Christopher Maxwell Photography business-can he be sued?

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

Read this interesting article on Salon.com:

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — In a case that tests anti-discrimination protection for gays, a religious rights group told the New Mexico Supreme Court on Monday that a photographer who declined to shoot the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple was exercising her rights to free speech and artistic freedom....

The case stems from Huguenin’s refusal in 2006 to photograph a commitment ceremony between Vanessa Wilcock and another woman.

 

Wilcock found another photographer to shoot the ceremony but filed an anti-discrimination claim with the Human Rights Commission, which found Huguenin’s studio violated state law and ordered her to pay nearly $7,000 in attorney fees.

 

A state district judge and the New Mexico Court of Appeals have upheld that ruling.

 

It was unclear when the New Mexico Supreme Court will issue a ruling.

(http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/appeal_ ... s_heard_2/)

 

I immediately thought of Christopher Maxwell's wacky wedding criteria:

General Criteria:

No Sunday weddings

First wedding for bride and/or groom

Valid marriage license

No alcohol

No dancing (except between the bride and groom)

Modest attire for bride and bridesmaids

christophermaxwell.com/wedding-information.htm

 

Surely that is discrimination? I don't live in the US so don't know how the laws work very well but if someone refused to shoot a lesbian wedding & an anti-discrimination claim was filed (& won) could someone do the same to Christopher? Something to think about

[mlady]

I can't imagine this will be won by the lesbian couple. A freelancer or job-for-hire doesn't have to take every job offered and doesn't have to explain why/why not. Forget free speech and artistic freedom, being able to work when you want, or not, is why people go into business for themselves.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

I can't imagine this will be won by the lesbian couple. A freelancer or job-for-hire doesn't have to take every job offered and doesn't have to explain why/why not.

Well the Human Rights Commission found Huguenin’s studio violated state law and ordered her to pay nearly $7,000 in attorney fees. A state district judge and the New Mexico Court of Appeals have upheld that ruling.

[DarkAnts]

Depends on state laws. Homosexuals dont have any anti discrimination protection under federal law. I know of someone who got fired from their job in Utah because they were in a same sex relationship. NM is fairly progressive compared to Utah. They do have laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

[mlady]

That's disturbing isn't it? Granted, I don't know the details of this photographers business or how the whole thing went down, but I'd hate thinking anyone had the power to tell me I couldn't turn down work or HAD to do something based solely on their "protected status" under the law.

[nelliebelle1197]

I can't imagine this will be won by the lesbian couple. A freelancer or job-for-hire doesn't have to take every job offered and doesn't have to explain why/why not.

I am surprised it made it this far. Sexual orientation is not protected under anti discrimination laws as a class (yet another reason we need gay marriage). Do you have a link to the decision?

[musicalbookworm]

Let me get this straight, doctors and pharmacists can refuse to do their fucking job which is bloody essential and they can refuse to do their jobs when they might be a desperate woman's only hope. But a freelance wedding photographer gets a judgement against her for refusing to do a wedding?! A non-essential service not to mention you can swing a camera strap without hitting a wedding photographer?! :angry-screaming:

What the actual fuck?!

Stop this planet I wanna get off now!

FTR, I'm all in favor of gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws. If I encountered a photog who wouldn't shoot fat or disabled people I'd make sure he world knew about their bullshit, but I wouldn't bother with suing them. (Trust me on this....Don't. Fuck with. Journalists.) :D

[jjmennonite]

Chalk up another win for the SOTDRT

first wedding for the bride and/or groom

So only one of them needs to be having a first wedding? I don't think that means what you think it means, Max.

[YPestis]

I'm not sure I understand how we can sue someone for NOT taking our business. As the above poster pointed out, the point of being a freelancer is that you have the right to turn down jobs, regardless of reasons.

I don't think these types of lawsuits will deter discrimination. This isn't Target banning gays. This is a freelancer not wanting to have your business. A lawsuit like this will only mean that they will find some other reason to reject your business next time. I would rather photographers announce upfront what their criterias are for their business, rather than have me waste my time considering them.

As for Christopher Maxwell....there's nothing on his list that falls under anti-discrimination statutes. There's no law protecting those that have weddings on Sundays, or don't dress modestly, or drink and dance. Even if he specified religion as a criteria, I think the court would side with him for not wanting to photograph in a religious ceremony that is not his own.

[Arete]

I can't imagine enough people with sense or any type of appreciation of photography wanting to hire Christopher Maxwell, much less suing him for not taking their business. Personally, I'm glad people like Maxwell and the anti-gay photographer are so up front about their prejudices, because I would hate the thought of inadvertantly giving business to an asshole.

[lovemygsp]

IIRC from my photog forums it was the way that the photog handled it and actually said something pretty uncalled for. All who I've talked to agree that she was asking for a suit. If she really had a problem she should have just said sorry, that date is booked and move on.

[hoipolloi]

Ha! Heard the news story about this case on NPR today and immediately thought of our favorite goody-two-shoes wedding photographer.

Come to FJ and what do I find? More proof that my mother is right -- great minds think alike! :dance:

[Minerva]

Someone would actually have to want to hire Christopher Maxwell first. Then they'd have to be in a state with anti-discrimination laws. So unlikely.

[PurpleSheepleEater]

Well the Human Rights Commission found Huguenin’s studio violated state law and ordered her to pay nearly $7,000 in attorney fees. A state district judge and the New Mexico Court of Appeals have upheld that ruling.

It has everything to do with what the photographer said though. If the photographer had just said no without any reason, claimed to be booked, busy, whatever it's one thing but as soon as they start saying they won't do it because of who the person is it opens the door to discrimination.

[Miggy]

I'm with Christopher on this one. No one should be forced to take on work they don't want. It is discrimination when someone won't employ you because of your sexuality. I don't see it as discrimination when someone does not want to be employed by you because of your sexuality.

I find Christopher's list quite interesting and there are a few questions I would love to ask;

# No Sunday weddings: Is this because you have a spiritual objection to Sunday weddings or is it because you choose not to work on Sundays? If it is a spiritual objection, what is this objection?

# First wedding for bride and groom: Why? The bible instructs those who have had a partner die to remarry. What is your objection to photographing such a marriage? (I suspect it is because this did not occur to you when you wrote this list and what you meant was that you would not marry a divorcee.)

# No dancing except bride and groom: Why is some dancing acceptable and some not? I understand that some Christians believe dancing provokes feelings that can not be satisfied but what is wrong with married couples dancing together? The grooms parents? The brides parents? If those watching are likely to have their passions aroused then surely all dancing should be forbidden.

I would also like to point out to Christopher that my wedding met all the above criteria except for the dancing but was rather liberal. It doesn't mention anything about the couple having been living together for a couple of years prior to the wedding and already having kids, does it?

None of these questions are meant to sound nasty - I am really am curious to know how he would answer.

[YPestis]

I'm with Christopher on this one. No one should be forced to take on work they don't want. It is discrimination when someone won't employ you because of your sexuality. I don't see it as discrimination when someone does not want to be employed by you because of your sexuality.

I find Christopher's list quite interesting and there are a few questions I would love to ask;

# No Sunday weddings: Is this because you have a spiritual objection to Sunday weddings or is it because you choose not to work on Sundays? If it is a spiritual objection, what is this objection?

# First wedding for bride and groom: Why? The bible instructs those who have had a partner die to remarry. What is your objection to photographing such a marriage? (I suspect it is because this did not occur to you when you wrote this list and what you meant was that you would not marry a divorcee.)

# No dancing except bride and groom: Why is some dancing acceptable and some not? I understand that some Christians believe dancing provokes feelings that can not be satisfied but what is wrong with married couples dancing together? The grooms parents? The brides parents? If those watching are likely to have their passions aroused then surely all dancing should be forbidden.

I would also like to point out to Christopher that my wedding met all the above criteria except for the dancing but was rather liberal. It doesn't mention anything about the couple having been living together for a couple of years prior to the wedding and already having kids, does it?

None of these questions are meant to sound nasty - I am really am curious to know how he would answer.

You've put far more thought into Christopher's criteria than him. You are correct that he really meant divorcee when he talked about 'first time bride/groom'. For some reason, he forgot that some people remarry because their spouse died. The dancing thing also makes no sense. I think what Christopher feared was dancing between unmarried couples (which is common at most weddings). However, he forget that many weddings also include married ones so his rule is kind of silly. However, I think the Sunday ban is fairly common with many fundies. They don't want to work on Sundays as it is a day of rest. I do find it interesting that Christopher doesn't explicitly state "Christian-only" weddings. I think it never occurred to him he may get requests from nonChristain families. Of course, he does try to advertise around fundie circles so that issue may never come up.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

Actually YPestis he does say:

Wedding Photography Criteria & Rates

I am only currently accepting conservative Christian weddings. If your wedding doesn't meet the criteria, don't worry - there are lots of highly-skilled photographers available.

[TheJewAmongUs]

I can't believe people would actually pay him $1250 for those pictures. I thought the preview for the wedding from August looked overexposed, so I checked out the gallery. I laughed at the first picture of the dress with the water bottle and make-up case visible in the background. Several pictures are over exposed to the point where details of the dress are barely visible. And then there's all the shots where it looks like he deliberately muted the colors. I guess using bright colors at a wedding is also a no-no for the Maxwells.

[snarkbillie]

I really don't understand this. Really. I can't comment without sounding like some kind of bigot though. Like, I was told by a lawyer that I could not sue a doctor for a misdiagnosis because the misdiagnosis didn't cause any "harm" to me. I don't understand how someone can sue for discrimination in this situation. What harm was caused?

tl;dr about the misdiagnosis: he said I had one thing that is basically un-treatable but instead I had this other thing that is treatable and I got really sick. The disease caused the harm though, not the doctor. Even though he didn't do a test that he probably should have done, which I thought was negligent.

[Arete]

It would be nice if a voluntary "ethical seal" could be issued to vendors who would promise not to discriminate on the basis of race, class, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Almost like a kosher certificate, if you'll pardon the expression. The only "punishment" for not having one would be people taking their business elsewhere.

That way, people could have some marginal assurance that their money was not being spent keeping jerks in business. No hiding behind the "oh, we're booked that day....". In fact, I'm pretty sure the likes of Christopher Maxwell and company would welcome other vendors having such a seal. It would reduce the number of "undesirable clients" they needed to turn away. :roll: A win-win for everyone involved.

I get Christopher Maxwell not doing Sunday weddings, it is his day of rest. Same as an Orthodox Jewish photographer not taking business requiring them to do shoots on a Saturday. I do not understand why he needs fifty words to say what two will... "no divorcees". As to the dancing, he belongs to that mercifully small sub-segment of Christianity that believes that you aught to have enough assurance in the good "character" of your guests to not have to worry anyone will spontaneously decide to get up and dance. These aren't people who have friends outside of their religious bubble and they cut off the relatives who don't toe the line.

I have been to weddings without alcohol, but never to one without dancing. What do people do at weddings where there is neither drinking nor shaking of tail feathers? :shock: Not like fundies are known for their incredible food spreads.

Edited because I forgot he does allow for dancing between the bride and groom. I guess them getting their freak on is OK because they are the only people in the room he absolutely knows can get their lusts excited and have sexual intercourse that is pleasing to the Lord.

[wild little fox]

He won't be photographing my wedding. My SO was married twice before, we are not getting legally married, and we'll both be nude with clothing optional for the wedding party and guests.

(I'm joking about the last part)

[Guest Anonymous]

It looks to me as though Christopher's Terms and Conditions would be legal in the State of Kansas?

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news ... rimination

[Miggy]

He won't be photographing my wedding. My SO was married twice before, we are not getting legally married, and we'll both be nude with clothing optional for the wedding party and guests.

(I'm joking about the last part)

When you say "joking about the last part", does that mean that the guests will have to be nude, same as you? :lol: (Clothing optional = a joke?)

I would like to offer my services as a musician for your wedding - sounds like it will be a fun day.

[HereticHick]

I had a wedding without dancing. It was in a restaurant, with a federal judge. So it was basically: cocktail hour (with string quartet), 4 minute civil ceremony, sit down dinner, cake cutting, more drinking. Worked for us!

[nokidsmom]

I am not sure about whether or not he could be sued, however, he doesn't seem to do a lot of weddings anyway. Maybe it's because of his "requirements" or maybe it's just a result of being Maxwell-sheltered that he doesn't have a lot of contacts and therefore has a limited network. So the odds of a gay couple coming to him to do a wedding would be very low.