How about you give me 5 minutes..?

Justice, Truth, Fair?

Justice, Truth, Fair?

As I have stated this case in New Mexico has been tearing my flesh like a Phoenix, rising from its ashes and using its smoldering hot long talons to fillet me. I’m not exactly sure what it is within the case itself that bothers me more — the unsubstantiated claim made by the Plaintiff — or if it is the skullduggery that is going on behind the scenes that simply gets my goat. (That is all too obvious!)

Picking up where we left off yesterday as promised, on November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock’s partner, Ms. Collinsworth, officially known then as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex ceremony, union, or orientation. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane’s Photography:

Hi Elaine,
I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates?
Thanks!!

Maybe it’s me, although I don’t think so. Where is the verification of Elaine Huguenin’s refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony? As far as we can see there is not a request, nor is there any verification whatsoever of an alleged ‘refusal’ bias or discrimination verification.

If you will — what is similar about the requests (1) Willock’s and (2) Collinsworth’s? Both request for pricing information and whether or not Elaine would be willing to travel to either Ruidoso or Taos, New Mexico.

On November 29, 2006 Ms. Elaine Huguenin responded affirmatively by email to Ms. Collinsworth’s inquiry and, at the same time, forwarded Ms. Collinsworth information about the company’s photography pricing (base package, $1,450; deluxe package, $1,850; and royal package, $2,250) as well as information about the company’s procedure for online proofing credits. The text of Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response to Ms. Collinsworth’s inquiry was as follows:

Hello Misty,

Thanks so much for contacting us. I would definately [sic] be willing to travel to Ruidoso for your wedding. I have attached some information that should be helpful as far as prices and packages. There is also another attachment concerning “print credits” – it explains what online proofing is, because it’s something that is a bit newer and not everyone may know what it is yet. Hopefully these items will help you sort some things out. Also, I would love to meet up with you sometime, if you are interested, to show you more of my recent book, along with an example of the “coffee table book” that included in all of our packages. My place of choice is Satellite…

Good luck with your planning, and I hope to talk with you soon! -Elaine

Please correct me if I am wrong here; however, the email written by Ms. Collinsworth a.k.a. Ms. Pascottini to Elane Photography is a request for pricing information and whether or not Elaine could travel to Ruidoso, NM for Ms. Pascottini’s wedding. (See ‘Hi Elaine’ above.)

On December 19, 2006 having not heard again from Ms. Collinsworth (then known as Misty Pascottini), Ms. Elaine Huguenin sent the following email to Ms. Collinsworth:

Hello Misty,
I just wanted to check and see if you had any questions about the prices or packages that I could help answer. I hope that planning is going well for you. Have a great day!
-Elaine

After receiving Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s response to her inquiry on November 28,2006 and learning of Ms. Elaine Huguenin’s different response to a similar inquiry by Ms. Collinsworth, without the mention of same-sex, Ms. Willock remained fearful and anxious about seeking other photographers to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony.

We feel that this portion of the record clearly demonstrates collusion, fraud, as well as an attempt to entrap Elaine Huguenin. We ask: how were the responses different? The plaintiff, Willock, schemes and plans with a friend to intentionally defraud Huguenin. We further believe that Huguenin was being set-up insofar as the original requests were not that similar; furthermore, we maintain our position that it was ‘Willock’ who brought the issue of same-gender weddings up in the first place.

Other than “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone…” is there a place in either the EEO, or the Civil Rights Acts, or otherwise that stipulates that an independent contractor or business somehow either in writing, posting, or electronic recording obligated to tell potential customers their religious beliefs, furthermore, their sexual ‘orientation’?

The answer quite simply is NO! In doing so that would be clearly discriminatory. In fact in New Mexico,  sexual orientation is defined as being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Tomorrow we will examine — in detail — the ‘Tribunal’s’ decision and what, if anything, it was based on.

art_10

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: