My opinion is photographers who are in business to make money should consider word of mouth or voice of the customer.
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.
FANTASTIC!
Just like the price shoppers that I blow off none too politely at times, they will tell their other cheap arse friends and they will also stay away.
Their friends who know they are cheap arsed won't be the slightest bit fazed.
And this works in practice. I remember one bride I had that was never happy no matter what I tried to do for her. One of her good friends rang me. We spoke for a bit and she mentioned she had seen my work. when I asked who's wedding she had seen and she told me, I straight out said, "she complained about everything I did, why the hell are you ringing me?" She laughed and said yeah, you're the devil but we were at the wedding, saw how you worked, saw the pics and loved them. XXX always whinges no matter how perfect everything is so you were a mongeral like everyone else she had to deal with before you did a thing.
Was pretty funny seeing the first bride in the wedding party knowing the I'll will she had for me.
The 2nd bride was a shooters delight in every way and couldn't have been easier to work with.
Who cares about their race, sexual orientation, weight, gender, hair color. We are who we are.
Well clearly these lesbians don't subscribe to that theory or they would have brushed the incident off, labeled the shooter whatever pet name they had for people that didn't subscribe to their proclivities and moved on wouldn't they?
They would have concentrated their time on having a nice wedding, not getting wrapped up in litigation because someone hurt their feelings.
And that's the hypocrisy people like this have. They want to be special, demand tolerance and understanding and then prove to be the most INTOLERANT and narrow minded people of all.
If I went to a shooter or a Barber or a car dealer and they said, sorry, we only cater to gays, I'd laugh and might ask them if that's profitable or not and go to the next guy. I wouldn't get all bet out of shape and upset and run to solicitor whining my feelings had been hurt.
I WOULD let them do their thing and I'd get on with mine.
To add some clarification......it doesn't matter if I agree with the photographer or not. It's her business, her beliefs and her life.
Now I still want to know if you think a Muslim cook should be forced to prepare pork chops for dinner?
I view both situations as the same. Say yes to both or no to both. Trying to say yes for one and no for the other is simply trying to have your personal views enforced.
Sam
Sam, I do not believe that a Muslin cook should be required to prepare a pork chop dinner for me, but I do believe that a Muslin cook should be required to serve me what they have prepared if I walked into their place of business and sit down and ask to be served. Many people have lost their lives in order to guarantee me that right. Now let’s turn your Muslin example around and place it in a different situation. Let’s say you have worked all your life in order to save to take your wife on an expensive world class cruise. Now when you and your wife get up to the counter she tells the person behind the counter that you have worked in the factory all your life in order to retire and take the two of you on this wonderful world class cruise. Now the person behind the counter says, “Oh no, I cannot sell you a ticket on this cruise, this cruise is going to be full of very wealthy and prominent people, and we cannot allow common people like you on this cruise.” Now would you just walk away and tell you wife, “well they have a right to do that, we are not among the rich and famous.” Or would you take them to court for violating you civil rights?
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.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I'm done with this thread. It's gotten too nasty. I'll depart with this final thought:
What if Rosa Parks had just gone nicely, quietly and politely to the back of the bus?
"Agenda" is not a dirty word.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
over 30 yrs ago I shot my 1st wedding... ... each wedding I shot brought me more work and one day at a reception a bridesmaid came to me to book a meeting and said her future wife would be there is that is alright...I did not blink cough or hesitate...I said of course..i want both parties involved to be there always....this was the mid 1980's and I was just starting out and was married and had 3 kids to feed and keep a roof over their heads, plus I was working a factory job and I could not see myself doing that kind of work for 30 or 40 yrs....was I nervous...you bet...gay marriage was is illegal ... ... hell being gay was nearly illegal here,.... but I shoot weddings and this was another few dollars to work toward my own studio equipment .... by this time I tossed all wedding photo shot lists out the window and had memorized over 200 shots that made it go real fast...so I asked who is walking down the aisle and so your on the left side to me...that makes you the bride, please tell your family that your the bride and she is the groom....both smiled and agreed....well it was pretty simple as the woman groom was in a tux and so were here fellow and girl groomsmen, yes she had both groomsmen and grooms-ladies and the Bride had brides maids and brides men, it was a cool wedding I simply shot it as it were a "traditional wedding" and moved on, that was my first wedding where I did not allow shite loads of spectators to view shooting the posed shots of the wedding party, families and intimates of the couple, as I did not want to hear the Gasps and mumblings going on when shooting them kissing ... ... and from that wedding on I did not let spectators in to watch the shooting and it made my time in the church go from nearly 1.5 hours to less than 30 minutes to create and capture over 100 images ... ... ... but my upbringing was different than a lot of folks, my Dad taught me at a young age that people are people and all people, no matter what, deserve to be treated equally respectful... ... ... that if you treated a white person well then you damn well better treat the Indian, Mexican and Black people well ... ... ... ... and even in the 60's, he had no problem hiring anyone and paid them all the same, he even brought food to them for lunch or would take his crew out for lunch or dinner all sat and ate together ... .... ... he always said to respect others no matter what, you donot have to agree with them to respect them ... ... but if your in a service business and you disrespect one group then that will spread like wildfire as their is nothing faster than word of mouth ... ... ... he also said that lying was lying...there is no white, grey or black in lying it was lying to all gods....but if you do not want to work for or with someone respectfully bow out .. ... ... even if it means to tell a "white" lie ... ... ... my question was, but dad you said a lie was a lie no white no grey so won't God be angered for lying ?? His answer was... ... He will understand if that lie keeps you from being SUED and unable to provide for your family. As I said earlier in this thread....I shoot Weddings, If I get asked to do a wedding that is of a faith I have never done then I ask to meet with the Minister / Officiate to get all that is expected of me from them...I also ask to attend a couple of worship services and I attend the rehearsal... Have I turned down any weddings...yes with respect ... .... ... I had to turn down an Orthodox Greek Wedding, I was told by the Priest that the room would fill with incense smoke... ... ... I was already using a boatload of allergy and asthma medication and would not be able to tolerate the smoke....that one was easy ... I had medical reasons for not taking that wedding...but then came a gay wedding that the couple said straight out that they wanted to shock their parents with the photos of them ... ... because they would not attend the wedding .... we had not even gotten to my fees... ... I asked for the date of the rehearsal and wedding...opened my book and used the old I am booked lie to get out of it ... .... ... I did tell them that if they could wait for 6 weeks more I would be able to but that was not possible as they had already sent out invitations ... ... ... so yes I lied but with the statement of if you can wait, I kept myself from getting sued and that was back in the 80's... they would not have been able to sue for sexual discrimination but rather racial .. as they were black and white ... ... It turned out that the gay couple I had shot the wedding for had recommended me and when they heard what this couple was planning they and a lot of others did not attend.
Wichita is the largest city in Ks, but in a lot of ways it is a a very small town .... and when the word spread that this couple was planning to be very disrespectful to their parents most of their friends refused to attend, and they were shunned from the weekly cross dressers competitions and other activities in their gay community... ... ... their union only lasted 2 yrs from what I heard from a gay minister friend of theirs.... .... .... .... It really all boils down to respect and covering your butt.
I will not refuse to take your money and do an excellent job for you, no matter your race, creed, or religion ... ... ... as long as you are not doing something to be blatantly disrespectful to someone else, if your wedding is not within my core beliefs then that is between you and YOUR GOD.... for it is not for me to JUDGE YOU...I am not qualified to JUDGE you........
To me, the importance of this discussion is that there are ways to be polite and respectful of others and their rights too.
As for the question of whether Rosa Parks had gone quietly and politely to the back of the bus? We'll never know because she chose to remain in her seat and the rest is history.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Aside from the grounds in this particular law suit, and the challenge of govt role in small business, it is ironic that the judge ruled commercial photography not to be anything - merely than commercial photography - and isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. Gee, even if I was a prospective customer and read this on the door of your business I might move on! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/eek7.gif" border="0" alt="" >
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.
Lying is a bad policy and the client could easily claim they were being discriminated again by making a second anonymous phone call to ask about the same date.
I think the best way to handle this was the suggestion that you tell the clients that you'd be "happy to do the job, but frankly Johnny Wedding Photography specializes in gay marriages and could probably do a better job."
Lying is a bad policy and the client could easily claim they were being discriminated again by making a second anonymous phone call to ask about the same date.
I think the best way to handle this was the suggestion that you tell the clients that you'd be "happy to do the job, but frankly Johnny Wedding Photography specializes in gay marriages and could probably do a better job."
You had me up until "specializes in". After that, I'd feel discriminated against.
And you're right, anyone with an agenda will catch you in your lie. But the point is, again, to be polite and respectful just as you would with any client whose job you don't want to accept. So if you say "I'm sorry, I cannot accept that job." to anyone who whose job you don't want to accept, then that's how you should proceed.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Would you shoot a white-supremest wedding? Given the NM ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get into trouble for refusing to serve them as well, since their repulsive viewpoints are constitutionally protected as free speech. This whole thing is a very slippery slope.
I believe there's a huge difference between wedding photography and institutionalized services like a restaurants, buses, government services, etc. We as photographers ought to be able to specialize in whatever kind of photography we want without worrying about whether we're going to be sued for offending somebody. I may be pro-gay and still choose to shoot only traditional weddings because that's were my expertise lies, and I should be free to say that.
So how do you enforce non-discrimination for protected classes without discriminating against the rights of others who disagree with them? Simple. You do it based on the size of the business. There's actually pending legislation which could be used as a model for such a law in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
From Wikipedia: "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees. "
But the point is, again, to be polite and respectful just as you would with any client whose job you don't want to accept. So if you say "I'm sorry, I cannot accept that job." to anyone who whose job you don't want to accept, then that's how you should proceed.
Ian, while I applaud your desire to be polite, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with legalities. Even polite people get sued, probably more so than pricks.
Ian, while I applaud your desire to be polite, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with legalities. Even polite people get sued, probably more so than pricks.
It does have to do with how you treat people. Sure, you might be sued but the reality is that if you decline a job (whatever the reason) and you're consistent in how you decline it, polite, and respectful then the chances are the suit will go nowhere. So a better way to phrase it is that it's about the process you use to decline the job.
On the other hand, if you routinely decline work in a discriminatory fashion, the likely hood you will lose (or settle) is quite high.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
This is not the kind of friendly and supportive thread that I usually see here, and that makes me sad.
??? You find it sad that people can and will disagree? It looks to me that most of the posters support one side or the other, if not both sides. That's supportive. Except for some who support one side calling the other side, ignorant, and bigoted (and that's been pretty mild) it's been a very civil discussion on a subject that can generate high emotions.
It does have to do with how you treat people. Sure, you might be sued but the reality is that if you decline a job (whatever the reason) and you're consistent in how you decline it, polite, and respectful then the chances are the suit will go nowhere. So a better way to phrase it is that it's about the process you use to decline the job.
On the other hand, if you routinely decline work in a discriminatory fashion, the likely hood you will lose (or settle) is quite high.
There's nothing to indicate that the photographer in the article was impolite or inconsistent. Actually, quite the contrary. The article states he said he only shoots traditional weddings. I see nothing impolite or inconsistent in that. Being polite is always the best policy, but it's not the answer to the problem.
Would you shoot a white-supremest wedding? Given the NM ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get into trouble for refusing to serve them as well, since their repulsive viewpoints are constitutionally protected as free speech. This whole thing is a very slippery slope.
Actually under current laws I think you could openly refuse the KKK wedding, or even a Christian wedding.
I believe there's a huge difference between wedding photography and institutionalized services like a restaurants, buses, government services, etc. We as photographers ought to be able to specialize in whatever kind of photography we want without worrying about whether we're going to be sued for offending somebody. I may be pro-gay and still choose to shoot only traditional weddings because that's were my expertise lies, and I should be free to say that.
OHhhhhh finally, someone gets it.
So how do you enforce non-discrimination for protected classes without discriminating against the rights of others who disagree with them?
That is the question isn't it? I don't know if it's possible to come up with one law that would cover everyone in every case. I do know we really don't want the government mucking it up.
??? You find it sad that people can and will disagree? It looks to me that most of the posters support one side or the other, if not both sides. That's supportive. Except for some who support one side calling the other side, ignorant, and bigoted (and that's been pretty mild) it's been a very civil discussion on a subject that can generate high emotions.
Sam
+1 Sam
Kinkajou, what made me sad was the other day photographing an event and hearing the black alphabet, and how the teacher had mentioned she taught it in her public school. I don't think preaching segregation has helped our country overcome some racial issues.
"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
Aside from the grounds in this particular law suit, and the challenge of govt role in small business, it is ironic that the judge ruled commercial photography not to be anything - merely than commercial photography - and isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. Gee, even if I was a prospective customer and read this on the door of your business I might move on!
Would I be in the same boat if a client walked in and asked me to shoot a Bris Ceremony and I refused stating "I don't do Bris Ceremonies"?
I don't believe you could be sued for refusing this assignment, but who knows. While I support your having the choice, it all boils down to whether a Bris Ceremony is part of a protected group and or protected activity. Common sense not applicable.
There's nothing to indicate that the photographer in the article was impolite or inconsistent. Actually, quite the contrary. The article states he said he only shoots traditional weddings. I see nothing impolite or inconsistent in that. Being polite is always the best policy, but it's not the answer to the problem.
If you say "I only shoot traditional weddings." then you are opening yourself up to being sued. While there's nothing impolite about that statement, it is discriminatory.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Sam, I do not believe that a Muslin cook should be required to prepare a pork chop dinner for me, but I do believe that a Muslin cook should be required to serve me what they have prepared if I walked into their place of business and sit down and ask to be served. Many people have lost their lives in order to guarantee me that right. Now let’s turn your Muslin example around and place it in a different situation. Let’s say you have worked all your life in order to save to take your wife on an expensive world class cruise. Now when you and your wife get up to the counter she tells the person behind the counter that you have worked in the factory all your life in order to retire and take the two of you on this wonderful world class cruise. Now the person behind the counter says, “Oh no, I cannot sell you a ticket on this cruise, this cruise is going to be full of very wealthy and prominent people, and we cannot allow common people like you on this cruise.” Now would you just walk away and tell you wife, “well they have a right to do that, we are not among the rich and famous.” Or would you take them to court for violating you civil rights?
In my example / question I have a photographer offering photography services, and I am comparing this to a Muslim cook offering cooking services. In both cases the client is asking for the services they want.
Here is what I think the problem is with your analogy. In your example you have the photographer offering photographic services, and the Muslim cook only offering what has already prepared and / or what is on his menu.
Well the photographer already informed the gay couple what was on the list of services she provided.
As to the cruise, I don't see any problem.....................the great unwashed and poor folk aren't a protected class.
So I ask one of you here who is a commercial photographer - is the Judge's ruling a correct definition -- that a commercial photographer does not express anything, but merely takes photographs? huh(see above underline) honest question
And a portrait painter isn't expressing anything merely making a painting. The judge obviously doesn't have a creative bone is his/her body.
"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
So I ask one of you here who is a commercial photographer - is the Judge's ruling a correct definition -- that a commercial photographer does not express anything, but merely takes photographs? huh(see above underline) honest question
Style is a differentiator between something you like and something you don't. A couple chooses a photographer based on a portfolio of work and they either like or don't like the work. Otherwise, why would you choose--wouldn't you just pick the cheapest available if they were all the same?
I might agree with the judge where specific direction is given to the photographer and that direction results in a common style among many photographers. You might see examples of this in a catalog shoot where background/lighting/camera settings/angles and so on are given specifically so all the products look similar with respect to style.
But a wedding isn't about commercial photography, it's about producing a body of work for a unique event and in a style the couple want. And I believe that's where the judge's interpretation is wrong.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
In my example / question I have a photographer offering photography services, and I am comparing this to a Muslim cook offering cooking services. In both cases the client is asking for the services they want.
Here is what I think the problem is with your analogy. In your example you have the photographer offering photographic services, and the Muslim cook only offering what has already prepared and / or what is on his menu.
Well the photographer already informed the gay couple what was on the list of services she provided.
As to the cruise, I don't see any problem.....................the great unwashed and poor folk aren't a protected class.
Sam
No, they are not a protected class, they just have civil rights that would be violated.
So I ask one of you here who is a commercial photographer - is the Judge's ruling a correct definition -- that a commercial photographer does not express anything, but merely takes photographs? huh(see above underline) honest question
I'm not a commercial photographer but I do have an opinion about the question you have so gently asked several times Eia - I think we agree that it is wrong - an over-simplification of the photographers creative process. Its kind of like saying that a portrait artist is just a painting technician who applies pigment to canvas or that a 5 star chef is just a food preparation worker.
We are acculturated to accept decisions by authority figures (courts and lawmakers for example) as final renderings of wisdom and truth, when in fact they are often wrong - that's what makes the appeal process so often successful in overturning bad decisions. I do realize "bad" and "wrong" are subjective terms.
Kinkajou, I am glad we are free to discuss and express controversial and contrary viewpoints here and elsewhere without having to peek out the blinds and see black SUVs in front of our homes. This issue has hit a nerve and folks feel a need to express themselves. Freedom and sausage are hard to watch being made.
Now see if you can wrap your head around this and justify it.
New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.
So we have a state that discriminates against gays ruling that a photographer discriminated against the gay couple by not photographing a ceremony the state doesn't recognize and therefor doesn't legally exist.
Now see if you can wrap your head around this and justify it.
New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.
So we have a state that discriminates against gays ruling that a photographer discriminated against the gay couple by not photographing a ceremony the state doesn't recognize and therefor doesn't legally exist.
Please tell me how this makes any sense?
Sam
I wondered about that - as homosexual marriages is not legal here. So the judge rules above his own state laws and for good measure defines commercial photography (waiting on a photog to sue the judge)... never mind that religion is a protected class....but that is ignored...
Now see if you can wrap your head around this and justify it.
New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.
So we have a state that discriminates against gays ruling that a photographer discriminated against the gay couple by not photographing a ceremony the state doesn't recognize and therefor doesn't legally exist.
Please tell me how this makes any sense?
Sam
I think that deserves a whole different thread. Now that is a WTF moment.
"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
FANTASTIC!
Just like the price shoppers that I blow off none too politely at times, they will tell their other cheap arse friends and they will also stay away.
Their friends who know they are cheap arsed won't be the slightest bit fazed.
And this works in practice. I remember one bride I had that was never happy no matter what I tried to do for her. One of her good friends rang me. We spoke for a bit and she mentioned she had seen my work. when I asked who's wedding she had seen and she told me, I straight out said, "she complained about everything I did, why the hell are you ringing me?" She laughed and said yeah, you're the devil but we were at the wedding, saw how you worked, saw the pics and loved them. XXX always whinges no matter how perfect everything is so you were a mongeral like everyone else she had to deal with before you did a thing.
Was pretty funny seeing the first bride in the wedding party knowing the I'll will she had for me.
The 2nd bride was a shooters delight in every way and couldn't have been easier to work with.
Well clearly these lesbians don't subscribe to that theory or they would have brushed the incident off, labeled the shooter whatever pet name they had for people that didn't subscribe to their proclivities and moved on wouldn't they?
They would have concentrated their time on having a nice wedding, not getting wrapped up in litigation because someone hurt their feelings.
And that's the hypocrisy people like this have. They want to be special, demand tolerance and understanding and then prove to be the most INTOLERANT and narrow minded people of all.
If I went to a shooter or a Barber or a car dealer and they said, sorry, we only cater to gays, I'd laugh and might ask them if that's profitable or not and go to the next guy. I wouldn't get all bet out of shape and upset and run to solicitor whining my feelings had been hurt.
I WOULD let them do their thing and I'd get on with mine.
What if Rosa Parks had just gone nicely, quietly and politely to the back of the bus?
"Agenda" is not a dirty word.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Wichita is the largest city in Ks, but in a lot of ways it is a a very small town .... and when the word spread that this couple was planning to be very disrespectful to their parents most of their friends refused to attend, and they were shunned from the weekly cross dressers competitions and other activities in their gay community... ... ... their union only lasted 2 yrs from what I heard from a gay minister friend of theirs.... .... .... .... It really all boils down to respect and covering your butt.
I will not refuse to take your money and do an excellent job for you, no matter your race, creed, or religion ... ... ... as long as you are not doing something to be blatantly disrespectful to someone else, if your wedding is not within my core beliefs then that is between you and YOUR GOD.... for it is not for me to JUDGE YOU...I am not qualified to JUDGE you........
As for the question of whether Rosa Parks had gone quietly and politely to the back of the bus? We'll never know because she chose to remain in her seat and the rest is history.
Aside from the grounds in this particular law suit, and the challenge of govt role in small business, it is ironic that the judge ruled commercial photography not to be anything - merely than commercial photography - and isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. Gee, even if I was a prospective customer and read this on the door of your business I might move on! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/eek7.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Lying is a bad policy and the client could easily claim they were being discriminated again by making a second anonymous phone call to ask about the same date.
I think the best way to handle this was the suggestion that you tell the clients that you'd be "happy to do the job, but frankly Johnny Wedding Photography specializes in gay marriages and could probably do a better job."
Link to my Smugmug site
You had me up until "specializes in". After that, I'd feel discriminated against.
And you're right, anyone with an agenda will catch you in your lie. But the point is, again, to be polite and respectful just as you would with any client whose job you don't want to accept. So if you say "I'm sorry, I cannot accept that job." to anyone who whose job you don't want to accept, then that's how you should proceed.
Spread the love! Go comment on something!
Absolutely.
Would you shoot a white-supremest wedding? Given the NM ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get into trouble for refusing to serve them as well, since their repulsive viewpoints are constitutionally protected as free speech. This whole thing is a very slippery slope.
I believe there's a huge difference between wedding photography and institutionalized services like a restaurants, buses, government services, etc. We as photographers ought to be able to specialize in whatever kind of photography we want without worrying about whether we're going to be sued for offending somebody. I may be pro-gay and still choose to shoot only traditional weddings because that's were my expertise lies, and I should be free to say that.
So how do you enforce non-discrimination for protected classes without discriminating against the rights of others who disagree with them? Simple. You do it based on the size of the business. There's actually pending legislation which could be used as a model for such a law in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
From Wikipedia: "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees. "
So you amend that law to include not only employees, but customers of businesses. Done deal. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Link to my Smugmug site
Ian, while I applaud your desire to be polite, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with legalities. Even polite people get sued, probably more so than pricks.
Link to my Smugmug site
Link to my Smugmug site
It does have to do with how you treat people. Sure, you might be sued but the reality is that if you decline a job (whatever the reason) and you're consistent in how you decline it, polite, and respectful then the chances are the suit will go nowhere. So a better way to phrase it is that it's about the process you use to decline the job.
On the other hand, if you routinely decline work in a discriminatory fashion, the likely hood you will lose (or settle) is quite high.
??? You find it sad that people can and will disagree? It looks to me that most of the posters support one side or the other, if not both sides. That's supportive. Except for some who support one side calling the other side, ignorant, and bigoted (and that's been pretty mild) it's been a very civil discussion on a subject that can generate high emotions.
Sam
Link to my Smugmug site
Actually under current laws I think you could openly refuse the KKK wedding, or even a Christian wedding.
OHhhhhh finally, someone gets it.
That is the question isn't it? I don't know if it's possible to come up with one law that would cover everyone in every case. I do know we really don't want the government mucking it up.
Sam
Kinkajou, what made me sad was the other day photographing an event and hearing the black alphabet, and how the teacher had mentioned she taught it in her public school. I don't think preaching segregation has helped our country overcome some racial issues.
So I ask one of you here who is a commercial photographer - is the Judge's ruling a correct definition -- that a commercial photographer does not express anything, but merely takes photographs? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >huh<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >(see above underline) honest question
I don't believe you could be sued for refusing this assignment, but who knows. While I support your having the choice, it all boils down to whether a Bris Ceremony is part of a protected group and or protected activity. Common sense not applicable.
Sam
If you say "I only shoot traditional weddings." then you are opening yourself up to being sued. While there's nothing impolite about that statement, it is discriminatory.
In my example / question I have a photographer offering photography services, and I am comparing this to a Muslim cook offering cooking services. In both cases the client is asking for the services they want.
Here is what I think the problem is with your analogy. In your example you have the photographer offering photographic services, and the Muslim cook only offering what has already prepared and / or what is on his menu.
Well the photographer already informed the gay couple what was on the list of services she provided.
As to the cruise, I don't see any problem.....................the great unwashed and poor folk aren't a protected class.
Sam
And a portrait painter isn't expressing anything merely making a painting. The judge obviously doesn't have a creative bone is his/her body.
Style is a differentiator between something you like and something you don't. A couple chooses a photographer based on a portfolio of work and they either like or don't like the work. Otherwise, why would you choose--wouldn't you just pick the cheapest available if they were all the same?
I might agree with the judge where specific direction is given to the photographer and that direction results in a common style among many photographers. You might see examples of this in a catalog shoot where background/lighting/camera settings/angles and so on are given specifically so all the products look similar with respect to style.
But a wedding isn't about commercial photography, it's about producing a body of work for a unique event and in a style the couple want. And I believe that's where the judge's interpretation is wrong.
No, they are not a protected class, they just have civil rights that would be violated.
I'm not a commercial photographer but I do have an opinion about the question you have so gently asked several times Eia - I think we agree that it is wrong - an over-simplification of the photographers creative process. Its kind of like saying that a portrait artist is just a painting technician who applies pigment to canvas or that a 5 star chef is just a food preparation worker.
We are acculturated to accept decisions by authority figures (courts and lawmakers for example) as final renderings of wisdom and truth, when in fact they are often wrong - that's what makes the appeal process so often successful in overturning bad decisions. I do realize "bad" and "wrong" are subjective terms.
Kinkajou, I am glad we are free to discuss and express controversial and contrary viewpoints here and elsewhere without having to peek out the blinds and see black SUVs in front of our homes. This issue has hit a nerve and folks feel a need to express themselves. Freedom and sausage are hard to watch being made.
New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples.
So we have a state that discriminates against gays ruling that a photographer discriminated against the gay couple by not photographing a ceremony the state doesn't recognize and therefor doesn't legally exist.
Please tell me how this makes any sense?
Sam
I wondered about that - as homosexual marriages is not legal here. So the judge rules above his own state laws and for good measure defines commercial photography (waiting on a photog to sue the judge)... never mind that religion is a protected class....but that is ignored...