Ohio Chatter DEV

O-Trap

Here is a copy of the Decision and Final Order in the case of Willock v. Elane Photography, LLC

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

My cousin-in-law is Elaine Huguenin, and while this is in the appeal process (and the verdict is several years old), I wanted to get the take from others.

Here is the essence of the case:

Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon are co-owners of Elane Photography, and they had a website up promoting their services.

Vanessa Willock was seeking photography services for her same-sex ceremony, and reached out to Elaine via email, asking if Elane Photography provided the service of photographing same-sex ceremonies. Elaine replied that they do not.

Vanessa and her partner discussed this, and Vanessa's partner, Misti Collinsworth, then contacted Elaine and asked about a ceremony without mention of the same-sex element.

Based on the fact that Elaine declined, they then filed a lawsuit based on discrimination.

My personal view is that the customers themselves were not being discriminated against, but that the service to be provided was. Had a same-sex couple (ie the "customers) come to Elaine and asked that she photograph their child's heterosexual wedding, she would have agreed to do so. Customer has the same orientation, but the service is different.

What do you guys think?

FWK, I'm especially interested in your take, being from the LGBT community.

CenterBHSFan

I think that the business has the right to choose who they want to do business with, and decline those that they do not.
Same with potential customers - they have the right to take their business (and money!) to somebody else.

O-Trap

CenterBHSFan;647299 wrote:I think that the business has the right to choose who they want to do business with, and decline those that they do not.
Same with potential customers - they have the right to take their business (and money!) to somebody else.

Thing is, there are protected classes that come into place, and I don't necessarily mind that. However, they weren't even discriminating against the person(s) seeking their services. They've simply chosen not to provide that kind of service. If the same couple asked someone to do one of their fathers' birthday, or a nephew's graduation, they would have done it. It wasn't the customer that they declined. It was the service requested.

fan_from_texas

A good write-up of the relevant legal issues is at http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1207764182.shtml.

I think it's problematic from a 1st A. standpoint for the government to tell artists what kind of art they have to produce, even if that art is a commercial action.

mella

And this is why a business owner needs to get all the facts about what service is being asked for, when the service is to be provided, etc.... and then lie and say they are booked on that date. This decision is a load of crap.

O-Trap

mella;647326 wrote:And this is why a business owner needs to get all the facts about what service is being asked for, when the service is to be provided, etc.... and then lie and say they are booked on that date. This decision is a load of crap.

They discussed lying, but decided that being completely honest was the best business practice ... and it was. The legal system simply failed them.

FatHobbit

CenterBHSFan;647299 wrote:I think that the business has the right to choose who they want to do business with, and decline those that they do not.
Same with potential customers - they have the right to take their business (and money!) to somebody else.

What if a business decides to not provide a service because the customer is black? Should that be their right? IMHO it's not much different.

Manhattan Buckeye

FatHobbit;647347 wrote:What if a business decides to not provide a service because the customer is black? Should that be their right? IMHO it's not much different.

An excellent point, but even then a business can cater to race-specific service seekers (i.e. people performing hair extensions and weaves that normally cater to black customers) without agreeing to perform all services (i.e. cutting Clay Matthews' hair).

This case appears to be in the middle. On the one hand, if say Starbucks refuses to serve lesbian customers because they are lesbians they are likely in conflict with state anti-discrimination laws. On the other hand if an attorney advertises that they handle divorce matters in California, and a lesbian wants to seek said services if the attorney isn't comfortable with their expertise in same-sex divorces it doesn't appear to be discrimination if they turn down that representation (I liken this to the eHarmony situation).

At any rate, IMO extra-legal pursuits should have taken place, O-Trap's cousin-in-law could simply have said they are busy or refer them to a photographer that specializes in same-sex weddings, and likewise if the couple was really serious about their wedding, they should seek out a photographer that suits their needs rather than making a political issue out of it.

mella

FatHobbit;647347 wrote:What if a business decides to not provide a service because the customer is black? Should that be their right? IMHO it's not much different.

I think it might be. A person is born black, that is a fact. It is still unkown if all homosexuals are born gay or made a lifestyle choice. My sister was married for 5 years and then discovered she was gay. She lived the lifestyle for a number of years but now she is dating men again.

Denying a person a meal, medical service, a bus ride because they are gay seems ridiculous to me, but saying you don't want to photograph a wedding because it violates your religious beliefs seems reasonable. It doesn't sound like the photographer was rude. Why is it that a state can say same sex marriage is not legal but a photographer can't say I am not comfortable taking these pictures?

fish82

FatHobbit;647347 wrote:What if a business decides to not provide a service because the customer is black? Should that be their right? IMHO it's not much different.

Yes, it should. You're free not to frequent their business, and to get out the pitchforks and boycott if you see fit.

There was a bar owner in Cincy a couple years ago who refused to serve anyone who didn't speak English. People harrumphed and lit the torches, but they couldn't lay a glove on him.

fan_from_texas

FatHobbit;647347 wrote:What if a business decides to not provide a service because the customer is black? Should that be their right? IMHO it's not much different.

As MB noted, this is probably going to run afoul of state anti-discrimination laws.

In my mind, a key issue here is that wedding photography is a form of art. To steal from the link I put earlier, envision a situation in which a gay person went to a freelance writer and requested that s/he write a pro-gay piece. I think it's pretty obvious that the gov't couldn't (shouldn't?) force the writer to engage in speech that the writer finds objectionable. Yet that's what is being done here--just because art is commercial doesn't mean that the gov't can tell an artist what kind of art they need to create. That strikes me as an absurd result.

Writerbuckeye

A ridiculous lawsuit and shame on the couple for perpetrating it.

Let a business cater to whomever they like. If they turn enough people away or do a bad job (or both) they won't be in business very long.

When it comes to this stuff, I think the market should be the determining factor. This wasn't a life or death matter, or anything even remotely close to a necessity of life (like food).

I don't understand why gay couples do these types of lawsuits because, in the end, I think it hurts more than helps their cause, especially with folks who might be on the borderline about the whole gay rights debate. If they REALLY want to make a statement, then give their business to one that is gay friendly (or owned) so that that business can flourish.

This just seems petty and vindictive.

iclfan2

Sounds like some bullshit to me.

dwccrew

This seems like the legal system has failed your cousin-in-law. I agree with everything FFT has said on this matter.

stlouiedipalma

Writerbuckeye;647392 wrote:A ridiculous lawsuit and shame on the couple for perpetrating it.

Let a business cater to whomever they like. If they turn enough people away or do a bad job (or both) they won't be in business very long.

When it comes to this stuff, I think the market should be the determining factor. This wasn't a life or death matter, or anything even remotely close to a necessity of life (like food).

I don't understand why gay couples do these types of lawsuits because, in the end, I think it hurts more than helps their cause, especially with folks who might be on the borderline about the whole gay rights debate. If they REALLY want to make a statement, then give their business to one that is gay friendly (or owned) so that that business can flourish.

This just seems petty and vindictive.

I agree. They could have furthered their cause better by getting another photographer. Word of mouth would see to it that Elaine wouldn't get any of their business.

I Wear Pants

I agree that the outcome was the incorrect one in this case and people do and should have the right to refuse business to people.

That said, I think it's incredibly moronic what your cousin-in-law did. Legal in my mind but really damned stupid.

Gblock

i think they should have took the pictures. if they were a restaurant would they have said you cant eat here cause your a same sex couple? i might think otherwise if they had it written in their policies or advertised as such on their website tho.

Gblock

they are lucky these folks didnt try and get some money...it looks like they could have but instead only took lawyer fees

Manhattan Buckeye

Gblock;647851 wrote:i think they should have took the pictures. if they were a restaurant would they have said you cant eat here cause your a same sex couple? i might think otherwise if they had it written in their policies or advertised as such on their website tho.

I think there's a difference. A restaurant shouldn't care who eats their food, it doesn't affect the way they prepare it. Wedding photographers, particularly the real high ends ones, typically have their own skill set and tend to run the show at weddings with respect to their practice. If you have a photographer that specializes in traditional weddings and has their own manner of proceeding and certain poses and angles they prefer, I'm not sure its good public policy to force them to take on a possible new skillset. Whether its performing a same-sex wedding or a non-traditional heterosexual wedding. If I'm a wedding photographer and a couple tells me they want a halloween themed wedding and everyone will be wearing goth and monster garb, I think I should be able to politely decline if I don't think my skillset would fit their needs.

FatHobbit

Manhattan Buckeye;648237 wrote:I think there's a difference. A restaurant shouldn't care who eats their food, it doesn't affect the way they prepare it. Wedding photographers, particularly the real high ends ones, typically have their own skill set and tend to run the show at weddings with respect to their practice. If you have a photographer that specializes in traditional weddings and has their own manner of proceeding and certain poses and angles they prefer, I'm not sure its good public policy to force them to take on a possible new skillset. Whether its performing a same-sex wedding or a non-traditional heterosexual wedding. If I'm a wedding photographer and a couple tells me they want a halloween themed wedding and everyone will be wearing goth and monster garb, I think I should be able to politely decline if I don't think my skillset would fit their needs.

I don't disagree with you 100%, but I'm not sure I would equate a same sex wedding to a halloween themed wedding.

Manhattan Buckeye

Why not? Both require additional instruction from the couple. Sure, they aren't the "same thing" but they are alike in that they differ from the potential vendor's expertise. A traditional wedding photographer has their own methods that they are familiar with.

The OP's cousin-in-law should have simply said "We have not in the past handled a same-sex wedding" and if the lesbians wanted to keep going with it she should have met with them and explained that the extra consultation time could result in extra cost, and the possibility that she didn't think she could handle the job effectively.

O-Trap

Gblock;647851 wrote:i think they should have took the pictures. if they were a restaurant would they have said you cant eat here cause your a same sex couple? i might think otherwise if they had it written in their policies or advertised as such on their website tho.

The difference is, the orientation of the customer (ie the person who came to them) was irrelevant. It was the service they were seeking that Elaine simply doesn't provide.

If a heterosexual man/woman/couple came and asked her to do their child's same-sex ceremony, she still would have declined. Same would apply the other way. If a gay couple came and asked her to do their child's heterosexual wedding, she would do it. The orientation of the customer is irrelevant. It's the service desired that they don't provide.

In a restaurant, the product/services rendered are a one-size-fits-all. This isn't the case here. Same sex couple or opposite sex couple ... if they were planning a same-sex ceremony, that's just not something that Elaine and Jon do, regardless of who the customer is.

IWP, you may disagree with their convictions, but why do you find it moronic for someone to live in accordance with their convictions?

O-Trap

Also, I find it odd that the couple asked on two different occasions, and in a way that seems to scream that they were gathering evidence and looking for a reason to sue.

I'm personally a proponent of same-sex marriages, but not like this.

I Wear Pants

Because their convictions are idiotic.

Oh no, I better not take pictures of those eeeeeeeeeeevilll homos.

Maybe gay people wouldn't file ridiculous lawsuits if people weren't jerks that treat them differently.

If your friend didn't offer theme weddings and this was a gay theme wedding then I agree completely. However, if this is simply a normal service with gay people I think it's absurd that the person wouldn't take the job for any reason other than time constraints or being unavailable.

I don't particularly think we should legislate them into doing it but that doesn't stop it from being incredibly stupid.

"Living with my convictions" is a cop out for "I'm a bigot" a lot of the time.

So yes, I think this particular conviction of Elaine and Jon is completely moronic. That's like saying the Westboro Baptist people aren't gigantic bigoted assholes because they're just living in accordance with their convictions.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:Because their convictions are idiotic.

Oh no, I better not take pictures of those eeeeeeeeeeevilll homos.

First, convictions, in their truest sense, cannot be helped, so calling them "idiotic" is rather closed-minded. A conviction (where we get "convinced") is something you are persuaded is true. That's not an opinion issue, that can be changed on a whim.

They didn't say they were "eeeeeeeeeevill homos," and they don't believe that they are "eeeeeeeeevill homos." They don't treat same-sex couples differently. That's just a service they don't provide TO ANYONE.

They didn't treat this couple any differently than they would treat a heterosexual person/couple who asked them to do a same-sex ceremony, or any other ceremony that they were not comfortable doing.

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:Maybe gay people wouldn't file ridiculous lawsuits if people weren't jerks that treat them differently.

As I said, they didn't treat them differently because they were a same-sex couple. Show where either Jon or Elaine was a "jerk."

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:If your friend didn't offer theme weddings and this was a gay theme wedding then I agree completely. However, if this is simply a normal service with gay people I think it's absurd that the person wouldn't take the job for any reason other than time constraints or being unavailable.

It's no different than someone saying they don't do Bar Mitzvahs, even if they do Sweet 16 parties.

And why would a theme wedding change your mind?

What if the couple had a Satanic ceremony, and the minister would be praying to Satan throughout the ceremony (other than that, the ceremony being normal). Would they still be assholes for not doing it?

Not agreeing with a certain action doesn't equate to treating people who do that action as lesser beings. Anyone who says otherwise is using a false dichotomy, which is a pretty common fallacy, but ignorant, nonetheless.

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:I don't particularly think we should legislate them into doing it but that doesn't stop it from being incredibly stupid.

Labeling something based on a conclusion rather than the process of thought which brought a person to said conclusion is an ignorant thing to do.

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:"Living with my convictions" is a cop out for "I'm a bigot" a lot of the time.

It is used that way sometimes, I agree. Judging someone based on their convictions, however, is equally bigoted. Saying that anyone who thinks same-sex relationships are wrong are stupid is just as bigoted and ignorant as someone saying that people who are in such relationships are any more evil than anyone else.

For what it's worth, they don't think being in a same-sex relationship is any worse than a little white lie.

I Wear Pants;648810 wrote:So yes, I think this particular conviction of Elaine and Jon is completely moronic. That's like saying the Westboro Baptist people aren't gigantic bigoted assholes because they're just living in accordance with their convictions.

Wow. False analogy fallacy.

Elaine and Jon are not treating anyone differently for being gay. The Westboro Baptist Church paints them as the greatest evil in America.

Jon and Elaine never sought out someone to hurt, and tried to ensure that nobody's feelings would be hurt, because they care about people, regardless of orientation. The Westboro Baptist Church seeks out places for the purpose of voicing their discriminant language with a loud, violent tone.

Jon and Elaine believe that God loves gay people. The WBC voices the opposite.

You're entitled to make baseless assumptions, stemming from what seem to be sweeping strokes with a very broad brush, but that's an ignorant way to approach people. Do you know how or why they came to that conclusion? Did you follow their thought process, so that you could gauge it to be either sound or fallacious? Of course not, because you don't know them.

Your words and beliefs in this thread have been more hateful and prejudicial than ANYTHING Jon and Elaine ever did or said in this whole thing.

Archive

My Cousin-in-Law's initial hearing verdict