, for example, that violates the law - or for the matter violates your personal standards.

What you can't do is refuse your services to an entire CLASS of individuals specifically protected by federal statute. Individuals who share nothing other than a particular sexual orientation is one of the protected classes under the law.

So that does nothing to prevent you from serving, say, a criminal, or a drunk, or a person who smells bad. Whatever annoys you you can say NO to. You just can't say NO to any and everyone who happens to fit into category X - if that's a protected class. If it's NOT a protected class, (for example, you choose not to work for, say, hunters or maybe break dancers, you're fine.

The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of "religious groups" ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation.

It was those extremely dumb state legislators tried to craft an "overriding" state statute to allow someone to circumvent the federal statutes in play.

Even Gov, Brewer could see that - and just Vetoed the bill a little while ago.

There's a popular feeling promoted in some religious circles that they're "under attack" by society. Pretty hard for me to understand in a land where you can find a thousand churches openly operating in every community of decent size (and plenty of religious organization representation in almost every small town and hamlet as well!)

At heart, churches are not really unlike any other performance venues, really. They're just exceptional because while they all, generally speaking, suggest that their religion is the one true religion, they're all depending on the fact that NONE of them can prove that, since logically that would require the state to eliminate all the sweet tax breaks for all the others!

I find the whole thing amusing, really.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 1:52:47 am

Here's a quote:

The New
Mexico Supreme Court thus determined that the
First Amendment right to be free from compelled
speech does not protect those professionals from
applications of the public-accommodations statute
that would require them to create expression


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 2:56:19 am

[Richard Herd] "Here's a quote:

The New
Mexico Supreme Court thus determined that the
First Amendment right to be free from compelled
speech does not protect those professionals from
applications of the public-accommodations statute
that would require them to create expression
"


This is basically just saying that the same way a restaurant open to the general public can't refuse to serve gay people (or whatever other protected group) as a class, a wedding photographer who offers her services to the general public can't refuse to provide her services to gay people as a class. The basic principle here has been settled law for decades (although gays in particular weren't recognized as a protected class until more recently). This decision simply clarifies that no loophole exists for business that happen to sell products that have some 'expressive' element to them. A business can't, in other words, hang a "Whites Only" sign just because it happens to sell photography services rather than hamburgers.

Businesses are, of course, free to turn away individual customers for essentially any reason other than them being a member of a protected class. Including other reasons stemming from the politics, religious convictions, or even entirely irrational whims of their proprietors. Don't want to cut a video for an oil company? Want to create a web-based campaign donation platform and not let a particular political party use it? Just think someone is a jerk? Customer is wearing a hat with the logo of a sports team you hate? Those are all entirely legal reasons to refuse customers.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 6:19:18 pm

[Richard Herd] "Here's a quote:

The New Mexico Supreme Court thus determined that the First Amendment right to be free from compelled
speech does not protect those professionals from applications of the public-accommodations statute
that would require them to create expression"


NM, like AZ has had a law on the books protecting businesses (Err, allowing them to run their business as they see fit). This NM ruling exposed a loophole that was successfully used to run her out of business. That's why the AZ Law was proposed... to modify our 1999 law to cover that loophole that the state of NM in their infinite wisdom created.



[Bill Davis] "You're still absolutely free to refuse to edit something, for example, that violates the law - or for the matter violates your personal standards.

What you can't do is refuse your services to an entire CLASS of individuals specifically protected by federal statute. Individuals who share nothing other than a particular sexual orientation is one of the protected classes under the law.

So that does nothing to prevent you from serving, say, a criminal, or a drunk, or a person who smells bad. Whatever annoys you you can say NO to. You just can't say NO to any and everyone who happens to fit into category X - if that's a protected class. If it's NOT a protected class, (for example, you choose not to work for, say, hunters or maybe break dancers, you're fine."


Those two statements are at odds with each other, which is where the problem lies. Do you really think you could refuse one gay ceremony without them alleging that it's because they're part of the entire class? Unless you can demonstrate that you refused them, but accepted others, you're screwed (legal term).

[Bill Davis] "The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of "religious groups" ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation."

That's a rather subjective opinion. Having read the Law, I didn't come to that conclusion.


[Chris Kenny] "This is basically just saying that the same way a restaurant open to the general public can't refuse to serve gay people (or whatever other protected group) as a class, a wedding photographer who offers her services to the general public can't refuse to provide her services to gay people as a class. The basic principle here has been settled law for decades (although gays in particular weren't recognized as a protected class until more recently). This decision simply clarifies that no loophole exists for business that happen to sell products that have some 'expressive' element to them. A business can't, in other words, hang a "Whites Only" sign just because it happens to sell photography services rather than hamburgers."

The fallacy of that logic is this: Having Gays or a minority or an extra-terrestrial walk into restaurant doesn't hurt anyone. Even if you have some kind of problem with it (which you shouldn't) you have minimum involvement. Being a wedding photographer, videographer, caterer, florist, etc. doesn't allow you to hand them the flowers and be done with it. You are involved in the actual event and for the entire day. In the case of photos and video, for an even longer time. There is no comparison to be made here, and that's why you've only seen gays suing wedding related businesses thus far.

[Chris Kenny] "Businesses are, of course, free to turn away individual customers for essentially any reason other than them being a member of a protected class. Including other reasons stemming from the politics, religious convictions, or even entirely irrational whims of their proprietors. Don't want to cut a video for an oil company? Want to create a web-based campaign donation platform and not let a particular political party use it? Just think someone is a jerk? Customer is wearing a hat with the logo of a sports team you hate? Those are all entirely legal reasons to refuse customers."

That's because those other groups having gotten militant yet. I'd like to see someone test that, because while it was once true, all of these court cases make it clear that it no longer is. I pity the poor bastard who ends up being the test case on this, because they'll lose everything they own...

So much for my long standing position of never doing business with attorney's. That's an entire class now and I'm open to suit for even saying that now.

For the record, I didn't support the AZ Law, not because it was how it's been portrayed. It wasn't. This was a victory of yellow journalism over facts. No, I didn't support the law because it doesn't go far enough. I'd like to see a simple reaffirmation that says: "it's my business... I conceived it... I paid for it... I run it... and yes Mr. president I did create that... and I have a right to run it however I damn well please. If I'm doing something truly egregious the market will punish me and I'll go out of business. I don't need society telling me how to run it. Society isn't doing very well running themselves at the moment.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 9:05:24 pm

[Mitch Ives] "If I'm doing something truly egregious the market will punish me and I'll go out of business."

"The market" is a human construct cop out manipulated by those in position of power. Where was "the market" in the deep south during the Civil Rights Movement? How is "the market" fixing the still large pay gap between men and women? How can "the market" fix collusion between businesses when it's those very businesses that make up the market? The wage tampering case in Silicon Valley right now is a perfect example. Everyone from Apple to Intel to Adobe agreed (some under duress) to not hire employees away from each other and to keep pay levels similar thus driving down and 'normalizing' wages across the board. "The market", controlled by those in positions of power, actively conspired against employees.

"The market" only works under the assumption that businesses will always do their best to compete against one another for both customers and employees and that's just not representative in reality. Capitalism is about making the most money, not building the best mouse trap, so why compete when collusion is easier and more profitable?


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 2:03:38 pm

[Andrew Kimery] ""The market" is a human construct cop out manipulated by those in position of power. Where was "the market" in the deep south during the Civil Rights Movement? How is "the market" fixing the still large pay gap between men and women? How can "the market" fix collusion between businesses when it's those very businesses that make up the market? The wage tampering case in Silicon Valley right now is a perfect example. Everyone from Apple to Intel to Adobe agreed (some under duress) to not hire employees away from each other and to keep pay levels similar thus driving down and 'normalizing' wages across the board. "The market", controlled by those in positions of power, actively conspired against employees.

"The market" only works under the assumption that businesses will always do their best to compete against one another for both customers and employees and that's just not representative in reality. Capitalism is about making the most money, not building the best mouse trap, so why compete when collusion is easier and more profitable?"


Let me make sure I got your point. Our industry is made up almost entirely of small businesses, so to make your point you use giant corporations as an example? It doesn't fit Andrew. In our industry, if you're difficult to work with, people don't use you. If your work is shoddy, people don't use you. If you don't show up late or don't deliver on time, people don't use you. As a result, your business suffers and eventually you either change or go out of business. The free market accomplishes all of this because they have the choice to go elsewhere. They don't need to sue you to accomplish this.

I love how everyone wants to bring up the deep south in their example. I can tell you that out here in the west, people boycotted businesses that discriminated against minorities during that time frame you're referencing. Businesses changed because they had to in order to survive. Voting with your feet and peer pressure can be very effective tools for change.

I won't comment on your Silicon valley case, as I have no direct knowledge of that situation and therefore I have no opinion. Shocking I know, as most Americans can deliver an opinion on anything in the complete absence of any actual knowledge. Watching the National news coverage on this bill was a perfect example. Of all the shows I watched, not a single one had their facts straight. Every one misconstrued this bill. It was fascinating to watch these people pontificate while being wrong on every single thing they said. Wow.

Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days. If you hate it so much, why are you in business? Why not get an over-paid government job instead?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 5:49:09 pm

[Mitch Ives] " I can tell you that out here in the west, people boycotted businesses that discriminated against minorities during that time frame you're referencing. Businesses changed because they had to in order to survive."

Exactly to my point that "the market" isn't some naturally occurring, overarching force of balance and equality. The 'guiding hand of the free market' is a human construct and there are times when humans must to be forced to change (like during the Civil Rights movement or the industrial revolution or modern day Earth where in some places 'the market' still says it's acceptable to throw acid on women). Believing that some all powerful guiding force will magically fix things is a pass-the-buck, BS cop-out. What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular.


[Mitch Ives] "Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days. If you hate it so much, why are you in business? Why not get an over-paid government job instead?"

Shame you ended a decent post with an ignorant character attack. Where did I say I hated Capitalism? The problem I have is with the human element that manipulates the system for their own gain and to the detriment of everyone else. It's a people problem not an ideology problem, though all ideologies are flawed in execution because humans are flawed. I'm more of do-what-works, pragmatic type guy rather than a paint by numbers, blindly cling to a specific ideology type guy . But, you already knew that about me didn't you?

Since apparently the schooling you received didn't teach you how to Google things here's a link to the problem in Silicon Valley I mentioned. ;)
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrat...


Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 9:23:53 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Shame you ended a decent post with an ignorant character attack. Where did I say I hated Capitalism?"

Seriously? That whole post came across as an indictment of big business. I've shown your post to four other people to get a second read and they all made the same comment on their own. Now, if you didn't mean it that way, that's another discussion.

[Andrew Kimery] "Since apparently the schooling you received didn't teach you how to Google things here's a link to the problem in Silicon Valley I mentioned. ;)"

Andrew, I didn't to Google it. First, I mistakenly accepted your explanation of it. Second, I don't live in CA, so I don't feel the need to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Too damn bad Arizona doesn't get the same courtesy, isn't it?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 10:49:08 pm

"[Andrew Kimery] "Shame you ended a decent post with an ignorant character attack. Where did I say I hated Capitalism?"

[Mitch Ives] Seriously? That whole post came across as an indictment of big business. I've shown your post to four other people to get a second read and they all made the same comment on their own. Now, if you didn't mean it that way, that's another discussion."


My take is that Andrew wasn't criticizing big-business Capitalism so much as the fact that when humans become involved, the principles of Capitalism are often degraded to anything goes (corporate welfare, insider trading, market manipulations of all kinds, monopoly, you name it); this is particularly true the bigger the business. It's all about what you can get away with, not that you are upholding some abstract principle of free-market Capitalism. The more local and smaller-scale the business the more free-market the interaction, but also the more ethical the exchange due to direct human interaction in most cases.

As one of my best friends who has been a CFO/CIO in the clothing business for many decades across many different large companies (some fortune 500), and more lately the CEO of a smaller clothing corporation has said, any CEO or corporate executive who tried to actually run their company true to free-market principles would be fired immediately. "Free-markets"(as abstract principle) is a business tool (some would say a weapon) that should be applied to everyone else but not my company; a corporate NIMBY of sorts.

Free markets are a myth that have never existed except in places like Somalia. I think an honest viewing of the historical evidence shows that a balance of Capitalism, Socialism and government regulation are (at this point in time at least) best for the health and stability of both business and society.

But I was trained first as a scientist, so I try to look at the empirical evidence rather than getting caught up in abstract principles of either the left or the right.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:54:53 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Mar 1, 2014 at 12:28:50 am

[Mitch Ives] "Seriously? That whole post came across as an indictment of big business. I've shown your post to four other people to get a second read and they all made the same comment on their own. Now, if you didn't mean it that way, that's another discussion."

James Culbertson nailed it.

I have a problem with how many big businesses are run, not the existence of big business itself. Just like I have problems with how various governments are run but I don't have a problem with the existence of government itself. I read somewhere that criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. ;)


[Mitch Ives] "Andrew, I didn't to Google it. First, I mistakenly accepted your explanation of it. Second, I don't live in CA, so I don't feel the need to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Too damn bad Arizona doesn't get the same courtesy, isn't it?
"


How is self-education and possibly voicing an opinion meddling? I approach life with more of a 'we're all in this together' mindset so maybe I'm just more predisposed to pay attention to things happening beyond my immediate sphere of influence. I mean, I'm not in the tech industry, I'm not in Silicon Valley (I'm closer to AZ than SV) but as a citizen of Earth that lives and works in America I find things like these interesting if not relevant. The world is an ever shrinking place and what happens at Point A can easily impact what happens at Points C, Q and D.


EDIT: Meant to add, communicating over the Internet can sometimes be error prone as a misunderstanding or miscommunication is harder to detect and rectify. I usually end up in the great Phoenix area once or twice a year so maybe we'll catch a beer sometime. I always like matching people to avatars.


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 4:06:07 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days."

You might want to tone down the rhetoric because it makes you look very foolish. And this is coming from someone who didn't go through the public school system.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 5:04:22 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Mitch Ives] "Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days."

You might want to tone down the rhetoric because it makes you look very foolish. And this is coming from someone who didn't go through the public school system."


Or it could be that I spent 5-1/2 years teaching in the Community College system and experienced first hand the results of our failing education system. I also spend a great deal of time talking to younger people about all manner of things. So, while I appreciate your advice, I'll stick with my "experience based" assessment.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 6:48:50 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Your views on Capitalism are precisely what I would expect from someone who has been through the reeducation camps we call public schools these days."

[Gary Huff] You might want to tone down the rhetoric because it makes you look very foolish. And this is coming from someone who didn't go through the public school system."

[Mitch Ives] ...So, while I appreciate your advice, I'll stick with my "experience based" assessment."

Mitch, I teach part time CTE classes at a local high school and I can certainly attest to certain failings in our education system, more due to worthless top-down directives coming from folks (from both the educational consulting and political legislative sphere) who have never stepped foot in a classroom. The teachers at my school are evenly divided between conservative and liberal views and all as far as I can see are very professional in their neutralness when it comes to working with the kids.

I have all kinds of perspectives coming out of these kids and I can guarantee you that the "reeducation camps" you mention are primarily based at home, and the failure you reference doesn't reflect any particular end of the spectrum however you measure it. Moreover, I'd say the "reeducation camps" are web and media based, and reflect the failure of journalism and the fracturing the the "net" into tribal groups who mutually reinforce each others biased views. The primary failure in my view is the break down of mutual respect and the discourse that can result.

Your economic views may be more nuanced than you are presenting here, but your simplistic characterizations of those with differing world views suggests you are as much a victim of such reeducation camps as anyone else.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09:48 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Mar 1, 2014 at 7:11:04 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Or it could be that I spent 5-1/2 years teaching in the Community College system and experienced first hand the results of our failing education system. I also spend a great deal of time talking to younger people about all manner of things. So, while I appreciate your advice, I'll stick with my "experience based" assessment."

Not to contradict your own personal experience with the 'reeducation camps' but none of my current views were shaped during K-12 or even during college. It wasn't until I'd been out in the real world for a bit and observed how things really worked with regards to big business, government and society in general that my current POV started forming.

Curious, when you say "younger" what age range are you talking about?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 6:45:15 pm

[Mitch Ives] "[Bill Davis] "The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of "religious groups" ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation."

That's a rather subjective opinion. Having read the Law, I didn't come to that conclusion."


Not to beat a dead horse ...

I can understand the desire to have a law that allows anyone to chose who to serve and who not to serve, who to work for and who to studiously avoid, especially in a non-public, non-essential (meaning not food, clothing, shelter, health or educational)environment. What I can't understand is using religion as the metric to advance that basic right of self determination. Does this mean catholic florists don't have to serve lesbians but atheist photographers have to take pictures of republicans? Either individuals have the right to work with whom they chose or they don't, trying to wrap this issue up with religious rights IS the problem. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with this issue, and hiding behind the first amendment just exposes the bigotry behind the law.

Personally I think those litigating their rights to have pictures taken of their wedding are a*holes of the first order but the stupidity of the justices in New Mexico is not provocation for the creation of even dumber laws in Arizona. Sometimes people just do crazy sh*t and you can't run around trying to create a new law anytime someone acts like a jerk. Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 7:14:56 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it."

Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest ones. lol


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 9:32:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I can understand the desire to have a law that allows anyone to chose who to serve and who not to serve, who to work for and who to studiously avoid, especially in a non-public, non-essential (meaning not food, clothing, shelter, health or educational)environment. What I can't understand is using religion as the metric to advance that basic right of self determination. Does this mean catholic florists don't have to serve lesbians but atheist photographers have to take pictures of republicans? Either individuals have the right to work with whom they chose or they don't, trying to wrap this issue up with religious rights IS the problem. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with this issue, and hiding behind the first amendment just exposes the bigotry behind the law."

I'd sure like to argue with about this, but I can't. One, it makes sense, and two, I'm not a religious person, so I wouldn't be arguing for that. This is why in a previous I said the law should simply give me the rights that you've outlined. Where in the Constitution does it say that everyone has the right to force everyone to do business with them?

[Herb Sevush] "Personally I think those litigating their rights to have pictures taken of their wedding are a*holes of the first order but the stupidity of the justices in New Mexico is not provocation for the creation of even dumber laws in Arizona. Sometimes people just do crazy sh*t and you can't run around trying to create a new law anytime someone acts like a jerk. Just spit in the food, leave the cap on the lens or send them dead flowers and leave the lawyers out of it."

I don't want a new law, but we keep passing more laws granting superior rights to small select groups, exposing the rest of us to liability. Can you say "tail wagging the dog"? I mean the group that's causing all these issues are what, less than three percent of the population? As it stands, closing your business is the only option available if you find yourself exposed to opportunistic lawsuits, because in the process of trying to"do some good" we created a bigger problem. If I understand your position, we're just supposed to let the abuse go unchecked?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 9:48:01 pm

[Mitch Ives] " I mean the group that's causing all these issues are what, less than three percent of the population?"

No, I would guess A*holes come in at around 30% of the population, give or take. What group are you talking about?

[Mitch Ives] " As it stands, closing your business is the only option available if you find yourself exposed to opportunistic lawsuits"

It's not the only option, I doubt it's the best option, but I do realize it is an option, although I personally haven't come in contact with a single individual or company that has used it. I own a business and this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up late at night. I'm more apt to be worried about volcanos, and I live in NY.

[Mitch Ives] "If I understand your position, we're just supposed to let the abuse go unchecked?"

That's the exact sort of thinking that started the trouble in the first place. First you have to understand that both sides are feeling abused, then you have to get over it and stop trying to legislate good behavior. If it's life and death, yes go call your congressman, if it's flowers, work it out for yourself.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 4:23:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "No, I would guess A*holes come in at around 30% of the population, give or take. What group are you talking about?"

Is there a poll for that? I'm guessing it's gotten much higher in the last 5 years...


[Herb Sevush] "It's not the only option, I doubt it's the best option, but I do realize it is an option, although I personally haven't come in contact with a single individual or company that has used it. I own a business and this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up late at night. I'm more apt to be worried about volcanos, and I live in NY. "

Really? The photographer in NM... the cake bakers in Washington (?). Seems they had little choice. Remember, nothing is a problem until it affects you... then it's Defcon1.


[Herb Sevush] "That's the exact sort of thinking that started the trouble in the first place. First you have to understand that both sides are feeling abused, then you have to get over it and stop trying to legislate good behavior. If it's life and death, yes go call your congressman, if it's flowers, work it out for yourself."

Too late for that. It's precisely what you've identified that got us here. Chicken and egg argument?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 2, 2014 at 1:45:59 pm

[Mitch Ives] "[Herb Sevush] "No, I would guess A*holes come in at around 30% of the population, give or take. What group are you talking about?"
Is there a poll for that? I'm guessing it's gotten much higher in the last 5 years..."


Yes, early polling data unearthed in Wadi Qumran next to the dead sea scrolls indicate that this number hasn't fluctuated much since the time of Hammurabi, it's just that more of them are on television now.

[Mitch Ives] "Really? The photographer in NM... the cake bakers in Washington (?). Seems they had little choice. Remember, nothing is a problem until it affects you... then it's Defcon1."

You left out the florist, but let's see, that's 3 cases in a country of 300 million, and in each case the business owner, instead of just politely refusing the business, made a a point of standing on their religious "right" to be a bigot. Yes, I'm definitely worried about this now, might have to take out special "I'm an idiot" insurance to cover the liability.

[Mitch Ives] "Too late for that. It's precisely what you've identified that got us here. Chicken and egg argument?"

It's never too late to be reasonable.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 6:13:22 pm

[Mitch Ives] "If I'm doing something truly egregious the market will punish me and I'll go out of business."

Looks like your well on you way.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 6:35:23 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Mitch Ives] "If I'm doing something truly egregious the market will punish me and I'll go out of business."

Looks like your well on you way."


Thanks Scott. How incredibly open mined of you. I hope your business is doing well.

I can see that diverse opinions are no longer appreciated here. As one of the very first on this forum I find that a bit disappointing...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 8:02:30 pm

[Mitch Ives] "[Bill Davis] "The AZ statute was designed to elevate the rights of "religious groups" ABOVE the rights of other protected classes, among them, those with a specific sexual orientation."

That's a rather subjective opinion. Having read the Law, I didn't come to that conclusion."


Actually, it does say that (in a legal way). It's really hard to cut and paste the text because it's a legal pleading format, but here it is anyway:


7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's
11 exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
12 application of the burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
13 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
14 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
15 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
16 governmental interest.
17 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
19 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
20 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
21 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
22 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
23 attorney fees and costs.

The above selected quote does exactly what Bill says it does, "elevate the rights of religious groups above the rights of other protected classes." It is done by limiting State Action (in line 8 and 9). But they did not just stop there, the authors realized that there may be instances where line 8 and 9 need to be limited, so they wrote lines 14 and 15. One example of a compelling governmental interest is National Security. I'll just state it outright: Religious-based Terrorists cannot use the AZ law to get out of trouble.

And to make the law even stronger, line 17 and following define the adjudication when a person whose Religious Rights (as defined by this law) are violated. Not only does line 7 - 9 define State Action, but line 19 and following broaden the law to disputes between private parties.

I bring this up, because other States will pass very similar laws.


Return to posts index

David McLasty
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 4:52:48 pm

I've turned down jobs because I didn't agree with the subject or it was because of my Morals. Just tread lightly and say "I'm booked" or "I don't have the equipment/help/whatever for your job"

Telling people "I won't shoot your wedding because you are gay" is just plain stupid IMO. When I was faced with this recently I just told them I had a shoot the day before and there was no guarantee I could be there in time.

Part of being a freelancer is picking and choosing jobs.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 6:26:04 pm

[David McLasty] "I've turned down jobs because I didn't agree with the subject or it was because of my Morals. Just tread lightly and say "I'm booked" or "I don't have the equipment/help/whatever for your job"

Telling people "I won't shoot your wedding because you are gay" is just plain stupid IMO. When I was faced with this recently I just told them I had a shoot the day before and there was no guarantee I could be there in time."


Very wise advice. It's the only way to stay out of court.

Ever since the Colorado case, I've been getting emails asking me if I'll perform videographer serves for gay weddings. I'm getting them on an almost bi-weekly basis. I'd like to think it's a harmless search for someone with an open attitude, by given the frequency of these all over the country, I'm inclined to think it's someone is trolling for a victim to finance their early retirement.

I never respond to those emails... not because I'm anti-gay, but because I'm anti wedding video jobs. Hardest way to make a living in video...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 8:24:29 pm

I will work with anyone without regard to their race, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other nonsense that people will use to marginalize some person or group they don't happen to agree with. Jeez, I though we settled all this stuff in the late sixties

Tim


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 1:49:07 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I will work with anyone without regard to their race, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other nonsense that people will use to marginalize some person or group they don't happen to agree with. Jeez, I though we settled all this stuff in the late sixties"

That's a perfectly fair choice Timothy. I think it's one that a lot of us have made. Choice being the key word here. You've made yours and I think everyone will agree that it should be respected. My question is... should we allow others their right to choice as well... or should we have your choice or somebody else's choice forced on them? That's the issue here.

It's the idea I'm supporting, not any particular legislation. I grew up seeing signs in every business that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". That right is now effectively gone. It's a misnomer to assume that those signs were there to keep minorities out. They were designed to allow the business owner to provide a positive environment for their customers. People that were violent, smelled bad, used bad language, etc. could all be asked to leave.

I've travelled extensively and I've been in places where it was made quite clear that I, as a white male, was not welcome there. Places like "little Korea" in San Diego... and in some black communities. While I didn't agree with them, I respected their right to make those decisions with regard to their business. I simply voted with my dollars and went somewhere else. At no point in time did I ever consider filing a Civil Rights lawsuit.

People ar too thin skinned these days, and the country is worse off for it...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 2:01:21 pm

[Mitch Ives] "It's a misnomer to assume that those signs were there to keep minorities out."

I grew up in the south and saw those signs everywhere too. We disagree strongly that they were not designed to keep out minorities. The bottom line is that business owners have a perfect right to refuse service to anyone who is unruly, violent, or otherwise disruptive to the business. But no right whatever to refuse service to someone for being black, native american, hispanic, gay, or in show business.

Tim


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 2:28:56 pm

[TImothy Auld] "I grew up in the south and saw those signs everywhere too. We disagree strongly that they were not designed to keep out minorities. The bottom line is that business owners have a perfect right to refuse service to anyone who is unruly, violent, or otherwise disruptive to the business. But no right whatever to refuse service to someone for being black, native american, hispanic, gay, or in show business."

It was different out here in the west, but then most things are. Those signs were never viewed in those terms here... at least not by anybody I ever knew, but then this was once the "wild west", so signs of that nature were commonplace... just like guns.

Show business? Of course we should exclude them... :-)

The issue is that refusing service as in handing you a hot dog through a window is not in the same category as forcing a prolonged relationship on somebody, which is what our business is. Sooner or later people are going to recognize this difference and understand that. Forcing you out on a one time date with somebody is one thing... forcing you into an arranged marriage is another. People are too caught up in their emotions to see the impracticality of this...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 3:15:34 pm

They are exactly the same. If a business provides a service then they may not refuse that service to anyone on what the law calls an arbitrary basis. Refusing a service to someone because one does not like or approve of how they live their lives outside the confines of your business seems to me to be the very definition of "arbitrary."

Tim


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 3:41:54 pm

[TImothy Auld] "They are exactly the same. If a business provides a service then they may not refuse that service to anyone on what the law calls an arbitrary basis. Refusing a service to someone because one does not like or approve of how they live their lives outside the confines of your business seems to me to be the very definition of "arbitrary.""

I get that. My point is that if this were in fact the universal sentiment, then we wouldn't be going through this would we? The point is that not everyone agrees with you or several states wouldn't be doing this, would they? I'm trying to find some way of respecting all sides, not just the protected classes. I can see that's a lost cause with you, so I'll stop.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 4:00:23 pm

Not the first time I have been given up as a lost cause. But I will say that what I was describing is not my opinion, but the law. Yes, in this case I agree with it. However, there are all manner of other laws that I do not agree with. But I do not try to bypass them because I don't agree with them.

Tim


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 27, 2014 at 11:15:16 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I'm anti wedding video jobs. Hardest way to make a living in video..."

Then this should be your boiler plate response?

It's funny how the "Petitioner" will accept money in exchange for a portrait, but will not accept money in exchange for a wedding portrait of the same group of people in different clothing. Nice to see that moral line drawn right in the sand. I'm not saying that they should have to do it, but please, stand up for what you believe in.

"The Huguenins declined Respondent’s request because they did not want to create images expressing messages about marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs. Tr.86-87.3 Nevertheless, the Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs."

It's like the pro fracking Exxon CEO suing to stop fracking near his multimillion dollar horse ranch, but telling everyone that it's not about the fracking, rather it's about the noise and sight pollution of a water tower that will ruin the rural landscape. Yet, fracking completely destroys rural landscapes.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/27/5452520/exxon-mobil-ceo-says-water-tower-...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178534/exxons-pro-fracking-ceo-suing-stop-fra...

I should probably get the frack out of here.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 4:47:36 pm

I get the sense that only a couple of the participants here have actually read the petition. If you haven't, check out Richard's link. The petition, briefs, and responses are all accessible, clearly written and generally free of legalese.

This case pits free speech against civil rights. Both of these should be absolute in America, so this case is much more nuanced than the discussion here makes it seem.

Can one couple be legally denied a service offered freely on the market to other couples because of who they are? Photography is considered speech, but can the law compel a photographer to take a photograph?

What about different public accommodations laws having different protected classes? Some expressly protect political ideology. The same principle that protects couples' civil rights could be used under these broader accommodations laws to compel any one of us here to create media, say, supporting a political group that would seek to deny civil rights.

This case shows why a symbol of justice is a scale.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 5:44:55 pm

Photography is not protected as speech as I understand it. The right to photograph events that are public is a protected activity. Someone paying someone else to take a private picture of them or someone or something else is not protected as speech in any way. It is to my understanding a simple business transaction.

One thing is sure though. If I am wrong about this and anyone ever tried to force me to create media to present a political agenda - liberal, conservative, or not of this earth - I would stand against that as strongly as I stand against anyone who would marginalize a group because it did not fit their personal definition as "moral."

Tim


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 7:31:23 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Photography is not protected as speech as I understand it."

Many think it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-pho...

I think this is another part of the issue that may not be clear-cut. What if the couple tried to hire a poet to write their vows?

Has the idea of free speech become a "get out of civil rights free" card, with expression-based businesses held to a different standard of public accommodation than others? That doesn't seem right.

On the other side, do you automatically give up your own right to free speech (or submit to compelled speech) by offering expression-related services commercially? That doesn't seem right, either.

It's a complicated issue. I assume that's why it's being petitioned to the Supreme Court.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 7:51:49 pm

Free speech is about just that: Speech. Not actions. The NM photographer in question is free to oppose - with speech - whatever she thinks is wrong. She is not free to take an action based on that speech to deny services to anyone. She is free to tell the couple in question that she thinks they are immoral, ungodly, or whatever. And then the client (and that word is crucial here) is free to use her services or not. What that businessperson may not do is tell the potential client that she simply will not do the job based only on her belief that the lifestyle of that potential client is goes against her moral view. In these terms this is nothing more than a business transaction. No "Art" is taking place here.

The nonsense in the Times article about artists being forced to accept commissions that they do not agree with is just the worst sort of obfuscation and nonsense. Cite me one time in the last 100 years that anyone has been able to force an artist who is the originator and owner of said art, to toe to any line whatever.

If am am making my own film, I am an artist. If I am working on someone else's film, I am an employee.

Tim


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 8:28:41 pm

[TImothy Auld] "What that businessperson may not do is tell the potential client that she simply will not do the job based only on her belief that the lifestyle of that potential client is goes against her moral view."

I don't know about the law here, but as far as I'm concerned anyone not in essential services (food, shelter, health etc.) should be free to be as bigoted as they want and work with whomever they want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include a "right" to flowers, wedding videos, or birthday cakes. A client-customer relationship is not the same as an employer-employee relationship and should not be held to the same standards. In the latter the employee is at the economic mercy of the employer and needs protection, in the former the customer wields the economic power and, except in essential services, does not need protection. And none of this has anything to do with religious freedom which is what made the AZ law so obnoxious.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 8:43:43 pm

Having grown up seeing so many people I cared about being denied, as you say, flowers, wedding videos, birthday cakes - and basic human rights, I have to disagree with you here. As for the employee/employer vs provider/client relationship - when push comes to shove it is always the one who has enough money to outlast the other who comes out on top. And, sadly, if anyone wants to be bigoted in any relationship, all one needs to do is choose one set of words over another.

Tim


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 9:48:58 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Having grown up seeing so many people I cared about being denied, as you say, flowers, wedding videos, birthday cakes - and basic human rights, I have to disagree with you here."

The problem is every human interaction consists of two sets of often diverging human rights. In that situation I think it prudent to involve the law only in essential services - equality before the florist will follow if you have equality before the law.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 10:05:55 pm

Agreed, but are you now including the florist with the aforementioned services of food, shelter, health, etc?
And I also agree equality before the law is the answer. Sadly it does not exist at present. If God forbid a loved one of mine is in the hospital I am granted the right to visit said loved one, not to mention many other rights that I see as just a matter of course but are denied to other couples I know just a few hundred miles away from here. So, when folks get pissed and sue when they are treated in a way that others would not be treated I cut them a little slack. I think there are smarter ways to handle it and it's not the way I would handle it. But, then again, I'm not the one who is being discriminated against here. And I haven't had to put up with it all of my life. I can see that kind of thing making you a little bit cranky.

Tim


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:08:42 pm
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:12:07 pm

[TImothy Auld] "If God forbid a loved one of mine is in the hospital I am granted the right to visit said loved one, not to mention many other rights that I see as just a matter of course but are denied to other couples I know just a few hundred miles away from here."

Well they can visit, they just can't act on the patients behalf.

About 30 years ago I had an appendectomy that turned into an infection that turned into a possible embolism that turned into pneumonia - 28 days in the hospital. The woman I had been living with for the past 10 years was allowed to visit me, thank you, but was not allowed any access to the doctors or to receive any medical information. She had to ask my parents what was going on, even though she was there every day. When I got out she laid it on the line, either marry me or next time you go in alone, and that was the story of my first marriage.

Which is why I excepted essentials like health from my laissez faire list. This isn't about the necessity for making gay marriage legal throughout the world. This is about the fact that you can't make people nice thru legislation, the courts can't do it without creating as many problems as they fix; and while it's painful to see people mistreated you shouldn't use a hammer to fry an egg.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "the courts can't do it without creating as many problems as they fix;"

Oh boy.

Whatever marriage is, it is most definitely a contractual, legal obligation between parties. GLBT citizens can enter into hundreds of other legal contracts, but not marriage? That is obviously separate but equal and not constitutional.

The important issue in the link above is that when they got married the wedding photography refused based on bigotry inherent in his or her religion. And that is essentially the case: the dilemma of compelled speech: bigots are compelled to photograph GLBT weddings.

The court has a lot to decide, including who and for what reasons could compel me to edit video.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:54:26 pm

Unless I read it wrong she was not compelled to do anything. She refused service and then tried to claim some sort of religious exception for doing so. But I - and please point it out to me if I am wrong - don't see where anyone compelled her to do anything. She's being sued because she refused to provide a service soley based on her judgement that gay marriage should not be "celebrated." Am I getting this wrong here?

Tim


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 12:40:26 am

[TImothy Auld] "Unless I read it wrong she was not compelled to do anything. She refused service and then tried to claim some sort of religious exception for doing so. But I - and please point it out to me if I am wrong - don't see where anyone compelled her to do anything. She's being sued because she refused to provide a service soley based on her judgement that gay marriage should not be "celebrated." Am I getting this wrong here?
"


She refused service to a suspect class (GLBT). NM laws states you cannot do that. Photographer was sued and lost. Photographer is forced to pay all the GLBT's legal bills, about $6k. Photographer appealed and lost again. Petitioned the SCOTUS. Was granted.

In effect, this has put the industry on hold until it all gets worked out. The implication is compelled speech.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 1:26:03 am

Thanks, Richard. Pretty much what I thought. Sounds like both parties decided to stand on principal and one lost.

Tim


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 7:34:55 pm

And that's where the Arizona law enters the picture (pun intended), which has been vetoed by the AZ governor and probably won't have enough votes for an override.

The law can be read here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Other states will probably pass very similar laws.

I think the current SCOTUS will strike down the NM law because it is written too broadly, and they will not discuss the First Amendment or LGBT rights.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 2:10:07 am

Richard,

Out of curiosity, have you read "Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment"?

http://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Freely-Trials-First-Amendment/dp/0143036750/...


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Mar 1, 2014 at 6:24:37 pm

No. But I will order it. Thanks!


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:48:46 pm

I think often a hammer is the proper tool, short of a French revolution sort of thing. Otherwise it's just like trying to talk sense into a bully. It rarely works.

Tim


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Not sure how to bring it up exactly...is anyone following the New Mexico photographer and AZ law?
on Feb 28, 2014 at 11:20:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's a complicated issue."

The details are brutal. Here's one ('though I'm sure you're familiar with it):

It's not actually illegal to be a bigot. It's illegal for State Actors to be bigots. The horrible instances when the police removed African Americans from restaurants received "strict scrutiny" from SCOTUS -- which forces the government to bear the burden of proof.

Race is a suspect class that receives strict scrutiny.

Sexual Orientation is a suspect class that receives intermediate scrutiny -- which means the burden of proof is upon the petitioner. The case in NM does not involve a State Actor.

I happen to enjoy legal stuff as an observer, but I can see how it would seem tedious and arcane to others. Last note, here: the Citizens United case defined campaign contributions as free speech, and I hope everyone who both edits video and reads this post contemplates the notion of What is compelled speech?


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]