In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.
So, anything goes now, it’s official. Now I understand from the start of this article that I live in Alabama, where I would probably be sued if I did take wedding photography of a gay marriage, but this is just over the edge. This article is not about gay marriage, really. It is about the freedoms you have as a small business owner, and citizen of this country called America. Today, most of you are almost automatically bias and on a “side” depending on your current life situation, but still, this is really out of hand.
Vanessa Willock vs Elane Photography [HRD# 06-12-20-0685]
This morning while getting ready for service, I started reading my usual list of blogs and news articles when I came across the most ridiculous story I have seen in quite some time. In New Mexico there is a woman who has a wedding photography business called Elane Photography.
She was asked to shoot a wedding between two woman (one being Vanessa Willock, a professor at UNM) in New Mexico. When she refused to take the job saying she only shoots “traditional” weddings, she was sued.
Ok, nothing new here in this day and time I guess. Sad, but typical. In this country now, anyone can sue anyone for any reason at all, but one big difference in this case, she lost. The NM Human Rights Division found her guilty and required to pay damages.
Vanessa Willock Was Laying in Wait, it Seems
The gay couple who wanted Elane’s photography services, filed this complaint, but it looks like she was just waiting for someone to turn her down. Turns out of course that along with working for UNM, Ms. Vanessa Willock is also an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity.
What does she do there? She investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment for the state, and to top it off, she is also a member of the Diversity Committee at the University of New Mexico. All that begs the question of the motives Willock has or had when trying to hire this photographer and a case could be made that she was just waiting for someone to say no!
New Mexico Now Picking Your Clients?
Last time I checked we still lived in a free country? This is not some big organization under equal opportunity laws, this is a two person husband and wife photography business. I don’t know anyone that does freelance work that is required to take a job, but now the state of New Mexico is telling this couple what business clients they have to accept!
News West 9: The state Human Rights Commission ruled in April that Elane Photography violated the Human Rights Act by discriminating against Vanessa Willock on the basis of sexual orientation.
Willock contended Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her that she photographed only traditional marriages.
I don’t really care what the issue is pertaining to, how in the world can the state tell a two person business what clients they can and can’t take. I know there are a ton of photographers who have refused certain jobs for one reason or another. What happened if the “minister” refused to marry them (unlikely I know, they would have hand picked her) on the basis of Paul’s letter to the Romans or something. Is the state going to “force” religious institutions now to marry people just because the state says it is ok?
Any small business can be sued for any reason if they refuse their services to anyone now I guess. What ever happened to “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Guess those days are long gone and the only thing that remains is the actual sign on the business door.
A free marketplace dictates that if one business refuses, another will receive that business. You know, Supply and demand, expenses, profit, all that business type stuff. Obviously the money is less important to Elane Photography than the issue, so just take your business somewhere else. Do we have to sue EVERYONE now?
New Mexico Getting Slammed for Good Reason
I guess this is where New Mexico wants to be. Apparently there are also 20 others states that have these types of refusal laws in place. You take one tiny, and I mean TINY minority (the gay population is said to be around 2%) of any kind, doesn’t matter what it is, their rights supersede those of everyone else. There are so many issues with this particular case it is hard to know what to pick on, but leave it up to the bloggers and they will do a good job as always. So, blogs and news sites galore are slamming New Mexico for good reason. Just to name a few, we have:
- Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job
- Christian Photographer tried before Human Rights Division in New Mexico
- Elane photography violated NM law, rules commision
- NM commission rules photographer discriminated against gay couple
and it really just goes on and on. I am sorry, but how stupid are these people on the New Mexico commission or the state in total for putting these ridiculous laws in place and for telling a two person business what clients they have to take. Not only is the state telling me how to run my business but they are requiring someone to do something that is against their religious principles in favor of something that most people in this country are against in the first place.
Have You as a Photographer Ever Refused a Job?
So, I know there are tons of Christian Wedding photographers out there. Are you going to do a wedding because the state tells you to? I really don’t care what the issue is, gay marriage, the intelligence level of the bride/groom, green men from mars, who cares, you own your own business so you can take the clients you want to take, right?
Well, the suit is now up for appeal and The Alliance Defense Fund’s appeal asks the state district court to reverse the commission’s decision and dismiss Willock’s complaint.” Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and Ms Willock will have to pay for her own expenses and this won’t set a precedent across the states, making it illegal to not work, if that is the choice you make.
What a ridiculous situation! I can’t believe that kind of crap is going on in this country. Apparently freedom went out the window a long time ago.
amoslankas last blog post..Over The Weekend
[...] wanted to go ahead and post an update to my post called Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit where the NM State Commission ruled against a photographer who refused to shoot a non-traditional [...]
Wow, you spend a little bit of time casting suspicion on the motives of the plaintiff, but what facts do you have? It’s just bald speculation.
As to the little business owned by two persons, if those two persons owned a food stand, and refused to serve Af-Am customers, simply because of who they are, that would clearly be covered as a violation under the most basic constitutional case law.
And that case law arose out of situations right where you live, in the deep South. I mean, honestly, you have NO idea whether the days are past when people can put up signs claiming their right not to serve who they don’t want to serve? Time to call up your local high school history teacher and ask if you can sit in on some classes.
@joel thanks for the comment but I think you totally missed the point, it had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue AT ALL, it is the state trying to tell a private business that they must change their beliefs to suit the state and accept specific clients.
This is NOT a food related business, and is more like telling an artist (of any kind) they MUST do a work of “x” people, which is reduculous.
The laws are different for larger businesses with actual employees than mom and pop businesses, and your comment is totally bias to a pro gay marriage stance, which isn’t the point.
You (presumably) want gay marriage but do not think someone doing something strickly according to their own religion should be able to do that???
You presume a lot about what I did not say, but what I think is wrong is the state telling a person how to run their business, regardless of the issue.
Scott Fillmers last blog post..Creative Chaos 21 // The Money Series
Agreed, let’s focus on the law and leave the particular issue (gay marriage) aside.
You continue to emphasize the size of the business, what service they are providing, and especially whether the business is owned by a few members of a family.
None of that is relevant under the law.
An apartment for rent (non-food business), owned by a mom and pop (not a large company), cannot decide against renting to a mixed-race couple, or a Scientologist couple, or a devout Muslim family, or any other protected class.
Under the particulars you raised, such discrimination would be entirely acceptable. Unless, of course, you can tell us how in that instance “The laws are different for larger businesses with actual employees than mom and pop businesses.”
You also dip back into the particular issue (gay marriage) after you suggested it shouldn’t be the focus: “You (presumably) want gay marriage but do not think someone doing something strickly according to their own religion should be able to do that???”
By “doing that” do you actually mean a religious practice, or offering goods and services to the public, which is regulated by gov’t? If “doing something strictly according to their own religion” involves religious worship or practice, absolutely they are unregulated. But offering a good/service in the public sphere is not, say, conducting worship. Renting an apartment, photographic services, selling dry goods, etc. are not religious practices, they are goods and services, subject to state/local regulations and laws.
You write: “[I]t is the state trying to tell a private business that they must change their beliefs to suit the state and accept specific clients.”
No, the people of the state, through the state, are telling private businesses that they may not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless of whether the discrimination arises from their “beliefs.”
Businesses are not mandated to “change” their beliefs. They must conform to certain standards when participating in society as economic agents, but they may always refuse to change their beliefs.
As Joel suggested, laws prohibiting racial discrimination are no different. No law requires people to think highly of African Americans, or even to think of them as equals. The law addresses only conduct. The same is true here.
How can a society as diverse as ours function if people withhold business transactions based on whether they find the other party personally distasteful? As Voltaire famously observed, “Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt.”
Every day people engage in transactions not only with people whose views or conduct they find distasteful, but in such a way that their business profit aids and abets the very thing they dislike. For several years I worked in a small, independent bookstore where many customers seemed to have an insatiable desire for books on certain religious, New Age, and pseudoscientific topics, all of which I personally believe to be psychologically damaging and socially harmful. But I never refused to sell those books or to stock them in the store. Nor did I hide them from display or do anything that would make it more difficult for customers to get to them. Why? Because I recognize that my personal beliefs are personal, but when I am participating in society as a citizen of a free nation where we value the freedom of the individual, my personal beliefs are not to be imposed on others.
Why religious people should be immune from that distinction eludes me. But I do know that on the rare occasion when the bookstore where I worked had, for whatever reason, failed to stock a particular book that a customer sought, people were quick to claim ideological victimhood, often in an offensive manner. “Are you just too liberal to carry that book?” No, I had just not ordered it, but was always glad to order anything anyone desired—even if I thought it was ridiculous or insidious claptrap.
Here a religious person blatantly refused to participate in a transaction not unlike selling books—and arguably considerably less involved in the alleged distasteful activity because merely photographing an event one opposes hardly provides the kind of explicit ideological support found in books. That her business was punished for that refusal does not amount to compelling a change in her beliefs, or even an imposition on them—certainly no more than selling books I believe harmful was an imposition on my personal beliefs. She can continue believing as fervently as she likes that homosexuality is wrong, but that rightly provides no safe harbor for discriminatory conduct.
To demand, as you do impliedly, that religious people be allowed to withhold business transactions or other civil interactions from those they find distasteful is to advocate a fractured society, where people may do business or otherwise interact only with those whose views they agree with. That is not the way of freedom or a robust democratic society. It promotes the establishment of myriad factions and ideological backwaters where tensions and prejudices can be cultivated until they are ripe for hideous conflict, far more destructive than something so relatively peaceful as litigation.
@joel one part of your argument is incorrect, and that is that smaller business are regulated the same as large ones, this is incorrect, but the differences are specific to smaller companies. A single individual, partnership, or “small” business that has less than a certain number of employees (it is different in each state) do not have to follow certain requirements, mainly because they are barriers to doing business.
For example, smaller businesses are now required to carry specific heath insurance for their employees if they are under a certain number, or you could also take affirmative action. When that was in place, smaller business did not have to hire or interview a certain number of minorities. Some of this was just out of practicality and would greatly hinder small business, in many cases making it impossible to do business.
@joel and @peter The bookstore example is a good one, but believe it or not, my wife and I own a book business also, and as you said, we do not pull books on topics we don’t like, or refuse to sell books by certain authors, we list our books strictly according to the profit margin, nothing else. In fact we have sold many books on scientology, witchcraft, astrology, and we also sell a lot of Christian book too.
The problem I have with that argument is I don’t think it is anywhere near the same as something that I consider an art form, and photography has long been considered an art form (I have also been a photographer for about 15 years now). You can not tell me that something that requires a certainly level of creativity and becomes a personal creative of the artist is the same as selling a book. To me, the images I have taken over the last 15 years represents me, who I am, and shows how I have grown as an artist and photographer. I even think there is a difference in shooting a street scene with gays or any other specific group totally different from a wedding.
Where a wedding reflects on the photographer, a gay parade (for lack of a better example) reflects on society. There is a big difference.
You both seem to think I am advocating some form of discrimination, which is completely false. In just the two examples I gave above, it could be detrimental to the business if single sold proprietorships were required to follow the exact same regulations as large corporations, so they don’t.
You both see this as a discrimination issue, which is telling all by itself as to where you stand. If this person, being a “Christian Photographer” has mostly Christian clients for one reason or another, FORCING the photographer to shoot a gay wedding could very well be detrimental to her business, something the state can not do, and should not do.
Picking the argument that this is discrimination borders on ridiculous, in this situation (to me). I will also contend that if this was Disney, refusing to shoot photos of gay vacationers while they are already engaged in shooting other couples, that is a different story, and in that case, I would probably agree with the discrimination argument.
There is a BIG difference in the scenario above, and a single photographer who is trying to eek out a living as a wedding photographer.
This doesn’t even touch on the fact that the state could very well be requiring a person to be doing something specifically against their religious beliefs, which does not seem to be an important issue from the comments above, but I am sure it is an important issue to her.
I would make no distinction between this being a religious belief of a Christian, Jew, or Buddhist, I would respect it the same because I want to be able to have the freedom to worship the way I believe, not the state.
These are many many issues that face our country today, but it wasn’t the point of my original post. It is not a gay marriage thing to me (or discrimination), it is an issue of business, and I don’t want the state telling me how to run my business, especially when doing so would mean I would have a good chance of loosing my customer base or going out of business.
After all this, what I still don’t get and it seems to run wild amongst “discrimination” and “victim” banter is why in the world would you want a wedding photographer who DOESN’T want to shoot your wedding, to do so????? An event which memories are often made via the photos that are taken, and you would want someone who doesn’t want to be there shooting it, doesn’t and hasn’t ever made any sense to me at all. That is like suing your boss or employer to get your job back… who in the world would want to work in an office you were already fired from, among people who obviously don’t want you there, I wouldn’t.
Whatever happened the the notion of a separation of church and state. I thought the state was to stay out of the church. Why can’t this Christian couple’s religious convictions be tolerated by those on the extreme left? The homosexual couples, or polygamists, or pedophiles should just find another vendor, rather than impose their (im)morality on others.
My apologies for commenting, then disappearing, then returning weeks later to a conversation that may have gone cold.
You write: “You both see this as a discrimination issue, which is telling all by itself as to where you stand. If this person, being a ‘Christian Photographer’ has mostly Christian clients for one reason or another, FORCING the photographer to shoot a gay wedding could very well be detrimental to her business, something the state can not do, and should not do.”
First, the word “forcing” is interesting, especially since you set it out in capital letters. Perhaps the point is subtle, but no one is forcing anyone to do anything, nor is an American court likely to order or allow the “forcing” of a photographer to shoot a gay wedding. The appropriate remedy is an award of money damages, which, if I recall correctly, is what the court awarded.
Second, I’m not sure what you mean that I “see” this as a discrimination issue—legally, that is the issue, from the plaintiff’s side: If a wedding photographer refuses to shoot a gay wedding, does that act of discrimination violate the civil rights of the gay couple?
The issue you raise, regarding religious freedom, is a defense in this context, apparently raised by the defendant here: If a wedding photographer incurs liability for refusing to shoot a gay wedding on the ground that the refusal was impermissible discrimination in violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, does that imposition of liability abridge the photographer’s right to free exercise of religion?
In other words, it’s not a matter of “seeing” discrimination—the plaintiff already did that by raising the claim on that ground. And, as a matter of discrimination, from what I understand of the applicable law (the New Mexico Human Rights Act), it’s clear that the discrimination occurred.
The religious freedom issue is much more difficult and not nearly so cut-and-dried as you seem to think, and as the commenter “rickey” seems to think when he or she (apologies for my ignorance on that point) writes: “Why can’t this Christian couple’s religious convictions be tolerated?”
From the “other side” of the question, there is a deep and troubling concern that religious people are knowingly setting foot on a slippery slope when they raise these kinds of claims. Let me explain, with a little background.
Under the current law of religious freedom, a “neutral law” of “general applicability” is constitutional, even if it burdens religious practice. In other words, so long as the law doesn’t pick out religious people and specifically burden them, but is equally applicable to everyone, it’s okay. That’s from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Employment Division v. Smith. When that case came down, religious people were pretty upset and Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or “RFRA”), which gave the government a much higher burden to overcome when a citizen claimed that the law kept him or her from some religious practice. The Court found that unconstitutional, but said such laws are within the purview of the state governments. So many state governments have passed similar laws. I’m not sure if the photographer’s defense in this case arises under such a law, but your concerns are essentially the kind that a RFRA is supposed to address.
Some of us worry about these laws, though, in no small part because their effect is to put a legal tool in the hands of religious people that non-religious people do not have. If a Christian files suit under a state RFRA, claiming that a law burdens his or her free exercise, which arises from the convictions of his or her faith, the Christian will probably win. But if a non-religious person with strongly held beliefs feels that his or her practice of life is somehow circumscribed or limited by a law, no RFRA claim is available.
Furthermore, how far can a religious person, such as a Christian, go with these claims? The limits are not yet clear. But there are plenty of examples of Christians who fervently believe that their religion trumps all law, including the Constitution. Does “free exercise” mean Christians are exempt from the law and the Constitution? Obviously, if we want to remain a nation ruled by law rather than some form of tyranny, a line must be drawn somewhere. From this side of the question (i.e., from the side that disagrees with your position), the most prudent place to draw the line is simply to nip it in the bud and require religious people to adhere to those “neutral laws” of “general applicability,” such as ones that forbid discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and so on.
The conflict on that point also raises a more fundamental problem: What, exactly, is religion? Claims have been raised in court by people who practice religions of their own design and founding. Officially, judges are not supposed to distinguish between “real” religions and “fake” ones, although they are allowed to ask whether the claimant is “sincere” in whatever belief he or she claims. But in practice, that must be a difficult call. And what about the religious people who insist that people like me, who claim no religious beliefs, are actually just as religious as anyone else, we just use different words for what we think?
In my view, it’s not just a simple matter of “tolerating” the “convictions” of someone who doesn’t want the law to apply to his or her conduct. Rather, it raises some of the deepest possible issues, relating to the source and meaning of law and religion, which reach to the fundaments of our society, whose continued existence is essential to us all.
My point is not that the convictions of Christians or photographers or anyone else should be disregarded, but that their claims are not so simple a matter as they’d like to believe. Part of the problem, in my opinion, arises from persistent misunderstanding on the part of religious people, which I tried to touch on in my comment above, which confuses the difference between beliefs and conduct. But religious people will insist just as strongly that their beliefs compel certain conduct. How, then, do we maintain a society where people are allowed to have differing beliefs, which compel them to mutually exclusive conduct, and still protect all citizens equally under the law? These problems and questions trouble me daily.
Finally, though I am not a professional photographer, I have occasionally used such services, which typically involves looking at some of the work the photographer has done before deciding to hire. From that perspective, the idea that it’s reasonable for a prospective customer or client (not sure which term your profession uses) to ascribe to the photographer some personal ideological viewpoint based on the prior subjects of his or her work seems, at first, patently absurd to me. But maybe I come by that perspective only because I work in the legal field, where taking up causes one does not personally agree with or approve of—and representing them with as much zeal as one might have if one did approve of them—is just a part of being professional and recognizing that even the people you loathe deserve competent representation in court. Having the experience of, on occasion, working both for people I find despicable and against people with whom I sympathize leaves me with little warmth for the claim that a professional can or should be judged by his or her clients or customers. Part of me wants to say, “Just grow up, get over it, and be professional.” But I have to remind myself that I started out as a musician and ultimately changed course to law after deciding that I could not stomach producing art for pay, and one of my music professors said something to the effect, “Just grow up, get over it, and be professional.” So I certainly see both sides.
Peter: The situation you cite re your bookstore still allowed you to make the decision as to what kind of books you sold. Would you feel the same way if you were compelled, by law, to sell books that were either against your moral beliefs or had business ramifications. I.E. you are compelled to sell pornographic literature, your store is a religious book store, or a store that only carries business law books etc. Would the fact that someone came in and wanted a book in that or other categories even if you had space limitations for any more books of any kind make sense at all? Sorry your book store analogy doesn’t hold water.
Should I be allowed to go to a bookstore that sells only religious books or gay/lesbian books etc. and sue them because they refuse to stock books contrary to their beliefs? Of course anyone can sue anyone but would I prevail in such a law suit?
I believe where there are alternative choices, go to another book store which has the books you want, go to a different photographer. This is not discrimination but common sense. When I go to the grocery store and they don’t have an item I want, I can either ask the Manager to order it for me, which he may or may not choose to do, or I can find another store that carries that item and buy it there. I cannot compel that store to stock the item.
So as has been cited, to change practices and change laws for any minimum % of the population to the detriment of small businesses when those services are readily available in many ways including the Internet, is simply not good sense.
[...] are losing. Churches are getting sued for not allowing same-sex marriages in their buildings, and photographers for declining to photograph those [...]
What is the theological basis for the idea that photographing a same-sex wedding is a violation of someone’s “religious beliefs”.
Thou shalt not observe?
P.S. I there any basis for your insinuations about the plaintiff? I’ve read about this issue before and I seem to recall that the plaintiff had seen the photographer’s work from another wedding. Surely, you could prove the accusation that she was shopping around by confirming with other photographers that she sought to contract their services and backed out when they agreed.
It really is amazing how opposition to gay people seems to carve out an exception to bearing false witness.
@BobN you have hit on so many different issues in just a small few sentenses, but I will say one thing, to your first question
“What is the theological basis for the idea that photographing a same-sex wedding is a violation of someone’s “religious beliefsâ€.”
1, there is specific scriptures that talk about different sins, one of them being homosexuality. It is pretty well documented and therefore people choose to not be involved with, around, near, or have anything to do with sinful behavior if they have a choice.
it says in one case:
———
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
——–
Now that lists a lot of other sins at the same time too, so you can make the same argument that someone does not want to go into a bar, even if they are not going to drink, because they might be temped to become drunk. It is not up to me to determine what that threshold for each person, it is different.
When you start talking about people’s beliefs you are talking about something personal to each person and that is very subjective.
Scott,
Does your religion have “sins of omission”? You didn’t answer the question.
Why is homosexuality the ONLY sin that counts? Does the photographer refuse to photograph previous-divorced newlyweds? Does she ask if they vary the repertoire from missionary? Does she look into their work history to see if one is an IRS agent?
When “Christian” people can accommodate all sorts of clients, but draw the line at homosexuals, which is more likely at play: prejudice or morality?
@BobN I don’t think I ever said that homosexuality was the ONLY sin that counts… in fact, scripture tells us all sin is equal in the eyes of God, doesn’t matter if it is lying, murder, or homosexuality. It is all the same to God, and I don’t make a distinction one way or the other. If someone else does and puts one on a higher plane than another I can’t do anything about that, but that is not what scripture teaches.
In fact, if you look back at the entire conversation, I never said anything other than I think a business owner should not be told who they must have as their clients (being a sold-proprietorship).
You are not asking a specific question. You are speaking in vague generalities, like being an IRS agent (which is not a sin in and of itself, although we may like to think so). You also may not know if someone is a thief or if one lies, but pretty obvious is two are gay.
I guess if we took it to your extreme the photographer should not take any clients at all since all have sinned and all sin is equal.
Kudos on a thoughtful civil blog.
Re: you suggestion that the plaintiff was laying in wait – after I visited the photographers web site, I don’t find anything that would set her up as a mark. On the other hand, I do see some some very inspired photography with a unique point of view (nice work, Elane). I can imagine the plaintiff being upset and a bit irked if she were rebuffed by this particular business. I would have to have a little bit more evidence to go with the “laying in wait” theory.
In the interest of injecting a touch of absurdity into the discussion (I did read yours, Ricky, but I am going for absurd, not moronic) – could a business – say a small cafe – charge women more on the basis that their religion beliefs would require them to launder the seat cushions after each female guest? After all, 20% or more of the female customers could be assumed to be menstruating at any given time, and Leviticus 15:19-30 makes it clear that any seats these women use are to be considered unclean and should be washed. Could the hostess ask female customers if they are menstruating and then add a surcharge to the bill? Or, to account for liars, just add the surcharge for all female customers?
OK, absurdity complete. Thanks for the blog.
This is absurd! Photography isn’t the same as buying food, shopping at a department store, renting an apartment or buying a house. It is a form of art and expression. You can’t force an artist to draw you you can’t force an artist to paint you why is it appropriate for our government to force an artist to protograph you, or punish them for their refusal.
My understanding from my reading and research is that this photographer was not crule impolite or unkind she stated that she only shot traditional weddings (which is her right, lest we forget in our attempts at being PC) and offered a referal to another photographer she didn’t get up on a soapbox or name call so I am uncertian where the issue is its not like she is the only photographer in New Mexico!
Would it be reasonable to say, “Yes, so I can’t be sued I will photograph your event, but I will be wearing a T-shirt which has very specific Biblical quotes.”