Sam, you can feign ignorance all you want. I have not stated any group I would not work for. Only certain services I won't do. That's not discrimination. I think you would benefit from educating yourself a bit on what discrimination is. Richard, thank you for bringing some common sense to the discussion. If your bigotry interferes with your ability to serve customers, you need a different line of work.
Jon - In the end, photographers are no different than any other goods/service provider. If my son ends up working with a group of people that go out to lunch and the restaurant refuses to serve him because of his skin color - I'm sorry, the answer is not "he should find another restaurant". Thankfully, our country has evolved further than that. If a child grows up in a small rural town with one barber and that barber refuses to cut his hair because he goes to the wrong church, the answer isn't: "his parents should drive him 1/2 hour to a different town to get his hair cut". In the end, victims of discrimination should choose a different service provider because they WANT to, not because the service provider discriminates against them because of their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
Jon - In the end, photographers are no different than any other goods/service provider. If my son ends up working with a group of people that go out to lunch and the restaurant refuses to serve him because of his skin color - I'm sorry, the answer is not "he should find another restaurant". Thankfully, our country has evolved further than that. If a child grows up in a small rural town with one barber and that barber refuses to cut his hair because he goes to the wrong church, the answer isn't: "his parents should drive him 1/2 hour to a different town to get his hair cut". In the end, victims of discrimination should choose a different service provider because they WANT to, not because the service provider discriminates against them because of their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
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.
Again you make my point.
How about we drop the race card and focus on photography services.
In two cases that I can remember reading both the photographer and the cake maker said that while they wouldn't photograph a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay wedding they would be happy to provide other photography services or bake a different non gay wedding cake.
This seems very similar to your stand against political groups and nude photography.
Photography services, as you know, are far different than selling burgers. There are many reasons why a photographer may choose not to provide photographic services. When you or anyone else dictates what choices you have, you have none.
Now here is a thought for you..............a friend of mine, very gay friendly, told me about many comments on a gay website that were lambasting straight photographers for not knowing how to pose gay couples.
I have trouble posing straight couples.......you really want me to try and pose a gay couple?
There is much more to this than simple discrimination.
Last year I photographed an event where the participants were gay, transgender, straight etc. This was not a wedding but an event type within my experience and where who the people were didn't matter.
While this was a different experience and I worked by my but off to provide the best images I could. The people were great, and they were very pleased with the images I submitted. Win, win for all.
BUT.........the key here is it was my voluntary choice!
However, I and many others don't want to use bigoted vendors.
My initial reaction is if a pharmacist feels she can't sell plan B pills it should be noted at the door.
If a florist won't make arrangements for Gays they have to post if so everyone knows.
If a photographer doesn't want to photograph gays, trans persons, Post it. would help.
However, if you think about it, in the South it wouldn't have worked with blacks.
But still, I think including it in your marketing so THOSE people know not to approach you.
While I see your point, this is not realistic. Can you imagine a restaurant listing all the dishes they don't make? A pharmacy probably has thousands of brands, drugs, etc they don't sell.
This would be a shyster's dream. Just think of all the law suits!
Advertizing is about what you do, do (has nothing to do with dogs) not what you don't do.
I believe we should be trying to provide the best rational (non agenda driven) balance between apposing views and rights.
However, I and many others don't want to use bigoted vendors.
My initial reaction is if a pharmacist feels she can't sell plan B pills it should be noted at the door.
If a florist won't make arrangements for Gays they have to post if so everyone knows.
If a photographer doesn't want to photograph gays, trans persons, Post it. would help.
However, if you think about it, in the South it wouldn't have worked with blacks.
But still, I think including it in your marketing so THOSE people know not to approach you.
That is what I have been trying to say. Lets use some common sense in this situation. Photographers are for the most part artsy and like to proclaim themselves as progressive so for the vast majority it isn't a problem. There also isn't a shortage of photographers.
Maybe not include it in marketing but if they say they don't cater to gay weddings then move on.
The lesson to be learned here is if you don't want to do something, You are basicaly forced to tell a lie to avoid potential trouble.
Isn't that a great state of affairs?
Trains people up to do the wrong thing and it advances the cause of Gays and their rights just so much further doesn't it? I'm sure they would be very happy about what they have achieved. People that don't want to serve them still won't only now the broader comounity is wising up and getting smarter at avoiding trouble.
Win win situation....... is what this is completely opposite to.
Stupid, pointless and catering to whingeing trouble makers who go out of their way to make things difficult for others is exactly who this benifits most.
They ever come to me and I'm not lying, I'll tell them straight, I'm not doing you're wedding because I don't do gay weddings.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
The lesson to be learned here is if you don't want to do something, You are basicaly forced to tell a lie to avoid potential trouble.
Isn't that a great state of affairs?
Trains people up to do the wrong thing and it advances the cause of Gays and their rights just so much further doesn't it? I'm sure they would be very happy about what they have achieved. People that don't want to serve them still won't only now the broader comounity is wising up and getting smarter at avoiding trouble.
Win win situation....... is what this is completely opposite to.
Stupid, pointless and catering to whingeing trouble makers who go out of their way to make things difficult for others is exactly who this benifits most.
They ever come to me and I'm not lying, I'll tell them straight, I'm not doing you're wedding because I don't do gay weddings.
Give that a try in the USA, and see how long you last. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying your approach will get you in trouble eventually.
An interesting part of the baker story to me is that the bakery had Bible verses posted all over its website and such. Some talk radio hosts have stated they believe that groups who intended to find someone to sue to make a point, intentionally sought out a baker that would most likely put up an argument regarding their conscience. In this situation I think it is the group that intentionally sought to persecute the baker that should have a conscience issue. Something tells me the interactions between the customers and the baker was not run of the mill practice of sending in a design and offering to pay full price. Perhaps more theatricality was brought into the production to increase the owners awareness that they were about to be made an example of.
Even though to my great embarrassment the church did use Bible verses to speak against racial integration and equality, nearly all of people who go to mainstream non extremist churches in America today would disagree with these uses of the Bible in 2015. I am not convinced that 50 years from today it will be a universal opinion that the 4 - 8 passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible (both old and new testament) will be disregarded by the same percentage of christian denominations.
Though arguably you could say that Catholic adherents technically are all against birth control, but we know that the belief and the practice simply don't align on that one despite the big 'C' Church still standing firm on that belief even in areas like Africa where it would do a lot of good to help with infection rates.
My greatest personal sadness regarding gay rights movement in Illinois is Catholic Charities of IL who had to stop doing adoptions in the state because IL forced them to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Prior to this Catholic Charities was the oldest provider of adoptions in IL. Sadly they were no longer able to do this good work for their adherents because the government could not carve out a place for their deeply held beliefs which are not founded solely by bias, but have been written in their scriptures for 2000+ years. link
I tend to agree that I would not open the door to letting a couple know why I am not able to do their wedding. Similarly if I were firing someone I would not provide a reason because the state of IL does not require that I provide a reason. However, if you are particularly fiery and want to share your beliefs with someone you very well may end up in the supreme court some day soon. And you'd better hope that kennedy is feeling red that day. ( i personally would shoot a SS wedding, but if I wasn't doing someone's wedding for any reason whatsoever I just wouldn't provide it since its not necessary) I've turned down numerous requests for engagement sessions because I think the couple is too awkward and I can't imaging being able to salvage the photos.
Give that a try in the USA, and see how long you last.
I don't live in the US so I can refuse to do gay weddings and if they don't like it and want to have a hissy fit, it's likley they are the ones that " won't last" as you put it. .
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
An interesting part of the baker story to me is that the bakery had Bible verses posted all over its website and such. Some talk radio hosts have stated they believe that groups who intended to find someone to sue to make a point, intentionally sought out a baker that would most likely put up an argument regarding their conscience. In this situation I think it is the group that intentionally sought to persecute the baker that should have a conscience issue. Something tells me the interactions between the customers and the baker was not run of the mill practice of sending in a design and offering to pay full price. Perhaps more theatricality was brought into the production to increase the owners awareness that they were about to be made an example of.
Even though to my great embarrassment the church did use Bible verses to speak against racial integration and equality, nearly all of people who go to mainstream non extremist churches in America today would disagree with these uses of the Bible in 2015. I am not convinced that 50 years from today it will be a universal opinion that the 4 - 8 passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible (both old and new testament) will be disregarded by the same percentage of christian denominations.
Though arguably you could say that Catholic adherents technically are all against birth control, but we know that the belief and the practice simply don't align on that one despite the big 'C' Church still standing firm on that belief even in areas like Africa where it would do a lot of good to help with infection rates.
My greatest personal sadness regarding gay rights movement in Illinois is Catholic Charities of IL who had to stop doing adoptions in the state because IL forced them to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Prior to this Catholic Charities was the oldest provider of adoptions in IL. Sadly they were no longer able to do this good work for their adherents because the government could not carve out a place for their deeply held beliefs which are not founded solely by bias, but have been written in their scriptures for 2000+ years. link
I tend to agree that I would not open the door to letting a couple know why I am not able to do their wedding. Similarly if I were firing someone I would not provide a reason because the state of IL does not require that I provide a reason. However, if you are particularly fiery and want to share your beliefs with someone you very well may end up in the supreme court some day soon. And you'd better hope that kennedy is feeling red that day. ( i personally would shoot a SS wedding, but if I wasn't doing someone's wedding for any reason whatsoever I just wouldn't provide it since its not necessary) I've turned down numerous requests for engagement sessions because I think the couple is too awkward and I can't imaging being able to salvage the photos.
This whole debate goes in the same circles every time. It always comes down to this: can "rights" and "beliefs" coexist perfectly? Or to be more blunt, if an old book dictates a belief, does that exempt one from the law due to "separation of church and state"? What about if the belief held is relatively harmless in daily practice, does that make it OK?
No. Maybe it should make a few concessions, but at present it doesn't. (In the US.)
Faith is a beautiful thing, but it will never coexist seamlessly with legality.
In a perfect world, we could just leave each other alone, and believe whatever we want. As long as we're not actively seeking out certain folks and influencing their lives with our discriminatory beliefs, who cares?
If I was gay, and had a photographer tell me that their religion condemned my lifestyle and therefore they wouldn't be able to shoot my wedding, I'd respect their faith and leave them alone. It's not like they're publicly humiliating me by demanding I give up my seat on a bus to a straight person, or throwing me out of their place of business.
However this is not a perfect world. As this thread discussed, often times the real problem is a sense of entitlement and a sue-happy society itself, NOT civil rights. The only reason this discussion keeps coming up is because civil rights versus personal beliefs are still at the core of the issue.
To those who are trying to politely decline photographic work, it may seem like a harmless request. But you're still hurting someone's feelings when you turn them away, and explain that you can't do business with them because of who they are, because of what they're most passionate about in life.
I had a photographer tactfully decline my business when I was shopping for my own wedding, probably because we didn't fit their "target market"... IE, we were awkward and dorky, we weren't a good-enough looking couple for their portfolio. It was a slap in the face, and if the discrimination had been considered illegal, I'd have been even more offended. Either way my point is, even though I and many others are relatively passive, some folks aren't. And if you try to play civil rights jeopardy with them, you might lose. That's just the way it's going to be, for the foreseeable future.
So, I work for an LGBT organization, and maybe I can give some perspective on what gay couples deal with.
Our youth program helps homeless kids as young as 13. 20 - 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. They're typically thrown out for being gay or trans. Getting social services involved isn't an option - even if the parents are forced to take their kids back, homophobic parents can make their situation unlivable without crossing the line of "abuse" (LGBT youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers).
For adult LGBT people, many have had to cut ties with their family. For those of you who had a relationship with your parents, even if it was a shitty one, imagine what it would be like to have them fully reject you. You're starting your young life in a tough place.
You'll be subject to daily harassment. Here in the midwest, holding hands in the city with a same-sex partner is enough for people to yell "Faggots!" as they drive by. Even had it happen to me, once (My girlfriend at the time had short hair, so they assumed she was male?). When your kid has trouble in school, there's always one school staffer who pins it directly on "a nontraditional household". On a bad day, it might even be a co-worker taking a 2x4 to your head (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/tim-phares-applebee-assault_n_2989453.html)
When denied service, it's rarely polite. Responses run the gamut from "I'll pray for you" and "Aren't you worried about going to hell?" to outright slurs and profanity.
Most people won't give you trouble, and most businesses won't either. But even if it's a very tiny minority that is outspokenly homophobic, there's enough of them that it becomes a daily issue for LGBT people. Even this thread is an example, with Glort relishing on how he would tell a gay couple to screw off and other (relatively privileged) photographers casting LGBT people as overly litigious with unconcerning issues (rather, many LGBT people are less litigious on these issues for fear of being publicly outed and attracting anonymous reprisals).
Sometimes, it can present a real problem. I grew up in a small town, and there was one photography studio that did EVERYTHING. A rejection from them would mean a gay couple would have to find a photographer from out of town, possibly at additional expense or lesser talent. But many times, it's not materially harmful - but while that rejection may seem like small beans to you, it's a bit more hurtful when you've experienced a lifetime of the above. And it's hard to search for anything - photographers, doctors, daycare, a mechanic - when you worry about what kind of rejection you get, or the sly assertion that you may get substandard service just because you're gay.
I have a hard time buying the "Photography is an art" excuse. A photographer has problems posing two men? Doctors and nurses get a lot closer with their patients (often belligerent and of varying ideologies) but they're typically expected to serve respectfully. When we go into business we make a lot of concessions - We register our business, we pay sales tax, and we accept our obligation to serve the public equally. If your artistic bent makes those rules too hard... then perhaps you should stay out of business and keep it art?
And I find it strange that so many photographers would demand broad "freedom" even as they struggle to explain to clients that physical possession of prints does not give them the right to do anything with it. Our government (and indeed all governments) have a strong history of limiting freedom for the benefit of vulnerable groups. It seems hypocritical to cling so strongly to our protections while scoffing at the idea of the government protecting another group.
If you had a choice between two photographers, one who for religious purposes did not care to do a gay wedding and one who had no problem doing one, would you want to know which one had a problem with it? Me, I would want to know and pick the one who would had no problem and move on.
I don't see the benefit in forcing someone to provide a service. I would rather work with someone who wanted to do it.
So, I work for an LGBT organization, and maybe I can give some perspective on what gay couples deal with.
Our youth program helps homeless kids as young as 13. 20 - 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. They're typically thrown out for being gay or trans. Getting social services involved isn't an option - even if the parents are forced to take their kids back, homophobic parents can make their situation unlivable without crossing the line of "abuse" (LGBT youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers).
For adult LGBT people, many have had to cut ties with their family. For those of you who had a relationship with your parents, even if it was a shitty one, imagine what it would be like to have them fully reject you. You're starting your young life in a tough place.
You'll be subject to daily harassment. Here in the midwest, holding hands in the city with a same-sex partner is enough for people to yell "Faggots!" as they drive by. Even had it happen to me, once (My girlfriend at the time had short hair, so they assumed she was male?). When your kid has trouble in school, there's always one school staffer who pins it directly on "a nontraditional household". On a bad day, it might even be a co-worker taking a 2x4 to your head (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/tim-phares-applebee-assault_n_2989453.html)
When denied service, it's rarely polite. Responses run the gamut from "I'll pray for you" and "Aren't you worried about going to hell?" to outright slurs and profanity.
Most people won't give you trouble, and most businesses won't either. But even if it's a very tiny minority that is outspokenly homophobic, there's enough of them that it becomes a daily issue for LGBT people. Even this thread is an example, with Glort relishing on how he would tell a gay couple to screw off and other (relatively privileged) photographers casting LGBT people as overly litigious with unconcerning issues (rather, many LGBT people are less litigious on these issues for fear of being publicly outed and attracting anonymous reprisals).
Sometimes, it can present a real problem. I grew up in a small town, and there was one photography studio that did EVERYTHING. A rejection from them would mean a gay couple would have to find a photographer from out of town, possibly at additional expense or lesser talent. But many times, it's not materially harmful - but while that rejection may seem like small beans to you, it's a bit more hurtful when you've experienced a lifetime of the above. And it's hard to search for anything - photographers, doctors, daycare, a mechanic - when you worry about what kind of rejection you get, or the sly assertion that you may get substandard service just because you're gay.
I have a hard time buying the "Photography is an art" excuse. A photographer has problems posing two men? Doctors and nurses get a lot closer with their patients (often belligerent and of varying ideologies) but they're typically expected to serve respectfully. When we go into business we make a lot of concessions - We register our business, we pay sales tax, and we accept our obligation to serve the public equally. If your artistic bent makes those rules too hard... then perhaps you should stay out of business and keep it art?
And I find it strange that so many photographers would demand broad "freedom" even as they struggle to explain to clients that physical possession of prints does not give them the right to do anything with it. Our government (and indeed all governments) have a strong history of limiting freedom for the benefit of vulnerable groups. It seems hypocritical to cling so strongly to our protections while scoffing at the idea of the government protecting another group.
I know you don't see the benefit, because you are not routinely denied service. -IF- anyone ever denies you service, you'll chortle and take your money to the next provider.
When all three providers in town refuse you service, it becomes a lot less funny.
In many cases, it may not even be strong religious belief. If the first two photographers don't want to work with you, then your more tolerant third choice may simply be wary of burning their reputation in a strongly conservative area. In a sense, the law protects photographers as well - when you are required to treat clients equally, it no longer becomes a political statement to serve one.
Considering the backlash by photographers against the photographer that denied services there isn't a shortage of photographers who would have provided services for the wedding.
In your "What if" scenario the photographer or other business that comes out as not wanting to provide services for a gay marriage will suffer consequences like social shaming, boycotts, and losing their business. Yes, the gay lobby can be a bully too. Would be great as a society if we could just move on to those that do want to cater and leave those that don't alone.
I know you don't see the benefit, because you are not routinely denied service. -IF- anyone ever denies you service, you'll chortle and take your money to the next provider.
When all three providers in town refuse you service, it becomes a lot less funny.
In many cases, it may not even be strong religious belief. If the first two photographers don't want to work with you, then your more tolerant third choice may simply be wary of burning their reputation in a strongly conservative area. In a sense, the law protects photographers as well - when you are required to treat clients equally, it no longer becomes a political statement to serve one.
In many cases, it may not even be strong religious belief. If the first two photographers don't want to work with you, then your more tolerant third choice may simply be wary of burning their reputation in a strongly conservative area. In a sense, the law protects photographers as well - when you are required to treat clients equally, it no longer becomes a political statement to serve one.
Ya gotta just love the twisted logic.
The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me.
The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me.
You probably typed this with a straight face.
Sam
It's just a question of whether you're violating someone's civil rights by "not wanting to provide [them] a product or service..."
We have good laws about reserving the right to refuse service for various reasons. We also have good laws about civil rights that should never be denied someone based on race or gender etc.
This is just one of those impossibly gray areas, because there are a million reasons why you might not want to do business with someone, and a portion of those reasons could be considered narrow-minded bigotry. (While plenty of other reasons are highly valid, and may even be civil or religious rights themselves.)
It's unfortunate, but it's not a situation that will resolve itself entirely in just a short period of time. Social and religious issues always take forever to iron out, and whenever the two cross, it is even worse.
I know you don't see the benefit, because you are not routinely denied service. -IF- anyone ever denies you service, you'll chortle and take your money to the next provider.
When all three providers in town refuse you service, it becomes a lot less funny.
In many cases, it may not even be strong religious belief. If the first two photographers don't want to work with you, then your more tolerant third choice may simply be wary of burning their reputation in a strongly conservative area. In a sense, the law protects photographers as well - when you are required to treat clients equally, it no longer becomes a political statement to serve one.
I don't buy it.
It has got to be the approach line.. there is a plenty of "alternative" photographers in our area who'd be delighted to shoot this.
And the whole "i'll pray for you" crap.. oh dear, that crap just drives me batsh!t mad.
in the future, if you need a 'tog, hit me up. I am in Germantown, WI at least once a month, and can help with portraits (i've been looking to get involved in this line of work)
The problem with gay community (that i've encountered) is that there are MANY who are trying to shove their values down others throats.
During my last shoot, I was told "you don't know that you're gay, just 'cause you didn't have the right lay", and was repeatedly groped until I put a stop to it.
On the other hand, I had an engagement session with two lads who were absolutely great, polite and did not attempt any stupid stuff.
LGBT folk from my first example are the ones who are causing most of the issues, IMHO
It's just a question of whether you're violating someone's civil rights by "not wanting to provide [them] a product or service..."
We have good laws about reserving the right to refuse service for various reasons. We also have good laws about civil rights that should never be denied someone based on race or gender etc.
This is just one of those impossibly gray areas, because there are a million reasons why you might not want to do business with someone, and a portion of those reasons could be considered narrow-minded bigotry. (While plenty of other reasons are highly valid, and may even be civil or religious rights themselves.)
It's unfortunate, but it's not a situation that will resolve itself entirely in just a short period of time. Social and religious issues always take forever to iron out, and whenever the two cross, it is even worse.
Matt,
Please read exactly what I wrote, noting more, noting less. I make no reference, direct or implied with regard to any specific cause or issue. I believe my statement was clear. It is in reference to twisted logic of someone with a cause.
You have a point of view, I have a point of view, they may or may not agree. We have a right to these views and to support them. Yes we even have the right to argue total nonsense. I also have to right to point out the twisted Orwellian statement made.
"The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me."
Again it doesn't matter what the issue is. If this isn't twisted irrational, Orwellian I don't know what is.
"The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me."
Yes, I agree. The intent of anti-discrimination laws is not to protect those who practice discrimination, but rather, its victims. They are also meant to further the cause of justice for society as a whole. While this may ultimately benefit bigots as well, that's beside the point.
Considering the backlash by photographers against the photographer that denied services there isn't a shortage of photographers who would have provided services for the wedding.
In your "What if" scenario the photographer or other business that comes out as not wanting to provide services for a gay marriage will suffer consequences like social shaming, boycotts, and losing their business. Yes, the gay lobby can be a bully too. Would be great as a society if we could just move on to those that do want to cater and leave those that don't alone.
Jon - the problem with your logic is it is based in bigotry. If we followed your line of thought, African Americans would still be "free to find a restaurant that would serve them" and leave the restaurants that were for "white's only" alone. The same argument could be made for women - if a bank refused to provide a loan to a woman solely because she was not male, she could always find another bank that would.
I recognize that people that have beliefs based in bigotry don't have a problem with that. I can't remember asking this before but I'll ask it now - are you also OK with a business refusing it's service to a woman because of her gender or a person because of their race? Is it just the "gay" issue, or are you in favor of a business being able to discriminate based upon racial or gender issues? I understand if you are in favor of going back on those issues as well - at least that is a consistent thought process. I have more difficulty in understanding someone who believes it's OK to discriminate based upon sexual orientation but NOT OK to discriminate based upon gender or race.
Sam - see my question to Jon. I'd ask the same question to you. Is it that you feel a business person has the right to discriminate based upon any reason or that some discrimination should be allowed and other discrimination not allowed?
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
..."The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me."
Again it doesn't matter what the issue is. If this isn't twisted irrational, Orwellian I don't know what is.
Sam
Again, my point is still the same: in many different industries, not just photography, most people "don't want to provide a service" for very fair and valid reasons. That's fine and dandy, and I'm all in favor of it.
However what I'm saying is that due to human nature, prejudice and discrimination can creep into the equation, and therefore not every reason for refusing service is legally or morally acceptable. Does this make sense?
Look at the backlash towards the photographer for making a stand. There are photographers out there that WILL take the job. We do not need government to regulate this. We photographers get highly sensitive when someone censors our work yet some seem perfectly fine for telling other photographers what they have to cover.
There comes a time when laws can be overprotective and have reverse discrimination where they infringe on religious freedoms.
Jon - the problem with your logic is it is based in bigotry. If we followed your line of thought, African Americans would still be "free to find a restaurant that would serve them" and leave the restaurants that were for "white's only" alone. The same argument could be made for women - if a bank refused to provide a loan to a woman solely because she was not male, she could always find another bank that would.
I recognize that people that have beliefs based in bigotry don't have a problem with that. I can't remember asking this before but I'll ask it now - are you also OK with a business refusing it's service to a woman because of her gender or a person because of their race? Is it just the "gay" issue, or are you in favor of a business being able to discriminate based upon racial or gender issues? I understand if you are in favor of going back on those issues as well - at least that is a consistent thought process. I have more difficulty in understanding someone who believes it's OK to discriminate based upon sexual orientation but NOT OK to discriminate based upon gender or race.
No, I am not OK with a business discriminating against gender. However in today's society that business would not also stay In business too long if they tried. I would be for letting a company decide that is their policy and live with the consequences. I would be ok with a photographer catering to only gay weddings.
This is the problem that you do not seem to understand and other advocates. You have a knee jerk reaction that we are somehow wanting to go back to old society beliefs.
You assume the motive is bigotry based. There comes a time when the laws can become overprotective, reverse discriminate, and give extra rights. Before you also make an assumption about my personal stance on this is I have no problem covering a gay wedding. I have had inquiries from gay couples but they have not hired me. What I resent is being forced to cover something I do not wish to cover. I do not care what the topic or occasion is. True freedom is also choosing whar work I want to do regardless of the reason.
Recent events in regards to race show even the slightest hint of racism can cause accusations of racism. A business wants to cater to white's only? There would be a social outcry and the business would money. Society, not government would take care of the problem.
=johng;1998794]Sam - see my question to Jon. I'd ask the same question to you. Is it that you feel a business person has the right to discriminate based upon any reason or that some discrimination should be allowed and other discrimination not allowed?
Again, my point is still the same: in many different industries, not just photography, most people "don't want to provide a service" for very fair and valid reasons. That's fine and dandy, and I'm all in favor of it.
However what I'm saying is that due to human nature, prejudice and discrimination can creep into the equation, and therefore not every reason for refusing service is legally or morally acceptable. Does this make sense?
I must sincerely apologize for my limited education and inability to clearly convey my thoughts.
Again!!!! if you read my statements, I have attempted to not addressed any issues or causes in this tread.
My only comment is in reference to a statement that a law that forces me (anyone) to provide a product or service I (anyone) does not want to provide is actually protecting me.
This is not a rational, or logical statement. Arguments like this are (in my opinion) born out of the madness of politically correct thinking.
I am not arguing for or against anything here.
You have a point of view, fine, make it, but please don't start in with twisted nonsensical Orwellian statements.
The actual question you posed is (for me) for another thread.
I must sincerely apologize for my limited education and inability to clearly convey my thoughts.
Again!!!! if you read my statements, I have attempted to not addressed any issues or causes in this tread.
My only comment is in reference to a statement that a law that forces me (anyone) to provide a product or service I (anyone) does not want to provide is actually protecting me.
This is not a rational, or logical statement. Arguments like this are (in my opinion) born out of the madness of politically correct thinking.
I am not arguing for or against anything here.
You have a point of view, fine, make it, but please don't start in with twisted nonsensical Orwellian statements.
The actual question you posed is (for me) for another thread.
You assume the motive is bigotry based. There comes a time when the laws can become overprotective, reverse discriminate, and give extra rights. Before you also make an assumption about my personal stance on this is I have no problem covering a gay wedding. I have had inquiries from gay couples but they have not hired me. What I resent is being forced to cover something I do not wish to cover. I do not care what the topic or occasion is. True freedom is also choosing whar work I want to do regardless of the reason.
Recent events in regards to race show even the slightest hint of racism can cause accusations of racism. A business wants to cater to white's only? There would be a social outcry and the business would money. Society, not government would take care of the problem.
What you don't understand is that all those prior social issues were NOT solved by society, they were only solved by government. Including the whites-only thing you just mentioned.
Comments
Jon - and what if that photographer is the school photographer? Is it still ok for the school photog to discriminate and refuse to take the photo?
Would you want a photographer that has a problem covering gay weddings cover the wedding of your child if they are gay?
Again you make my point.
How about we drop the race card and focus on photography services.
In two cases that I can remember reading both the photographer and the cake maker said that while they wouldn't photograph a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay wedding they would be happy to provide other photography services or bake a different non gay wedding cake.
This seems very similar to your stand against political groups and nude photography.
Photography services, as you know, are far different than selling burgers. There are many reasons why a photographer may choose not to provide photographic services. When you or anyone else dictates what choices you have, you have none.
Now here is a thought for you..............a friend of mine, very gay friendly, told me about many comments on a gay website that were lambasting straight photographers for not knowing how to pose gay couples.
I have trouble posing straight couples.......you really want me to try and pose a gay couple?
There is much more to this than simple discrimination.
Last year I photographed an event where the participants were gay, transgender, straight etc. This was not a wedding but an event type within my experience and where who the people were didn't matter.
While this was a different experience and I worked by my but off to provide the best images I could. The people were great, and they were very pleased with the images I submitted. Win, win for all.
BUT.........the key here is it was my voluntary choice!
Sam
However, I and many others don't want to use bigoted vendors.
My initial reaction is if a pharmacist feels she can't sell plan B pills it should be noted at the door.
If a florist won't make arrangements for Gays they have to post if so everyone knows.
If a photographer doesn't want to photograph gays, trans persons, Post it. would help.
However, if you think about it, in the South it wouldn't have worked with blacks.
But still, I think including it in your marketing so THOSE people know not to approach you.
While I see your point, this is not realistic. Can you imagine a restaurant listing all the dishes they don't make? A pharmacy probably has thousands of brands, drugs, etc they don't sell.
This would be a shyster's dream. Just think of all the law suits!
Advertizing is about what you do, do (has nothing to do with dogs) not what you don't do.
I believe we should be trying to provide the best rational (non agenda driven) balance between apposing views and rights.
Sam
That is what I have been trying to say. Lets use some common sense in this situation. Photographers are for the most part artsy and like to proclaim themselves as progressive so for the vast majority it isn't a problem. There also isn't a shortage of photographers.
Maybe not include it in marketing but if they say they don't cater to gay weddings then move on.
Isn't that a great state of affairs?
Trains people up to do the wrong thing and it advances the cause of Gays and their rights just so much further doesn't it? I'm sure they would be very happy about what they have achieved. People that don't want to serve them still won't only now the broader comounity is wising up and getting smarter at avoiding trouble.
Win win situation....... is what this is completely opposite to.
Stupid, pointless and catering to whingeing trouble makers who go out of their way to make things difficult for others is exactly who this benifits most.
They ever come to me and I'm not lying, I'll tell them straight, I'm not doing you're wedding because I don't do gay weddings.
Give that a try in the USA, and see how long you last. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying your approach will get you in trouble eventually.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Even though to my great embarrassment the church did use Bible verses to speak against racial integration and equality, nearly all of people who go to mainstream non extremist churches in America today would disagree with these uses of the Bible in 2015. I am not convinced that 50 years from today it will be a universal opinion that the 4 - 8 passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible (both old and new testament) will be disregarded by the same percentage of christian denominations.
Though arguably you could say that Catholic adherents technically are all against birth control, but we know that the belief and the practice simply don't align on that one despite the big 'C' Church still standing firm on that belief even in areas like Africa where it would do a lot of good to help with infection rates.
My greatest personal sadness regarding gay rights movement in Illinois is Catholic Charities of IL who had to stop doing adoptions in the state because IL forced them to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Prior to this Catholic Charities was the oldest provider of adoptions in IL. Sadly they were no longer able to do this good work for their adherents because the government could not carve out a place for their deeply held beliefs which are not founded solely by bias, but have been written in their scriptures for 2000+ years. link
I tend to agree that I would not open the door to letting a couple know why I am not able to do their wedding. Similarly if I were firing someone I would not provide a reason because the state of IL does not require that I provide a reason. However, if you are particularly fiery and want to share your beliefs with someone you very well may end up in the supreme court some day soon. And you'd better hope that kennedy is feeling red that day. ( i personally would shoot a SS wedding, but if I wasn't doing someone's wedding for any reason whatsoever I just wouldn't provide it since its not necessary) I've turned down numerous requests for engagement sessions because I think the couple is too awkward and I can't imaging being able to salvage the photos.
http://stridephoto.carbonmade.com
I don't live in the US so I can refuse to do gay weddings and if they don't like it and want to have a hissy fit, it's likley they are the ones that " won't last" as you put it. .
No. Maybe it should make a few concessions, but at present it doesn't. (In the US.)
Faith is a beautiful thing, but it will never coexist seamlessly with legality.
In a perfect world, we could just leave each other alone, and believe whatever we want. As long as we're not actively seeking out certain folks and influencing their lives with our discriminatory beliefs, who cares?
If I was gay, and had a photographer tell me that their religion condemned my lifestyle and therefore they wouldn't be able to shoot my wedding, I'd respect their faith and leave them alone. It's not like they're publicly humiliating me by demanding I give up my seat on a bus to a straight person, or throwing me out of their place of business.
However this is not a perfect world. As this thread discussed, often times the real problem is a sense of entitlement and a sue-happy society itself, NOT civil rights. The only reason this discussion keeps coming up is because civil rights versus personal beliefs are still at the core of the issue.
To those who are trying to politely decline photographic work, it may seem like a harmless request. But you're still hurting someone's feelings when you turn them away, and explain that you can't do business with them because of who they are, because of what they're most passionate about in life.
I had a photographer tactfully decline my business when I was shopping for my own wedding, probably because we didn't fit their "target market"... IE, we were awkward and dorky, we weren't a good-enough looking couple for their portfolio. It was a slap in the face, and if the discrimination had been considered illegal, I'd have been even more offended. Either way my point is, even though I and many others are relatively passive, some folks aren't. And if you try to play civil rights jeopardy with them, you might lose. That's just the way it's going to be, for the foreseeable future.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
So, I work for an LGBT organization, and maybe I can give some perspective on what gay couples deal with.
Our youth program helps homeless kids as young as 13. 20 - 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. They're typically thrown out for being gay or trans. Getting social services involved isn't an option - even if the parents are forced to take their kids back, homophobic parents can make their situation unlivable without crossing the line of "abuse" (LGBT youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers).
For adult LGBT people, many have had to cut ties with their family. For those of you who had a relationship with your parents, even if it was a shitty one, imagine what it would be like to have them fully reject you. You're starting your young life in a tough place.
You'll be subject to daily harassment. Here in the midwest, holding hands in the city with a same-sex partner is enough for people to yell "Faggots!" as they drive by. Even had it happen to me, once (My girlfriend at the time had short hair, so they assumed she was male?). When your kid has trouble in school, there's always one school staffer who pins it directly on "a nontraditional household". On a bad day, it might even be a co-worker taking a 2x4 to your head (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/tim-phares-applebee-assault_n_2989453.html)
When denied service, it's rarely polite. Responses run the gamut from "I'll pray for you" and "Aren't you worried about going to hell?" to outright slurs and profanity.
Most people won't give you trouble, and most businesses won't either. But even if it's a very tiny minority that is outspokenly homophobic, there's enough of them that it becomes a daily issue for LGBT people. Even this thread is an example, with Glort relishing on how he would tell a gay couple to screw off and other (relatively privileged) photographers casting LGBT people as overly litigious with unconcerning issues (rather, many LGBT people are less litigious on these issues for fear of being publicly outed and attracting anonymous reprisals).
Sometimes, it can present a real problem. I grew up in a small town, and there was one photography studio that did EVERYTHING. A rejection from them would mean a gay couple would have to find a photographer from out of town, possibly at additional expense or lesser talent. But many times, it's not materially harmful - but while that rejection may seem like small beans to you, it's a bit more hurtful when you've experienced a lifetime of the above. And it's hard to search for anything - photographers, doctors, daycare, a mechanic - when you worry about what kind of rejection you get, or the sly assertion that you may get substandard service just because you're gay.
I have a hard time buying the "Photography is an art" excuse. A photographer has problems posing two men? Doctors and nurses get a lot closer with their patients (often belligerent and of varying ideologies) but they're typically expected to serve respectfully. When we go into business we make a lot of concessions - We register our business, we pay sales tax, and we accept our obligation to serve the public equally. If your artistic bent makes those rules too hard... then perhaps you should stay out of business and keep it art?
And I find it strange that so many photographers would demand broad "freedom" even as they struggle to explain to clients that physical possession of prints does not give them the right to do anything with it. Our government (and indeed all governments) have a strong history of limiting freedom for the benefit of vulnerable groups. It seems hypocritical to cling so strongly to our protections while scoffing at the idea of the government protecting another group.
I don't see the benefit in forcing someone to provide a service. I would rather work with someone who wanted to do it.
When all three providers in town refuse you service, it becomes a lot less funny.
In many cases, it may not even be strong religious belief. If the first two photographers don't want to work with you, then your more tolerant third choice may simply be wary of burning their reputation in a strongly conservative area. In a sense, the law protects photographers as well - when you are required to treat clients equally, it no longer becomes a political statement to serve one.
In your "What if" scenario the photographer or other business that comes out as not wanting to provide services for a gay marriage will suffer consequences like social shaming, boycotts, and losing their business. Yes, the gay lobby can be a bully too. Would be great as a society if we could just move on to those that do want to cater and leave those that don't alone.
Ya gotta just love the twisted logic.
The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me.
You probably typed this with a straight face.
Sam
It's just a question of whether you're violating someone's civil rights by "not wanting to provide [them] a product or service..."
We have good laws about reserving the right to refuse service for various reasons. We also have good laws about civil rights that should never be denied someone based on race or gender etc.
This is just one of those impossibly gray areas, because there are a million reasons why you might not want to do business with someone, and a portion of those reasons could be considered narrow-minded bigotry. (While plenty of other reasons are highly valid, and may even be civil or religious rights themselves.)
It's unfortunate, but it's not a situation that will resolve itself entirely in just a short period of time. Social and religious issues always take forever to iron out, and whenever the two cross, it is even worse.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I don't buy it.
It has got to be the approach line.. there is a plenty of "alternative" photographers in our area who'd be delighted to shoot this.
And the whole "i'll pray for you" crap.. oh dear, that crap just drives me batsh!t mad.
in the future, if you need a 'tog, hit me up. I am in Germantown, WI at least once a month, and can help with portraits (i've been looking to get involved in this line of work)
The problem with gay community (that i've encountered) is that there are MANY who are trying to shove their values down others throats.
During my last shoot, I was told "you don't know that you're gay, just 'cause you didn't have the right lay", and was repeatedly groped until I put a stop to it.
On the other hand, I had an engagement session with two lads who were absolutely great, polite and did not attempt any stupid stuff.
LGBT folk from my first example are the ones who are causing most of the issues, IMHO
My Site
My Facebook
Matt,
Please read exactly what I wrote, noting more, noting less. I make no reference, direct or implied with regard to any specific cause or issue. I believe my statement was clear. It is in reference to twisted logic of someone with a cause.
You have a point of view, I have a point of view, they may or may not agree. We have a right to these views and to support them. Yes we even have the right to argue total nonsense. I also have to right to point out the twisted Orwellian statement made.
"The government that forces me to provide a product or service I don't want to provide, (for what ever reason), is actually protecting me."
Again it doesn't matter what the issue is. If this isn't twisted irrational, Orwellian I don't know what is.
Sam
Jon - the problem with your logic is it is based in bigotry. If we followed your line of thought, African Americans would still be "free to find a restaurant that would serve them" and leave the restaurants that were for "white's only" alone. The same argument could be made for women - if a bank refused to provide a loan to a woman solely because she was not male, she could always find another bank that would.
I recognize that people that have beliefs based in bigotry don't have a problem with that. I can't remember asking this before but I'll ask it now - are you also OK with a business refusing it's service to a woman because of her gender or a person because of their race? Is it just the "gay" issue, or are you in favor of a business being able to discriminate based upon racial or gender issues? I understand if you are in favor of going back on those issues as well - at least that is a consistent thought process. I have more difficulty in understanding someone who believes it's OK to discriminate based upon sexual orientation but NOT OK to discriminate based upon gender or race.
Again, my point is still the same: in many different industries, not just photography, most people "don't want to provide a service" for very fair and valid reasons. That's fine and dandy, and I'm all in favor of it.
However what I'm saying is that due to human nature, prejudice and discrimination can creep into the equation, and therefore not every reason for refusing service is legally or morally acceptable. Does this make sense?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
There comes a time when laws can be overprotective and have reverse discrimination where they infringe on religious freedoms.
No, I am not OK with a business discriminating against gender. However in today's society that business would not also stay In business too long if they tried. I would be for letting a company decide that is their policy and live with the consequences. I would be ok with a photographer catering to only gay weddings.
This is the problem that you do not seem to understand and other advocates. You have a knee jerk reaction that we are somehow wanting to go back to old society beliefs.
You assume the motive is bigotry based. There comes a time when the laws can become overprotective, reverse discriminate, and give extra rights. Before you also make an assumption about my personal stance on this is I have no problem covering a gay wedding. I have had inquiries from gay couples but they have not hired me. What I resent is being forced to cover something I do not wish to cover. I do not care what the topic or occasion is. True freedom is also choosing whar work I want to do regardless of the reason.
Recent events in regards to race show even the slightest hint of racism can cause accusations of racism. A business wants to cater to white's only? There would be a social outcry and the business would money. Society, not government would take care of the problem.
:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash
I must sincerely apologize for my limited education and inability to clearly convey my thoughts.
Again!!!! if you read my statements, I have attempted to not addressed any issues or causes in this tread.
My only comment is in reference to a statement that a law that forces me (anyone) to provide a product or service I (anyone) does not want to provide is actually protecting me.
This is not a rational, or logical statement. Arguments like this are (in my opinion) born out of the madness of politically correct thinking.
I am not arguing for or against anything here.
You have a point of view, fine, make it, but please don't start in with twisted nonsensical Orwellian statements.
The actual question you posed is (for me) for another thread.
Sam
What you don't understand is that all those prior social issues were NOT solved by society, they were only solved by government. Including the whites-only thing you just mentioned.
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