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.
I really wasnt going to post to this thread, opinions about these matters are far and wide,except you Harry THE AMIABLE MODERATOR after reading 60 posts of back and forth banter and sometimes deeply thought provoking opinions, it actually bothers me that the person most against the photographers is the person who is doing the most name calling here, Whats the matter harry, someone who has a different opinion than you is a bigoted idiot??? BTW you dont think that maybe some of the discrimination those vets faced was due to the fact that the war was unpopular do you.??
Take the job, or dont take it? I say dont take it, it will leave more work for the rest of us. But while I am enjoying the work you turn down, I will not be slamming you and blaming you for all the worlds problems. I just have to look inside ALL of us to do that...
Good night and all the best
I really wasnt going to post to this thread, opinions about these matters are far and wide,except you Harry THE AMIABLE MODERATOR after reading 60 posts of back and forth banter and sometimes deeply thought provoking opinions, it actually bothers me that the person most against the photographers is the person who is doing the most name calling here, Whats the matter harry, someone who has a different opinion than you is a bigoted idiot??? BTW you dont think that maybe some of the discrimination those vets faced was due to the fact that the war was unpopular do you.??
Take the job, or dont take it? I say dont take it, it will leave more work for the rest of us. But while I am enjoying the work you turn down, I will not be slamming you and blaming you for all the worlds problems. I just have to look inside ALL of us to do that...
Good night and all the best
The only persons I've called idiots and bigots are the two photographers in NM. Discriminating against other people makes one a bigot in my book. The other folks here who have disagreed with the results their actions incurred are not bigots. No one, so far has defended them.
The discrimination that the vets I referred to jobs faced was racial. In most cases it had nothing to do with their military service.
I am against the photographers in this case because they are wrong. Bigotry will continue to flourish if we tolerate it. In my lifetime I've seen too often the harm that it has done.
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!"
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?
Hey Wendell no hard feelings at all. We've shot together and had some good times. The only time I really disagreed with ya was when you went with Canon. :ivar
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!"
Such an interesting conversation...... There was a news story yesterday that discussed the case and a "conservative" lawyer (story labeled them that) went on to say the the plaintiffs will always win a case like this because the law is cut and dry. In the same story - the comment of a second was that for every 6 - 7 couples/people who have this type of discrimination happen to them only 1 reports it/pursues it. I do not feel the couple here was vindictive - they did not pursue punitive damages (not sure if they were allowed) but they were trying to get a lesson out. They went to another photographer for the work as we could go to Wendy's (from a previous comment) but would you still let McD's off the hook?
The photographers in NM only needed to state that they were unavailable. Many of us do this all the time when we do not want to risk offending someone (backlash is no fun) but we have a legitimate (in our own head at least) reason not to want a job. I have done it for sporting events where I know the parent cannot be pleased and I would rather stay in their good (and usually loud) graces.
I read through much of this thread, and I have to agree with Sam. Regardless of what the law says, what possible good can come from essentially forcing a a photographer to work at gun point? That is the often the consequence when government is involved. If they don't comply, they can be forced to pay fines, court costs, punative damages, etc. If they do, then what? Can they be sued for not doing good enough work?
Photography is not a commodity. If someone is selling hot dogs or cokes or whatever, there are very few legitimate reasons to be concerned with who's buying them, as long as they are paying. The product is what it is regardless of who buys it. With photography that's not the case -- the client is often the subject, so whatever they are and whatever they do reflects upon the photographer. For example, if I put enough photos of KKK rallies for sale on my website, people might come to the mistaken conclusion that I am a member, or at least affiliated with them in some way. Even if I didn't post them on a website, word would still get around and some people would come to the conclusion that I am friendly to the KKK.
Another important issue that may have been overlooked is that the wedding photographer did not say something to the effect of "we will not photograph you because you are gay", nor did they say "we will not sell you any of our photographs because you are gay." All they did is simply decline to photograph a certain type of event. The fundamental problem in this case is that the law is not merely dictating to whom must a business owner sell his/her product, but what the business must produce.
I read through much of this thread, and I have to agree with Sam. Regardless of what the law says, what possible good can come from essentially forcing a a photographer to work at gun point? That is the often the consequence when government is involved. If they don't comply, they can be forced to pay fines, court costs, punative damages, etc. If they do, then what? Can they be sued for not doing good enough work?
I recently did an add shot for a product I thought was crap. The client dictated the content, etc. I wasn't being forced by the government to do the shoot I was only trying act professionally. When you hold your services out to the public you are thereby placing yourself in a position where you have to act professionally and also comply with local. laws and regulations.
Photography is not a commodity
.
It is when you hold your services out to the public. Both of my weddings were shot by a pro and at no point did either of us view his services as an artistic expression. It was a business deal. Just like selling hot dogs.
With photography that's not the case -- the client is often the subject, so whatever they are and whatever they do reflects upon the photographer. For example, if I put enough photos of KKK rallies for sale on my website, people might come to the mistaken conclusion that I am a member, or at least affiliated with them in some way. Even if I didn't post them on a website, word would still get around and some people would come to the conclusion that I am friendly to the KKK.
In the normal course of business one would place such photos in a private, password protected gallery where only your client would have access to the images. This scenario is rather unlikely unless the photographer themselves chose to make the images public.
Another important issue that may have been overlooked is that the wedding photographer did not say something to the effect of "we will not photograph you because you are gay", nor did they say "we will not sell you any of our photographs because you are gay." All they did is simply decline to photograph a certain type of event. The fundamental problem in this case is that the law is not merely dictating to whom must a business owner sell his/her product, but what the business must produce.
Balderdash. The photographers' response was "Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings." That says and means we will not photograph your event because you are gay. If they weren't gay it would not be a same sex marriage.
The law is not telling what they can produce, it's telling them that they can not deny any segment of our population their services when they hold such services out to the public.
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!"
It is when you hold your services out to the public.
I don't agree here. A commodity is something that is, basically, identical no matter where you get it from. Few people care who the farmer of their corn is (organics aside, but then you can say few people care which organic farmer grew their organic corn, etc.). Light sweet crude is light sweet crude, no matter where it comes from. Photography doesn't really fit what I would call a commodity.
But, I don't see restaraunts as a commodity, so the original post doesn't apply either. Besides, you definitely cannot say its ok for McDonald's to discrimate simply because the people can go next door to Wendy's. Same thing here.
Balderdash. The photographers' response was "Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings." That says and means we will not photograph your event because you are gay. If they weren't gay it would not be a same sex marriage.
The law is not telling what they can produce, it's telling them that they can not deny any segment of our population their services when they hold such services out to the public.
Exactly. You photograph weddings, the same-sex marriage is a legal wedding in that state, you cannot discriminate against that. Put your personal issues aside, be a professional, and do your job.
Exactly. You photograph weddings, the same-sex marriage is a legal wedding in that state, you cannot discriminate against that. Put your personal issues aside, be a professional, and do your job.
Actually, it is not. This is Josh, the original poster from New Mexico. The state just voted not to allow same sex marriages to be legal in New Mexico. That is one of the ironies of this. One could argue that photographers cannot discriminate, but the state senate can. Welcome to America.
I think we all need to acknowledge that this is a bit of a tricky situation and is not as clear cut as it first appears. it is the conflict of two rights: the photographers and the couple. The good news for all of us is, it is easy enough to disciminate for any reason whatever, if you want to. Just don't say everything that is in your head. Just say, "that is not going to work out for me."
The good news for all of us is, it is easy enough to disciminate for any reason whatever, if you want to. Just don't say everything that is in your head. Just say, "that is not going to work out for me."
While I agree that you can probably get away with it that way, I fail to see why discrimination is good news for all of us.
While I agree that you can probably get away with it that way, I fail to see why discrimination is good news for all of us.
It is the thread that never ends. . .
I would assume (and maybe not) that there would be some wedding that we could imagine being asked to do that we wouldn't feel comfortable doing. A KKK wedding has been mentioned. Maybe some cult group that struck us as being way-out wacko. I have a friend that goes to the Carribean and gets naked for a week. He does that twice a year. Maybe a satan worshiper. We might think of. . . I hate to bring up any category because one man's pie is another man's poisen.
Can I be honest? I am supportive of a gay's right to live their lifestyle. But, I would probably rather not spend a day with them watching them kiss and hug and express their love to each other. i don't want to pose them to look romantic. I appreciate their right to do that, but I don't feel I should have to watch because I am in the photography business. Maybe you don't feel that way, and I respect that. But, isn't there somebody you might feel like you don't want to do THAT wedding?
Here is the good news. If you do feel that way, none of us has to. We just say, "that isn't going to work out for me."
ridiculous
This is exactly why I am afriad of becoming an ordained minister. We are getting to the point where i have no legal ability to agree with the doctrines of my own religion. I am curious when we will start banning the Bible and other religious texts from Libraries and Public stores/places b/c of various things that can mean others.
Now on this case... i don't like that this woman is being demonized. It sounds like she just clearly stated why she didn't want to do this? Why is that so terrible. Then these crazy people go to court over the whole thing?
Where is America going when people love the courts so much that they sue b/c someone won't take your pictures.
This is like we are back in Italy and we are threatening the painters of the time to paint our ceilings and such... dumb.
This is exactly why I am afriad of becoming an ordained minister. We are getting to the point where i have no legal ability to agree with the doctrines of my own religion. I am curious when we will start banning the Bible and other religious texts from Libraries and Public stores/places b/c of various things that can mean others.
On my last visit to the library the bible was till there. Our local bookstore still has its "Christian Fiction" section. Witnesses in our courts are still swearing on the bible. I would say the bible is rather safe. Safer, in fact, than some other books that religionists have tried and in some cases suceeded in pulling off the shelves.
Now on this case... i don't like that this woman is being demonized. It sounds like she just clearly stated why she didn't want to do this? Why is that so terrible. Then these crazy people go to court over the whole thing?
She isn't being demonized, she's just being called a bigot which is accurate.
Where is America going when people love the courts so much that they sue b/c someone won't take your pictures.
They were taken to court for discrimination. The fact that they won the case would indicate that they were on strong grounds legally.
This is like we are back in Italy and we are threatening the painters of the time to paint our ceilings and such... dumb.
You do know that Michelangelo was gay?
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!"
They were taken to court for discrimination. The fact that they won the case would indicate that they were on strong grounds legally.
It will be appealed and if goes the other way, do we all agree the photographer was right? (My implied answer is NO) My point is that court history is littered with cases that didn't go the right way. Think OJ.
One of the hardest things to hold in our minds is the idea that this is a tough call. Two individuals (or 3) rights have to be considered, and they are in conflict. I think the judge saw this as he only awarded them legal fees. Surely (though I am not sure) they asked for more. It seems the judge was doing what he could to come close to the middle. I don't think anybody got what they wanted. I guess that is waht happens in good negotiation. The gay couple (probably; again, I am not sure) wanted much more.
On the other hand, maybe the gay couple did get what they wanted. They wanted, I think, to be heard, to be recognized, to be acknowledged that they are human beings with rights. They wanted to raise awareness. From the length of this thread, and, no doubt, countless conversations across the nation, they have certainly done that.
It will be appealed and if goes the other way, do we all agree the photographer was right? (My implied answer is NO) My point is that court history is littered with cases that didn't go the right way. Think OJ.
OJ's case is completely dissimilar. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to make their case. Until they can make a case he's innocent. That's the way the American legal system works. In this case (the gay couple and the photographers) the decision was right legally and morally.
The two photographers were wrong in every possible way. Leave the legal finery out of the case. They discriminated against two people, two human beings. They were wrong! This is not a tough call at all.
They didn't get punitive damages because they didn't seek them. I've handled discrimination cases and if I had represented the complainants I would have recommended nailing the photographers to the wall. Fortunately for the photographers the couple were not vindictive. There was no attempt by the judge in this case to "split the baby". He awarded the complainants everything they requested financially of the court, legal fees.
The couple didn't "get what they wanted" here. They wanted to be treated fairly and the photographers did not do that.
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!"
Balderdash. The photographers' response was "Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings." That says and means we will not photograph your event because you are gay. If they weren't gay it would not be a same sex marriage.
The law is not telling what they can produce, it's telling them that they can not deny any segment of our population their services when they hold such services out to the public.
I am no lawyer, but I think this might be a grey area in many respects. The wedding photographers could argue that they are only refusing to photograph an activity (two persons of the same sex being intimate with each other), not refusing to photograph certain persons because of their innate sexual orientation.
The other important distinction, that Josh brought up, is that there is no same-sex marriage in their state anyway. Thus, if they call themselves wedding photographers and they only shoot legally-sanctioned weddings, they should be in compliance with the law.
Thus, if they call themselves wedding photographers and they only shoot legally-sanctioned weddings, they should be in compliance with the law.
They did not say we only shoot LEGALLY SANCTIONED OR RECOGNIZED weddings....they stated we do not shoot same sex weddings, which is discrimination......maybe the couple should have called it a handfasting in the tradition of Greek Orthodox or the Pagan Religions.......or a commitment ceremony......in the first email she stated they only do TRADITIONAL Weddings.....well a lot of christian demonmenations do not recogize a 2nd or 3rd or 4th marriage by either man or woman unless the spouse is physically dead......so how well do you think thios wedding photographer really knows religous law as put forth by the various branches of christianity??!!!!???? In all my years of go to and photgraphing weddings I have never done a traditional wedding...............
I have shot gay ceremonies, Handfastings by a Witch High Priests and High Priestesses, a native american ceremony by a Shaman, handfastings by Greek orthodox priests (there was so dang much incense burnt I did not get the ring exchange or the kiss...but having them walk out of the smoke was very cool)......was I uncomfortable with any of this....only when doing the "engagement" photo session of the gay couple and I apologized in advance just in case I started snickering......I got a lot of referals from friends and family of the gay couple that were as straight as my carbon fibre arrows.........I haven't yet been able to do a BUDDHIST or HINDU wedding.....and I can't wait to get to do some of them......I just feel that if you open yourself up and allow universal love and compassion to flow forth.........then these kinds of discriminatory situations will not happen and as long as we (humans as a total) allow hypocrocy to invade our thoughts and minds then this will be a battle for the rest of time.....
Now if this Wedding Photog Couple (not using that as man /wife but as partners in business and of differing sex) advertised themselves a PHOTO ARTISTS and had a gallery but did not offer their services to the general public at large.....then they could have just said we don't do weddings, we just shoot art for our gallery...............
On my last visit to the library the bible was till there. Our local bookstore still has its "Christian Fiction" section. Witnesses in our courts are still swearing on the bible. I would say the bible is rather safe. Safer, in fact, than some other books that religionists have tried and in some cases suceeded in pulling off the shelves.
As business people you should understand your discrimination laws, not just of YOUR STATE...but of the FEDERAL GOVT also...............
It is not Illegal for a gay couple to marry
Art:
While I agree with everything else you said in your post, this one section highlighted above needs correction.
Unfortunately, at the moment same-sex marriage is not legal on a federal level in the US thanks to the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) passed by the republican congress and signed by President Clinton. President Bush has on too many occasions called for an amendment to the US Constitution to make DOMA the permanent law of the land.
As of this date legal same-sex marriage exists only in Massachusetts and California.
In Michigan, a ballot initiative passed in 2006 defined marriage legal only between a man and a woman and also wiped out that state's standing domestic partnership laws.
In California, where the state supreme court just decided that the state constitution does not define so therefore does not bar same-sex marriage, we face a vindictive ballot initiative in November to amend same to make same-sex marriage illegal.
On a separate but pertinent note: It is currently legal in 38 of 50 states to deny housing and employment to people based solely on their sexual orientation. Yes, that means if your landlord or your employer find out you are gay they can kick you to the curb with complete legal protection.
It's unfortunate that this country is falling backwards by attempting to legitimize discrimination on a wide scale.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller
They did not say we only shoot LEGALLY SANCTIONED OR RECOGNIZED weddings....they stated we do not shoot same sex weddings, which is discrimination......maybe the couple should have called it a handfasting in the tradition of Greek Orthodox or the Pagan Religions.......or a commitment ceremony......in the first email she stated they only do TRADITIONAL Weddings.....well a lot of christian demonmenations do not recogize a 2nd or 3rd or 4th marriage by either man or woman unless the spouse is physically dead......so how well do you think thios wedding photographer really knows religous law as put forth by the various branches of christianity??!!!!???? In all my years of go to and photgraphing weddings I have never done a traditional wedding...............
As business people you should understand your discrimination laws, not just of YOUR STATE...but of the FEDERAL GOVT also...............
All good points. That just goes back to my original point of why it's important that law does not take away the ability of a photographer, or any other profession that is all or part artistic in nature, to choose what activities he/she portrays. With the exception of disability, laws against discrimination are mainly intended to protect people from discrimination based upon characteristics that have no bearing on the economic transaction that takes place.
It is also important to distinguish between intimate activity and sexual orientation. As a hypothetical example, if I am a gay baseball player and I come to you asking for some action shots of me playing baseball, but you say "no, I do not photograph gay people", then if there is a law against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, you have probably broken it. In that case, my gayness has no bearing on what I'm asking you to do.
On the other hand, if I ask you to photograph me at some ceremony being intimate with another man, and you refuse, it is a completely different matter -- I would have a much harder time arguing that you discriminated against me based on the stated abstraction of sexual orientation. You could simply say "I do not photograph two men kissing" and it would not prove that you are discriminating based upon sexual orientation, since it is common for straight men in some cultures to kiss at certain times. Watch a few episodes of "Sopranos" and you'll see it sometimes.
It is not Illegal for a gay couple to marry...it just is not recognised by certain states...the whole reason for this is benefits from employers......health, dental and also LIFE INSURANCE.......
It is not illegal for a same-sex couple to have a marriage-like ceremony. That would probably be protected by the 1st amendment. In some states, there are civil unions and such. But in most cases, it does not meet the legal definition of marriage. Also, there are some companies that freely choose to provide benefits to a designated "partner" even when there is no legal requirement to do so.
Now if this Wedding Photog Couple (not using that as man /wife but as partners in business and of differing sex) advertised themselves a PHOTO ARTISTS and had a gallery but did not offer their services to the general public at large.....then they could have just said we don't do weddings, we just shoot art for our gallery...............
Namaste.....................
Point taken. If they did not feel comfortable taking the job, they could have come up with some more discreet ways to refuse and probably stayed out of trouble.
This is exactly why I am afriad of becoming an ordained minister. We are getting to the point where i have no legal ability to agree with the doctrines of my own religion. I am curious when we will start banning the Bible and other religious texts from Libraries and Public stores/places b/c of various things that can mean others.
That's a bit of a stretch and not consistent with reality. Religion is famous, after all, for trying to ban books and ideas themselves. Even to this day.
First of all, there is a big difference between marriage as decreed by any given religion, and marriage as given by the state. My wife and I are not believers and our marriage was a purely secular affair.
One thing that most people, religious or not, seem to forget is that marriage is more than just a testament of love or a religious ceremony, its also a legal contract with the state. It grants the two people certain rights and priveleges and protections that two people who are merely in love do not have. I have brought this point up before with people who tell me "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we are in love". Very true, but that piece of paper gives you certain rights of inheritance, rights of visitation, power of attorney, spousal benefits, etc. And when they hear that they usually start re-evaluating whether they really don't "need" to have that piece of paper after all.
What I'm getting at is if the state legalizes same sex marriage it does not force a religion to accept that. Or rather, it shouldn't. That to me would be an intrusion of state upon religion, and that to me is just as bad as religion intruding on the state. When a friend got married back over twenty years ago the Catholic Church he went to refused to do the ceremony because the bride was not Catholic, she was divorced, and the ex-husband was still alive. I did not have a problem with this and I would have felt it wrong if the state forced a religion to a particular definition of marriage.
This is like we are back in Italy and we are threatening the painters of the time to paint our ceilings and such... dumb.
We both agree the Church was wrong to do that, and many other things throughout history.
While I agree with everything else you said in your post, this one section highlighted above needs correction.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller
how would shooting a gay wedding hurt anyones religeon? Is there a clause in her beliefs that even taking photos of gays is against her beliefs? I think it is prolly more like BEING gay would be against her faith..lol oh well, one thing that is 100% for sure in this world is.... people are people and no matter what, you cant change em. The photog should either do it or not but dont make a stink and the couple? Im sure there are tons of photogs, even gay photogs who would love to shoot it. I dont see what the big deal is.
That's a bit of a stretch and not consistent with reality. Religion is famous, after all, for trying to ban books and ideas themselves. Even to this day.
First of all, there is a big difference between marriage as decreed by any given religion, and marriage as given by the state. My wife and I are not believers and our marriage was a purely secular affair.
One thing that most people, religious or not, seem to forget is that marriage is more than just a testament of love or a religious ceremony, its also a legal contract with the state. It grants the two people certain rights and priveleges and protections that two people who are merely in love do not have. I have brought this point up before with people who tell me "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we are in love". Very true, but that piece of paper gives you certain rights of inheritance, rights of visitation, power of attorney, spousal benefits, etc. And when they hear that they usually start re-evaluating whether they really don't "need" to have that piece of paper after all.
What I'm getting at is if the state legalizes same sex marriage it does not force a religion to accept that. Or rather, it shouldn't. That to me would be an intrusion of state upon religion, and that to me is just as bad as religion intruding on the state. When a friend got married back over twenty years ago the Catholic Church he went to refused to do the ceremony because the bride was not Catholic, she was divorced, and the ex-husband was still alive. I did not have a problem with this and I would have felt it wrong if the state forced a religion to a particular definition of marriage.
We both agree the Church was wrong to do that, and many other things throughout history.
hear, hear!! words of wisdom!! hell, i got married by the marry'n librarian...
So you would have no problem if a photographer said they had an issue with photographing an inter-racial couple?
I don't think this would be a problem. I say this because if I were in the inter-racial relationship I would not want someone who did not feel ok with it taking my photos. I would choose someone who I related to.
Which brings me to the beginning of this thread...
I feel like the photographer is being forced to do something not in thier beliefs. Isn't that in line with discrimination? I'm not sure really where I'd fall in this one. Part of me says do the pricing high and see what happens, but at the same time I'd want to be as professional as I can.
If I state a disclaimer about choosing who and what I shoot do I have to take a job like this if I feel it is more then I can handle?
I don't think this would be a problem. I say this because if I were in the inter-racial relationship I would not want someone who did not feel ok with it taking my photos. I would choose someone who I related to.
I totally resonate with this and this is the odd heart of the issue from my view point. If I were the couple I would have this attitude, though I would not communicate with these words: Mr/s photographer, how do you feel about doing a same-sex commitment service? The reason i ask is we want someone who is totally comfortable with it and will discriminate against any photographer who is not totally comfortable and not give them our business. No hard feelings if you are not comfortable; we just want to find someone who is."
I totally resonate with this and this is the odd heart of the issue from my view point. If I were the couple I would have this attitude, though I would not communicate with these words: Mr/s photographer, how do you feel about doing a same-sex commitment service? The reason i ask is we want someone who is totally comfortable with it and will discriminate against any photographer who is not totally comfortable and not give them our business. No hard feelings if you are not comfortable; we just want to find someone who is."
Josh... EXACTLY thats the way it should have and should be handled.
This places the burden on the couple to find someone who will not discriminate. How much progress do you think would have been made in public accommodations if it had been left to African Americans to find businesses that were "comfortable" with dealing with them? Isn't it just a wee bit condescending to say that refusing to serve a gay couple is really for their own good?
This places the burden on the couple to find someone who will not discriminate. How much progress do you think would have been made in public accommodations if it had been left to African Americans to find businesses that were "comfortable" with dealing with them? Isn't it just a wee bit condescending to say that refusing to serve a gay couple is really for their own good?
You make a good point. discrimination is wrong, and sometimes we need the blunt force of law to stamp it out. I agree we would not have made the progress that we have without the blunt force of law.
It just seems to me that the force is, in this case, too blunt.
Imagine (and this takes some real imagination) the wheels of justice moved more quickly. Imagine that this couple could have gone to see a judge right then and there and he would have compelled the photographer under threat of jail time to photograph the wedding. While I agree this might be a rememdy in a world where the couple could not get a photographer to photograph their wedding, I don't think that is the world in which we live. One or two emails and they would have easily found a photographer--many (most?) of those on this forum would be happy to have the business. My question is this: if the judge could have forced them to do the work, would this really be a happy solution for anyone?
There is a time when government must force people to behave in a civil manner. Forced desegregation through busing is an example. In the long run, though, force is not a the best long term solution when there are other remedies.
The problem with the blunt force of law in this case is it fails to see the difference between business A--a resturant, let's say, and business B--a photographer. The nature of wedding photography is just so up close and personal. As someone else said, "If it were a gay baseball player asking a photographer to photograph him hitting a baseball, that would be one thing. This is different."
The problem with the blunt force of law in this case is it fails to see the difference between business A--a resturant, let's say, and business B--a photographer. The nature of wedding photography is just so up close and personal. As someone else said, "If it were a gay baseball player asking a photographer to photograph him hitting a baseball, that would be one thing. This is different."
What if you are physician? Pretty up close and personal, I'd say. Does that mean you can discriminate if you are a racist? Or a misogynist? The creative aspect of photography does not give you a free pass. The blunt force of law is coming to bear in the area of sexual orientation precisely because all the "wouldn't it be better for everyone" scenarios have had ample time to take effect but they haven't. You seem to be saying that you can pick and choose when discrimination is OK and when it's not. I don't agree.
Comments
Take the job, or dont take it? I say dont take it, it will leave more work for the rest of us. But while I am enjoying the work you turn down, I will not be slamming you and blaming you for all the worlds problems. I just have to look inside ALL of us to do that...
Good night and all the best
:whip
WWW.LONGISLANDIMAGE.COM
The only persons I've called idiots and bigots are the two photographers in NM. Discriminating against other people makes one a bigot in my book. The other folks here who have disagreed with the results their actions incurred are not bigots. No one, so far has defended them.
The discrimination that the vets I referred to jobs faced was racial. In most cases it had nothing to do with their military service.
I am against the photographers in this case because they are wrong. Bigotry will continue to flourish if we tolerate it. In my lifetime I've seen too often the harm that it has done.
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!"
Hey Wendell no hard feelings at all. We've shot together and had some good times. The only time I really disagreed with ya was when you went with Canon. :ivar
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 photographers in NM only needed to state that they were unavailable. Many of us do this all the time when we do not want to risk offending someone (backlash is no fun) but we have a legitimate (in our own head at least) reason not to want a job. I have done it for sporting events where I know the parent cannot be pleased and I would rather stay in their good (and usually loud) graces.
Brian
http://photos.katzclix.com
blog - http://blog.katzclix.com
Thanks to everyone for keeping this debate civil.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Photography is not a commodity. If someone is selling hot dogs or cokes or whatever, there are very few legitimate reasons to be concerned with who's buying them, as long as they are paying. The product is what it is regardless of who buys it. With photography that's not the case -- the client is often the subject, so whatever they are and whatever they do reflects upon the photographer. For example, if I put enough photos of KKK rallies for sale on my website, people might come to the mistaken conclusion that I am a member, or at least affiliated with them in some way. Even if I didn't post them on a website, word would still get around and some people would come to the conclusion that I am friendly to the KKK.
Another important issue that may have been overlooked is that the wedding photographer did not say something to the effect of "we will not photograph you because you are gay", nor did they say "we will not sell you any of our photographs because you are gay." All they did is simply decline to photograph a certain type of event. The fundamental problem in this case is that the law is not merely dictating to whom must a business owner sell his/her product, but what the business must produce.
I recently did an add shot for a product I thought was crap. The client dictated the content, etc. I wasn't being forced by the government to do the shoot I was only trying act professionally. When you hold your services out to the public you are thereby placing yourself in a position where you have to act professionally and also comply with local. laws and regulations.
.
It is when you hold your services out to the public. Both of my weddings were shot by a pro and at no point did either of us view his services as an artistic expression. It was a business deal. Just like selling hot dogs.
In the normal course of business one would place such photos in a private, password protected gallery where only your client would have access to the images. This scenario is rather unlikely unless the photographer themselves chose to make the images public.
Balderdash. The photographers' response was "Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings." That says and means we will not photograph your event because you are gay. If they weren't gay it would not be a same sex marriage.
The law is not telling what they can produce, it's telling them that they can not deny any segment of our population their services when they hold such services out to the public.
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 agree here. A commodity is something that is, basically, identical no matter where you get it from. Few people care who the farmer of their corn is (organics aside, but then you can say few people care which organic farmer grew their organic corn, etc.). Light sweet crude is light sweet crude, no matter where it comes from. Photography doesn't really fit what I would call a commodity.
But, I don't see restaraunts as a commodity, so the original post doesn't apply either. Besides, you definitely cannot say its ok for McDonald's to discrimate simply because the people can go next door to Wendy's. Same thing here.
Exactly. You photograph weddings, the same-sex marriage is a legal wedding in that state, you cannot discriminate against that. Put your personal issues aside, be a professional, and do your job.
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
Actually, it is not. This is Josh, the original poster from New Mexico. The state just voted not to allow same sex marriages to be legal in New Mexico. That is one of the ironies of this. One could argue that photographers cannot discriminate, but the state senate can. Welcome to America.
I think we all need to acknowledge that this is a bit of a tricky situation and is not as clear cut as it first appears. it is the conflict of two rights: the photographers and the couple. The good news for all of us is, it is easy enough to disciminate for any reason whatever, if you want to. Just don't say everything that is in your head. Just say, "that is not going to work out for me."
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
While I agree that you can probably get away with it that way, I fail to see why discrimination is good news for all of us.
It is the thread that never ends. . .
I would assume (and maybe not) that there would be some wedding that we could imagine being asked to do that we wouldn't feel comfortable doing. A KKK wedding has been mentioned. Maybe some cult group that struck us as being way-out wacko. I have a friend that goes to the Carribean and gets naked for a week. He does that twice a year. Maybe a satan worshiper. We might think of. . . I hate to bring up any category because one man's pie is another man's poisen.
Can I be honest? I am supportive of a gay's right to live their lifestyle. But, I would probably rather not spend a day with them watching them kiss and hug and express their love to each other. i don't want to pose them to look romantic. I appreciate their right to do that, but I don't feel I should have to watch because I am in the photography business. Maybe you don't feel that way, and I respect that. But, isn't there somebody you might feel like you don't want to do THAT wedding?
Here is the good news. If you do feel that way, none of us has to. We just say, "that isn't going to work out for me."
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
This is exactly why I am afriad of becoming an ordained minister. We are getting to the point where i have no legal ability to agree with the doctrines of my own religion. I am curious when we will start banning the Bible and other religious texts from Libraries and Public stores/places b/c of various things that can mean others.
Now on this case... i don't like that this woman is being demonized. It sounds like she just clearly stated why she didn't want to do this? Why is that so terrible. Then these crazy people go to court over the whole thing?
Where is America going when people love the courts so much that they sue b/c someone won't take your pictures.
This is like we are back in Italy and we are threatening the painters of the time to paint our ceilings and such... dumb.
http://stridephoto.carbonmade.com
On my last visit to the library the bible was till there. Our local bookstore still has its "Christian Fiction" section. Witnesses in our courts are still swearing on the bible. I would say the bible is rather safe. Safer, in fact, than some other books that religionists have tried and in some cases suceeded in pulling off the shelves.
She isn't being demonized, she's just being called a bigot which is accurate.
They were taken to court for discrimination. The fact that they won the case would indicate that they were on strong grounds legally.
You do know that Michelangelo was gay?
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!"
It will be appealed and if goes the other way, do we all agree the photographer was right? (My implied answer is NO) My point is that court history is littered with cases that didn't go the right way. Think OJ.
One of the hardest things to hold in our minds is the idea that this is a tough call. Two individuals (or 3) rights have to be considered, and they are in conflict. I think the judge saw this as he only awarded them legal fees. Surely (though I am not sure) they asked for more. It seems the judge was doing what he could to come close to the middle. I don't think anybody got what they wanted. I guess that is waht happens in good negotiation. The gay couple (probably; again, I am not sure) wanted much more.
On the other hand, maybe the gay couple did get what they wanted. They wanted, I think, to be heard, to be recognized, to be acknowledged that they are human beings with rights. They wanted to raise awareness. From the length of this thread, and, no doubt, countless conversations across the nation, they have certainly done that.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
OJ's case is completely dissimilar. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to make their case. Until they can make a case he's innocent. That's the way the American legal system works. In this case (the gay couple and the photographers) the decision was right legally and morally.
The two photographers were wrong in every possible way. Leave the legal finery out of the case. They discriminated against two people, two human beings. They were wrong! This is not a tough call at all.
They didn't get punitive damages because they didn't seek them. I've handled discrimination cases and if I had represented the complainants I would have recommended nailing the photographers to the wall. Fortunately for the photographers the couple were not vindictive. There was no attempt by the judge in this case to "split the baby". He awarded the complainants everything they requested financially of the court, legal fees.
The couple didn't "get what they wanted" here. They wanted to be treated fairly and the photographers did not do that.
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 am no lawyer, but I think this might be a grey area in many respects. The wedding photographers could argue that they are only refusing to photograph an activity (two persons of the same sex being intimate with each other), not refusing to photograph certain persons because of their innate sexual orientation.
The other important distinction, that Josh brought up, is that there is no same-sex marriage in their state anyway. Thus, if they call themselves wedding photographers and they only shoot legally-sanctioned weddings, they should be in compliance with the law.
They did not say we only shoot LEGALLY SANCTIONED OR RECOGNIZED weddings....they stated we do not shoot same sex weddings, which is discrimination......maybe the couple should have called it a handfasting in the tradition of Greek Orthodox or the Pagan Religions.......or a commitment ceremony......in the first email she stated they only do TRADITIONAL Weddings.....well a lot of christian demonmenations do not recogize a 2nd or 3rd or 4th marriage by either man or woman unless the spouse is physically dead......so how well do you think thios wedding photographer really knows religous law as put forth by the various branches of christianity??!!!!???? In all my years of go to and photgraphing weddings I have never done a traditional wedding...............
I have shot gay ceremonies, Handfastings by a Witch High Priests and High Priestesses, a native american ceremony by a Shaman, handfastings by Greek orthodox priests (there was so dang much incense burnt I did not get the ring exchange or the kiss...but having them walk out of the smoke was very cool)......was I uncomfortable with any of this....only when doing the "engagement" photo session of the gay couple and I apologized in advance just in case I started snickering......I got a lot of referals from friends and family of the gay couple that were as straight as my carbon fibre arrows.........I haven't yet been able to do a BUDDHIST or HINDU wedding.....and I can't wait to get to do some of them......I just feel that if you open yourself up and allow universal love and compassion to flow forth.........then these kinds of discriminatory situations will not happen and as long as we (humans as a total) allow hypocrocy to invade our thoughts and minds then this will be a battle for the rest of time.....
Now if this Wedding Photog Couple (not using that as man /wife but as partners in business and of differing sex) advertised themselves a PHOTO ARTISTS and had a gallery but did not offer their services to the general public at large.....then they could have just said we don't do weddings, we just shoot art for our gallery...............
Namaste.....................
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
Art:
While I agree with everything else you said in your post, this one section highlighted above needs correction.
Unfortunately, at the moment same-sex marriage is not legal on a federal level in the US thanks to the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) passed by the republican congress and signed by President Clinton. President Bush has on too many occasions called for an amendment to the US Constitution to make DOMA the permanent law of the land.
As of this date legal same-sex marriage exists only in Massachusetts and California.
In Michigan, a ballot initiative passed in 2006 defined marriage legal only between a man and a woman and also wiped out that state's standing domestic partnership laws.
In California, where the state supreme court just decided that the state constitution does not define so therefore does not bar same-sex marriage, we face a vindictive ballot initiative in November to amend same to make same-sex marriage illegal.
On a separate but pertinent note: It is currently legal in 38 of 50 states to deny housing and employment to people based solely on their sexual orientation. Yes, that means if your landlord or your employer find out you are gay they can kick you to the curb with complete legal protection.
It's unfortunate that this country is falling backwards by attempting to legitimize discrimination on a wide scale.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
It is also important to distinguish between intimate activity and sexual orientation. As a hypothetical example, if I am a gay baseball player and I come to you asking for some action shots of me playing baseball, but you say "no, I do not photograph gay people", then if there is a law against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, you have probably broken it. In that case, my gayness has no bearing on what I'm asking you to do.
On the other hand, if I ask you to photograph me at some ceremony being intimate with another man, and you refuse, it is a completely different matter -- I would have a much harder time arguing that you discriminated against me based on the stated abstraction of sexual orientation. You could simply say "I do not photograph two men kissing" and it would not prove that you are discriminating based upon sexual orientation, since it is common for straight men in some cultures to kiss at certain times. Watch a few episodes of "Sopranos" and you'll see it sometimes.
It is not illegal for a same-sex couple to have a marriage-like ceremony. That would probably be protected by the 1st amendment. In some states, there are civil unions and such. But in most cases, it does not meet the legal definition of marriage. Also, there are some companies that freely choose to provide benefits to a designated "partner" even when there is no legal requirement to do so.
Point taken. If they did not feel comfortable taking the job, they could have come up with some more discreet ways to refuse and probably stayed out of trouble.
First of all, there is a big difference between marriage as decreed by any given religion, and marriage as given by the state. My wife and I are not believers and our marriage was a purely secular affair.
One thing that most people, religious or not, seem to forget is that marriage is more than just a testament of love or a religious ceremony, its also a legal contract with the state. It grants the two people certain rights and priveleges and protections that two people who are merely in love do not have. I have brought this point up before with people who tell me "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we are in love". Very true, but that piece of paper gives you certain rights of inheritance, rights of visitation, power of attorney, spousal benefits, etc. And when they hear that they usually start re-evaluating whether they really don't "need" to have that piece of paper after all.
What I'm getting at is if the state legalizes same sex marriage it does not force a religion to accept that. Or rather, it shouldn't. That to me would be an intrusion of state upon religion, and that to me is just as bad as religion intruding on the state. When a friend got married back over twenty years ago the Catholic Church he went to refused to do the ceremony because the bride was not Catholic, she was divorced, and the ex-husband was still alive. I did not have a problem with this and I would have felt it wrong if the state forced a religion to a particular definition of marriage.
We both agree the Church was wrong to do that, and many other things throughout history.
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
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
hear, hear!! words of wisdom!! hell, i got married by the marry'n librarian...
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
I don't think this would be a problem. I say this because if I were in the inter-racial relationship I would not want someone who did not feel ok with it taking my photos. I would choose someone who I related to.
Which brings me to the beginning of this thread...
I feel like the photographer is being forced to do something not in thier beliefs. Isn't that in line with discrimination? I'm not sure really where I'd fall in this one. Part of me says do the pricing high and see what happens, but at the same time I'd want to be as professional as I can.
If I state a disclaimer about choosing who and what I shoot do I have to take a job like this if I feel it is more then I can handle?
http://www.pymatuningmx.com/index.html :thumb
I totally resonate with this and this is the odd heart of the issue from my view point. If I were the couple I would have this attitude, though I would not communicate with these words: Mr/s photographer, how do you feel about doing a same-sex commitment service? The reason i ask is we want someone who is totally comfortable with it and will discriminate against any photographer who is not totally comfortable and not give them our business. No hard feelings if you are not comfortable; we just want to find someone who is."
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
Josh... EXACTLY thats the way it should have and should be handled.
http://www.pymatuningmx.com/index.html :thumb
You make a good point. discrimination is wrong, and sometimes we need the blunt force of law to stamp it out. I agree we would not have made the progress that we have without the blunt force of law.
It just seems to me that the force is, in this case, too blunt.
Imagine (and this takes some real imagination) the wheels of justice moved more quickly. Imagine that this couple could have gone to see a judge right then and there and he would have compelled the photographer under threat of jail time to photograph the wedding. While I agree this might be a rememdy in a world where the couple could not get a photographer to photograph their wedding, I don't think that is the world in which we live. One or two emails and they would have easily found a photographer--many (most?) of those on this forum would be happy to have the business. My question is this: if the judge could have forced them to do the work, would this really be a happy solution for anyone?
There is a time when government must force people to behave in a civil manner. Forced desegregation through busing is an example. In the long run, though, force is not a the best long term solution when there are other remedies.
The problem with the blunt force of law in this case is it fails to see the difference between business A--a resturant, let's say, and business B--a photographer. The nature of wedding photography is just so up close and personal. As someone else said, "If it were a gay baseball player asking a photographer to photograph him hitting a baseball, that would be one thing. This is different."
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site