Photographer was ordered to pay $6,700 today!

Bad situation.


Mike S<ul><li><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080225/CULTURE/256068479/1015">Christian photographer refuses to accept lesbian's business, gets fined $6,700!</a></li></ul>

Get on AP and look for it! :-P

<ul><li><a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/christian-photographer-fined-6600-for.html">$6,700! Niiiiiice</a></li></ul>

"The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico."

this makes my blood boil.

straight people, or she would be discriminating?

Oh what a world we live in.

MIke S

isn't it still the right of the owner of a company to say, "No thanks, I don't want your job."

I'm a little dumbfounded by this ruling. Maybe there is more to it than the news story is telling. I hope, otherwise I too could be found guilty of discriminating against stupid vidiographers that I have told to never call me again for work. There are just some people in my market that I won't work with. Does that mean I'm wrong, have broken a law and now need to pay them???!!! I hope not!

What if they had said no, because you're black, or no, you are a woman and I don't want to take your picture?

The photographer could have just said sorry, we are busy or something and just avoided this aswell..

The real issue is, are businesses forced to serve anyone?

If the church or satan called, would we have the same issue?


Mike S

The only leg that photographer has to stand on is to show that taking this woman's business would cause the photographer to violate her own belief system. In other words, she is compromising her beliefs in order to do the work. She simply can not say that she doesn't feel what they are doing is right, and she won't be party to it. She has to show how she's been compromised in the process.

I can see both sides of this, and the law does leave room for either side to be right, but unfortunately for the photographer, she has very little wiggle room when the topic of discrimination comes up. It would have been far easier to come up with another reason why she couldn't (not wouldn't) do the event.