"We only shoot traditional marriages" is a dumb and bigoted thing to say? How can one let their beliefs influence their decisions in life, something you say you firmly believe, if they can't say "we only shoot traditional marriages?" The only alternative suggestions I've heard so far involve lying (or something rather close to it), and I imagine there are some of us for whom lying would violate a core belief as well.
If the photographer declines to shoot the wedding, and doesn't get sued, is the couple stopped from marrying? (no) Are they stopped from having pictures taken at their wedding? (no, there are lots of photographers that will take the job) Are they stopped from telling their friends that such-and-such photography is, in their opinion, bigoted? (no)
So in this case, was it really the photographer who failed to practice live and let live?
If you cannot see the personal insult in that, then I don't really think the discussion can continue. I know you probably can't see it this way yet, but it's just the same as a black and white couple being turned away with the same excuse.
I'm just saying, have some tact! They could have said anything other than that. Just tell them you wouldn't feel comfortable doing it!
This pretty much sums it up for me. Freedom and liberty require good will, manners, respect, etc...
I'm seeing such bad manners these days coming from christianity as a religion, it is embarrassing for me to admit that I believe God (and Jesus Christ) exists.
Of course it takes two to tango. As someone mentioned here in this topic, sometimes it's the gay couple who is provocative and aggressive. I mean seriously, people. If you accidentally ask some bigoted christian to photograph your gay wedding, instead of jumping at the chance to win a huge lawsuit, how about just saying "I'm sorry your beliefs are that narrow; we'll give our business to someone else then." ...End of story! Both parties think "ugh, how can they live that way?" for a moment, ...and then they get on with their lives...
Bottom line- I live in a free country, but I live in the same free country as millions of others with millions of other beliefs, which I need to be respectful of. I can NOT expect the government to protect me from brief run-ins with other people's beliefs, nor can I expect the government to shove my beliefs down other people's throats.
As Sam said; it's called freedom and it's a messy grey area...
"I'm sorry your beliefs are that narrow; we'll give our business to someone else then." ...End of story! Both parties think "ugh, how can they live that way?" for a moment, ...and then they get on with their lives...
Is what I would say to a bigoted photographer. But I think it's different in this case, since there's such a huge power difference between the two classes. The photographer would walk away laughing, since he's only losing business he declined anyways. The SS couple would walk away feeling victimized, just like they have been many times before.
Anywho, you can't pick a fight and then whine when they hit back.
Also, I find it somewhat ironic that we're all up in arms about the government taking away our precious right to discriminate. It's okay for the government to stomp all over the freedoms of same-sex couples, but god forbid they tell a photographer he can't discriminate with publicly offered services.
What happens if we replace "gay" with other things.
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you're a member of the military. I'm a pacifist and can't endorse that."
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you and your fiance are both significantly overweight. I'm a fitness guru and you disgust me".
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you have acne. Gross."
The point here is that when it's a "controversial" group, it is felt to be ok to make a stand against (or for) that subset of society in a way that if we substitute some other trait seems pretty ludicrous.
I'm with John, here - if you want to specialise in something that is meaningful to you (eg Christian - which by the way, everywhere else in the world means ANY religion which includes the new testament in its beliefs, not only fundamentalist/evangelical protestant churches as it typically means in the US), then do so. Market your brand to those who will share your beliefs. Say a polite "no" when things cross the lines you have set for yourself. Above all be professional about it.
Sam, you know I've always enjoyed your posts here at dgrin and think you're a decent guy, but I have to disagree with you heartily on this. If total "freedom" was allowed, we'd be living like Lord of the Flies. A government's job is sometimes to keep everybody in the sandbox playing nice. That is not the same as oppression.
Why would someone hold your feet to the fire to do a creative thing like that. You gotta be in the groove of the whole thing. You won't be your best if you don't want to be there. The clients are at fault too.
Do Federal and state laws protect the religious freedoms of employers and employees? Does this include small business owners? Please...again... nothing mean spirited.
Do Federal and state laws protect the religious freedoms of employers and employees? Does this include small business owners? Please...again... nothing mean spirited.
Yes they do protect your rights and beliefs even if you are holding yourself out to the public in a service business. This includes Doctors, Lawyers, Pharmacists. There have been several cases before Federal Courts as well as the Supreme Court.
This has been a very interesting thread of discussion.
Do Federal and state laws protect the religious freedoms of employers and employees? Does this include small business owners? Please...again... nothing mean spirited.
Yes and no. What the government will or will not protect depends on many factors, political correctness, potential vote getting, fund raising, keeping their elected position, etc.
Sam, you know I've always enjoyed your posts here at dgrin and think you're a decent guy, but I have to disagree with you heartily on this. If total "freedom" was allowed, we'd be living like Lord of the Flies. A government's job is sometimes to keep everybody in the sandbox playing nice. That is not the same as oppression.
Thank you. I take no offense what so ever because you have a different opinion. I don't even agree with me 100% of the time.
Lets look at this case again. The gay couple knows the photographer is a Cristian who will not photograph their wedding / commitment ceremony. Yet they set up the photographer because they have been insulted.
Please..................if one could sue simply based on being insulted I would own a very large tropical island.
What are the damages suffered by this couple? Did it prevent them from getting married? Did it affect their relationship? Did it prevent them from obtaining photography services?
As we all know there are thousands and thousands of photographers not only willing but eager and experienced with gay weddings ready to bid on the job.
I don't see any damage. I see an agenda. I don't like agenda's being pushed down my throat.
Now if she was the only photographer who could have photographed the wedding, (maybe had an exclusive arrangement at the venue) and that resulted in the couple not being able to have photos of their wedding, I am behind the law suite 100%.
At the simple end it is just that, if you don't want to do the job don't. If you do, and the clients, you feel vibe with your work, why the heck not do it? But if you feel that you will do a subpar job, why do it, for any reason at all?
To be a professional is to also know when to say no. However, you don't leave the initial requesters hanging. You help them find another photographer who might be better with them than yourself. Twitter, social media, helps spread the word if someone is in need of a photographer if you aren't able to fit the bill.
You are still missing the point. Refusing to shoot a wedding because you don't like the sexual orientation of the couple getting married is illegal. Period.
This thread is about a photographer who turned down a gay wedding, got sued and lost. So I don't understand why you and others are prattling on about "if you don't want to take the job, don't do it". You seem to be advocating breaking the law.
Not everywhere. To the best of my knowledge, not even "mostwhere." IMO it should be, but I don't think it is.
Yeah, you're right. I thought these were federal anti-discrimination laws, but upon rereading the article it does say this is a state law.
Personally, I'm all for shooting gay couple's events and have done one already. On the other hand, I can see Sam's point about forcing this down a photographer's throat. Things like the right to marry, and anti-discrimination laws for essential services like housing, jobs, banking, and shopping are very good things. But should those same rules apply to a non-essential service from a sole-proprietor when there are so many others to choose from? I'm not so sure about that. It's complicated. I don't have an answer, just making the observation.
If you cannot see the personal insult in that, then I don't really think the discussion can continue. I know you probably can't see it this way yet, but it's just the same as a black and white couple being turned away with the same excuse.
I'm just saying, have some tact! They could have said anything other than that. Just tell them you wouldn't feel comfortable doing it!
Thanks for letting me know that in the future I'll agree with you. How far beyond me you must have evolved. You are kind to bear with my Neolithic sensibilities. Of course, your bigotry toward my theological and social views will not be met with a lawsuit because, unlike the clients in our photography case, I'm a big fan of free speech.
Your suggestion is that the photographer say that they wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. How are they allowed to respond when the person asks "Why?" Any answer they give is as insulting and bigoted as "I only shoot traditional weddings," is it?
People are either free to operate according to their beliefs (and deal with the contempt and boycots of those who disagree) or the government has to strike the First Ammendment from the constitution. Protecting only the speech with which you agree is hardly an effective means of protecting free speech.
And please, moderators, take this post in the tone in which it is intended. The debate is lively, not heated.
Or is this a case of harassment? The gay couple picks a Christian photographer and forces them to do something that they are not comfortable with. Sounds like they could just be trying to prove something. Isn't this america?
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
People are either free to operate according to their beliefs (and deal with the contempt and boycots of those who disagree) or the government has to strike the First Ammendment from the constitution. Protecting only the speech with which you agree is hardly an effective means of protecting free speech.
Agreed.
BTW my point was simply that I felt the insult was pretty obvious, and also that discussing it further wouldn't be very productive. The bottom line is, be as polite as you can, not because it's the law, but because it's the right thing to do.
And please, moderators, take this post in the tone in which it is intended. The debate is lively, not heated.
I don't think this thread is in any risk of being deleted, unless someone starts some serious hatin'... Sounds to me like we're all just having a concerned discussion about our liberties / rights as small business owners.
Or is this a case of harassment? The gay couple picks a Christian photographer and forces them to do something that they are not comfortable with. Sounds like they could just be trying to prove something. Isn't this america?
America, the land where you can sue someone for insufficiently warning you that fresh coffee is indeed hot.
You are still missing the point. Refusing to shoot a wedding because you don't like the sexual orientation of the couple getting married is illegal. Period.
This thread is about a photographer who turned down a gay wedding, got sued and lost. So I don't understand why you and others are prattling on about "if you don't want to take the job, don't do it". You seem to be advocating breaking the law.
I am not advocating breaking the law. Sure the thread is about the photographer got sued and lost because she denied them because of their sexual orientation. People get sued left and right. But at the end of the day, what it is, that we can learn, is applicable to how we deal with our business and beliefs. And to make things perfectly clear, I believe that people have the right to love whomever they want.
Finding the middle ground, there will be jobs that we dont want to do- be it money, beliefs, etc. Would I discriminate a couple for their sexual orientation? No. And neither would I refuse a job, unless I felt that I would be doing them a disservice by doing a half ass job. I would rather refuse a job than do a less than 100% performance on any couple's wedding. That said, as I said many times, it is appropriate to refuse a job, if you feel that you would do a lack-luster job, as long as you do your best to HELP find the couple a photographer more suitable to photograph their wedding!
The bottom line is, be as polite as you can, not because it's the law, but because it's the right thing to do.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. .
I do find it interesting that the opposition over same-sex couples does seem to boil down to "let me be free to express my opinion and base my life on my beliefs, but you're not allowed to express yours or live yours according to your beliefs". I personally couldn't care less who marries whom and, like Matt and others, reckon that in 100 years the US will look pretty small-minded for having made such a huge, political big deal over it. All that said, I think it is also true that minority groups fighting for recognition and fairness DO tend to have an agenda, (if only because they have typically had to fight for any recognition and fairness).
Given that we can't know all the facts of this case, it's tough to see how much is bigotry, and how much was a "let's prove a point" gesture on the part of the couple. From the limited amount I know, I suspect there was an agenda on both sides in this one.
Or is this a case of harassment? The gay couple picks a Christian photographer and forces them to do something that they are not comfortable with. Sounds like they could just be trying to prove something. Isn't this america?
Everyone keeps projecting this on the gay couple. I didn't see anything where they tried to force the Christian photographer into doing something he didn't want to do. Had the photographer just warned he would be uncomfortable, the couple would have likely moved on and found a different photographer (seriously, are you gonna shell out $3000 on someone who is bigoted against you and will do a bad job? If so, I'll shoot your wedding for half the price )
Their lawsuit was not an attempt to poach some poor unsuspecting photographer. It was for being outright refused service.
...... All that said, I think it is also true that minority groups fighting for recognition and fairness DO tend to have an agenda, (if only because they have typically had to fight for any recognition and fairness).
Given that we can't know all the facts of this case, it's tough to see how much is bigotry, and how much was a "let's prove a point" gesture on the part of the couple. From the limited amount I know, I suspect there was an agenda on both sides in this one.
This observation is key - it highlights the difference between the well-intentioned theory of equal access/protection under the law (and the regulations that result) and the real-world practical application of those regulations. Agendas do abound on both sides.
My personal experience in dealing with this difference was during a career administering the construction and modernization of educational facilities. We were subject to the Federal law regarding access for the disabled (another protected class - and rightly so), the Americans with Disabilities Act. No matter how well intentioned this law was conceived (the codes have been continuously updated, modified, improved, etc. since first adoption - a constantly moving target), trying to comply with and implement these accommodations with practicaland economical construction methods (especially in retrofits), caused me to go prematurely bald and grey. It's not that it wasn't worth doing, it was - it's that it was often difficult to transform theory into practice. My point is - given enough time and correction tape - buildings full of government bureaucrats and legislators can muck-up any good intention.
With regard to access vs. agendas and how small-business can be caught in the crossfire (and very analogous to the wedding photographer), the following situation gained media attention here in SoCal and I presume ensued elsewhere as well. A single disabled person advocating for accessibility - normally a righteous and necessary endeavor - IMO perverted that goal by targeting small business storefronts with dozens of lawsuits alleging discrimination and failure to comply with the ADA. The storefronts targeted were, in almost every case, small and located in historical districts, old buildings, cramped quarters, sloped sites, etc. - places where compliance as a practical matter was either difficult or impossible and always expensive. As I said, I heartily agree with the intention, but this application of the code seemed punitive and mean-spirited to most observers and caused many of these small business' to cease operation, re-locate, incur astounding costs to settle out-of-court (read shakedown), or construct modifications. I know the law is the law, but doesn't common sense and real-world conditions have a standing in these matters? Oops - oh yeah, I forgot about the bureaucrats for a second. (forehead slap)
To me, these situations (including the wedding photographer's dilemma) illustrate the sometimes intractable conflict between Progress (Social Theory) and Liberty. Thank goodness we live in a country/society where these conflicts are debated, contended, and sometimes resolved in an atmosphere of - relative to many places - peace and freedom. Ain't America great? The answer is YES!
Reading the thread carefully trying to discern fact and personal thought –
The court ruled that right to free expression and to practice their religion has no bearing on their photography business. Wow. And I quote –“The court ruled that a commercial photographer isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. “By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message”
(A photographer not expressing anything; merely taking photographs and so by taking photographs is not expressing their own message? I facetiously say I’m so happy that a judgment call by the government knows what photography is and how a photographer approaches his art.)huh
So we have a private business owner running her personal business as she sees fit; whose religious rights are null & void. We have a private Christian owner/business who is instructed by state law - who they can do business with, and how to do business and what her business is. We have customers who felt their civil rights were violated and sued the small business owner.
It seems the photographer’s religious beliefs that is a business owner and runs the business in accordance with her religion/conscience were not protected but violated. The owner is unable to run her business without fear and coercion from the government; a constitutional violation. She receives no public funding, runs a Christian business – yet is ordered to take photographs of whoever is deemed protected or offended if not ‘served’?
Bride With Checkbook: "Hi, I love the work I've seen on your website and would like to talk to you about being my wedding photographer." Photographer: Wonderful. Glad you liked the website. You should know that I'm a christian and only shoot traditional weddings." BWC: Oh good. I too am a christian, and we plan a very traditional wedding. Church, minister, lots of attendants, crying moms, Dad giving me away, maid-of-honor, best man (Honey's big brother) flower girl, ring bearer, soloists, reception in the church fellowship hall, the whole thing. The only thing is, my Honey is a military officer, so there will be swords and all. P: Sounds so romantic and right up my "traditional" alley! When can we meet? BWC: Jessica and I could meet with you next Wednesday evening. Does that fit into your schedule? P: BWC: Hello?
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Sorry Eia, but we have no "right" to do whatever happens to be in our religion. We don't let fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy, we don't let Jim Jones mix the koolaid, and we don't let Christians discriminate against minorities. Your "religious rights" as guaranteed by the government extend to the point where you can believe what you want, and you can act within the law. Discriminating against protected classes is not within the law.
If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work.
The owner is unable to run her business without fear and coercion from the government
So...if my customised christian greeting card business is targeting faith based audience....and say...a person of different faith, or any other people group wants their own saying on one of my cards...that is contrary to my faith...And reason for business....I cannot politely decline their business? An honest QR.
By the way...I am not ditzing people groups...i am more concerned about govt in my business!
Sorry Eia, but we have no "right" to do whatever happens to be in our religion. We don't let fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy, we don't let Jim Jones mix the koolaid, and we don't let Christians discriminate against minorities. Your "religious rights" as guaranteed by the government extend to the point where you can believe what you want, and you can act within the law. Discriminating against protected classes is not within the law.
If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work.
I feel the same way about paying my taxes
"If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work."
Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it... Still ... I ...understand to a degree...try to understand back... but the main thing is Government and private business...gotta say Sam had strong points!
Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it... Still ... I ...understand to a degree...try to understand back... but the main thing is Government and private business...gotta say Sam had strong points!
Sorry man, but that's the breaks. If you can't serve people equally, either get over the hate or find a career where you can.
And man, this private business thing is ridiculous. What do you do if somebody robs you? Or reneges on a contract? Or slanders you? Or decides to use the same name as you? Or tells everyone your secret R&D?
"Private" business is build upon a host of government protections and regulations. I think it's ridiculous when small business owners rely on every single one, but as soon as the government tells them they have to treat people equally they flip out about "government intrustion".
Lets look at this case again. The gay couple knows the photographer is a Cristian who will not photograph their wedding / commitment ceremony. Yet they set up the photographer because they have been insulted.
Please..................if one could sue simply based on being insulted I would own a very large tropical island.
What are the damages suffered by this couple? Did it prevent them from getting married? Did it affect their relationship? Did it prevent them from obtaining photography services?
As we all know there are thousands and thousands of photographers not only willing but eager and experienced with gay weddings ready to bid on the job.
I don't see any damage. I see an agenda. I don't like agenda's being pushed down my throat.
Now if she was the only photographer who could have photographed the wedding, (maybe had an exclusive arrangement at the venue) and that resulted in the couple not being able to have photos of their wedding, I am behind the law suite 100%.
Sam
This is the most logical answer within the rights of all..
One thing that would have kept this photographer out of court, not actually telling the couple why they won't shoot the wedding. If the photographer said it was a personality conflict, and left it at that, then the couple could have never proved otherwise. This is one of those times a white lie would have been appropriate. But like was said on this page (page 5) of replies, I think both wanted their point of view vindicated, thus why the lawsuit wasn't settled because both sides had an agenda.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
Comments
If you cannot see the personal insult in that, then I don't really think the discussion can continue. I know you probably can't see it this way yet, but it's just the same as a black and white couple being turned away with the same excuse.
I'm just saying, have some tact! They could have said anything other than that. Just tell them you wouldn't feel comfortable doing it!
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I'm seeing such bad manners these days coming from christianity as a religion, it is embarrassing for me to admit that I believe God (and Jesus Christ) exists.
Of course it takes two to tango. As someone mentioned here in this topic, sometimes it's the gay couple who is provocative and aggressive. I mean seriously, people. If you accidentally ask some bigoted christian to photograph your gay wedding, instead of jumping at the chance to win a huge lawsuit, how about just saying "I'm sorry your beliefs are that narrow; we'll give our business to someone else then." ...End of story! Both parties think "ugh, how can they live that way?" for a moment, ...and then they get on with their lives...
Bottom line- I live in a free country, but I live in the same free country as millions of others with millions of other beliefs, which I need to be respectful of. I can NOT expect the government to protect me from brief run-ins with other people's beliefs, nor can I expect the government to shove my beliefs down other people's throats.
As Sam said; it's called freedom and it's a messy grey area...
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Is what I would say to a bigoted photographer. But I think it's different in this case, since there's such a huge power difference between the two classes. The photographer would walk away laughing, since he's only losing business he declined anyways. The SS couple would walk away feeling victimized, just like they have been many times before.
Anywho, you can't pick a fight and then whine when they hit back.
Also, I find it somewhat ironic that we're all up in arms about the government taking away our precious right to discriminate. It's okay for the government to stomp all over the freedoms of same-sex couples, but god forbid they tell a photographer he can't discriminate with publicly offered services.
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you're a member of the military. I'm a pacifist and can't endorse that."
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you and your fiance are both significantly overweight. I'm a fitness guru and you disgust me".
"I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable shooting your wedding - you have acne. Gross."
The point here is that when it's a "controversial" group, it is felt to be ok to make a stand against (or for) that subset of society in a way that if we substitute some other trait seems pretty ludicrous.
I'm with John, here - if you want to specialise in something that is meaningful to you (eg Christian - which by the way, everywhere else in the world means ANY religion which includes the new testament in its beliefs, not only fundamentalist/evangelical protestant churches as it typically means in the US), then do so. Market your brand to those who will share your beliefs. Say a polite "no" when things cross the lines you have set for yourself. Above all be professional about it.
Sam, you know I've always enjoyed your posts here at dgrin and think you're a decent guy, but I have to disagree with you heartily on this. If total "freedom" was allowed, we'd be living like Lord of the Flies. A government's job is sometimes to keep everybody in the sandbox playing nice. That is not the same as oppression.
This has been a very interesting thread of discussion.
williamspics.smugmug.com
Yes and no. What the government will or will not protect depends on many factors, political correctness, potential vote getting, fund raising, keeping their elected position, etc.
Sam
No problem the military isn't (to my knowledge a protected group). The military would need to find another photographer.
I think overweight people are a protected class, so yes you would be in trouble turning them down.
Again no issue, not protected.
Thank you. I take no offense what so ever because you have a different opinion. I don't even agree with me 100% of the time.
Sam
Please..................if one could sue simply based on being insulted I would own a very large tropical island.
What are the damages suffered by this couple? Did it prevent them from getting married? Did it affect their relationship? Did it prevent them from obtaining photography services?
As we all know there are thousands and thousands of photographers not only willing but eager and experienced with gay weddings ready to bid on the job.
I don't see any damage. I see an agenda. I don't like agenda's being pushed down my throat.
Now if she was the only photographer who could have photographed the wedding, (maybe had an exclusive arrangement at the venue) and that resulted in the couple not being able to have photos of their wedding, I am behind the law suite 100%.
Sam
This thread is about a photographer who turned down a gay wedding, got sued and lost. So I don't understand why you and others are prattling on about "if you don't want to take the job, don't do it". You seem to be advocating breaking the law.
Link to my Smugmug site
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Personally, I'm all for shooting gay couple's events and have done one already. On the other hand, I can see Sam's point about forcing this down a photographer's throat. Things like the right to marry, and anti-discrimination laws for essential services like housing, jobs, banking, and shopping are very good things. But should those same rules apply to a non-essential service from a sole-proprietor when there are so many others to choose from? I'm not so sure about that. It's complicated. I don't have an answer, just making the observation.
Link to my Smugmug site
Thanks for letting me know that in the future I'll agree with you. How far beyond me you must have evolved. You are kind to bear with my Neolithic sensibilities. Of course, your bigotry toward my theological and social views will not be met with a lawsuit because, unlike the clients in our photography case, I'm a big fan of free speech.
Your suggestion is that the photographer say that they wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. How are they allowed to respond when the person asks "Why?" Any answer they give is as insulting and bigoted as "I only shoot traditional weddings," is it?
People are either free to operate according to their beliefs (and deal with the contempt and boycots of those who disagree) or the government has to strike the First Ammendment from the constitution. Protecting only the speech with which you agree is hardly an effective means of protecting free speech.
And please, moderators, take this post in the tone in which it is intended. The debate is lively, not heated.
BTW my point was simply that I felt the insult was pretty obvious, and also that discussing it further wouldn't be very productive. The bottom line is, be as polite as you can, not because it's the law, but because it's the right thing to do.
I don't think this thread is in any risk of being deleted, unless someone starts some serious hatin'... Sounds to me like we're all just having a concerned discussion about our liberties / rights as small business owners.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
America, the land where you can sue someone for insufficiently warning you that fresh coffee is indeed hot.
;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I am not advocating breaking the law. Sure the thread is about the photographer got sued and lost because she denied them because of their sexual orientation. People get sued left and right. But at the end of the day, what it is, that we can learn, is applicable to how we deal with our business and beliefs. And to make things perfectly clear, I believe that people have the right to love whomever they want.
Finding the middle ground, there will be jobs that we dont want to do- be it money, beliefs, etc. Would I discriminate a couple for their sexual orientation? No. And neither would I refuse a job, unless I felt that I would be doing them a disservice by doing a half ass job. I would rather refuse a job than do a less than 100% performance on any couple's wedding. That said, as I said many times, it is appropriate to refuse a job, if you feel that you would do a lack-luster job, as long as you do your best to HELP find the couple a photographer more suitable to photograph their wedding!
www.tednghiem.com
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I do find it interesting that the opposition over same-sex couples does seem to boil down to "let me be free to express my opinion and base my life on my beliefs, but you're not allowed to express yours or live yours according to your beliefs". I personally couldn't care less who marries whom and, like Matt and others, reckon that in 100 years the US will look pretty small-minded for having made such a huge, political big deal over it. All that said, I think it is also true that minority groups fighting for recognition and fairness DO tend to have an agenda, (if only because they have typically had to fight for any recognition and fairness).
Given that we can't know all the facts of this case, it's tough to see how much is bigotry, and how much was a "let's prove a point" gesture on the part of the couple. From the limited amount I know, I suspect there was an agenda on both sides in this one.
Everyone keeps projecting this on the gay couple. I didn't see anything where they tried to force the Christian photographer into doing something he didn't want to do. Had the photographer just warned he would be uncomfortable, the couple would have likely moved on and found a different photographer (seriously, are you gonna shell out $3000 on someone who is bigoted against you and will do a bad job? If so, I'll shoot your wedding for half the price
Their lawsuit was not an attempt to poach some poor unsuspecting photographer. It was for being outright refused service.
This observation is key - it highlights the difference between the well-intentioned theory of equal access/protection under the law (and the regulations that result) and the real-world practical application of those regulations. Agendas do abound on both sides.
My personal experience in dealing with this difference was during a career administering the construction and modernization of educational facilities. We were subject to the Federal law regarding access for the disabled (another protected class - and rightly so), the Americans with Disabilities Act. No matter how well intentioned this law was conceived (the codes have been continuously updated, modified, improved, etc. since first adoption - a constantly moving target), trying to comply with and implement these accommodations with practical and economical construction methods (especially in retrofits), caused me to go prematurely bald and grey. It's not that it wasn't worth doing, it was - it's that it was often difficult to transform theory into practice. My point is - given enough time and correction tape - buildings full of government bureaucrats and legislators can muck-up any good intention.
With regard to access vs. agendas and how small-business can be caught in the crossfire (and very analogous to the wedding photographer), the following situation gained media attention here in SoCal and I presume ensued elsewhere as well. A single disabled person advocating for accessibility - normally a righteous and necessary endeavor - IMO perverted that goal by targeting small business storefronts with dozens of lawsuits alleging discrimination and failure to comply with the ADA. The storefronts targeted were, in almost every case, small and located in historical districts, old buildings, cramped quarters, sloped sites, etc. - places where compliance as a practical matter was either difficult or impossible and always expensive. As I said, I heartily agree with the intention, but this application of the code seemed punitive and mean-spirited to most observers and caused many of these small business' to cease operation, re-locate, incur astounding costs to settle out-of-court (read shakedown), or construct modifications. I know the law is the law, but doesn't common sense and real-world conditions have a standing in these matters? Oops - oh yeah, I forgot about the bureaucrats for a second. (forehead slap)
To me, these situations (including the wedding photographer's dilemma) illustrate the sometimes intractable conflict between Progress (Social Theory) and Liberty. Thank goodness we live in a country/society where these conflicts are debated, contended, and sometimes resolved in an atmosphere of - relative to many places - peace and freedom. Ain't America great? The answer is YES!
The court ruled that right to free expression and to practice their religion has no bearing on their photography business. Wow. And I quote –“The court ruled that a commercial photographer isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. “By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message”
(A photographer not expressing anything; merely taking photographs and so by taking photographs is not expressing their own message? I facetiously say I’m so happy that a judgment call by the government knows what photography is and how a photographer approaches his art.)
So we have a private business owner running her personal business as she sees fit; whose religious rights are null & void. We have a private Christian owner/business who is instructed by state law - who they can do business with, and how to do business and what her business is. We have customers who felt their civil rights were violated and sued the small business owner.
It seems the photographer’s religious beliefs that is a business owner and runs the business in accordance with her religion/conscience were not protected but violated. The owner is unable to run her business without fear and coercion from the government; a constitutional violation. She receives no public funding, runs a Christian business – yet is ordered to take photographs of whoever is deemed protected or offended if not ‘served’?
Photographer: Wonderful. Glad you liked the website. You should know that I'm a christian and only shoot traditional weddings."
BWC: Oh good. I too am a christian, and we plan a very traditional wedding. Church, minister, lots of attendants, crying moms, Dad giving me away, maid-of-honor, best man (Honey's big brother) flower girl, ring bearer, soloists, reception in the church fellowship hall, the whole thing. The only thing is, my Honey is a military officer, so there will be swords and all.
P: Sounds so romantic and right up my "traditional" alley! When can we meet?
BWC: Jessica and I could meet with you next Wednesday evening. Does that fit into your schedule?
P:
BWC: Hello?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work.
I feel the same way about paying my taxes
Also,
So...if my customised christian greeting card business is targeting faith based audience....and say...a person of different faith, or any other people group wants their own saying on one of my cards...that is contrary to my faith...And reason for business....I cannot politely decline their business? An honest QR.
By the way...I am not ditzing people groups...i am more concerned about govt in my business!
Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it... Still ... I ...understand to a degree...try to understand back... but the main thing is Government and private business...gotta say Sam had strong points!
Sorry man, but that's the breaks. If you can't serve people equally, either get over the hate or find a career where you can.
And man, this private business thing is ridiculous. What do you do if somebody robs you? Or reneges on a contract? Or slanders you? Or decides to use the same name as you? Or tells everyone your secret R&D?
"Private" business is build upon a host of government protections and regulations. I think it's ridiculous when small business owners rely on every single one, but as soon as the government tells them they have to treat people equally they flip out about "government intrustion".
This is the most logical answer within the rights of all..