Arseny - you absolutely have the right to say you will not provide services for a person because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Just don't expect them to like it. Again, when you or a loved one has been the victim of discrimination you might feel differently. People in the US used to believe it was OK to refuse to serve people because they were Black. This really is the same thing. This isn't about artistic differences - it's not about the wedding couple saying they want everyone in animal costumes. Hey, I'm not saying they should be granted a large award in a civil suit here. Just, to me, this particular situation is no different than a restaurant, or photographer saying they wouldn't provide service for a black couple.
I guess for the purposes of this discussion I would ask - do you think a service provider should be within their rights to refuse a good or service to a person based upon the color of their skin or the fact they are a woman?
Just like I said in my last post, I have way LESS rights and options now. I see this in my main job. Day in. Day out.
I have answered your question in my very first post in this thread.
Just like I said in my last post, I have way LESS rights and options now. I see this in my main job. Day in. Day out.
I have answered your question in my very first post in this thread.
Actually,
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
You as a white male have the same protections in the US. You cannot be refused services because you are a man or because you are white.
People in the gay community simply want those same protections. If those are put in place, you would enjoy those same protections - a gay service provider would not be able to refuse you service simply because you are strait.
You don't lose any rights, you gain equal protection. In the "real world", that is the difference at least in the US - sexual orientation is not a "protected" class for defining discrimination at the Federal level. Somehow I suspect that if 90% of the population were gay and you had service providers that were refusing to provide their services to you because you were strait you might feel differently. This isn't a "Photography" issue or "artist" issue - that's a cop out.
Actually,
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
You as a white male have the same protections in the US. You cannot be refused services because you are a man or because you are white.
People in the gay community simply want those same protections. If those are put in place, you would enjoy those same protections - a gay service provider would not be able to refuse you service simply because you are strait.
You don't lose any rights, you gain equal protection. In the "real world", that is the difference at least in the US - sexual orientation is not a "protected" class for defining discrimination at the Federal level. Somehow I suspect that if 90% of the population were gay and you had service providers that were refusing to provide their services to you because you were strait you might feel differently. This isn't a "Photography" issue or "artist" issue - that's a cop out.
you're pulling my leg, right?
If I need to explain further in what way I have less rights, you're simply proving my point.
I'm done.
Foques - I understand. I'm sure sure there were lots of business owners that felt the same way when their "rights" to refuse service to "black" patrons were taken away. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that this is bad. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Foques - I understand. I'm sure sure there were lots of business owners that felt the same way when their "rights" to refuse service to "black" patrons were taken away. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that this is bad. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Having less rights is being forced to do something or participate in something you do not wish to do. I would have no trouble with a gay photographer catering only to gay couples and refusing straight couple weddings.
This also goes both ways. If someone wanted to hire me for anti-gay ad campaign, or do something with a racist concept then by your standards I would have to do those jobs. However, public perception wise I would have the PC police support on my side it would be a noble thing to refuse to do that. Take a stand against a PC subject and you get sued and your reputation suffers like this photographer was just because a gay couple wanted to make a point.
If the photographer does not believe in gay weddings why would you want the person to photograph your wedding?
Arseny - you absolutely have the right to say you will not provide services for a person because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Just don't expect them to like it. Again, when you or a loved one has been the victim of discrimination you might feel differently. People in the US used to believe it was OK to refuse to serve people because they were Black. This really is the same thing. This isn't about artistic differences - it's not about the wedding couple saying they want everyone in animal costumes. Hey, I'm not saying they should be granted a large award in a civil suit here. Just, to me, this particular situation is no different than a restaurant, or photographer saying they wouldn't provide service for a black couple.
I guess for the purposes of this discussion I would ask - do you think a service provider should be within their rights to refuse a good or service to a person based upon the color of their skin or the fact they are a woman?
First to answer you question.............Yes. (That should get you going.)
While I might find it reprehensible, why not? Oh yes, somebody will be offended. I am offended all the time, so what? Again for every business that says they won't sell to a, protected, group there are hundreds or thousands that will.
This is what one could call a self correcting situation. Those stores that refuse to sell standard products and services to these protected groups will soon be out of business.
If one could, legislate morality and behavior we wouldn't need police or jails.
The solution is when society self corrects this type of behavior it becomes the norm naturally rather than through threat or force.
Freedom is not without cost and messy ideological disagreements. When every aspect ( thought, actions, beliefs, speech, association, etc ) of ones life is controlled you have NO freedom.
Again if this freedom is to stressful for you there always always options, Cuba and North Korea to name two.
Sam
PS: Yes, in the past government intervention was needed, and I support that, but we also need to limit that intervention and only keep it were absolutely needed, and dispose of the rest.
I agree with this. Society has swung to the opposite side of the spectrum. A business that is openly against blacks, Hispanics, whites, gays etc would be shamed and not do very well. If it did then it would be catering to a small market and I would know where not to take by business.
First to answer you question.............Yes. (That should get you going.)
While I might find it reprehensible, why not? Oh yes, somebody will be offended. I am offended all the time, so what? Again for every business that says they won't sell to a, protected, group there are hundreds or thousands that will.
This is what one could call a self correcting situation. Those stores that refuse to sell standard products and services to these protected groups will soon be out of business.
If one could, legislate morality and behavior we wouldn't need police or jails.
The solution is when society self corrects this type of behavior it becomes the norm naturally rather than through threat or force.
Freedom is not without cost and messy ideological disagreements. When every aspect ( thought, actions, beliefs, speech, association, etc ) of ones life is controlled you have NO freedom.
Again if this freedom is to stressful for you there always always options, Cuba and North Korea to name two.
Sam
PS: Yes, in the past government intervention was needed, and I support that, but we also need to limit that intervention and only keep it were absolutely needed, and dispose of the rest.
Unfortunately Sam, self correction doesn't work without the benefit of laws. By your reasoning, we should have no laws whatsoever. Society will self-correct to compensate. Self correction didn't end slavery, the government did. Self correction didn't allow women the right to vote or blacks the right to eat at the same lunch counter. If the notion that government can and does create and enforce laws that recognize certain behaviors are wrong there are other solutions available - living on a deserted island. Any time a law is passed, some freedom is taken away. This is true. But, modern society recognizes that not everyone should be able to do whatever they want when those actions affect others. Some people seem to believe that requiring a restraurant owner to serve black patrons is just political correctness. I'm not one of those people.
A business that is openly against blacks, Hispanics, whites, gays etc would be shamed and not do very well. If it did then it would be catering to a small market and I would know where not to take by business.
Jon - you need to study up on the law. A business cannot refuse to provide goods or services to blacks or hispanics. Laws were passed to ensure that because bigotry was in the majority in this country. It really is a good thing the "rights" of wealthy land owners were restricted too - back in the day, you had to be a white, male, wealthy land owner in order to vote. Good thing we didn't wait for that situation to just self-correct.
No it doesn't but there also comes a point with societal norms where the pendulum shifts to the other side. If someone makes a negative comment about our current President then there will be some people judging that person as racist.
If for religious reasons someone just does not believe in gay marriage, then they have to find a work around as to why they do not want to do that wedding. I just do not see the need to force someone to do something they do not want to do. I would not want them to do my wedding if they had a problem with the ceremony to begin with.
Unfortunately Sam, self correction doesn't work without the benefit of laws. By your reasoning, we should have no laws whatsoever. Society will self-correct to compensate. Self correction didn't end slavery, the government did. Self correction didn't allow women the right to vote or blacks the right to eat at the same lunch counter. If the notion that government can and does create and enforce laws that recognize certain behaviors are wrong there are other solutions available - living on a deserted island. Any time a law is passed, some freedom is taken away. This is true. But, modern society recognizes that not everyone should be able to do whatever they want when those actions affect others. Some people seem to believe that requiring a restraurant owner to serve black patrons is just political correctness. I'm not one of those people.
I know the laws, very well aware of them. I agree they needed to be enacted and enforced. I also think there is a difference between covering an event you do not agree with and not serving someone based on their ethnicity or sex.
Would you refuse to cover a anti-gay rally knowing the photos you took would be used for marketing against gays? Or do it because you have to serve everyone regardless of your personal beliefs?
Jon - you need to study up on the law. A business cannot refuse to provide goods or services to blacks or hispanics. Laws were passed to ensure that because bigotry was in the majority in this country. It really is a good thing the "rights" of wealthy land owners were restricted too - back in the day, you had to be a white, male, wealthy land owner in order to vote. Good thing we didn't wait for that situation to just self-correct.
Jon - see, that's why it's important to protect your free speech rights. You absolutely should be able to say what you want. It's when things progress from words to actions that there is a problem. I'm completely in favor of you making jokes about gays. I just don't think that if you own a restaurant you should be able to tell a gay couple they couldn't eat there just because they are gay. I'm not saying you would do either. Just the difference between words and actions.
Jon - there is a difference between refusing to serve a man a meal because he is black and refusing to serve him because he is black and DRUNK. The "devil" is in the details of why you refuse. Laws do not say you cannot refuse to serve a black person, they just say you cannot refuse to serve them on the basis of their race. See the difference?
Please answer my question and not keep bringing up racism into the mix. If someone wanted to hire you to do a anti-gay rally and you knew the pics would be used for an anti-gay campaign would you do it? Or would you do it because you have to provide a service for everyone?
So, if for personal or religious beliefs should a person be forced to cover an event they do not agree with? Photography isn't just providing pictures but is art and conveys ideas. Would you want your work used to portray ideas and beliefs you do not agree with?
Jon - there is a difference between refusing to serve a man a meal because he is black and refusing to serve him because he is black and DRUNK. The "devil" is in the details of why you refuse. Laws do not say you cannot refuse to serve a black person, they just say you cannot refuse to serve them on the basis of their race. See the difference?
racism is discrimination. In your example I would inquire as to the USE of my product. I would not agree to the use. If the men or women of that anti-gay group wanted to hire me for their birthday or wedding I'd be glad to do it. By the same token, I could refuse to let that group publish their political message on my restaurant web site but I couldn't refuse to serve the members in my restaurant as long as they behaved properly. If you can't see the difference, I really can't help you on this one.
So you would be ok if someone hired you for an anti-gay message campaign and they used it for marketing with the pictures you took and credit by you? Your name is now associated with a belief you do not agree with.
racism is discrimination. In your example I would inquire as to the USE of my product. I would not agree to the use. If the men or women of that anti-gay group wanted to hire me for their birthday or wedding I'd be glad to do it. By the same token, I could refuse to let that group publish their political message on my restaurant web site but I couldn't refuse to serve the members in my restaurant as long as they behaved properly. If you can't see the difference, I really can't help you on this one.
Having less rights is being forced to do something or participate in something you do not wish to do. I would have no trouble with a gay photographer catering only to gay couples and refusing straight couple weddings.
This also goes both ways. If someone wanted to hire me for anti-gay ad campaign, or do something with a racist concept then by your standards I would have to do those jobs. However, public perception wise I would have the PC police support on my side it would be a noble thing to refuse to do that. Take a stand against a PC subject and you get sued and your reputation suffers like this photographer was just because a gay couple wanted to make a point.
If the photographer does not believe in gay weddings why would you want the person to photograph your wedding?
Very well said. It's a two-way street, and IMO people should be allowed to refuse service in certain conditions, even if it does involve race or sexual preference, or whatever. I'd sure as hell refuse to do some sort of photography ad campaign for white supremacists, or anti-gays!
Jon - did you not read my response? If I am hired as a photographer I am going to be interested in the use of my photos. I won't do business for political parties for political use - but I will do private business with members of those parties.
Since we as professional photographers are in the public eye so to speak I do not separate private or public and social media blurs that distinction.
I would not want to cover an anti-gay rally, or do work for someone that I felt would harm my reputation in the community. Those "private" occasions can become public. If I want to cater to gay weddings exclusively or not that should be my decision, not yours and what you deem as acceptable or proper to the way I want to run my business.
Besides what is lost in all this is at the time I believe state law didn't recognize gay marriage so basically the government was forcing the photographer to cover a wedding the state didn't approve of. If I'm wrong on that part I apologize, just don't feel like backtracking on searching that. I do remember it being brought up in past discussions of this.
Jon - did you not read my response? If I am hired as a photographer I am going to be interested in the use of my photos. I won't do business for political parties for political use - but I will do private business with members of those parties.
When I take on a job, at best I want to believe in the project and it gives me passion. At worst I should feel neutral about it and give me a check after doing it. I do not want to be forced into doing something I do not want to do or believe in.
Photography isn't something comparable to a dining experience or refusing service to someone based on their race or sex. For me it is an expression of my ideas, passions and beliefs and I do not want that to be used in ways that go against my beliefs, public or private. If someone wanted to hire me for a private session where it would only be seen by them I want to be able to refuse if the project offends me or doesn't align with something I feel strongly about. To me it is endorsing the thought or idea.
We photographers will get upset if someone censors our work or tells us where we can or can't shoot, but turn that around to a topic that is PC and we are forced to comply.
The problem is the law addresses only the rights of the accuser. It needs to better address both sides. Religion and Sexual Orientation are both protected classes. But the accused is not allowed to use their membership in that class as a reason for refusing to provide services to a member of another class-at that point, neither side is equal.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Jon - did you not read my response? If I am hired as a photographer I am going to be interested in the use of my photos. I won't do business for political parties for political use - but I will do private business with members of those parties.
I think I am beginning to understand your point.
You feel you have a right to refuse photographic services to various groups that you don't agree with, but want to deny others the right to refuse to photograph various groups you do agree with.
And lets look at the slippery slope. If for religious reasons someone doesn't want to photograph a gay marriage, what then protects a church from not being forced to perform gay weddings? After all, performing weddings is a service. Then the government starts to dictate religious beliefs.
You feel you have a right to refuse photographic services to various groups that you don't agree with, but want to deny others the right to refuse to photograph various groups you do agree with.
You feel you have a right to refuse photographic services to various groups that you don't agree with, but want to deny others the right to refuse to photograph various groups you do agree with.
Got it...........................:bash:bash:bash
Sam
Clearly you don't get it. I will type slower. Any service I offer I offer to anyone. I refuse certain services to everyone. I won't allow my photos to be used in any political campaigns. I will do a wedding for blacks, whites, Muslims, gays. Whatever. I won't do political for any of them though. I wont do photos for pro this or anti thatI won't do nudes for any of them. I am grearful we have laws to keep bigot photographers from refusing to take my sons school picture because they don't like his skin color. He shouldn't gave to wait for bigots to be self corrected. If my son were gay I would want the same. So if you are in favor of denying goods or services solely on basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation you are discriminating. It is OK if you are a bigot. That is allowed. It is when your bigotry crosses over to discrimination that there is a problem. Now do you get it or are you still confused?
If you had a child who was going to have a gay wedding, would really want someone doing the wedding that had a problem with it, or try to force them to do it? Me I would rather find someone who didn't have a problem with it. Laws are great and forcing behaviors but changing hearts. I would rather have someone who's heart was into it.
Clearly you don't get it. I will type slower. Any service I offer I offer to anyone. I refuse certain services to everyone. I won't allow my photos to be used in any political campaigns. I will do a wedding for blacks, whites, Muslims, gays. Whatever. I won't do political for any of them though. I wont do photos for pro this or anti thatI won't do nudes for any of them. I am grearful we have laws to keep bigot photographers from refusing to take my sons school picture because they don't like his skin color. He shouldn't gave to wait for bigots to be self corrected. If my son were gay I would want the same. So if you are in favor of denying goods or services solely on basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation you are discriminating. It is OK if you are a bigot. That is allowed. It is when your bigotry crosses over to discrimination that there is a problem. Now do you get it or are you still confused?
If you had a child who was going to have a gay wedding, would really want someone doing the wedding that had a problem with it, or try to force them to do it?
No, I probably wouldn't want to force the matter. But if a photographer refused to do my child's wedding only because she was marrying another woman, I might have a problem with the photographer. I don't think it should be the responsibility of the victims of discrimination to protect the tender sensibilities of bigots. Wedding shooters who can't deal with gay weddings really ought to consider switching to landscape photography or macro. The world is moving on and maybe they should too.
Clearly you don't get it. I will type slower. Any service I offer I offer to anyone. I refuse certain services to everyone. I won't allow my photos to be used in any political campaigns. I will do a wedding for blacks, whites, Muslims, gays. Whatever. I won't do political for any of them though. I wont do photos for pro this or anti thatI won't do nudes for any of them. I am grearful we have laws to keep bigot photographers from refusing to take my sons school picture because they don't like his skin color. He shouldn't gave to wait for bigots to be self corrected. If my son were gay I would want the same. So if you are in favor of denying goods or services solely on basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation you are discriminating. It is OK if you are a bigot. That is allowed. It is when your bigotry crosses over to discrimination that there is a problem. Now do you get it or are you still confused?
You continue to make my point. You have again clearly stated several groups and types of photography you refuse to do based on your personal beliefs.
Yet you wish to condemn and force others to perform photography services for groups and/or types of photography they disagree with.
Why should the law / government allow you free choice, but not allow others that same free choice?
Right or wrong freedom can be messy, but I reject the alternative. I will photograph who, what and when I choose..........period.
No, I probably wouldn't want to force the matter. But if a photographer refused to do my child's wedding only because she was marrying another woman, I might have a problem with the photographer. I don't think it should be the responsibility of the victims of discrimination to protect the tender sensibilities of bigots. Wedding shooters who can't deal with gay weddings really ought to consider switching to landscape photography or macro. The world is moving on and maybe they should too.
Comments
Just like I said in my last post, I have way LESS rights and options now. I see this in my main job. Day in. Day out.
I have answered your question in my very first post in this thread.
My Site
My Facebook
Actually,
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
You as a white male have the same protections in the US. You cannot be refused services because you are a man or because you are white.
People in the gay community simply want those same protections. If those are put in place, you would enjoy those same protections - a gay service provider would not be able to refuse you service simply because you are strait.
You don't lose any rights, you gain equal protection. In the "real world", that is the difference at least in the US - sexual orientation is not a "protected" class for defining discrimination at the Federal level. Somehow I suspect that if 90% of the population were gay and you had service providers that were refusing to provide their services to you because you were strait you might feel differently. This isn't a "Photography" issue or "artist" issue - that's a cop out.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
If I need to explain further in what way I have less rights, you're simply proving my point.
I'm done.
My Site
My Facebook
Having less rights is being forced to do something or participate in something you do not wish to do. I would have no trouble with a gay photographer catering only to gay couples and refusing straight couple weddings.
This also goes both ways. If someone wanted to hire me for anti-gay ad campaign, or do something with a racist concept then by your standards I would have to do those jobs. However, public perception wise I would have the PC police support on my side it would be a noble thing to refuse to do that. Take a stand against a PC subject and you get sued and your reputation suffers like this photographer was just because a gay couple wanted to make a point.
If the photographer does not believe in gay weddings why would you want the person to photograph your wedding?
First to answer you question.............Yes. (That should get you going.)
While I might find it reprehensible, why not? Oh yes, somebody will be offended. I am offended all the time, so what? Again for every business that says they won't sell to a, protected, group there are hundreds or thousands that will.
This is what one could call a self correcting situation. Those stores that refuse to sell standard products and services to these protected groups will soon be out of business.
If one could, legislate morality and behavior we wouldn't need police or jails.
The solution is when society self corrects this type of behavior it becomes the norm naturally rather than through threat or force.
Freedom is not without cost and messy ideological disagreements. When every aspect ( thought, actions, beliefs, speech, association, etc ) of ones life is controlled you have NO freedom.
Again if this freedom is to stressful for you there always always options, Cuba and North Korea to name two.
Sam
PS: Yes, in the past government intervention was needed, and I support that, but we also need to limit that intervention and only keep it were absolutely needed, and dispose of the rest.
If for religious reasons someone just does not believe in gay marriage, then they have to find a work around as to why they do not want to do that wedding. I just do not see the need to force someone to do something they do not want to do. I would not want them to do my wedding if they had a problem with the ceremony to begin with.
Would you refuse to cover a anti-gay rally knowing the photos you took would be used for marketing against gays? Or do it because you have to serve everyone regardless of your personal beliefs?
So, if for personal or religious beliefs should a person be forced to cover an event they do not agree with? Photography isn't just providing pictures but is art and conveys ideas. Would you want your work used to portray ideas and beliefs you do not agree with?
Very well said. It's a two-way street, and IMO people should be allowed to refuse service in certain conditions, even if it does involve race or sexual preference, or whatever. I'd sure as hell refuse to do some sort of photography ad campaign for white supremacists, or anti-gays!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I would not want to cover an anti-gay rally, or do work for someone that I felt would harm my reputation in the community. Those "private" occasions can become public. If I want to cater to gay weddings exclusively or not that should be my decision, not yours and what you deem as acceptable or proper to the way I want to run my business.
Besides what is lost in all this is at the time I believe state law didn't recognize gay marriage so basically the government was forcing the photographer to cover a wedding the state didn't approve of. If I'm wrong on that part I apologize, just don't feel like backtracking on searching that. I do remember it being brought up in past discussions of this.
Photography isn't something comparable to a dining experience or refusing service to someone based on their race or sex. For me it is an expression of my ideas, passions and beliefs and I do not want that to be used in ways that go against my beliefs, public or private. If someone wanted to hire me for a private session where it would only be seen by them I want to be able to refuse if the project offends me or doesn't align with something I feel strongly about. To me it is endorsing the thought or idea.
We photographers will get upset if someone censors our work or tells us where we can or can't shoot, but turn that around to a topic that is PC and we are forced to comply.
And dinner at a nice restaurant is not?
I think I am beginning to understand your point.
You feel you have a right to refuse photographic services to various groups that you don't agree with, but want to deny others the right to refuse to photograph various groups you do agree with.
Got it...........................:bash:bash:bash
Sam
Clearly you don't get it. I will type slower. Any service I offer I offer to anyone. I refuse certain services to everyone. I won't allow my photos to be used in any political campaigns. I will do a wedding for blacks, whites, Muslims, gays. Whatever. I won't do political for any of them though. I wont do photos for pro this or anti thatI won't do nudes for any of them. I am grearful we have laws to keep bigot photographers from refusing to take my sons school picture because they don't like his skin color. He shouldn't gave to wait for bigots to be self corrected. If my son were gay I would want the same. So if you are in favor of denying goods or services solely on basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation you are discriminating. It is OK if you are a bigot. That is allowed. It is when your bigotry crosses over to discrimination that there is a problem. Now do you get it or are you still confused?
You continue to make my point. You have again clearly stated several groups and types of photography you refuse to do based on your personal beliefs.
Yet you wish to condemn and force others to perform photography services for groups and/or types of photography they disagree with.
Why should the law / government allow you free choice, but not allow others that same free choice?
Right or wrong freedom can be messy, but I reject the alternative. I will photograph who, what and when I choose..........period.
Sam