Looking at this I think both parties are wrong. Legally, only the photographer is wrong. However,if I got reply stating the photographer only photographed gay weddings and wouldn't do my straight wedding, my first thought would not be to sue, but to move on.
From a debate point of view, I think the discrimination law is outdated in this case. With the abundance of photographers who would take the job, I don't think this is discrimination. Feelings are hurt, but it's not like their wedding will not be photographed. I think it's a slippery slope when you can't turn down a job based on personal beliefs that don't do harm to the other party.
Or We don't photograph white weddings
Or redneck weddings
I am sorry but I think sometimes anti-discrimination laws go to far and tread on becoming regulating thoughts. The gay couple can still lead their life and find someone to photograph their wedding as evident on these boards. Before I get labeled as a bigot or intolerant, I fully tolerate anyone being intolerant of what they will or will not photograph. I think the gay couple is being intolerant as well.
If I were on the jury of this case, I would have to side with gay couple if the discrimination law applied in this case. That doesn't mean I think it's right.
If I was gay and I walked into McDonalds for their hamburger but they didn't serve me because of that, it's discrimination. So what I could've went to Wendy's or Burger King or Olive Garden.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
If I was gay and I walked into McDonalds and they didn't serve me because of that, but I wanted their hamburger it's discrimination. So what I could've went to Wendy's or Burger King or Olive Garden.
I agree with that, and I can't put my finger on why, but it just seems like wedding photography is different. It is so personal, so much time. . . it just seems different to me.
From a debate point of view, I think the discrimination law is outdated in this case. With the abundance of photographers who would take the job, I don't think this is discrimination. Feelings are hurt, but it's not like their wedding will not be photographed. I think it's a slippery slope when you can't turn down a job based on personal beliefs that don't do harm to the other party.
The fact that other photographers might be willing to take the job does not mean that discrimination no longer exists. It sounds like the concept "separate but equal," which you may recall was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in 1954. If you are running a restaurant, you cannot refuse to serve black people claiming that there are plenty of other places that will serve them. It's simply against the law, and rightly so.
As for not doing harm to the other party, you might want to consider that some people may feel insulted and hurt by blatant discrimination. You (and I) might not be inclined to file a lawsuit over an insult, but--as this case demonstrates--other people might be upset enough to do so. While it could be opportunistic, it could also be genuine anger. It is rarely good for business to piss people off, even if you don't want them as a customer.
As for not doing harm to the other party, you might want to consider that some people may feel insulted and hurt by blatant discrimination
There's a difference between violating rights and hurting feelings. It is becoming the case in our country in which the two are becoming the same. We don't have a right in this country to not be free of hurt feelings.
If I was gay and I walked into McDonalds for their hamburger but they didn't serve me because of that, it's discrimination. So what I could've went to Wendy's or Burger King or Olive Garden.
I understand that argument, but it when it comes to photography which is a personal and creative choice, we should have the right to not photograph something, regardless of the reason. Photography is an artistic and personal expression and I don't think restaurants is a good comparison.
If a KKK leader asked me to photograph his wedding, I wouldn't do it because I don't want my name associated with anything from the KKK. I should have the freedom and have the control of how my work is used or what subjects I choose to shoot.
If an environmentalist tree hugger is asked to take pictures by a logging company to promote their business, should they be forced to take those pictures if they refuse to take the job?
Should a PETA member be forced to take pictures for a McDonalds add?
Should an abortionist be forced to shoot material for a pro-life organization?
The government has no business telling me what I can or cannot photograph if it goes against my own personal belief system.
I understand that argument, but it when it comes to photography which is a personal and creative choice, we should have the right to not photograph something, regardless of the reason. Photography is an artistic and personal expression and I don't think restaurants is a good comparison.
Wedding photograpy is a business, and as such it is subject to all sorts of regulation. You have the right to all the creative choice you like as an artist, but there are rules you have to observe as a business. You are not obligated to do business with everybody, but if you can be shown to be discriminating you are subject to legal action. You may not like this, but that's the way it is.
Wedding photograpy is a business, and as such it is subject to all sorts of regulation. You have the right to all the creative choice you like as an artist, but there are rules you have to observe as a business. You are not obligated to do business with everybody, but if you can be shown to be discriminating you are subject to legal action. You may not like this, but that's the way it is.
I agree it's the way it is. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, but that didn't make it right.
Photography is a business, regardless if it's wedding or event or commercial. There are bigger issues here than just weddings. Do you want the government forcing you take a job you have personal or moral issues with? In fields like medicine and law, there needs to be laws like this. However, photography is an art form and is used to express ideas. I DO NOT want to be forced to take part in something I do not agree with. This protects the person who has problems with gays, and it also protects a gay person from turning down a job they don't agree with either.
There is a fine line between equal rights and special rights. One thing we have learned here is to just turn down the job and don't give a reason.
Put in another way: We have freedom of speech. The government cannot regulate or imprison someone for speech. I don't think the government has the right to make us participate in the expression of ideas we don't agree with, regardless of the issue.
I agree it's the way it is. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, but that didn't make it right.
Good point, however we passed an amendment to our Constitution ending slavery. Unfortunately that didn't provide equal rights to African Americans. Then you had the Jim Crow laws of the South and the informal but just as effective discrimination in the North. Many folks had personal and moral issues about hiring, serving, educating, living with etc, etc African Americans. Some even found a Biblical basis for their intolerance.
Then it became necessary to pass a few more laws to provide equal opportunity to a large segment of our population. These laws don't make it illegal to be a bigot but you just can't do it commercially.
Wedding photography is a business. If you are going to do it commercially you just have to follow the laws.
Even more important than the legal issues is that the photographers is this case were dead wrong. They were wrong in every possible way including their "religious" grounds. I mean, if Jesus was the photographer he would have taken the gig. To use his teachings as the basis for bigotry and intolerance is at best perverse.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Even more important than the legal issues is that the photographers is this case were dead wrong. They were wrong in every possible way including their "religious" grounds. I mean, if Jesus was the photographer he would have taken the gig. To use his teachings as the basis for bigotry and intolerance is at best perverse.
By saying they were wrong on religious grounds is imposing your idea of religion upon them. It doesn't matter what your belief is or what your idea of Christianity is. What Jesus would do in this situation is another debate in itself. It doesn't matter in this case as it is religious belief, regardless if it's Christian.
Good point, however we passed an amendment to our Constitution ending slavery. Unfortunately that didn't provide equal rights to African Americans. Then you had the Jim Crow laws of the South and the informal but just as effective discrimination in the North. Many folks had personal and moral issues about hiring, serving, educating, living with etc, etc African Americans. Some even found a Biblical basis for their intolerance.
Which illustrates my point about just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The laws changed.
Wedding photography is a business. If you are going to do it commercially you just have to follow the laws.
Lets get away from "wedding photography" and religious views on homosexuality. I haven't been arguing that and I have already stated legally, the photographer was wrong. I feel like I am going in circles here because I am not arguing the law of this case. I am arguing if the law is right.
My point is about the ability of the government to tell someone they must participate in an expression of an idea that they don't agree with. Photography, regardless if its "wedding" is also protected under free speech. Do you support the ability of the government to make you express ideas you are morally and personally against?
We do have a clash of free speech, freedom of religion, and discrimination with this particular case. Personally, I think free speech should have won. Setting emotions aside in this case due to the content of it, the government is telling us as photographers we have to participate in the expression of ideas our photographs make that we do not believe in nor condone.
By saying they were wrong on religious grounds is imposing your idea of religion upon them. It doesn't matter what your belief is or what your idea of Christianity is. What Jesus would do in this situation is another debate in itself. It doesn't matter in this case as it is religious belief, regardless if it's Christian.
Saying that they are wrong headed bigots imposes nothing on them but my opinion.
My point is about the ability of the government to tell someone they must participate in an expression of an idea that they don't agree with. Photography, regardless if its "wedding" is also protected under free speech. Do you support the ability of the government to make you express ideas you are morally and personally against?
The photography here is not about free speech its about a commercial enterprise. Their ability to express their intolerance has not been inhibited. I support the right of the government to regulate commercial enterprises so that no segment of our population is denied access to the service they offer to the general public.
Setting emotions aside in this case due to the content of it, the government is telling us as photographers we have to participate in the expression of ideas our photographs make that we do not believe in nor condone.
The government is merely saying that they can not discriminate. Wedding photography is a commercial enterpise in this situation. If one is going to hold themselves out to the public as a professional photographer one should act professionally.
The two bigots here are quite free to go out and take all the pictures they want that portray their warped view of the world. They just can't not discriminate when they are holding out their professional services to the general public.
There is no issue of "free speech" involved here.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The photographer was not very bright in their response.
Could have avoided the whole incident by merely stating what Harry says below. As a professional (as in any profession) when you are meeting with a client PRIOR to the meeting, you should plan your strategy and be prepared for as many surprises / objections as you can.
It's called preparation.
And, if you are a wedding photographer, any and all unusual circumstances (scenarios) should be thought through in advance of meeting with clients and, be prepared to respond in a professional and non confrontational way.
Personally, I don't do weddings anymore. I got tired of trying to get the drunks in the family to stay on their feet long enough for a photograph, and having 32 compact point and shoot camera's going off while I'm photographing was a bit distracting
[
they could have made up an excuse like "I'm booked that day". Instead they choose to express a reason that was in violation of local laws. When you do that you have to deal with the consequences of your own actions.
Markjay
Canon AE1 - it was my first "real camera"
Canon 20D - no more film!
The photography here is not about free speech its about a commercial enterprise. Their ability to express their intolerance has not been inhibited. I support the right of the government to regulate commercial enterprises so that no segment of our population is denied access to the service they offer to the general public.
We are going to have to disagree. I think photography, regardless if it's wedding, nature, journalism, etc. is an artistic expression of thought and the government has no business telling photographers what they can and cannot photograph, especially if it conflicts with moral or religious beliefs. There are bigger issues here than just discrimination or wedding photography. I am for protecting the rights of the of the photographers in this case as well as say, keeping a pro-choice photographer from having to photograph promotional material for a pro-life organization.
Further research with this case shows New Mexico took a hypocritical stance as it doesn't even recognize gay marriage, but is essentially punishing a photographer for not wanting to photograph a gay wedding.
Harryb, you may be comfortable with the governments power in this case because it's "discrimiantion", but you are advocating the government to restrict our freedoms of expression. This has broader implications and goes into writing as well as freelance writing and photography.
"So holding Elane Photography liable can’t be justified under the strict scrutiny mandated by the First Amendment and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Second, eradicating sexual-orientation discrimination is simply not a compelling state interest outside the employment context. See Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 (Cal. App. 1994) (boy scouts were protected by First Amendment freedom of expressive association against being forced by California public accommodation and gay-rights laws to include gay people as members and leaders, since being forced to do so did not serve a compelling state interest), aff’d, 952 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1998).
Moreover, there is an additional, alternative First Amendment defense that applies here, unrelated to freedom of religion: freedom from compelled speech. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).
The anti-discrimination statute is being applied by the Commission in a very peculiar way. (I say that as an attorney who used to help adjudicate discrimination cases at the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights). And the First Amendment defense is straightforward.
Photography is expressive; most businesses (say, selling hot dogs) are not. Ruling in favor of the photographer is not only consistent with the statute (which forbids discrimination based on customers’ sexual orientation, not based on the ceremony they wish to capture on film), but even if that were not the case, ruling in favor of the photographer would not carve out a big exception to the statute’s reach or vitiate any important state interests.
Since the photography is expressive, the case should be governed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), which held that a state’s gay-rights law and public-accommodation law could not be used to force an expressive activity (a parade, in that case) to embrace a message of support for gay causes, because doing that violated the First Amendment."
We are going to have to disagree. I think photography, regardless if it's wedding, nature, journalism, etc. is an artistic expression of thought and the government has no business telling photographers what they can and cannot photograph, especially if it conflicts with moral or religious beliefs. There are bigger issues here than just discrimination or wedding photography. I am for protecting the rights of the of the photographers in this case as well as say, keeping a pro-choice photographer from having to photograph promotional material for a pro-life organization.
Its very simple. Gays are human beings as such they have certain rights. One of them, as is enjoyed by all other human beings, in our society is the equal access to businesses holding themselves to the general public.
Now all the references to right-wing, anti-gay websites won't change that very basic truth. The law on this issue is constantly evolving as we progress. Pretty much like civil rights after the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court.
The N.M. decision was not hypocritical. A state can protect gays from discrimination even though its doesn't recogonize gay marriage.
This whole thing comes down to two issues. One being the business issue. The lesson to be learned from that its not smart to violate a locality's anti-discrimination laws.
The second issue is one of tolerance. One can disguise bigotry behind a veil of state's rights, photographers' rights, free speech or whatever but when you pull that the veil it's still bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and mean-spiritedness rearing up its ugly, pointy little old head behind that veil.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I don't think some here are getting your point, but I do, and think it was well said.
John68, and Heather, You two are obviously not politically correct. You speak your mind, even if it's different than the approved message.
Many here advocate making up excuses, lying, hiding, feet shuffling, etc. While I wouldn't want to deliberately hurt anyone's feelings, I do applaude someone for speaking out, and their right to hold a different view, and voice their view when asked.
Yes, even, and especially bigoted views!!! If someone expresses a view such as, "I hate gays, etc" this will open an opportunity for dialog where you might be able to plant some seeds of doubt with regard to their opinions. Where as if they make some week untruthful excuse like' I just love gays, but am booked". then there is no opportunity.
Disscimination, not covered by law's happen everyday, and I don't here anyone jumping up and down about it.
For the last time, this is not a gay straight issue. This is an individual rights issue.
So you would have no problem if a photographer said they had an issue with photographing an inter-racial couple?
Because someone voices differing beliefs or values than yourself you would have a problem with them? How intolerant of you.
I'm with John on this one. Photography is as much (or more) creative expression as it is a business, government regulations aside.
Rephrasing your question:
Would you want a photographer who has an issue with inter-racial marriage photographing your son/daughter's wedding to someone of a different race?
Do you think the food at McDonalds tastes the way it does because everyone that works there is excited about the product and puts 120% into every transaction?
Apply that state of mind (or worse, actively hostile) to a wedding photog and imagine how those once in a lifetime pictures will turn out.
Any reasonable person would have sought services elsewhere. Unfortunately we are far more litigious than reasonable these days.
Because someone voices differing beliefs or values than yourself you would have a problem with them? How intolerant of you.
I'm intolerant of intolerant people and people who discriminate. It really is that simple.
Go back in time 50 years and replace "gay" with "black" and re-run this thread. It is very telling that, in asking the question twice, nobody has actually answered it.
I'm with John on this one. Photography is as much (or more) creative expression as it is a business, government regulations aside.
However, it still is a business and is still subject to government regulations. Creativity is a red herring.
Would you want a photographer who has an issue with inter-racial marriage photographing your son/daughter's wedding to someone of a different race?
No. But if you don't fight discrimination where it happens it never goes away. And that is bad.
I'm absolutely astonished that in this day and age there is still discrimation and how vigorously people try to defend it.
Because someone voices differing beliefs or values than yourself you would have a problem with them? How intolerant of you.
I am intolerant when it comes to bigotry & prejudice. It harms its carriers as well as it victims. In my lifetime I seen people killed as a result of bigotry and prejudice. Whenever its pops its ugly little head up I intend to do what I can to hammer it down.
Any reasonable person would have sought services elsewhere. Unfortunately we are far more litigious than reasonable these days
We are rather unreasonable these days as those two bigoted photographers in N.M. demonstrate. Its a shame that litigation is needed to address their unreasonableness.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
While I don't agree with the attitude of the photographer's, (things may have been different for them if they hadn't advertised publicly, etc...) isn't our country supposed to be a place where you can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm someone else, or affect some else's human liberties?
I personally believe that the photographers were in the wrong because they were advertising publicly, and refused that public service to someone based on their sexual orientation. I would, however, defend their right to believe what they want to, even if I disagree with it. It just happens that public places of business are not the proper place to voice those beliefs.
EDIT: I realized my assumption above was that people reading this live in the US. When I say "our country" I'm referring to the US, since this is where I live, and this is where the news story occurred. Didn't mean to exclude our friends across either pond, or anywhere else!
Go back in time 50 years and replace "gay" with "black" and re-run this thread. It is very telling that, in asking the question twice, nobody has actually answered it.
You don't even need to go back 50 years. Take your hypothetical situation to any number of countries around the globe and you'll find much worse consequences than being refused wedding photography services for stepping outside societal norms.
Human nature is to automatically distrust those who are not like you. Sorry, thats just the way it is at the most basic level. Only education and experience can teach an individual otherwise, there is no magic cure for an entire society.
No, it isn't. Thinking otherwise is turning a blind eye to very basic human nature. If the photographer is viewed as nothing more than a mechanic I guess you might have an argument, but if you expect them to capture real emotion there needs to be some connection between the clients and the photographer.
No. But if you don't fight discrimination where it happens it never goes away. And that is bad.
No argument, but its the manner in which the fight was brought that I take issue with in this case.
Fight the issue by not using the offending business, spread the word to like minded individuals and let the market decide whether or not such people remain in business.
Taking the issue to court and suing for damages makes it crystal clear where the true motivation lies.
And FWIW anti-discrimination laws are anything but...
I worked in a school's registration office and saw plenty of more qualified students turned away in order to make quotas, all in the name of "anti-discrimination".
So you would have no problem if a photographer said they had an issue with photographing an inter-racial couple?
Bill,
While I would not agree with this photographer, and couldn't see calling them friends, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I believe you and I would agree that this is a (for the life of me I can't find a word for this, ignorant, stupid, hateful, ?) I still believe they have a right to not perform a personal service for them.
In many areas of law (and morality) your rights must be balanced with the rights of others.
Richard,
I see you live in Spain. I will admit I am totally ignorant of Spanish culture and history, but here in the USA, freedom, and individual rights has been the Hallmark of our culture.
And yes, the rights of others must be considered as well as the individuals rights, but where the individual's rights have been curtailed, and abrogated, socialism, and communism have crawled in. Both these forms of insanity have proved to be intolerant, and abusive to the population, as well as totally unsuccessful as a viable form of government.
Here in the USA we have the RIGHT to disagree. We can speak out about almost anything with out fear. I can criticize the President, and no government police will show up to re-educate me.
We must be VERY careful about loosing ANY rights, because one they are gone they will never return.
Human nature is to automatically distrust those who are not like you. Sorry, thats just the way it is at the most basic level. Only education and experience can teach an individual otherwise, there is no magic cure for an entire society.
Hence the need for the local government to step in and for litigation. Perhaps you prefer the less restricted manner they handle this between different groups in Iraq?
Taking the issue to court and suing for damages makes it crystal clear where the true motivation lies.
They didn't sue for damages merely for legal fees. There motivation appears to be to right a wrong. The motivation of the two idiot photographers is also rather clear.
And FWIW anti-discrimination laws are anything but...
I worked in a school's registration office and saw plenty of more qualified students turned away in order to make quotas, all in the name of "anti-discrimination".
I ran outreach offices for Vietnam Veterans in Harlem and the South Bronx. I saw way too many vets turned down for jobs because they were the wrong color. Also there's nothing in this case about quotas. Its just about two idiot bigotted photographers in NM being too stupid to obey the law.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I think there are certainly situations where anti-discrimination laws can backfire. In going to Embry-Riddle in Daytona, I was getting into a field and going to a school that is predominatley white male (I know, much of that is due to discrimination) Because of the way the scholarship system worked at my school I was going up against all the other white males (at the time 85% of the school) for the almost the same number of scholarships that were handed out to the reminaing 15% of minorities and women. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way opposed to equal opportunity, but when quotas start being imposed it forces employers, schools, etc... to at times, choose individuals who may not necessarily be the most qualifed for something based soley on their skin color. Almost a reverse discrimination.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth. Oh, and just for people to know, I am in no way racist or discriminatory. I just want true equal opportunity for everyone. If there are 50 of one color and 10 each of 5 other races applying for the same job I think the 50 should have the same opportuniy as the others, not less because a quota needs to be filled.
Ok, I've had my say. Everyone have a wonderful evening!
Guys discuss this but please please dont have an aneurism just because someone on the internet does not have your view....remember you are as wrong as they are right.
I think there are certainly situations where anti-discrimination laws can backfire. In going to Embry-Riddle in Daytona, I was getting into a field and going to a school that is predominatley white male (I know, much of that is due to discrimination) Because of the way the scholarship system worked at my school I was going up against all the other white males (at the time 85% of the school) for the almost the same number of scholarships that were handed out to the reminaing 15% of minorities and women. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way opposed to equal opportunity, but when quotas start being imposed it forces employers, schools, etc... to at times, choose individuals who may not necessarily be the most qualifed for something based soley on their skin color. Almost a reverse discrimination.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth. Oh, and just for people to know, I am in no way racist or discriminatory. I just want true equal opportunity for everyone. If there are 50 of one color and 10 each of 5 other races applying for the same job I think the 50 should have the same opportuniy as the others, not less because a quota needs to be filled.
Ok, I've had my say. Everyone have a wonderful evening!
The case under discussion has nothing to do with quotas. How they came into the discussion is beyond me.
I am glad, however, to see that there is so much opposition to quotas but it is sad that when quotas were being applied to non-whites, non-Christians, and women this "opposition" wasn't in existence. After centuries of "less qualified" white males being given preference we (white males) suddenly said "hey that ain't fair"! Our opposition to quotas only arose when its was our ox getting gored.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Richard,
I see you live in Spain. I will admit I am totally ignorant of Spanish culture and history, but here in the USA, freedom, and individual rights has been the Hallmark of our culture.
And yes, the rights of others must be considered as well as the individuals rights, but where the individual's rights have been curtailed, and abrogated, socialism, and communism have crawled in. Both these forms of insanity have proved to be intolerant, and abusive to the population, as well as totally unsuccessful as a viable form of government.
Here in the USA we have the RIGHT to disagree. We can speak out about almost anything with out fear. I can criticize the President, and no government police will show up to re-educate me.
We must be VERY careful about loosing ANY rights, because one they are gone they will never return.
Sam
Sam,
I have spent about half of my adult life in Spain, but I am an American and have nothing but the highest regard for freedom of speech. However, to me it is contrived to frame this particular case in first amendment terms. While there is a creative aspect to photography, the government is making no attempt to regulate that here. It is merely saying that if you want to do business with the public you must not discriminate. Some people may think they have the right to discriminate, but the law is designed to make sure that others do not suffer from discrimination, which is also a right. Or as Paul Simon put it years ago, "one man's ceiling is another man's floor."
I think there may be some misunderstanding about the extent to which non-discrimination laws affect the way you run your business. They do not require you to serve every individual. You are perfectly free to refuse to deal with a jerk. What you may not do (legally) is refuse to serve someone solely because that person is a member of a protected class--sex, race, religion, physical handicap, and now, sexual orientation. These classes have been given special protection in an attempt to correct past injustices they have suffered as a group, often with the full support of the (unjust) law at the time. How well that is going to work in the long run is an open question, but it's the best approach we have been able to come up with so far.
The case under discussion has nothing to do with quotas. How they came into the discussion is beyond me.
I am glad, however, to see that there is so much opposition to quotas but it is sad that when quotas were being applied to non-whites, non-Christians, and women this "opposition" wasn't in existence. After centuries of "less qualified" white males being given preference we (white males) suddenly said "hey that ain't fair"! Our opposition to quotas only arose when its was our ox getting gored.
Fair enough Harry! LoL, although in my defense I've only been around for 26 years, and of that 26 only about 10 of them have I really had ANY idea of what is going on. So while I certainly agree with you about that past, sometimes when I was at college (and even now) I felt like I was paying for my (aka white males) transgressions from the past.
Err, and I don't know ho quotas got pulled into this either. But no hard feelings?
Comments
If I was gay and I walked into McDonalds for their hamburger but they didn't serve me because of that, it's discrimination. So what I could've went to Wendy's or Burger King or Olive Garden.
dak.smugmug.com
I agree with that, and I can't put my finger on why, but it just seems like wedding photography is different. It is so personal, so much time. . . it just seems different to me.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
As for not doing harm to the other party, you might want to consider that some people may feel insulted and hurt by blatant discrimination. You (and I) might not be inclined to file a lawsuit over an insult, but--as this case demonstrates--other people might be upset enough to do so. While it could be opportunistic, it could also be genuine anger. It is rarely good for business to piss people off, even if you don't want them as a customer.
There's a difference between violating rights and hurting feelings. It is becoming the case in our country in which the two are becoming the same. We don't have a right in this country to not be free of hurt feelings.
I understand that argument, but it when it comes to photography which is a personal and creative choice, we should have the right to not photograph something, regardless of the reason. Photography is an artistic and personal expression and I don't think restaurants is a good comparison.
If a KKK leader asked me to photograph his wedding, I wouldn't do it because I don't want my name associated with anything from the KKK. I should have the freedom and have the control of how my work is used or what subjects I choose to shoot.
If an environmentalist tree hugger is asked to take pictures by a logging company to promote their business, should they be forced to take those pictures if they refuse to take the job?
Should a PETA member be forced to take pictures for a McDonalds add?
Should an abortionist be forced to shoot material for a pro-life organization?
The government has no business telling me what I can or cannot photograph if it goes against my own personal belief system.
Wedding photograpy is a business, and as such it is subject to all sorts of regulation. You have the right to all the creative choice you like as an artist, but there are rules you have to observe as a business. You are not obligated to do business with everybody, but if you can be shown to be discriminating you are subject to legal action. You may not like this, but that's the way it is.
I agree it's the way it is. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, but that didn't make it right.
Photography is a business, regardless if it's wedding or event or commercial. There are bigger issues here than just weddings. Do you want the government forcing you take a job you have personal or moral issues with? In fields like medicine and law, there needs to be laws like this. However, photography is an art form and is used to express ideas. I DO NOT want to be forced to take part in something I do not agree with. This protects the person who has problems with gays, and it also protects a gay person from turning down a job they don't agree with either.
There is a fine line between equal rights and special rights. One thing we have learned here is to just turn down the job and don't give a reason.
Put in another way: We have freedom of speech. The government cannot regulate or imprison someone for speech. I don't think the government has the right to make us participate in the expression of ideas we don't agree with, regardless of the issue.
Good point, however we passed an amendment to our Constitution ending slavery. Unfortunately that didn't provide equal rights to African Americans. Then you had the Jim Crow laws of the South and the informal but just as effective discrimination in the North. Many folks had personal and moral issues about hiring, serving, educating, living with etc, etc African Americans. Some even found a Biblical basis for their intolerance.
Then it became necessary to pass a few more laws to provide equal opportunity to a large segment of our population. These laws don't make it illegal to be a bigot but you just can't do it commercially.
Wedding photography is a business. If you are going to do it commercially you just have to follow the laws.
Even more important than the legal issues is that the photographers is this case were dead wrong. They were wrong in every possible way including their "religious" grounds. I mean, if Jesus was the photographer he would have taken the gig. To use his teachings as the basis for bigotry and intolerance is at best perverse.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
By saying they were wrong on religious grounds is imposing your idea of religion upon them. It doesn't matter what your belief is or what your idea of Christianity is. What Jesus would do in this situation is another debate in itself. It doesn't matter in this case as it is religious belief, regardless if it's Christian.
Which illustrates my point about just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The laws changed.
Lets get away from "wedding photography" and religious views on homosexuality. I haven't been arguing that and I have already stated legally, the photographer was wrong. I feel like I am going in circles here because I am not arguing the law of this case. I am arguing if the law is right.
My point is about the ability of the government to tell someone they must participate in an expression of an idea that they don't agree with. Photography, regardless if its "wedding" is also protected under free speech. Do you support the ability of the government to make you express ideas you are morally and personally against?
We do have a clash of free speech, freedom of religion, and discrimination with this particular case. Personally, I think free speech should have won. Setting emotions aside in this case due to the content of it, the government is telling us as photographers we have to participate in the expression of ideas our photographs make that we do not believe in nor condone.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
This one line Harry stated says it all !!
The photographer was not very bright in their response.
Could have avoided the whole incident by merely stating what Harry says below. As a professional (as in any profession) when you are meeting with a client PRIOR to the meeting, you should plan your strategy and be prepared for as many surprises / objections as you can.
It's called preparation.
And, if you are a wedding photographer, any and all unusual circumstances (scenarios) should be thought through in advance of meeting with clients and, be prepared to respond in a professional and non confrontational way.
Personally, I don't do weddings anymore. I got tired of trying to get the drunks in the family to stay on their feet long enough for a photograph, and having 32 compact point and shoot camera's going off while I'm photographing was a bit distracting
Canon AE1 - it was my first "real camera"
Canon 20D - no more film!
We are going to have to disagree. I think photography, regardless if it's wedding, nature, journalism, etc. is an artistic expression of thought and the government has no business telling photographers what they can and cannot photograph, especially if it conflicts with moral or religious beliefs. There are bigger issues here than just discrimination or wedding photography. I am for protecting the rights of the of the photographers in this case as well as say, keeping a pro-choice photographer from having to photograph promotional material for a pro-life organization.
http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/212614-legally-speaking-through-a-lens-darkly
Further research with this case shows New Mexico took a hypocritical stance as it doesn't even recognize gay marriage, but is essentially punishing a photographer for not wanting to photograph a gay wedding.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_06-2008_04_12.shtml#1207764182
Harryb, you may be comfortable with the governments power in this case because it's "discrimiantion", but you are advocating the government to restrict our freedoms of expression. This has broader implications and goes into writing as well as freelance writing and photography.
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/10/gay-rights-vs-free-speech-rights/
"So holding Elane Photography liable can’t be justified under the strict scrutiny mandated by the First Amendment and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Second, eradicating sexual-orientation discrimination is simply not a compelling state interest outside the employment context. See Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 580 (Cal. App. 1994) (boy scouts were protected by First Amendment freedom of expressive association against being forced by California public accommodation and gay-rights laws to include gay people as members and leaders, since being forced to do so did not serve a compelling state interest), aff’d, 952 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1998).
Moreover, there is an additional, alternative First Amendment defense that applies here, unrelated to freedom of religion: freedom from compelled speech. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).
The anti-discrimination statute is being applied by the Commission in a very peculiar way. (I say that as an attorney who used to help adjudicate discrimination cases at the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights). And the First Amendment defense is straightforward.
Photography is expressive; most businesses (say, selling hot dogs) are not. Ruling in favor of the photographer is not only consistent with the statute (which forbids discrimination based on customers’ sexual orientation, not based on the ceremony they wish to capture on film), but even if that were not the case, ruling in favor of the photographer would not carve out a big exception to the statute’s reach or vitiate any important state interests.
Since the photography is expressive, the case should be governed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), which held that a state’s gay-rights law and public-accommodation law could not be used to force an expressive activity (a parade, in that case) to embrace a message of support for gay causes, because doing that violated the First Amendment."
Its very simple. Gays are human beings as such they have certain rights. One of them, as is enjoyed by all other human beings, in our society is the equal access to businesses holding themselves to the general public.
Now all the references to right-wing, anti-gay websites won't change that very basic truth. The law on this issue is constantly evolving as we progress. Pretty much like civil rights after the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court.
The N.M. decision was not hypocritical. A state can protect gays from discrimination even though its doesn't recogonize gay marriage.
This whole thing comes down to two issues. One being the business issue. The lesson to be learned from that its not smart to violate a locality's anti-discrimination laws.
The second issue is one of tolerance. One can disguise bigotry behind a veil of state's rights, photographers' rights, free speech or whatever but when you pull that the veil it's still bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and mean-spiritedness rearing up its ugly, pointy little old head behind that veil.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I don't think some here are getting your point, but I do, and think it was well said.
John68, and Heather, You two are obviously not politically correct. You speak your mind, even if it's different than the approved message.
Many here advocate making up excuses, lying, hiding, feet shuffling, etc. While I wouldn't want to deliberately hurt anyone's feelings, I do applaude someone for speaking out, and their right to hold a different view, and voice their view when asked.
Yes, even, and especially bigoted views!!! If someone expresses a view such as, "I hate gays, etc" this will open an opportunity for dialog where you might be able to plant some seeds of doubt with regard to their opinions. Where as if they make some week untruthful excuse like' I just love gays, but am booked". then there is no opportunity.
Disscimination, not covered by law's happen everyday, and I don't here anyone jumping up and down about it.
For the last time, this is not a gay straight issue. This is an individual rights issue.
Sam
In many areas of law (and morality) your rights must be balanced with the rights of others.
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
I'm with John on this one. Photography is as much (or more) creative expression as it is a business, government regulations aside.
Rephrasing your question:
Would you want a photographer who has an issue with inter-racial marriage photographing your son/daughter's wedding to someone of a different race?
Do you think the food at McDonalds tastes the way it does because everyone that works there is excited about the product and puts 120% into every transaction?
Apply that state of mind (or worse, actively hostile) to a wedding photog and imagine how those once in a lifetime pictures will turn out.
Any reasonable person would have sought services elsewhere. Unfortunately we are far more litigious than reasonable these days.
Go back in time 50 years and replace "gay" with "black" and re-run this thread. It is very telling that, in asking the question twice, nobody has actually answered it.
However, it still is a business and is still subject to government regulations. Creativity is a red herring.
No. But if you don't fight discrimination where it happens it never goes away. And that is bad.
I'm absolutely astonished that in this day and age there is still discrimation and how vigorously people try to defend it.
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
I am intolerant when it comes to bigotry & prejudice. It harms its carriers as well as it victims. In my lifetime I seen people killed as a result of bigotry and prejudice. Whenever its pops its ugly little head up I intend to do what I can to hammer it down.
We are rather unreasonable these days as those two bigoted photographers in N.M. demonstrate. Its a shame that litigation is needed to address their unreasonableness.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I personally believe that the photographers were in the wrong because they were advertising publicly, and refused that public service to someone based on their sexual orientation. I would, however, defend their right to believe what they want to, even if I disagree with it. It just happens that public places of business are not the proper place to voice those beliefs.
EDIT: I realized my assumption above was that people reading this live in the US. When I say "our country" I'm referring to the US, since this is where I live, and this is where the news story occurred. Didn't mean to exclude our friends across either pond, or anywhere else!
You don't even need to go back 50 years. Take your hypothetical situation to any number of countries around the globe and you'll find much worse consequences than being refused wedding photography services for stepping outside societal norms.
Human nature is to automatically distrust those who are not like you. Sorry, thats just the way it is at the most basic level. Only education and experience can teach an individual otherwise, there is no magic cure for an entire society.
No, it isn't. Thinking otherwise is turning a blind eye to very basic human nature. If the photographer is viewed as nothing more than a mechanic I guess you might have an argument, but if you expect them to capture real emotion there needs to be some connection between the clients and the photographer.
No argument, but its the manner in which the fight was brought that I take issue with in this case.
Fight the issue by not using the offending business, spread the word to like minded individuals and let the market decide whether or not such people remain in business.
Taking the issue to court and suing for damages makes it crystal clear where the true motivation lies.
And FWIW anti-discrimination laws are anything but...
I worked in a school's registration office and saw plenty of more qualified students turned away in order to make quotas, all in the name of "anti-discrimination".
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Bill,
While I would not agree with this photographer, and couldn't see calling them friends, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I believe you and I would agree that this is a (for the life of me I can't find a word for this, ignorant, stupid, hateful, ?) I still believe they have a right to not perform a personal service for them.
Sam
Richard,
I see you live in Spain. I will admit I am totally ignorant of Spanish culture and history, but here in the USA, freedom, and individual rights has been the Hallmark of our culture.
And yes, the rights of others must be considered as well as the individuals rights, but where the individual's rights have been curtailed, and abrogated, socialism, and communism have crawled in. Both these forms of insanity have proved to be intolerant, and abusive to the population, as well as totally unsuccessful as a viable form of government.
Here in the USA we have the RIGHT to disagree. We can speak out about almost anything with out fear. I can criticize the President, and no government police will show up to re-educate me.
We must be VERY careful about loosing ANY rights, because one they are gone they will never return.
Sam
Be careful, your sounding like the voice of reason.
Sam
Hence the need for the local government to step in and for litigation. Perhaps you prefer the less restricted manner they handle this between different groups in Iraq?
They didn't sue for damages merely for legal fees. There motivation appears to be to right a wrong. The motivation of the two idiot photographers is also rather clear.
I ran outreach offices for Vietnam Veterans in Harlem and the South Bronx. I saw way too many vets turned down for jobs because they were the wrong color. Also there's nothing in this case about quotas. Its just about two idiot bigotted photographers in NM being too stupid to obey the law.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth. Oh, and just for people to know, I am in no way racist or discriminatory. I just want true equal opportunity for everyone. If there are 50 of one color and 10 each of 5 other races applying for the same job I think the 50 should have the same opportuniy as the others, not less because a quota needs to be filled.
Ok, I've had my say. Everyone have a wonderful evening!
The case under discussion has nothing to do with quotas. How they came into the discussion is beyond me.
I am glad, however, to see that there is so much opposition to quotas but it is sad that when quotas were being applied to non-whites, non-Christians, and women this "opposition" wasn't in existence. After centuries of "less qualified" white males being given preference we (white males) suddenly said "hey that ain't fair"! Our opposition to quotas only arose when its was our ox getting gored.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I have spent about half of my adult life in Spain, but I am an American and have nothing but the highest regard for freedom of speech. However, to me it is contrived to frame this particular case in first amendment terms. While there is a creative aspect to photography, the government is making no attempt to regulate that here. It is merely saying that if you want to do business with the public you must not discriminate. Some people may think they have the right to discriminate, but the law is designed to make sure that others do not suffer from discrimination, which is also a right. Or as Paul Simon put it years ago, "one man's ceiling is another man's floor."
I think there may be some misunderstanding about the extent to which non-discrimination laws affect the way you run your business. They do not require you to serve every individual. You are perfectly free to refuse to deal with a jerk. What you may not do (legally) is refuse to serve someone solely because that person is a member of a protected class--sex, race, religion, physical handicap, and now, sexual orientation. These classes have been given special protection in an attempt to correct past injustices they have suffered as a group, often with the full support of the (unjust) law at the time. How well that is going to work in the long run is an open question, but it's the best approach we have been able to come up with so far.
Fair enough Harry!
Err, and I don't know ho quotas got pulled into this either. But no hard feelings?