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

[James Culbertson]

[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.

[Bill Davis]

[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.

[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

[Chris Kenny]

[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.

[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.

Part of being a freelancer is picking and choosing jobs.

[Mitch Ives]

[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

[Mitch Ives]

[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

[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

Tim

[Andrew Kimery]

[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?

[Jeremy Garchow]

[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.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/27/5452520/exxon-mobil-ceo-says-water-tower-lawsuit-isnt-related-to-fracking

https://www.thenation.com/blog/178534/exxons-pro-fracking-ceo-suing-stop-fracking-near-his-mansion#

I should probably get the frack out of here.