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.
I am not discounting that at all and understand perfectly how the laws helped. There also comes a point that they are not needed. Again, look at the backlash against the photographer in question. Didn't need a law for that and there are plenty of photographers who would provide services. Laws can protect freedoms or take them away too.
I am amazed at how many white, straight men have such insight into the struggles of minorities. And Sam, I know better than to go down your rabbit hole. If you want a serious answer, ask more respectfully.
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
First, I'd like to stress that you've encountered. You are a photographer, yes? Trying to judge such a broad group of people based on a few -clients- you've had will lead to wildly inaccurate estimations. As far as "shoving their values down other peoples throats", what values? The vast majority of them only want to be treated like everybody else. That is a basic expectation that anyone has, and is the justification for our current anti-discrimination laws.
I'd also like to make a special mention of "was repeatedly groped until I put a stop to it." You seem to think this is a problem of gay people - I suppose you are unaware that straight men do this to women all the time? It's very easy to misjudge what oppressive behavior is like until it happens to you, and this is exactly what most of the posters here are doing: We are rarely discriminated against for being white, for being male, for being straight. When it does happen, it's a bit of a shock, but you just go about your daily life. It's a different experience when it's a daily occurrence.
Finally, to everyone - if your'e homophobic, you should have the guts to admit it. Y'all speak a lot about freedom, but I don't see you complaining about our current anti-discrimination laws (in fact, I'd bet a lot of you don't even know what they are). I don't see posts freaking out about having to photograph black people "not because you're racist, just on principle of freedom." But as soon as we bring up the idea of adding LGBT people to existing anti-discrimination legislation, y'all flip out like the earth was pulled out from under you. If you're anti-gay, find the courage to admit it. If you're not, look inside and ask where you're really coming from with these protests.
In the end, anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them?
I'm going to leave the rest of the debate in Demian's articulate hands, but I can't get past this without comment:
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.
Which is harassment plain and simple, and a totally separate issue to do with being an obnoxious jerk, and nothing at all to do with gay/straight. They should be called out just as a woman should call it out if a guy gropes her up against her wishes. And yes, women deal with this kind of garbage ALL.THE.TIME.
There comes a time when laws can be overprotective and have reverse discrimination where they infringe on religious freedoms.
...
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.
Jon - the way society creates change is to pressure law makers. Here is the problem with discrimination - it is very often firmly entrenched and can have great regional impact outside of melting pot large cities. Again, all the societal pressure in the world wasn't going to change how certain areas of the southern U.S. treated African Americans. The prejudice was simply too wide spread. It's similar today with sexual orientation. Yes, in major metropolitan areas there are plenty of progressive service providers. But, a gay couple in Wyoming shouldn't have to leave their state to find service providers. Same for other regions of the country. Again, it's easy to disregard the impact of bigotry when you aren't subjected to it. In a very large sense, gays face much of the same issues African American's faced back in the 60s - in certain areas of the country, there wasn't as much of an issue - but in others, it was palpable. And, social pressure wasn't enough because the bigotry was entrenched.
I also find it interesting that you make a comment about a law infringing upon religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances where religious beliefs contain some very unsettling social ideas - especially where women are concerned. So, should women still face female circumcision or be stoned to death because of adultery? Or, is it only certain religious beliefs that need to be protected?
In the end, it isn't bigotry to refuse services to an African American, a woman or a gay person. It is, if their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is the REASON you refuse service. It is, if one of those things affects your ability to do your job. If is bigotry if you handle the conversation differently and make it clear you wouldn't be a good service provider - not because of time, distance, unfamiliarity with a cultural ceremeny, etc but simply because they're African American or gay.
See Jon, the truth is - it isn't the violent bigots that are the issue - it's the more subtle ones. That's why there is the need for society to have laws. Not to provide extra benefits but to ensure race, sex, religion or sexual orientation are not the basis for refusing goods or services. Spend time in a rural area of the country where you are the one being discriminated against and don't have the means to move away and see if you don't feel differently. In the end, you represent the exact reason why there needs to be laws. You don't really see it as a problem because you're not affected by it - which is representative of most of the population in the U.S. It's OK to have strong religious beliefs. But if those beliefs require you to refuse goods or services to sinners, infidels, whatever you don't belong in a service industry in a modern country.
I also find it interesting that you make a comment about a law infringing upon religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances where religious beliefs contain some very unsettling social ideas - especially where women are concerned. So, should women still face female circumcision or be stoned to death because of adultery? Or, is it only certain religious beliefs that need to be protected?
Of course not. You are also picking and choosing what you discriminate against so let's not get into extreme cases about scenarios and going down that rabbit hole or hypotheticals where the government forces us to photograph whatever a client wants us to.
This discussion started with a couple who had alternatives. They and the gay community and supporters decided to make an example of this photographer.
This is the first paragraph from the linked story:
"Earlier this week, San Rafael, California, photography team urloved made headlines after declining to photograph a same-sex couple's wedding. The would-be clients posted their experience on the company’s Facebook page, massive backlash from the community followed, and urloved decided to go out of business altogether. "
I sympathize with the gay community. You are correct I do not know what it is like to experience discrimination. I do know what it is like to make at living a something I feel passionately about. The original photography team tried to find them a photographer that had no problem covering their wedding. The gay couple made a post on social media and it became a rallying cry. The photography couple went out of business. There wasn't a shortage of photographers that would do their wedding. In this case, the religious beliefs of the couple in that area were in the minority yet they had no protection under the law.
I am against bullies and I don't care if they are straight, gay, black or white. If I can't do a job I refer people to other photographers all the time. Now, all it will take is one chip on the shoulder person that may perceive my actions as discriminatory to end my business regardless if I did or not.
First, I'd like to stress that you've encountered. You are a photographer, yes? Trying to judge such a broad group of people based on a few -clients- you've had will lead to wildly inaccurate estimations. As far as "shoving their values down other peoples throats", what values? The vast majority of them only want to be treated like everybody else. That is a basic expectation that anyone has, and is the justification for our current anti-discrimination laws.
First of all, let's not take my words out of context, and you don't know the work I've done.
I said specifically that the issue is that many people in that community feel that it is OK to do. Just like with harassing women, it isn't.
Secondly, I've shot for quite a number of people in that community who are precisely the way you are saying "the vast majority" is. I loved working with them. If there is love, there is love no matter what body parts you've got.
I'd also like to make a special mention of "was repeatedly groped until I put a stop to it." You seem to think this is a problem of gay people - I suppose you are unaware that straight men do this to women all the time?
I shoot in bars, concert venues, tight party environments often, "her/his eyes only" bachelor(ette) parties. Yes, I do get hit on, and once in a while do get groped. But the times when I had that happen to me a lot, and it would keep on going after my requests to stop was, in fact, with LGBT members. More than once - in the event's defense - the members of the same community approached the jerks and had a talk with them.
Which is harassment plain and simple, and a totally separate issue to do with being an obnoxious jerk, and nothing at all to do with gay/straight. They should be called out just as a woman should call it out if a guy gropes her up against her wishes. And yes, women deal with this kind of garbage ALL.THE.TIME.
I concur. I never said that this is an exclusive occurrence. We have an area here in Chi called Boystown. Some amazing folk live there; i've done quite a few portrait sessions with members of that commune. When working there, I found that LGBT folk is much more open in communication than "straight" folk. At the same time I just don't understand the need to dress flamboyantly, and make it a point to mention in conversation that you're attracted to the same sex. All i'm saying is that these are the people I encountered the strongest "coming on" from.
In the end of the day, as long as you're respectful to others and a decent human being, I don't care who you prefer sleep with or how you see yourself. I am there to create captures.
I am against bullies and I don't care if they are straight, gay, black or white. If I can't do a job I refer people to other photographers all the time. Now, all it will take is one chip on the shoulder person that may perceive my actions as discriminatory to end my business regardless if I did or not.
I agree with that. I think there are people involved with any issue that can take things too far. In this example, however, I suspect that if the photographers had taken the experience as a learning opportunity to change the way they think and act, there wouldn't be a need to go out of business. Again, at the heart of the story, they did - in fact - discriminate against the gay couple. No one misunderstood their motivations. A pleasant bigot is still a bigot.
I think this is very different than activists who try to twist everything into discrimination when it isn't. I didn't read anything that contradicts the notion that the photographers didn't want to provide their services precisely because the couple was gay. So, while I agree with your assertion that it's bad when situations get twisted - I don't see that here. Again, I think the photographers could have admitted they acted poorly and admitted their bigotry and this would have gone away and they likely would have gotten good business.
Or the gay couple could have moved on to another photographer because they had options. Yes the photography couple discriminated but the gay couple were also bullies and the community at large used their majority belief that lead the photography group to go out of business.
The gay couple didn't get the photographers, the photographers went out of business, and the whole incident did nothing to bring both sides closer together. Not a good way to change hearts.
I agree with that. I think there are people involved with any issue that can take things too far. In this example, however, I suspect that if the photographers had taken the experience as a learning opportunity to change the way they think and act, there wouldn't be a need to go out of business. Again, at the heart of the story, they did - in fact - discriminate against the gay couple. No one misunderstood their motivations. A pleasant bigot is still a bigot.
I think this is very different than activists who try to twist everything into discrimination when it isn't. I didn't read anything that contradicts the notion that the photographers didn't want to provide their services precisely because the couple was gay. So, while I agree with your assertion that it's bad when situations get twisted - I don't see that here. Again, I think the photographers could have admitted they acted poorly and admitted their bigotry and this would have gone away and they likely would have gotten good business.
Or the gay couple could have moved on to another photographer because they had options. Yes the photography couple discriminated but the gay couple were also bullies and the community at large used their majority belief that lead the photography group to go out of business.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
It isn't always about "having options". Rosa Parks had "options". She could have sat where she was told. Change doesn't happen all at once. But standing up and saying discrimination will not be tolerated is often the start of change.
In the end of the day, as long as you're respectful to others and a decent human being, I don't care who you prefer sleep with or how you see yourself. I am there to create captures.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
It isn't always about "having options". Rosa Parks had "options". She could have sat where she was told. Change doesn't happen all at once. But standing up and saying discrimination will not be tolerated is often the start of change.
Jon - I understand. 40 years ago there were restaurant owners that didn't want to be "forced" to serve "colored people". This really isn't any different. Sometimes laws are required to force people to change their behavior because they don't want to do it on their own.
Jon - I understand. 40 years ago there were restaurant owners that didn't want to be "forced" to serve "colored people". This really isn't any different. Sometimes laws are required to force people to change their behavior because they don't want to do it on their own.
Did they force businesses to close? Did they burn down livinghood of others? I honestly don't know the US history around that time frame. My country was still a farming socialist camp \, where you would get prosecuted for long hair or jeans at the time...
i'm not old enough to have seen the change (and, even if I were, I would have lived in a USSR hell hole at the time anyway), but from what I gathered it was a polite proposition of the rights changes and a clear cut explanation of wanting to be recognized as a human being by wanting to integrate into the community.
I may be wrong, but destroying someone's life and forcing someone to feel what you want to feel isn't exactly the way to integrate your point of view.
edit:
This did work well for christians when my ancestors were converted.. never mind. my argument is invalid.
Did they force businesses to close? Did they burn down livinghood of others? I honestly don't know the US history around that time frame. My country was still a farming socialist camp \, where you would get prosecuted for long hair or jeans at the time...
Without doubt there was violence and criminal behavior on all fronts. Don't misunderstand me - I am not advocating destruction of property, looting etc. Now, if a business decided, after laws were passed that they would rather close their doors than allow "colored people" to be served there - that is there problem. They are not victims.
I may be wrong, but destroying someone's life and forcing someone to feel what you want to feel isn't exactly the way to integrate your point of view.
edit:
It isn't about forcing a change in "feelings". It's about forcing a change in ACTIONS. In the U.S. you are still allowed to dislike African American people. You are still allowed to think they are an inferior race. Your right to think and, to a large extent, verbalize your beliefs is protected. Discrimination is in actions. The restaurant owner of today can still hate African Americans they just are required to provide the same service they do to whites.
I am amazed at how many white, straight men have such insight into the struggles of minorities. And Sam, I know better than to go down your rabbit hole. If you want a serious answer, ask more respectfully.[QUOTE
What questions have I asked????????????? Since I haven't asked any questions it's pretty hard to see how I can not ask any questions more respectfully.
In the end, anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them?[QUOTE
Here we go again with the twisted Orwellian statements.
Demian,
You are passionate, and articulate in presenting your point of view. If you will please take notice of my posts, I have not expressed any position here. The only issue I have addressed are the irrational, twisted, Orwellian statements.
Jon - I understand. 40 years ago there were restaurant owners that didn't want to be "forced" to serve "colored people". This really isn't any different. Sometimes laws are required to force people to change their behavior because they don't want to do it on their own.
That is true. In this case a law wasn't needed. They were publicly shamed and lost their business.
This is a long thread and maybe I'm confused about which case we're talking about. But if it's the one I remember, the reason their case became public is that they were found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination law. Without that, I see no reason to think that anything would have happened.
This is a long thread and maybe I'm confused about which case we're talking about. But if it's the one I remember, the reason their case became public is that they were found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination law. Without that, I see no reason to think that anything would have happened.
Ah, right--I must have been thinking about a case in Oregon. So, yeah you're right, in this particular case community pressure was sufficient. It's also true that sexual orientation is a protected class under California anti-discrimination law, and that very few communities in the US resemble the SF Bay Area.
It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out in the future. While it's always dicey to predict what the Supreme Court will do, most knowledgeable observers expect that within about a month, same-sex marriage will become universal in the US. However, sexual orientation is still not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination law. So in many states, you can be denied employment, housing, or just about anything else just because you're gay; wedding photography is a rather minor issue by comparison. That's likely to become the next battleground.
Which illustrates the clash we have of two protected rights. The law laid out in the Unruh Civil Rights Act protects religion. So we have a situation where someone could not refuse a couple based on their religious beliefs yet we can force someone to provide services regardless if they feel the ceremony is against their religious belief.
Ah, right--I must have been thinking about a case in Oregon. So, yeah you're right, in this particular case community pressure was sufficient. It's also true that sexual orientation is a protected class under California anti-discrimination law, and that very few communities in the US resemble the SF Bay Area.
It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out in the future. While it's always dicey to predict what the Supreme Court will do, most knowledgeable observers expect that within about a month, same-sex marriage will become universal in the US. However, sexual orientation is still not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination law. So in many states, you can be denied employment, housing, or just about anything else just because you're gay; wedding photography is a rather minor issue by comparison. That's likely to become the next battleground.
Which illustrates the clash we have of two protected rights. The law laid out in the Unruh Civil Rights Act protects religion. So we have a situation where someone could not refuse a couple based on their religious beliefs yet we can force someone to provide services regardless if they feel the ceremony is against their religious belief.
Yes, this is where it's going to be interesting. We can probably agree (mostly) that religion doesn't trump civil law when it comes to killing apostates, stoning adulterers or honor killings. The alternative is life in Iran or Saudi Arabia. What is less clear is the scope of religious rights in day to day life.
It's kind of hard for me to think of wedding photography as practicing religion. Seems like just doing business to me. Now there's certainly no specific scriptural prohibition against photographing a gay wedding (or anything else, except images of God for some tribes). Correct me if I'm wrong about that--citation, please. The photographer is not supporting gay marriage any more than a photojournalist is supporting murder by taking images of a crime scene. Does a photographer who claims religious obligations have to discover whether the couple has had premarital sex and decline the gig if so? How is that different?
Now I realize that many people have strong feelings about all this and that they're not going to like what I'm saying here. But I can't help thinking that the whole religious argument is just a cover for a more fundamental homophobia. Religion has been used in the past to justify misogyny, slavery and racism. Eventually--like the argument that same-sex marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage itself--some clear-minded judges will conclude that there's no basis to it. Your can practice religion as you see fit, but you still have to obey the same rules that govern commerce as everyone else.
You are probably correct civil will trump religious protections.
In regards to deep seeded religious beliefs, in some religious practices a marriage ceremony is also a religious ceremony. Since photography is also protected as an art form, by extension whatever religious belief they have is also an extension of their art form. Some may hide behind religion because they are homophobic but some do not. That gets down to judging a persons heart.
With grand sweeping laws as presented what is to prevent a couple from suing a church that does not want to perform a same-sex marriage?
I think the government ought to stop calling it a marriage by law and sweep everything under a civil union, and define that. Then leave marriage to religions. People get bent out of shape over semantics.
Yes, this is where it's going to be interesting. We can probably agree (mostly) that religion doesn't trump civil law when it comes to killing apostates, stoning adulterers or honor killings. The alternative is life in Iran or Saudi Arabia. What is less clear is the scope of religious rights in day to day life.
It's kind of hard for me to think of wedding photography as practicing religion. Seems like just doing business to me. Now there's certainly no specific scriptural prohibition against photographing a gay wedding (or anything else, except images of God for some tribes). Correct me if I'm wrong about that--citation, please. The photographer is not supporting gay marriage any more than a photojournalist is supporting murder by taking images of a crime scene. Does a photographer who claims religious obligations have to discover whether the couple has had premarital sex and decline the gig if so? How is that different?
Now I realize that many people have strong feelings about all this and that they're not going to like what I'm saying here. But I can't help thinking that the whole religious argument is just a cover for a more fundamental homophobia. Religion has been used in the past to justify misogyny, slavery and racism. Eventually--like the argument that same-sex marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage itself--some clear-minded judges will conclude that there's no basis to it. Your can practice religion as you see fit, but you still have to obey the same rules that govern commerce as everyone else.
You've got it correct Richard. "religion" and "art" are just excuses and convenient covers used to justify homophobia - just like they were used to justify racism in the past. It was wrong with racism and it's wrong with homophobia. People were against black and white couples being married too. I'm sure they tried to play the "religion" card back then too. This is no different.
Again we are looking at this from different perspective, yours is narrow and limited to the issue of gay marriage. I am looking at a broader view in regards to what it means for a photographer running a business.
One of the advice points I keep reading about is also being picky about the customer you do work with. Sometimes a client/photographer is not a good fit. With the sweeping legislation you linked to if there is the slightest hint of discrimination a photographer could face legal issues. You have mentioned some stuff you would not cover. One of the protections the Unruh Civil Rights Acts is religious protection. So if a religious group wants to hire you to cover an anti-gay rally you would have to do it. If you talk to a would be bride and you get the feel she will be a bridezilla and suggest she should use another photographer, she may get her feelings hurt and claim you just don't like women.
Laws and legislation like this put a damper on being selective. Even if there is no evidence of discrimination few photographers could handle the legal bills if they do not carry insurance.
You've got it correct Richard. "religion" and "art" are just excuses and convenient covers used to justify homophobia - just like they were used to justify racism in the past. It was wrong with racism and it's wrong with homophobia. People were against black and white couples being married too. I'm sure they tried to play the "religion" card back then too. This is no different.
Again we are looking at this from different perspective, yours is narrow and limited to the issue of gay marriage. I am looking at a broader view in regards to what it means for a photographer running a business..
Jon - I got a good laugh from your post. Your view, focusing on what is good for you professionally and personally is somehow broader than the view of what is good for society as a whole. I know this may come as a shock to you Jon but most of us here are professionals. In fact, some of us have to make hiring and termination decisions. Many of us thus understand the burdens anti-discrimination legislation puts on us. The notion that a photographer is a special class of business is hogwash. Without doubt, as with any independent contractor, you have to properly identify whether a relationship with a potential client is a good fit. Fortunately, society as a whole, and our government in particular, believes using race, gender or sex as a determining factor is out of bounds. In some places sexual orientation is on that list. Yep, it makes business decisions more difficult. But, you need to get over the notion that a photographer is special in that regard. It's not about what is best for "photographers" - it's about what is best for society. But, I suppose that's just me being narrow minded again
Jon - I got a good laugh from your post. Your view, focusing on what is good for you professionally and personally is somehow broader than the view of what is good for society as a whole. I know this may come as a shock to you Jon but most of us here are professionals. In fact, some of us have to make hiring and termination decisions. Many of us thus understand the burdens anti-discrimination legislation puts on us. The notion that a photographer is a special class of business is hogwash. Without doubt, as with any independent contractor, you have to properly identify whether a relationship with a potential client is a good fit. Fortunately, society as a whole, and our government in particular, believes using race, gender or sex as a determining factor is out of bounds. In some places sexual orientation is on that list. Yep, it makes business decisions more difficult. But, you need to get over the notion that a photographer is special in that regard. It's not about what is best for "photographers" - it's about what is best for society. But, I suppose that's just me being narrow minded again
You are passionate, and articulate in presenting your point of view. If you will please take notice of my posts, I have not expressed any position here. The only issue I have addressed are the irrational, twisted, Orwellian statements.
Sam
Your inability to understand does not make my logic "twisted" or "Orwellian".
A photographer from a conservative area may wish to take a gay client, either because they need the money or because they're a decent person. Photographing a same-sex wedding can often be taken as a political statement (as can rejection of same-sex weddings, as the news frequently attests to.) Said photographer may then face backlash from his family/friends, his church, and the community at large (perhaps even potential customers - do conservatives really want their wedding shot by the guy who did the gay couple?)
For this photographer, the law is a blessing. When they are prohibited from discriminating by sexual orientation, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a political statement. He can face his family without having to fight about it, because "The government says I have to."
The law doesn't prohibit you from rejecting clients who happen to be gay. It only prohibits you from rejecting them on the basis on their orientation. So yes, if you're a bigot and want to stick it to gay people - this law is harmful.
So for people who have no intention to discriminate, most of them will see no difference. For some, it will benefit them by de-politicizing their work. For bigots, yeah, it'll severely impact their ability to discriminate. I cry a thousand crocodile tears for them.
Let's look at you, personally, Sam. Are you going to reject a client simply because they're gay? If no, then these laws don't hurt you. It's not taking a single "freedom" you would exercise, and it would help many, many people (keep in mind that these anti-discrimination laws go far beyond our profession.)
Comments
I am not discounting that at all and understand perfectly how the laws helped. There also comes a point that they are not needed. Again, look at the backlash against the photographer in question. Didn't need a law for that and there are plenty of photographers who would provide services. Laws can protect freedoms or take them away too.
First, I'd like to stress that you've encountered. You are a photographer, yes? Trying to judge such a broad group of people based on a few -clients- you've had will lead to wildly inaccurate estimations. As far as "shoving their values down other peoples throats", what values? The vast majority of them only want to be treated like everybody else. That is a basic expectation that anyone has, and is the justification for our current anti-discrimination laws.
I'd also like to make a special mention of "was repeatedly groped until I put a stop to it." You seem to think this is a problem of gay people - I suppose you are unaware that straight men do this to women all the time? It's very easy to misjudge what oppressive behavior is like until it happens to you, and this is exactly what most of the posters here are doing: We are rarely discriminated against for being white, for being male, for being straight. When it does happen, it's a bit of a shock, but you just go about your daily life. It's a different experience when it's a daily occurrence.
Finally, to everyone - if your'e homophobic, you should have the guts to admit it. Y'all speak a lot about freedom, but I don't see you complaining about our current anti-discrimination laws (in fact, I'd bet a lot of you don't even know what they are). I don't see posts freaking out about having to photograph black people "not because you're racist, just on principle of freedom." But as soon as we bring up the idea of adding LGBT people to existing anti-discrimination legislation, y'all flip out like the earth was pulled out from under you. If you're anti-gay, find the courage to admit it. If you're not, look inside and ask where you're really coming from with these protests.
In the end, anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them?
Which is harassment plain and simple, and a totally separate issue to do with being an obnoxious jerk, and nothing at all to do with gay/straight. They should be called out just as a woman should call it out if a guy gropes her up against her wishes. And yes, women deal with this kind of garbage ALL.THE.TIME.
I also find it interesting that you make a comment about a law infringing upon religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances where religious beliefs contain some very unsettling social ideas - especially where women are concerned. So, should women still face female circumcision or be stoned to death because of adultery? Or, is it only certain religious beliefs that need to be protected?
In the end, it isn't bigotry to refuse services to an African American, a woman or a gay person. It is, if their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is the REASON you refuse service. It is, if one of those things affects your ability to do your job. If is bigotry if you handle the conversation differently and make it clear you wouldn't be a good service provider - not because of time, distance, unfamiliarity with a cultural ceremeny, etc but simply because they're African American or gay.
See Jon, the truth is - it isn't the violent bigots that are the issue - it's the more subtle ones. That's why there is the need for society to have laws. Not to provide extra benefits but to ensure race, sex, religion or sexual orientation are not the basis for refusing goods or services. Spend time in a rural area of the country where you are the one being discriminated against and don't have the means to move away and see if you don't feel differently. In the end, you represent the exact reason why there needs to be laws. You don't really see it as a problem because you're not affected by it - which is representative of most of the population in the U.S. It's OK to have strong religious beliefs. But if those beliefs require you to refuse goods or services to sinners, infidels, whatever you don't belong in a service industry in a modern country.
Of course not. You are also picking and choosing what you discriminate against so let's not get into extreme cases about scenarios and going down that rabbit hole or hypotheticals where the government forces us to photograph whatever a client wants us to.
This discussion started with a couple who had alternatives. They and the gay community and supporters decided to make an example of this photographer.
This is the first paragraph from the linked story:
"Earlier this week, San Rafael, California, photography team urloved made headlines after declining to photograph a same-sex couple's wedding. The would-be clients posted their experience on the company’s Facebook page, massive backlash from the community followed, and urloved decided to go out of business altogether. "
I sympathize with the gay community. You are correct I do not know what it is like to experience discrimination. I do know what it is like to make at living a something I feel passionately about. The original photography team tried to find them a photographer that had no problem covering their wedding. The gay couple made a post on social media and it became a rallying cry. The photography couple went out of business. There wasn't a shortage of photographers that would do their wedding. In this case, the religious beliefs of the couple in that area were in the minority yet they had no protection under the law.
I am against bullies and I don't care if they are straight, gay, black or white. If I can't do a job I refer people to other photographers all the time. Now, all it will take is one chip on the shoulder person that may perceive my actions as discriminatory to end my business regardless if I did or not.
I said specifically that the issue is that many people in that community feel that it is OK to do. Just like with harassing women, it isn't.
Secondly, I've shot for quite a number of people in that community who are precisely the way you are saying "the vast majority" is. I loved working with them. If there is love, there is love no matter what body parts you've got.
I shoot in bars, concert venues, tight party environments often, "her/his eyes only" bachelor(ette) parties. Yes, I do get hit on, and once in a while do get groped. But the times when I had that happen to me a lot, and it would keep on going after my requests to stop was, in fact, with LGBT members. More than once - in the event's defense - the members of the same community approached the jerks and had a talk with them.
I concur. I never said that this is an exclusive occurrence. We have an area here in Chi called Boystown. Some amazing folk live there; i've done quite a few portrait sessions with members of that commune. When working there, I found that LGBT folk is much more open in communication than "straight" folk. At the same time I just don't understand the need to dress flamboyantly, and make it a point to mention in conversation that you're attracted to the same sex. All i'm saying is that these are the people I encountered the strongest "coming on" from.
In the end of the day, as long as you're respectful to others and a decent human being, I don't care who you prefer sleep with or how you see yourself. I am there to create captures.
My Site
My Facebook
I agree with that. I think there are people involved with any issue that can take things too far. In this example, however, I suspect that if the photographers had taken the experience as a learning opportunity to change the way they think and act, there wouldn't be a need to go out of business. Again, at the heart of the story, they did - in fact - discriminate against the gay couple. No one misunderstood their motivations. A pleasant bigot is still a bigot.
I think this is very different than activists who try to twist everything into discrimination when it isn't. I didn't read anything that contradicts the notion that the photographers didn't want to provide their services precisely because the couple was gay. So, while I agree with your assertion that it's bad when situations get twisted - I don't see that here. Again, I think the photographers could have admitted they acted poorly and admitted their bigotry and this would have gone away and they likely would have gotten good business.
The gay couple didn't get the photographers, the photographers went out of business, and the whole incident did nothing to bring both sides closer together. Not a good way to change hearts.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
It isn't always about "having options". Rosa Parks had "options". She could have sat where she was told. Change doesn't happen all at once. But standing up and saying discrimination will not be tolerated is often the start of change.
Boom - THIS 10000000000000000000x
: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:bash
For the love of God!!!
Where have I called you a bigot? Where have I even suggested you are a bigot?
Sam
Conversely I do not want someone else forcing me to do something I do not want to do.
I didn't mean it to come across that way. For agreeing with you, some people in this thread may label me a bigot.
Did they force businesses to close? Did they burn down livinghood of others? I honestly don't know the US history around that time frame. My country was still a farming socialist camp \, where you would get prosecuted for long hair or jeans at the time...
i'm not old enough to have seen the change (and, even if I were, I would have lived in a USSR hell hole at the time anyway), but from what I gathered it was a polite proposition of the rights changes and a clear cut explanation of wanting to be recognized as a human being by wanting to integrate into the community.
I may be wrong, but destroying someone's life and forcing someone to feel what you want to feel isn't exactly the way to integrate your point of view.
edit:
This did work well for christians when my ancestors were converted.. never mind. my argument is invalid.
My Site
My Facebook
It isn't about forcing a change in "feelings". It's about forcing a change in ACTIONS. In the U.S. you are still allowed to dislike African American people. You are still allowed to think they are an inferior race. Your right to think and, to a large extent, verbalize your beliefs is protected. Discrimination is in actions. The restaurant owner of today can still hate African Americans they just are required to provide the same service they do to whites.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Marin-photographers-shut-business-rather-than-5899471.php
Here's a link to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm
It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out in the future. While it's always dicey to predict what the Supreme Court will do, most knowledgeable observers expect that within about a month, same-sex marriage will become universal in the US. However, sexual orientation is still not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination law. So in many states, you can be denied employment, housing, or just about anything else just because you're gay; wedding photography is a rather minor issue by comparison. That's likely to become the next battleground.
It's kind of hard for me to think of wedding photography as practicing religion. Seems like just doing business to me. Now there's certainly no specific scriptural prohibition against photographing a gay wedding (or anything else, except images of God for some tribes). Correct me if I'm wrong about that--citation, please. The photographer is not supporting gay marriage any more than a photojournalist is supporting murder by taking images of a crime scene. Does a photographer who claims religious obligations have to discover whether the couple has had premarital sex and decline the gig if so? How is that different?
Now I realize that many people have strong feelings about all this and that they're not going to like what I'm saying here. But I can't help thinking that the whole religious argument is just a cover for a more fundamental homophobia. Religion has been used in the past to justify misogyny, slavery and racism. Eventually--like the argument that same-sex marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage itself--some clear-minded judges will conclude that there's no basis to it. Your can practice religion as you see fit, but you still have to obey the same rules that govern commerce as everyone else.
In regards to deep seeded religious beliefs, in some religious practices a marriage ceremony is also a religious ceremony. Since photography is also protected as an art form, by extension whatever religious belief they have is also an extension of their art form. Some may hide behind religion because they are homophobic but some do not. That gets down to judging a persons heart.
With grand sweeping laws as presented what is to prevent a couple from suing a church that does not want to perform a same-sex marriage?
I think the government ought to stop calling it a marriage by law and sweep everything under a civil union, and define that. Then leave marriage to religions. People get bent out of shape over semantics.
One of the advice points I keep reading about is also being picky about the customer you do work with. Sometimes a client/photographer is not a good fit. With the sweeping legislation you linked to if there is the slightest hint of discrimination a photographer could face legal issues. You have mentioned some stuff you would not cover. One of the protections the Unruh Civil Rights Acts is religious protection. So if a religious group wants to hire you to cover an anti-gay rally you would have to do it. If you talk to a would be bride and you get the feel she will be a bridezilla and suggest she should use another photographer, she may get her feelings hurt and claim you just don't like women.
Laws and legislation like this put a damper on being selective. Even if there is no evidence of discrimination few photographers could handle the legal bills if they do not carry insurance.
Your inability to understand does not make my logic "twisted" or "Orwellian".
A photographer from a conservative area may wish to take a gay client, either because they need the money or because they're a decent person. Photographing a same-sex wedding can often be taken as a political statement (as can rejection of same-sex weddings, as the news frequently attests to.) Said photographer may then face backlash from his family/friends, his church, and the community at large (perhaps even potential customers - do conservatives really want their wedding shot by the guy who did the gay couple?)
For this photographer, the law is a blessing. When they are prohibited from discriminating by sexual orientation, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a political statement. He can face his family without having to fight about it, because "The government says I have to."
The law doesn't prohibit you from rejecting clients who happen to be gay. It only prohibits you from rejecting them on the basis on their orientation. So yes, if you're a bigot and want to stick it to gay people - this law is harmful.
So for people who have no intention to discriminate, most of them will see no difference. For some, it will benefit them by de-politicizing their work. For bigots, yeah, it'll severely impact their ability to discriminate. I cry a thousand crocodile tears for them.
Let's look at you, personally, Sam. Are you going to reject a client simply because they're gay? If no, then these laws don't hurt you. It's not taking a single "freedom" you would exercise, and it would help many, many people (keep in mind that these anti-discrimination laws go far beyond our profession.)