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".
The best answer so far is "I'm booked". Why? It's polite and respectful.
The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard.
Go back to the pharmacist that did not want to dispurse the morning after pill because of his beliefs.
The best answer so far is "I'm booked". Why? It's polite and respectful.
Only if you don't turn right around and accept another inquiry for the same date and get caught in your lie.
I think the best course of action would have been to say, "I'll do your wedding if you really want me to (send a check tomorrow) but I think you might be better served elsewhere." And mean it. No one's going to book you on that basis. You've been honest, you haven't broken the law, and you can go to church on Sunday and brag to your friends that you turned the job away.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
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...
A relevant tangent from Operaland:
I've come across more than one conservative Christian who has felt that acting out some operatic stories is "immoral" and makes them uncomfortable (this is before we even get to issues like stage kissing or - particularly in some more outlandish productions - simulated physical acts, nudity, fetish wear etc etc being part of the action). They either had to get past that, accept that they were acting and it wasn't THEM doing those things, or decide it crossed their religious boundaries and pursue an alternative career, since refusing to take direction isn't typically something one can do (at least not if you want to get hired anywhere else.)
For observant Jews and 7th day adventists there are schedule complications (an awful lot of performances happen on Fri and Sat nights). I know more than one singer who decided to step away from a significant career because they couldn't reconcile the conflicts with their religious beliefs.
I accept the difference here is there's no lawsuit/legislation involved, but my point is actually in direct reference to the "being an artist" comment quoted above. Sometimes you DO have to choose between your religious beliefs and being an artist.
PS I agree, Ian. As Blurmore said way earlier in this thread, it is the ONLY truly professional response. Of course, in John's scenario above, even that one could get tricky if somebody was looking to push the point....
PS I agree, Ian. As Blurmore said way earlier in this thread, it is the ONLY truly professional response. Of course, in John's scenario above, even that one could get tricky if somebody was looking to push the point....
There is no easy way out of something someone wants to push. And there are some people who make it their lives work to enforce laws by suing (and they do quite well although I'm not sure how they live with themselves as they put small family owned businesses out of business).
The important part of "I'm booked (or "I have plans") " is to convey politeness and respect to your customer regardless of your belief.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
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.
This seems to be repeated a lot throughout this thread. They are offended because they were given the honest reason why that studio wouldn't photograph their wedding. Had the studio simply indicated that they were booked, they never would have thought to pry more. There are more polite ways of doing things that are considered discriminatory and that's where the mess up is here that lead to the law suit in the first place.
The point is a Judge ruled who and why a small business photographer should photograph. I doubt a Christian business owner would want to lie (lies are never kind and polite) to protect their business from govt. coercion nor should they. I would not think to sue a photographer who declined my overtly faith based event if he as an atheist felt uncomfortable and he has that every right to decline. William's post is correct and just the facts:
"The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard."
I keep reading over and over that the best and most professional way to deal with this situation is to lie.
I understand this ideology if your a politician or a lawyer, but some folks have this strange idea that it's preferable to tell the truth.
The point here is using a contentious issue to discuss individual rights and how they affect our ability to operate our small photography businesses. It is not about how to deliberately discriminate or deny anyone service and get away with it like a game.
Many say the photographer must respect the gay couples beliefs and life style yet few even suggest the gay couple consider the photographers beliefs or like style.
I also think this attitude is also blaming the victim. Yes, the photographer is the victim. What has the gay couple lost? Nada, zip, nothing. The photographer has lost $7000 and maybe the ability to continue her small business. The gay couple had an agenda, the photographer only wanted to live her life according to her beliefs and move on.
Back to the main point. The government is not the answer it's the problem. Let me tell you about how a government program implemented with good intentions has in at least one occasion backfired.
One day while in the office of a manager who worked in a different department I noticed him sorting through a stack of documents. Some went in the trash can others to one side. I was curious and asked what he was doing. He said he was going through resumes because he needed ti fill a slot in his department. I asked how with only a cursory glance he could throw some into the trash. He said if I see an African American name I throw it inn the trash. WHAT!!! Why the hell would you do that? Your potentially eliminating finding a great employee!
His response was that it wasn't worth the effort and risk. I said, what risk! Again his response, if I hire a white guy and it doesn't work out I can simple let him go and hire someone else. If I hire an African American and it doesn't work out the first thing I am going to face is charges of discrimination and and a law suite. This will take up valuable time I don't have.
Reprehensible maybe, illegal certainly, but from this managers view point the best risk reward decision.
The point is that the government even when trying to help can create a lot of collateral damage.
The government seems to posses zero ability to include any form of common sense into even the most well meaning laws.
Using the gay marriage issue as an example. About half of the American population supports it and half dosn't support it. I don't think calling the other half names is productive. I don't believe the government has the right to force or promote anyone to accept gay marriage or the gay life style. I also don't believe the goverment has the right to force gays to accept the belief that gay marriage is wrong. What I do think we can do is tolerate the others viewpoint and acknowledge a right to exist. That goes both ways.
This seems to be repeated a lot throughout this thread. They are offended because they were given the honest reason why that studio wouldn't photograph their wedding. Had the studio simply indicated that they were booked, they never would have thought to pry more. There are more polite ways of doing things that are considered discriminatory and that's where the mess up is here that lead to the law suit in the first place.
I keep reading over and over that the best and most professional way to deal with this situation is to lie.
The reason I wouldn't run to the I'm booked line, is that you can get caught in the lie, and if you get caught you then may feel the need to lie further with someone cancelled, etc.
Meeting with the couple and then being honest, but polite in that you decline because you just don't think it would be a good fit, and kindly suggest two other photographers, is both honest and professional.
Saying I'm booked is a very easy way out, but be careful, if they haven't told you a date, its hard to say. Also in many conversations, they will ask if you are available that day first, before revealing or discussing to much, so you could have already said the date is open only to have to change your story.
I do know many do and will go with the I'm booked, but just suggesting another alternative, not trying to make a judgment on using it.
"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
The reason I wouldn't run to the I'm booked line, is that you can get caught in the lie, and if you get caught you then may feel the need to lie further with someone cancelled, etc.
Meeting with the couple and then being honest, but polite in that you decline because you just don't think it would be a good fit, and kindly suggest two other photographers, is both honest and professional.
Saying I'm booked is a very easy way out, but be careful, if they haven't told you a date, its hard to say. Also in many conversations, they will ask if you are available that day first, before revealing or discussing to much, so you could have already said the date is open only to have to change your story.
I do know many do and will go with the I'm booked, but just suggesting another alternative, not trying to make a judgment on using it.
The down side to being honest and actually trying help a couple who's life style you disagree with is your leaving yourself open to a law suit. One group has the power over an other group and no matter how nice, and honest you may be if the other group chooses to make your life miserable you toast.
I really can't understand how anyone could take issue with this. Refusing to shoot a gay wedding is no different than refusing to serve african americans at a lunch counter in the 60's. It's discriminatory and wrong, IMO. You can call it big government, I call it justice.
I also think this attitude is also blaming the victim. Yes, the photographer is the victim.
Are you kidding me? You admitted that half of the American population has a problem with the gay couple's "lifestyle" as you put it. This abuse is simply one more heaped on by that half of Americans "living according to their beliefs" This couple has certainly experienced something like it before and will experience it again.
Your argument fails, Sam, because you're looking at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't face any bigotry from the American public by virtue of your birth. Yeah, you encounter bad photographers, and when you do it's not a big deal to find a better one. But when half of them have an issue with you, it begins to impact your life. And this is why discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal.
Many say the photographer must respect the gay couples beliefs and life style yet few even suggest the gay couple consider the photographers beliefs or like style.
First, religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Second, neither belief should conflict. Yeah, some branches are against gay marriage. Doing a service which you publicly advertised (photographing a SS wedding) is NOT an endorsement of gay marriage. Just like hiring a Christian photographer is NOT an endorsement of Christianity. It's secular business in a secular nation.
How would you feel if Christians were a minority, and Christian weddings weren't allowed to be held in most public venues? Or you couldn't wear Christian jewelry in most private residences? Or it was impossible to obtain a lease for a Christian business in a high class district? You guys are so cavalier on denying gays basic rights to commerce because you don't have to deal with that situation. In our current society, if you were rejected for any of those things it would be a huge aberration. But minorities DO have to deal with these issues, and this is precisely why anti-discrimination laws exist.
I don't believe the government has the right to force or promote anyone to accept gay marriage or the gay life style.
So the government shouldn't promote tolerance? Wow. It sounds like your agenda goes a little further than the rights of private business.
More to the point, you "get more bees with honey". Let those who want no part of such weddings opt out and much of the resentment goes away (or, if you prefer, you could look at it as "denying revenue to haters"). Any Christian I ever met was far more concerned with being allowed to live their own life than they were with trying to impose anything on others. Yes, there are some notable exceptions - but by and large they don't seek to give unwelcome guidance/pressure/whatever.
The problems arise when they feel threatened by an agenda contrary to their beliefs being pushed on them and their families.
For the record, I am an atheist. One of my siblings is gay. I have gay friends. I'm fine with these ceremonies.
For us all to "just get along" requires all sides to be respectful. (Yes, even whoever is right. Call it 'being the bigger man' if you want).
The difference between modern day annoyances of gays (and this one is no more than an annoyance - whatever problems gays may have in other areas of life) to the civil rights struggle is several orders of magnitude. A difference of such degree as to be a difference in kind. It glosses over racial history, and does a disservice to both issues.
I really can't understand how anyone could take issue with this. Refusing to shoot a gay wedding is no different than refusing to serve african americans at a lunch counter in the 60's. It's discriminatory and wrong, IMO. You can call it big government, I call it justice.
So the government shouldn't promote tolerance? Wow. It sounds like your agenda goes a little further than the rights of private business.
Don't you see that demanding a particular photographer be involved isn't promoting tolerance? It is one thing to insist we all respect the rights of others, it is another to demand someone celebrate another's choices (sexual orientation is not a choice, but marriage certainly is).
This isn't about getting served at the lunch counter, being able to rent a particular venue, or access to accommodation. It is about artistic services by a particular individual.
The hammer of government does a lot of harm even when it is doing good. It shouldn't attempt to route out all intolerance (yes, intolerance is a bad thing. but we can get to tolerance more quickly, and more completely, if we seek answers from ourselves rather than government policy).
I really can't understand how anyone could take issue with this. Refusing to shoot a gay wedding is no different than refusing to serve african americans at a lunch counter in the 60's. It's discriminatory and wrong, IMO. You can call it big government, I call it justice.
Refusing to serve gays at the lunch counter is the same. Refusing to participate in an intimate activity you disagree with and / or violates your religious beliefs is very different.
Are you kidding me? You admitted that half of the American population has a problem with the gay couple's "lifestyle" as you put it. This abuse is simply one more heaped on by that half of Americans "living according to their beliefs" This couple has certainly experienced something like it before and will experience it again.
Yes, you are right they will face discrimination again. The government can not stop it, laws can not stop it. Only time will help this. Plus not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage discriminates against gays in everyday interaction.
Your argument fails, Sam, because you're looking at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't face any bigotry from the American public by virtue of your birth. Yeah, you encounter bad photographers, and when you do it's not a big deal to find a better one. But when half of them have an issue with you, it begins to impact your life. And this is why discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal.
While it's probably necessary to have some laws to help gays in some situations. I believe the laws must be carefully crafted and applied with some common sense.
First, religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Second, neither belief should conflict. Yeah, some branches are against gay marriage. Doing a service which you publicly advertised (photographing a SS wedding) is NOT an endorsement of gay marriage. Just like hiring a Christian photographer is NOT an endorsement of Christianity. It's secular business in a secular nation.
While I agree with you about sexual orientation not being a choice, (I have been saying that for 45 years) many don't accept that and can be part of their objections.
How would you feel if Christians were a minority, and Christian weddings weren't allowed to be held in most public venues? Or you couldn't wear Christian jewelry in most private residences? Or it was impossible to obtain a lease for a Christian business in a high class district? You guys are so cavalier on denying gays basic rights to commerce because you don't have to deal with that situation. In our current society, if you were rejected for any of those things it would be a huge aberration. But minorities DO have to deal with these issues, and this is precisely why anti-discrimination laws exist.
Actually Christians are being discriminated against on a world wide basis, and their beliefs are openly being disregarded here in the US.
So the government shouldn't promote tolerance? Wow. It sounds like your agenda goes a little further than the rights of private business.
I believe what I said was government has no business promoting acceptance of the gay life style. promoting tolerance is fine, and there is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Having laws that promote civil discord, polite interaction and access to non intimate services (like the lunch counter and housing) is fine with me.
I keep trying to tell you government is not your friend. Your all happy when they support your cause, but what do you do when they promote a cause you disagree with?
I wonder how much longer this thread is going to go before Godwin's Law kicks in?
Interesting question - but as Richard pointed out on page 1, this was discussed at length (11 pages) several years ago, here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=96692
I read the whole thing (it was a fascinating discussion) and saw no signs of Godwin's Law nor do I think it will show up here, 'cause DGinners are generally too reasonable to digress that far - unless you jinxed it.
Tolerance is a tricky concept as different societies draw the line in different places - try medical marijuana in Singapore or gay unions in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.
In-tolerance of perceived immorality is common in nations and cultures worldwide and is not always based on religious doctrines - but is usually based on core beliefs. Core beliefs are commonly formed during childhood and people seldom stray very far away from them. Cultural values can (and should) evolve, but trying to sway an individual away from core beliefs is nearly impossible and to label those who do not share yours as "haters" is a slippery slope - love and hate are instinctive and hard to generalize or define due to the incredible variation of the human being and their beliefs. Having said that, sometimes it is easy to tell the difference; puppies and kittens = love - KKK = hate.
The down side to being honest and actually trying help a couple who's life style you disagree with is your leaving yourself open to a law suit. One group has the power over an other group and no matter how nice, and honest you may be if the other group chooses to make your life miserable you toast.
Sam
If you give full disclosure and tell them "I don't shoot gay weddings" yes you may open yourself to a lawsuit. If you meet with them and just say politely, "you know based on what you told me about your wedding day, and the service you want I don't think I would be the right photographer for you. Here are two photographers who I do recommend, abc and def. Here is there contact info."
You don't have to shoot every wedding that comes through you door. You just can't say no in New Mexico, based solely on the fact the couple is gay (or any other protected class).
Also instead of the I'm booked that day line, saying I have something planned that day that would interfere with me shooting your wedding would be a better wording, so as to include potential family activities, travel, being conveniently out of town, etc. The term booked, usually refers to having another client, whereas something planned leaves it open to many possibilities.
"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
More to the point, you "get more bees with honey". Let those who want no part of such weddings opt out and much of the resentment goes away (or, if you prefer, you could look at it as "denying revenue to haters"). Any Christian I ever met was far more concerned with being allowed to live their own life than they were with trying to impose anything on others. Yes, there are some notable exceptions - but by and large they don't seek to give unwelcome guidance/pressure/whatever.
The problems arise when they feel threatened by an agenda contrary to their beliefs being pushed on them and their families.
For the record, I am an atheist. One of my siblings is gay. I have gay friends. I'm fine with these ceremonies.
For us all to "just get along" requires all sides to be respectful. (Yes, even whoever is right. Call it 'being the bigger man' if you want).
The difference between modern day annoyances of gays (and this one is no more than an annoyance - whatever problems gays may have in other areas of life) to the civil rights struggle is several orders of magnitude. A difference of such degree as to be a difference in kind. It glosses over racial history, and does a disservice to both issues.
Good points.
"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
I really can't understand how anyone could take issue with this. Refusing to shoot a gay wedding is no different than refusing to serve african americans at a lunch counter in the 60's. It's discriminatory and wrong, IMO. You can call it big government, I call it justice.
Refusing to serve gays at the lunch counter is the same. Refusing to participate in an intimate activity you disagree with and / or violates your religious beliefs is very different.
Sam
I guess I am still confused as to how you spot gays at a lunch counter. (Sorry couldn't resist trying to add some humor to this thread)
"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
I see this photographers business going down the crapper soon. My opinion is photographers who are in business to make money should consider word of mouth or voice of the customer. I don't think its fair to say you only shoot "traditional weddings". I have been a second shooter for many weddings in the last three years and I have helped shoot same-sex, over weight, elderly, wicken, multi racial, total bridzillas, and many other types. The main photographer (100% christian) has told me he doesnt feel comfortable shooting same-sex weddings based on his religion, but when it comes down to it he has to provide for his family. Does he do the best he can? He always does. Its better for business if he were to take the wedding and deliver a great product, have the customer be happy, and tell all their friends to go to him. If he were to say "Sorry I only shoot traditional weddings" then that person or people will tell their friends, and they will tell their friends and it keeps going.
Have I done shoots were I felt uncomfortable? Yup. Have I learned not all customers are the same? Yup. I think the only way to get passed stuff like that is just learn how to deal with certain people. Long story short the photographer should just get out of her own way, and step outside the box and try something new. Who knows she may end up loving it. I enjoy doing weddings because I love seeing two people in love sharing it with everyone. Who cares about their race, sexual orientation, weight, gender, hair color. We are who we are.
Sure. Don't take the job, and get your butt sued off.
Well avoid being blatant about it. "I'm booked" (as previously mentioned) is a pretty darn good phrase when you don't want to accept a job. Sugar coat it a little-- "Oh I'd love to but I'm booked. I'd recommend Johnny Wedding Photography."
Business 101. You've just referred a job you don't want to someone who does want it.
Well I'm a racist, a bigot, a homo phobe, non politically correct and at fault for everything else minority groups want to label people who don't subscribe to their way of thinking as.
And I couldn't give a flying chit!
I wouldn't do this wedding either.
No, I don't agree with gay marriages so I'm a bigot.
I also have no experience shooting gay weddings, I have no idea of the mindset, what they might want, how to pose 2 women ( or blokes together) or otherwise understand what it would take to do a good job from their perspective.
Doing their wedding would leave me open to complaints and litigation for making a bad job of something I have no confidence in doing anyway. How can I be asked to do something I admit I had no confidence in doing myself and then peanilised for it as well?
For one thing WTF is the bride? Is there a bride? does the whole thing fly in the face of itself and there is a dominant and subservient role? Does anyone walk down the aisle? If so, who and how is that determined? what is their role or place in the relationship.? Are they both entirely equal in status in their roles? Who should I sit and who should stand is pics where appropriate? Does it matter or not? Does one have the role where they stand on one side in the pics or does it not matter?
Does one hold a bouquet and one not? How do I not stick my foot in my mouth and cause insult if after years of habit I slip and call one of them " The Groom?
This isn't being stupid, they are concerns and questions I'd have right off the top of my head.
Am I going to cause insult and be sued if I ask them about these things?
The bottom line is, I DON"T KNOW.
And I have no inclination to find out to satisfy these people who want to go off on their own tangent.
I don't know about the Hindu religion wedding ceremony or Buddhist's either so I probably wouldn't take one of those weddings on for fear of stuffing it up. It takes understanding to get it right and know what to actually shoot the same as with any denomination. Why should I be forced to do a lesbian wedding if I don't want to and don't have the knowledge to know how to do a good job?
Or is it really that I'm not being forced to do it, I just have to put forward an acceptable lie?
To me, that's more like it in truth!
And what a sad pair of whingers. Their whole wedding would be overshadowed and have all their friends talking about the photographer that wouldn't photograph them and how they were going to get even rather than the spotlight being on the couple ( is that the right term??) enjoying their day. I'll bet my backside with a disposition like that, they don't even last 5 years together.
Like Sams example of the Muslim cooking pork chops, what if we spun this to a Muslim photographer being asked to shoot the wedding and they did the same thing? Now we are getting into murky waters because it's one special interest group against another.
Would they be brought up on the same charges?
Well if the Muslims there get pampered and sucked up to like they do here, not a hope in hell, for them it would be OK. That being the case, why should anyone else get rapt over the knuckles for the self same action?
When something only cuts one way, it's a complete and utter crock.
And this isn't the same as refusing to serve a black person ( Oh, is that the right terminology or do I have to skip and dance around that term as well? ) a meal in a restaurant or a drink at a bar. That is a product that is the same for everyone. Clearly shooting a wedding with a pair of lesbians or homosexual men ( oh no, more possible political incorrectness..... tough. ) does require a modification of ones methods and strategies... the same as every wedding I shoot.
I have always said my success is largely getting into peoples heads and understanding what they really want. It isn't about pictures, it's about the feelings and emotions they generate and what comes from them. I believe I'm on record and have stated that on this very site several times over the years.
If I can't get into peoples heads because they have chosen a minority and controversial lifestyle , I can't do a good job and I have no defense if I don't when forced into something my better sense of judgement says don't touch.
And now these bleating bitches have won their case, what have they really gained? Sure as hell it's not any sympathy for their cause! They won't have won anyone to be more tolerant or accepting. Some of their like minded trouble makers will think they won a victory when in reality all they have done is set their cause backwards.
All I can take from this is if faced with the same situation is NOT to tell the truth but to blow them off some other way. And I'd be far more inclined to do this with the trouble making mentality of these people in mind.
I really don't care what people do. But leave me to do my thing in peace and I'll give you the same courtesy. As shown time and time and time again, that's not good enough for a lot of minority and special group whingers. They want to make a big scene and be perpetually offended about everything that doesn't go their way and shove their choices down everyone else's throats.
Well 'ya know what? Time to pull on your big girl panties, take a tablespoon of concrete and harden the Fk up. Life isn't going to be just like you want everyday so get used to it.
Stop having a sook at everything you feel isn't fair. Life ISN"T fair, for anyone, so stop bitching and look on the bright side instead of filling your days with aggravation you caused yourself.
If these people went about their lifestyle and let others lead theirs as they want instead of ramming theirs down everyone elses necks, they may find there is a lot more understanding towards them.
Comments
The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard.
Go back to the pharmacist that did not want to dispurse the morning after pill because of his beliefs.
Just the facts here.
williamspics.smugmug.com
I think the best course of action would have been to say, "I'll do your wedding if you really want me to (send a check tomorrow) but I think you might be better served elsewhere." And mean it. No one's going to book you on that basis. You've been honest, you haven't broken the law, and you can go to church on Sunday and brag to your friends that you turned the job away.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Realistically though, it's a no win situation if there is perceived discrimination.
A relevant tangent from Operaland:
I've come across more than one conservative Christian who has felt that acting out some operatic stories is "immoral" and makes them uncomfortable (this is before we even get to issues like stage kissing or - particularly in some more outlandish productions - simulated physical acts, nudity, fetish wear etc etc being part of the action). They either had to get past that, accept that they were acting and it wasn't THEM doing those things, or decide it crossed their religious boundaries and pursue an alternative career, since refusing to take direction isn't typically something one can do (at least not if you want to get hired anywhere else.)
For observant Jews and 7th day adventists there are schedule complications (an awful lot of performances happen on Fri and Sat nights). I know more than one singer who decided to step away from a significant career because they couldn't reconcile the conflicts with their religious beliefs.
I accept the difference here is there's no lawsuit/legislation involved, but my point is actually in direct reference to the "being an artist" comment quoted above. Sometimes you DO have to choose between your religious beliefs and being an artist.
PS I agree, Ian. As Blurmore said way earlier in this thread, it is the ONLY truly professional response. Of course, in John's scenario above, even that one could get tricky if somebody was looking to push the point....
There is no easy way out of something someone wants to push. And there are some people who make it their lives work to enforce laws by suing (and they do quite well although I'm not sure how they live with themselves as they put small family owned businesses out of business).
The important part of "I'm booked (or "I have plans") " is to convey politeness and respect to your customer regardless of your belief.
Bingo.
This seems to be repeated a lot throughout this thread. They are offended because they were given the honest reason why that studio wouldn't photograph their wedding. Had the studio simply indicated that they were booked, they never would have thought to pry more. There are more polite ways of doing things that are considered discriminatory and that's where the mess up is here that lead to the law suit in the first place.
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
"The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard."
I understand this ideology if your a politician or a lawyer, but some folks have this strange idea that it's preferable to tell the truth.
The point here is using a contentious issue to discuss individual rights and how they affect our ability to operate our small photography businesses. It is not about how to deliberately discriminate or deny anyone service and get away with it like a game.
Many say the photographer must respect the gay couples beliefs and life style yet few even suggest the gay couple consider the photographers beliefs or like style.
I also think this attitude is also blaming the victim. Yes, the photographer is the victim. What has the gay couple lost? Nada, zip, nothing. The photographer has lost $7000 and maybe the ability to continue her small business. The gay couple had an agenda, the photographer only wanted to live her life according to her beliefs and move on.
Back to the main point. The government is not the answer it's the problem. Let me tell you about how a government program implemented with good intentions has in at least one occasion backfired.
One day while in the office of a manager who worked in a different department I noticed him sorting through a stack of documents. Some went in the trash can others to one side. I was curious and asked what he was doing. He said he was going through resumes because he needed ti fill a slot in his department. I asked how with only a cursory glance he could throw some into the trash. He said if I see an African American name I throw it inn the trash. WHAT!!! Why the hell would you do that? Your potentially eliminating finding a great employee!
His response was that it wasn't worth the effort and risk. I said, what risk! Again his response, if I hire a white guy and it doesn't work out I can simple let him go and hire someone else. If I hire an African American and it doesn't work out the first thing I am going to face is charges of discrimination and and a law suite. This will take up valuable time I don't have.
Reprehensible maybe, illegal certainly, but from this managers view point the best risk reward decision.
The point is that the government even when trying to help can create a lot of collateral damage.
The government seems to posses zero ability to include any form of common sense into even the most well meaning laws.
Using the gay marriage issue as an example. About half of the American population supports it and half dosn't support it. I don't think calling the other half names is productive. I don't believe the government has the right to force or promote anyone to accept gay marriage or the gay life style. I also don't believe the goverment has the right to force gays to accept the belief that gay marriage is wrong. What I do think we can do is tolerate the others viewpoint and acknowledge a right to exist. That goes both ways.
Sam
The reason I wouldn't run to the I'm booked line, is that you can get caught in the lie, and if you get caught you then may feel the need to lie further with someone cancelled, etc.
Meeting with the couple and then being honest, but polite in that you decline because you just don't think it would be a good fit, and kindly suggest two other photographers, is both honest and professional.
Saying I'm booked is a very easy way out, but be careful, if they haven't told you a date, its hard to say. Also in many conversations, they will ask if you are available that day first, before revealing or discussing to much, so you could have already said the date is open only to have to change your story.
I do know many do and will go with the I'm booked, but just suggesting another alternative, not trying to make a judgment on using it.
The down side to being honest and actually trying help a couple who's life style you disagree with is your leaving yourself open to a law suit. One group has the power over an other group and no matter how nice, and honest you may be if the other group chooses to make your life miserable you toast.
Sam
Which group is which?
Sam
would this include government dictation?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Your argument fails, Sam, because you're looking at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't face any bigotry from the American public by virtue of your birth. Yeah, you encounter bad photographers, and when you do it's not a big deal to find a better one. But when half of them have an issue with you, it begins to impact your life. And this is why discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal.
First, religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Second, neither belief should conflict. Yeah, some branches are against gay marriage. Doing a service which you publicly advertised (photographing a SS wedding) is NOT an endorsement of gay marriage. Just like hiring a Christian photographer is NOT an endorsement of Christianity. It's secular business in a secular nation.
How would you feel if Christians were a minority, and Christian weddings weren't allowed to be held in most public venues? Or you couldn't wear Christian jewelry in most private residences? Or it was impossible to obtain a lease for a Christian business in a high class district? You guys are so cavalier on denying gays basic rights to commerce because you don't have to deal with that situation. In our current society, if you were rejected for any of those things it would be a huge aberration. But minorities DO have to deal with these issues, and this is precisely why anti-discrimination laws exist.
So the government shouldn't promote tolerance? Wow. It sounds like your agenda goes a little further than the rights of private business.
More to the point, you "get more bees with honey". Let those who want no part of such weddings opt out and much of the resentment goes away (or, if you prefer, you could look at it as "denying revenue to haters"). Any Christian I ever met was far more concerned with being allowed to live their own life than they were with trying to impose anything on others. Yes, there are some notable exceptions - but by and large they don't seek to give unwelcome guidance/pressure/whatever.
The problems arise when they feel threatened by an agenda contrary to their beliefs being pushed on them and their families.
For the record, I am an atheist. One of my siblings is gay. I have gay friends. I'm fine with these ceremonies.
For us all to "just get along" requires all sides to be respectful. (Yes, even whoever is right. Call it 'being the bigger man' if you want).
The difference between modern day annoyances of gays (and this one is no more than an annoyance - whatever problems gays may have in other areas of life) to the civil rights struggle is several orders of magnitude. A difference of such degree as to be a difference in kind. It glosses over racial history, and does a disservice to both issues.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Yah, we disagree on all points. It's a human rights issue, IMO.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Don't you see that demanding a particular photographer be involved isn't promoting tolerance? It is one thing to insist we all respect the rights of others, it is another to demand someone celebrate another's choices (sexual orientation is not a choice, but marriage certainly is).
This isn't about getting served at the lunch counter, being able to rent a particular venue, or access to accommodation. It is about artistic services by a particular individual.
The hammer of government does a lot of harm even when it is doing good. It shouldn't attempt to route out all intolerance (yes, intolerance is a bad thing. but we can get to tolerance more quickly, and more completely, if we seek answers from ourselves rather than government policy).
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Refusing to serve gays at the lunch counter is the same. Refusing to participate in an intimate activity you disagree with and / or violates your religious beliefs is very different.
Sam
Yes, you are right they will face discrimination again. The government can not stop it, laws can not stop it. Only time will help this. Plus not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage discriminates against gays in everyday interaction.
While it's probably necessary to have some laws to help gays in some situations. I believe the laws must be carefully crafted and applied with some common sense.
While I agree with you about sexual orientation not being a choice, (I have been saying that for 45 years) many don't accept that and can be part of their objections.
Actually Christians are being discriminated against on a world wide basis, and their beliefs are openly being disregarded here in the US.
I believe what I said was government has no business promoting acceptance of the gay life style. promoting tolerance is fine, and there is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Having laws that promote civil discord, polite interaction and access to non intimate services (like the lunch counter and housing) is fine with me.
I keep trying to tell you government is not your friend. Your all happy when they support your cause, but what do you do when they promote a cause you disagree with?
Sam
Interesting question - but as Richard pointed out on page 1, this was discussed at length (11 pages) several years ago, here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=96692
I read the whole thing (it was a fascinating discussion) and saw no signs of Godwin's Law nor do I think it will show up here, 'cause DGinners are generally too reasonable to digress that far - unless you jinxed it.
Tolerance is a tricky concept as different societies draw the line in different places - try medical marijuana in Singapore or gay unions in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.
In-tolerance of perceived immorality is common in nations and cultures worldwide and is not always based on religious doctrines - but is usually based on core beliefs. Core beliefs are commonly formed during childhood and people seldom stray very far away from them. Cultural values can (and should) evolve, but trying to sway an individual away from core beliefs is nearly impossible and to label those who do not share yours as "haters" is a slippery slope - love and hate are instinctive and hard to generalize or define due to the incredible variation of the human being and their beliefs. Having said that, sometimes it is easy to tell the difference; puppies and kittens = love - KKK = hate.
You don't have to shoot every wedding that comes through you door. You just can't say no in New Mexico, based solely on the fact the couple is gay (or any other protected class).
Also instead of the I'm booked that day line, saying I have something planned that day that would interfere with me shooting your wedding would be a better wording, so as to include potential family activities, travel, being conveniently out of town, etc. The term booked, usually refers to having another client, whereas something planned leaves it open to many possibilities.
Good points.
I guess I am still confused as to how you spot gays at a lunch counter. (Sorry couldn't resist trying to add some humor to this thread)
Have I done shoots were I felt uncomfortable? Yup. Have I learned not all customers are the same? Yup. I think the only way to get passed stuff like that is just learn how to deal with certain people. Long story short the photographer should just get out of her own way, and step outside the box and try something new. Who knows she may end up loving it. I enjoy doing weddings because I love seeing two people in love sharing it with everyone. Who cares about their race, sexual orientation, weight, gender, hair color. We are who we are.
Well avoid being blatant about it. "I'm booked" (as previously mentioned) is a pretty darn good phrase when you don't want to accept a job. Sugar coat it a little-- "Oh I'd love to but I'm booked. I'd recommend Johnny Wedding Photography."
Business 101. You've just referred a job you don't want to someone who does want it.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
And I couldn't give a flying chit!
I wouldn't do this wedding either.
No, I don't agree with gay marriages so I'm a bigot.
I also have no experience shooting gay weddings, I have no idea of the mindset, what they might want, how to pose 2 women ( or blokes together) or otherwise understand what it would take to do a good job from their perspective.
Doing their wedding would leave me open to complaints and litigation for making a bad job of something I have no confidence in doing anyway. How can I be asked to do something I admit I had no confidence in doing myself and then peanilised for it as well?
For one thing WTF is the bride? Is there a bride? does the whole thing fly in the face of itself and there is a dominant and subservient role? Does anyone walk down the aisle? If so, who and how is that determined? what is their role or place in the relationship.? Are they both entirely equal in status in their roles? Who should I sit and who should stand is pics where appropriate? Does it matter or not? Does one have the role where they stand on one side in the pics or does it not matter?
Does one hold a bouquet and one not? How do I not stick my foot in my mouth and cause insult if after years of habit I slip and call one of them " The Groom?
This isn't being stupid, they are concerns and questions I'd have right off the top of my head.
Am I going to cause insult and be sued if I ask them about these things?
The bottom line is, I DON"T KNOW.
And I have no inclination to find out to satisfy these people who want to go off on their own tangent.
I don't know about the Hindu religion wedding ceremony or Buddhist's either so I probably wouldn't take one of those weddings on for fear of stuffing it up. It takes understanding to get it right and know what to actually shoot the same as with any denomination. Why should I be forced to do a lesbian wedding if I don't want to and don't have the knowledge to know how to do a good job?
Or is it really that I'm not being forced to do it, I just have to put forward an acceptable lie?
To me, that's more like it in truth!
And what a sad pair of whingers. Their whole wedding would be overshadowed and have all their friends talking about the photographer that wouldn't photograph them and how they were going to get even rather than the spotlight being on the couple ( is that the right term??) enjoying their day. I'll bet my backside with a disposition like that, they don't even last 5 years together.
Like Sams example of the Muslim cooking pork chops, what if we spun this to a Muslim photographer being asked to shoot the wedding and they did the same thing? Now we are getting into murky waters because it's one special interest group against another.
Would they be brought up on the same charges?
Well if the Muslims there get pampered and sucked up to like they do here, not a hope in hell, for them it would be OK. That being the case, why should anyone else get rapt over the knuckles for the self same action?
When something only cuts one way, it's a complete and utter crock.
And this isn't the same as refusing to serve a black person ( Oh, is that the right terminology or do I have to skip and dance around that term as well?
I have always said my success is largely getting into peoples heads and understanding what they really want. It isn't about pictures, it's about the feelings and emotions they generate and what comes from them. I believe I'm on record and have stated that on this very site several times over the years.
If I can't get into peoples heads because they have chosen a minority and controversial lifestyle , I can't do a good job and I have no defense if I don't when forced into something my better sense of judgement says don't touch.
And now these bleating bitches have won their case, what have they really gained? Sure as hell it's not any sympathy for their cause! They won't have won anyone to be more tolerant or accepting. Some of their like minded trouble makers will think they won a victory when in reality all they have done is set their cause backwards.
All I can take from this is if faced with the same situation is NOT to tell the truth but to blow them off some other way. And I'd be far more inclined to do this with the trouble making mentality of these people in mind.
I really don't care what people do. But leave me to do my thing in peace and I'll give you the same courtesy. As shown time and time and time again, that's not good enough for a lot of minority and special group whingers. They want to make a big scene and be perpetually offended about everything that doesn't go their way and shove their choices down everyone else's throats.
Well 'ya know what? Time to pull on your big girl panties, take a tablespoon of concrete and harden the Fk up. Life isn't going to be just like you want everyday so get used to it.
Stop having a sook at everything you feel isn't fair. Life ISN"T fair, for anyone, so stop bitching and look on the bright side instead of filling your days with aggravation you caused yourself.
If these people went about their lifestyle and let others lead theirs as they want instead of ramming theirs down everyone elses necks, they may find there is a lot more understanding towards them.