You really need to read the thread......it is not a matter of who recognizes same sex marriages.......but the way they decided to say NO to doing business was an act of discrimination against the would be client.........but you really need to read the thread............
Thanks, but I read enough to get that point.
The legal issue has been appealed but it still seems hypocritical to me. Will New Mexico now give them full rights as a married couple as far as joint tax returns etc? Or do gay rights just apply to the private sector?
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
Harry, my sister wants pictures of her squirrels. You up for it?
Just pokin' at ya!
Sure, if she likes pics of dead squirrels. :grim :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!"
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
WOW! That was a LOT of reading! I am going to have to agree with Harry that if you are indeed a "professional" photographer with a business license, you are going to have to go by whatever laws are on the books at the time; however, I also believe photography is quite a bit different than most other ventures. Someone used a physician as an example....the difference here is that the physician is not going to be exposed to the patients lifestyle. I agree with Josh in saying I don't necessarily want to go watch two guys or two girls show affection to one another, I have trouble watching straight couples being affectionate....I have several gay friends that I have known for years and if one of them brought their boyfriend or girlfriend to my house and started making out on my couch, I would politely ask them to go to another room or leave.
I also love the post by snaptie that asked the question "do gay rights only apply to the private sector?". That is a brilliant question....of course a lot of our laws and policies only apply to the private sector.
With all that being said, I must say that I admire Sam....your posts speak out to me....If I had to guess I would say you are a Ron Paul or Bob Barr supporter (or at least a constitutionalist or libertarian). If not you are missing out on a golden opportunity.
As I said before, I have gay friends, I work in a very liberal environment and I don't have a problem with that....what I do have a problem with is, again as a previous poster suggested.....all of the PC stuff that is going on in our country. Somebody else mentioned that you can deny a job if the client is a jerk but not if they are gay. My question is when will the jerk be protected? I don't want to get into the whole born gay or choice situation, but homosexual is not a race and who is to say that the jerk was not born that way? If it is truly his nature, by no fault of his own, to be a jerk, why should he be descriminated against? What about a serial killer? I'm almost certain they have done studies and have found that there are certain traits a serial killer possesses from birth. That may be a bit extreme, but my point is that before too long we are going to be protecting people we don't need to be protecting.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Great thread! I'm not sure what is or is not discrimination so let me give a few examples:
1. I am an Italian chef. Your Mexican party is welcome here but I don't cook Mexican food. As long as you like Italian food we are fine.
2. I am a Porsche mechanic. I don't work on Mustangs. I am not trained to work on Mustangs and I don't feel comfortable doing so.
3. I am a wedding photographer specializing in Catholic weddings. I don't feel confident enough to photograph a Jewish wedding. I haven't been to a Jewish wedding but I've seen parts of them in movies - enough to know there are traditions and ceremony that I am not familiar with and I'm afraid I would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've seen them stomp on a glass - what is that all about?
Actually I'm none of the above. I'm primarily a sports photographer and while I shoot a lot of sports, I don't like baseball. There is something about a hard, little ball coming at me at a high rate of speed that I afraid of. I guess you could call me a baseballphobic.
Photographers don't have a board or an exam they must pass before becoming a photographer. Am I not permitted to specialize in any area of photography I want? Even specializing to the point of shooting only Catholic weddings? Do I run the risk of discrimination based on religious preference?
I'm open to shooting same-sex couples but there will be a learning curve since I don't have any experience. Rulings like in this court case make it tougher because of the fear that I might fail in some way and get sued.
Great thread! I'm not sure what is or is not discrimination so let me give a few examples:
1. I am an Italian chef. Your Mexican party is welcome here but I don't cook Mexican food. As long as you like Italian food we are fine.
2. I am a Porsche mechanic. I don't work on Mustangs. I am not trained to work on Mustangs and I don't feel comfortable doing so.
3. I am a wedding photographer specializing in Catholic weddings. I don't feel confident enough to photograph a Jewish wedding. I haven't been to a Jewish wedding but I've seen parts of them in movies - enough to know there are traditions and ceremony that I am not familiar with and I'm afraid I would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've seen them stomp on a glass - what is that all about?
Actually I'm none of the above. I'm primarily a sports photographer and while I shoot a lot of sports, I don't like baseball. There is something about a hard, little ball coming at me at a high rate of speed that I afraid of. I guess you could call me a baseballphobic.
Photographers don't have a board or an exam they must pass before becoming a photographer. Am I not permitted to specialize in any area of photography I want? Even specializing to the point of shooting only Catholic weddings? Do I run the risk of discrimination based on religious preference?
I'm open to shooting same-sex couples but there will be a learning curve since I don't have any experience. Rulings like in this court case make it tougher because of the fear that I might fail in some way and get sued.
Actually if you advertise in the way you stated above, these should never be a prob.......In my younger days I was overly eager and hungery for the shoot, so I took weddings of every nature that came along and probably my most worry some was a Greek Orthodox wedding......the rehearsal was pretty simple and straight forward, no mention of 2 priests swinging 2 huge insense burners and filing the sanctuary with smoke........I missed the ring exchange and kiss and almost missed the recessional.......but I told the bride and groom and they understood as the priest confessed during the ceremony that he had forgotten to turn on any exhaust fans......that got me to asking questions at every rehearsal and even asking the same questrions whne I first meet the couple.
I know baptist photogs that do not do catholic or cogic weddings and they get more work than they can handle....but they are upfront I only do baptist and methodist weddings I am not educated in the other ceremoneis and do not want to mess up the most important day of your life....and recommends another photog.
I think there is a very significant difference in saying "I'm unfamiliar with, and uncomfortable with, but willing to shoot a (fill in blank)" and refusing to do so on blatantly illegal grounds. Not all forms of discrimination are illegal. It is not illegal to discriminate against nudists in most states I'm aware of. It IS illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation in most states. I think you'd be safe in saying I don't do nude weddings, but you might be on thin ice if you refuse to shoot a clothed wedding because you knew the B & G were naturists.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I think there is a very significant difference in saying "I'm unfamiliar with, and uncomfortable with, but willing to shoot a (fill in blank)" and refusing to do so on blatantly illegal grounds. Not all forms of discrimination are illegal. It is not illegal to discriminate against nudists in most states I'm aware of. It IS illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation in most states. I think you'd be safe in saying I don't do nude weddings, but you might be on thin ice if you refuse to shoot a clothed wedding because you knew the B & G were naturists.
You are correct....we all have choices to make in our businesses and the choices we make and for the most part what becomes illegal discrimination is how one articulates their refusal to do business with whatever group or individual...........it is all in how we communicate...........
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Basically, this means that Congress can't pass laws about things pertaining to the realm of faith or religion - for instance, they can't pass a law establishing Roman Catholics or Baptists as the sole faith of the land, and outlaw all other forms religious expression and belief.
There is nothing in this which prohibits church organizations and church members from petitioning the government or populace to pass civil laws that are in accordance with their religious beliefs, just like any other person, group, or organization.
So the opinions of those who have faith have as much bearing in civil matters as those who believe otherwise, or those who don't hold any particular faith.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
Someone used a physician as an example....the difference here is that the physician is not going to be exposed to the patients lifestyle.
Decisions about who gets a transplant have to deal with lifestyle issues all the time - for instance, does a liver go to an alcoholic? Or a new set of lungs to a chain smoker who hasn't shown any willingness to quit?
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
A professional photographer should act like a professional. Its not complex at all.
I suspect that, because you're an atheist, you have no clue as to the issues faced by those who follow a faith or belief, which is why you don't see it as being "complex."
Now I'm an atheist and any religious ceremony offends me. If I decided to make my living as a wedding photographer can you see me advertising "Wedding Photographer for secular ceremonies - because of my personal convictions I will not photograph any religious ceremony or any ceremony where a diety is mentioned". :lol4
Based on your prior statements, one might argue that your aversion to wedding photography was a form of discrimination in itself.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
I suspect that, because you're an atheist, you have no clue as to the issues faced by those who follow a faith or belief, which is why you don't see it as being "complex."
Let's see now, because I'm an atheist I have no insight into issues of conscience or belief - Rubbish. I was raised as a christian, taught Sunday school, and graduated from St. John's Univ.
I had to deal with issues of faith and belief when I turned away from the superstitions I had been raised with. When I joined the peace movement after serving in Vietnam for two years and after having been the president of my college Young Republican and Conservative clubs that also required my dealing with issues of faith and belief.
Why do religionists feel that they have a monopoly on issues of "faith and belief".
So the firmly held beliefs of those of faith have "delicate sensibilities" because they believe differently than you do?
Its not the difference of opinion that's an issue it's their decision to pervert their professed beliefs by using them to discriminate against others that is an issue.
So? Maybe there are pros you don't know who can be selective about what gigs they'll take.
Don't confuse "selective" with bigotry.
Based on your prior statements, one might argue that your aversion to wedding photography was a form of discrimination in itself.
Again, one can have one's aversion as freely as they wish. When I choose pizza I always discriminate against a pineapple pizza in favor of a pepperoni pizza.
However if I ran a pizzeria it would be downright stupid not to offer the choice to others and it would be illegal to deny my services to others on discriminatory grounds. It would also be immoral for me to discriminate against others according to what I was taught by the church I used to attend and what I was taught at St. John's.
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!"
Basically, this means that Congress can't pass laws about things pertaining to the realm of faith or religion - for instance, they can't pass a law establishing Roman Catholics or Baptists as the sole faith of the land, and outlaw all other forms religious expression and belief.
There is nothing in this which prohibits church organizations and church members from petitioning the government or populace to pass civil laws that are in accordance with their religious beliefs, just like any other person, group, or organization.
So the opinions of those who have faith have as much bearing in civil matters as those who believe otherwise, or those who don't hold any particular faith.
But Congress also can't pass laws that have a justification solely on a particular religion. That would be forcing the beliefs of one religion on another. For example, how many would be fine with a law banning the eating or red meat on Good Friday? I'm sure the Catholics wouldn't have a problem, bu the Protestants might cry foul. How about forcing a day of rest and the closing of business on Sunday (or is that Saturday)? And boy, the fun we could have passing laws based on Leviticus!
Decisions about who gets a transplant have to deal with lifestyle issues all the time - for instance, does a liver go to an alcoholic? Or a new set of lungs to a chain smoker who hasn't shown any willingness to quit?
I'm not talking about dealing with lifestyle issues; I'm talking about being witness to them or even a part of them. If I were a physician, I wouldn't regret giving a new set of lungs to a chain smoker or a liver to an alcoholic. Far be it for me to decide who gets to live and who has to die (although I realize these things do come into play when those types of choices have to be made). On the other hand, it's a completely different story when you are put into a situation where you have to witness a junkie flushing his/her life away, or an alcoholic become someone they aren't and wouldn't ever want to be on a sober day. To be honest, I would take the job and not think twice about it....But there are a lot of people out there that would be extremely uncomfortable being a part of an event where not only are they going to witness intimacy between a couple of the same sex, they are most likely going to be posing the couple and encouraging them to be intimate. This could be especially hard for a religious person to do.....even if you don't believe or respect their religion, for them it has real meaning. My mother-in-law is a strong believer and I really don't believe she would feel comfortable enough to take this sort of job; however she is the kindest, most genuine, loving person I know and she would do most anything to help a person in need no matter what their sexual orientation. I don't think it would be fair to lable her a bigot for turning the job down.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Usually I am live and let live. I dont beleive that gay marriage is right. God created aman for a woman but I think that the worse thing you can do it harrass and put down these people too. I think Christ would have showed them love. You could say that I try to walk a fine line down the middle.
However that being said I as a photographer would not shoot their event. The first ammendment says that I have the freedom of speach and I personally dont want to condone and show other people their activities by taking photos of them. Government should not control what a business can and cannot do. I am merely choosing not to profit off of their ceremony.
However that being said I as a photographer would not shoot their event. The first ammendment says that I have the freedom of speach and I personally dont want to condone and show other people their activities by taking photos of them. Government should not control what a business can and cannot do. I am merely choosing not to profit off of their ceremony.
This is a not a "free speech" issue. Every yahoo still has the right to attack gays and their lifestyle.
The issue is one of a business that holds its services out to the public. They have to follow the laws concerning discrimination. If you hold your photographic services to the public you cannot discriminate. Taking photographs of an event does not mean you personally endorse the event.
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 issue is one of a business that holds its services out to the public. They have to follow the laws concerning discrimination. If you hold your photographic services to the public you cannot discriminate. Taking photographs of an event does not mean you personally endorse the event.
Whats the difference if you are a freelance writer and you refuse to write promotional material for something you disagree with? A person is chosen for their photography based on their artistic tastes. This isn't providing a service like a restaurant, jiffy lube, or grocery store. A photography book is protected by the First Amendment, yet it is sold in public for money. The government does not have the right to make the photographer change the content of the book to fit social norms. Art is sold as commerce and people sell their ideas for money. Photography is an expression of ideas.
Court cases have set precedence that people cannot be forced to express ideas they don't agree with.The First Amendment protects artistic ideas, and it protects being able to refuse to take part in ideas one doesn't agree.
This isn't providing a service like a restaurant, jiffy lube, or grocery store.
Actually, it is. Commercial wedding photography is a commodity. Look in your Yellow Pages if you don't believe it. If you are offering services to the public you are required by law not to discriminate. This also applies to the caterers, the band, the florists and anyone else who is targeting weddings as a business opportunity. The artistic dimension of all these activities does not excuse them from regulation that other businesses must observe. If you cannot abide by these regulations, then you probably need to rethink your career choices. As an art photographer, you would be largely free of government control (unless you take nasty pics of children), but you would be offering a finished product for sale, not a service to the public.
Actually, it is. Commercial wedding photography is a commodity. Look in your Yellow Pages if you don't believe it.
Does that make an art gallery a commodity because it advertises in the Yellow Pages? I also read the adds and they say "Pick me because of my artistic taste and impression."
Did a google search on artistic wedding photography
Does that make an art gallery a commodity because it advertises in the Yellow Pages? I also read the adds and they say "Pick me because of my artistic taste and impression."
Did a google search on artistic wedding photography
Wedding photography is still art sold as a commodity. Just because it is sold doesn't negate it as art.
Its not an issue of art. Its how you hold your services out to the public. If you hold them out to the general public you have to follow the law. The issue is not about free speech or art.
If you open a studio and offer your services to the public you can not discriminate. You can't tell some one that "I don't take portraits of old people". You can't say "I'm only interested in photographing caucasians".
Its rather simple.
If following the laws that apply to all businesses infringes on your art there's a simple remedy available. Just don't offer your services to the general public. You are then completely unfettered to follow your muse.
Finally the bigger issue here is that bigotry and prejudice is wrong.
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!"
Its not an issue of art. Its how you hold your services out to the public. If you hold them out to the general public you have to follow the law. The issue is not about free speech or art.
So you are saying a freelancing pro-choice photographer/writer cannot turn down a job for a pro-life organization because they are morally against it?
So you are saying a freelancing pro-choice photographer/writer cannot turn down a job for a pro-life organization because they are morally against it?
The law is fairly specific about which groups are protected and which are not. For now, AFAIK, there is no legal requirement governing abortion politics. Or people with green eyes. There are universal requirements that prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race, religion and other things. Sexual orientation is currently in transition, protected in some states but not in others. Much like racial discrimination--which became illegal over a long period of time--after a few decades it will be universally illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Sadly, homophobia will probably endure nevertheless, just like racism.
Sadly, homophobia will probably endure nevertheless, just like racism.
Disregarding this highly emotional issue and sticking to the Constitution and the law, I think discrimination laws as applied to this case are unconstitutional. Courts have ruled the 1st Amendment protects photography as expression and I have not read an exclusion clause about commercial or wedding photography. Courts have also upheld the right of people NOT to display ideas they do not agree with, like slogans on license plates.
For this law to apply it has to overrule the 1st Amendment. I am not debating if the law exists, I am debating if it's Constitutional. I don't think it is. I hope this case goes farther in the courts.
Since we are discussing laws on the books, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage. How can the state of New Mexico Human Rights Commission, NOT a COURT of LAW, punish someone because they don't want to photograph the wedding when the state doesn't legally recognize same-sex marriage? Is this law not recognizing gay marriages correct? By the reasoning of some on these boards that just because a law is in the books it must be right.
Sadly, homophobia will probably endure nevertheless, just like racism.
I'm going to again state that I would take the job and I understand that holding my services out to the public would require me to uphold the law; however, there are people (such as my mother-in-law as stated before) that would probably not feel comfortable being the photographer at a "commitment ceremony" because of their religion. These same people, if true to their religion would not be prejudice against homosexual's or refuse them service at their restaurant or shop, but to actually be a part of something that is against your religion (and I feel that being the photographer means you are a big part of it) is something that you just might not be able to do. That does not mean you are racist or a bigot and it does not mean you are homophobic. I think for someone to suggest that is a little hypocritical. That is just my opinion and it only stands for people who are truly not prejudice....the people in question here may very well be bigots, I just don't think we should lump everyone who might turn this job down into the same group.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Disregarding this highly emotional issue and sticking to the Constitution and the law, I think discrimination laws as applied to this case are unconstitutional. Courts have ruled the 1st Amendment protects photography as expression and I have not read an exclusion clause about commercial or wedding photography. Courts have also upheld the right of people NOT to display ideas they do not agree with, like slogans on license plates.
Fortunately your views on the constitutionality of anti-discrimiantion laws is not supported by current case history.
For this law to apply it has to overrule the 1st Amendment. I am not debating if the law exists, I am debating if it's Constitutional. I don't think it is. I hope this case goes farther in the courts.
It does not overrule the first amendment. The two biggoted photographers in NM are still free to express any inanities they wish. They just can't discriminate in their business practices.
Since we are discussing laws on the books, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage. How can the state of New Mexico Human Rights Commission, NOT a COURT of LAW, punish someone because they don't want to photograph the wedding when the state doesn't legally recognize same-sex marriage? Is this law not recognizing gay marriages correct? By the reasoning of some on these boards that just because a law is in the books it must be right.
[/QUOTE]
The Human Rights Commission does not make laws it only enforces the laws that have been passsed by the state legislature. There can be laws against discrimination based on sexual preference while still having a law that bars same-sex marriages. In time these silly laws against same sex marriages will fade away just as many of our discriminatory practices of the past have faded away.
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'm going to again state that I would take the job and I understand that holding my services out to the public would require me to uphold the law; however, there are people (such as my mother-in-law as stated before) that would probably not feel comfortable being the photographer at a "commitment ceremony" because of their religion. These same people, if true to their religion would not be prejudice against homosexual's or refuse them service at their restaurant or shop, but to actually be a part of something that is against your religion (and I feel that being the photographer means you are a big part of it) is something that you just might not be able to do. That does not mean you are racist or a bigot and it does not mean you are homophobic. I think for someone to suggest that is a little hypocritical. That is just my opinion and it only stands for people who are truly not prejudice....the people in question here may very well be bigots, I just don't think we should lump everyone who might turn this job down into the same group.
I remember when I was growing up. My father would take a drive through our neighborhood once a month to make sure that "they" were not moving in. I was cautioned not to drink from a coke bottle but to pour it in a cup because a black person might have touched the bottle. My grandmother didn't want me to go to the local beach because blacks also swam there and I might pick up a disease.
Now my mom, dad and grandmother were wonderful people. Whenever I brought a black, hispanic, etc home with me they always treated them fine. They were however bigots. They unfortunately had bigotry instilled in them by their culture that they could not overcome.
People can find justification for their prejudices and bigotry in their religion. Hell, the bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, multiple marriage, etc. Unfortunately bigotry is bigotry no matter what jsutification or explanation is used in an attempt to explain it away.
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!"
Comments
Thanks, but I read enough to get that point.
The legal issue has been appealed but it still seems hypocritical to me. Will New Mexico now give them full rights as a married couple as far as joint tax returns etc? Or do gay rights just apply to the private sector?
Marty
Well yeah......it may be beside the point in a legal debate but it is still a point that I would consider if I was voting in New Mexico.
Marty
Harry, my sister wants pictures of her squirrels. You up for it?
Just pokin' at ya!
__________________
My SmugMug Gallery
My Facebook
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
Sure, if she likes pics of dead squirrels. :grim :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!"
Thank you for your nice words Angelo, but it's (almost) NEVER my intention to bring a mudfest to a conclusion
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
:whip
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
__________________
My SmugMug Gallery
My Facebook
"If you've found a magic that does something for you, honey, stick to it. Never change it." - Mae West, to Edith Head.
"Every guy has to have one weakness - and it might as well be a good one." - Shell Scott: Dance With the Dead by Richard S. Prather
I also love the post by snaptie that asked the question "do gay rights only apply to the private sector?". That is a brilliant question....of course a lot of our laws and policies only apply to the private sector.
With all that being said, I must say that I admire Sam....your posts speak out to me....If I had to guess I would say you are a Ron Paul or Bob Barr supporter (or at least a constitutionalist or libertarian). If not you are missing out on a golden opportunity.
As I said before, I have gay friends, I work in a very liberal environment and I don't have a problem with that....what I do have a problem with is, again as a previous poster suggested.....all of the PC stuff that is going on in our country. Somebody else mentioned that you can deny a job if the client is a jerk but not if they are gay. My question is when will the jerk be protected? I don't want to get into the whole born gay or choice situation, but homosexual is not a race and who is to say that the jerk was not born that way? If it is truly his nature, by no fault of his own, to be a jerk, why should he be descriminated against? What about a serial killer? I'm almost certain they have done studies and have found that there are certain traits a serial killer possesses from birth. That may be a bit extreme, but my point is that before too long we are going to be protecting people we don't need to be protecting.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
1. I am an Italian chef. Your Mexican party is welcome here but I don't cook Mexican food. As long as you like Italian food we are fine.
2. I am a Porsche mechanic. I don't work on Mustangs. I am not trained to work on Mustangs and I don't feel comfortable doing so.
3. I am a wedding photographer specializing in Catholic weddings. I don't feel confident enough to photograph a Jewish wedding. I haven't been to a Jewish wedding but I've seen parts of them in movies - enough to know there are traditions and ceremony that I am not familiar with and I'm afraid I would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've seen them stomp on a glass - what is that all about?
Actually I'm none of the above. I'm primarily a sports photographer and while I shoot a lot of sports, I don't like baseball. There is something about a hard, little ball coming at me at a high rate of speed that I afraid of. I guess you could call me a baseballphobic.
Photographers don't have a board or an exam they must pass before becoming a photographer. Am I not permitted to specialize in any area of photography I want? Even specializing to the point of shooting only Catholic weddings? Do I run the risk of discrimination based on religious preference?
I'm open to shooting same-sex couples but there will be a learning curve since I don't have any experience. Rulings like in this court case make it tougher because of the fear that I might fail in some way and get sued.
Actually if you advertise in the way you stated above, these should never be a prob.......In my younger days I was overly eager and hungery for the shoot, so I took weddings of every nature that came along and probably my most worry some was a Greek Orthodox wedding......the rehearsal was pretty simple and straight forward, no mention of 2 priests swinging 2 huge insense burners and filing the sanctuary with smoke........I missed the ring exchange and kiss and almost missed the recessional.......but I told the bride and groom and they understood as the priest confessed during the ceremony that he had forgotten to turn on any exhaust fans......that got me to asking questions at every rehearsal and even asking the same questrions whne I first meet the couple.
I know baptist photogs that do not do catholic or cogic weddings and they get more work than they can handle....but they are upfront I only do baptist and methodist weddings I am not educated in the other ceremoneis and do not want to mess up the most important day of your life....and recommends another photog.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
You are correct....we all have choices to make in our businesses and the choices we make and for the most part what becomes illegal discrimination is how one articulates their refusal to do business with whatever group or individual...........it is all in how we communicate...........
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Basically, this means that Congress can't pass laws about things pertaining to the realm of faith or religion - for instance, they can't pass a law establishing Roman Catholics or Baptists as the sole faith of the land, and outlaw all other forms religious expression and belief.
There is nothing in this which prohibits church organizations and church members from petitioning the government or populace to pass civil laws that are in accordance with their religious beliefs, just like any other person, group, or organization.
So the opinions of those who have faith have as much bearing in civil matters as those who believe otherwise, or those who don't hold any particular faith.
So the firmly held beliefs of those of faith have "delicate sensibilities" because they believe differently than you do?
So? Maybe there are pros you don't know who can be selective about what gigs they'll take.
Based on your prior statements, one might argue that your aversion to wedding photography was a form of discrimination in itself.
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!"
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 not talking about dealing with lifestyle issues; I'm talking about being witness to them or even a part of them. If I were a physician, I wouldn't regret giving a new set of lungs to a chain smoker or a liver to an alcoholic. Far be it for me to decide who gets to live and who has to die (although I realize these things do come into play when those types of choices have to be made). On the other hand, it's a completely different story when you are put into a situation where you have to witness a junkie flushing his/her life away, or an alcoholic become someone they aren't and wouldn't ever want to be on a sober day.
To be honest, I would take the job and not think twice about it....But there are a lot of people out there that would be extremely uncomfortable being a part of an event where not only are they going to witness intimacy between a couple of the same sex, they are most likely going to be posing the couple and encouraging them to be intimate. This could be especially hard for a religious person to do.....even if you don't believe or respect their religion, for them it has real meaning.
My mother-in-law is a strong believer and I really don't believe she would feel comfortable enough to take this sort of job; however she is the kindest, most genuine, loving person I know and she would do most anything to help a person in need no matter what their sexual orientation. I don't think it would be fair to lable her a bigot for turning the job down.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
However that being said I as a photographer would not shoot their event. The first ammendment says that I have the freedom of speach and I personally dont want to condone and show other people their activities by taking photos of them. Government should not control what a business can and cannot do. I am merely choosing not to profit off of their ceremony.
markmwilson22@aol.com
This is a not a "free speech" issue. Every yahoo still has the right to attack gays and their lifestyle.
The issue is one of a business that holds its services out to the public. They have to follow the laws concerning discrimination. If you hold your photographic services to the public you cannot discriminate. Taking photographs of an event does not mean you personally endorse the event.
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!"
Whats the difference if you are a freelance writer and you refuse to write promotional material for something you disagree with? A person is chosen for their photography based on their artistic tastes. This isn't providing a service like a restaurant, jiffy lube, or grocery store. A photography book is protected by the First Amendment, yet it is sold in public for money. The government does not have the right to make the photographer change the content of the book to fit social norms. Art is sold as commerce and people sell their ideas for money. Photography is an expression of ideas.
Court cases have set precedence that people cannot be forced to express ideas they don't agree with.The First Amendment protects artistic ideas, and it protects being able to refuse to take part in ideas one doesn't agree.
Actually, it is. Commercial wedding photography is a commodity. Look in your Yellow Pages if you don't believe it. If you are offering services to the public you are required by law not to discriminate. This also applies to the caterers, the band, the florists and anyone else who is targeting weddings as a business opportunity. The artistic dimension of all these activities does not excuse them from regulation that other businesses must observe. If you cannot abide by these regulations, then you probably need to rethink your career choices. As an art photographer, you would be largely free of government control (unless you take nasty pics of children), but you would be offering a finished product for sale, not a service to the public.
Does that make an art gallery a commodity because it advertises in the Yellow Pages? I also read the adds and they say "Pick me because of my artistic taste and impression."
Did a google search on artistic wedding photography
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Gxj&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=wedding+photography+artistic&spell=1
Wedding photography is still art sold as a commodity. Just because it is sold doesn't negate it as art.
Its not an issue of art. Its how you hold your services out to the public. If you hold them out to the general public you have to follow the law. The issue is not about free speech or art.
If you open a studio and offer your services to the public you can not discriminate. You can't tell some one that "I don't take portraits of old people". You can't say "I'm only interested in photographing caucasians".
Its rather simple.
If following the laws that apply to all businesses infringes on your art there's a simple remedy available. Just don't offer your services to the general public. You are then completely unfettered to follow your muse.
Finally the bigger issue here is that bigotry and prejudice is wrong.
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!"
So you are saying a freelancing pro-choice photographer/writer cannot turn down a job for a pro-life organization because they are morally against it?
The law is fairly specific about which groups are protected and which are not. For now, AFAIK, there is no legal requirement governing abortion politics. Or people with green eyes. There are universal requirements that prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race, religion and other things. Sexual orientation is currently in transition, protected in some states but not in others. Much like racial discrimination--which became illegal over a long period of time--after a few decades it will be universally illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Sadly, homophobia will probably endure nevertheless, just like racism.
Disregarding this highly emotional issue and sticking to the Constitution and the law, I think discrimination laws as applied to this case are unconstitutional. Courts have ruled the 1st Amendment protects photography as expression and I have not read an exclusion clause about commercial or wedding photography. Courts have also upheld the right of people NOT to display ideas they do not agree with, like slogans on license plates.
For this law to apply it has to overrule the 1st Amendment. I am not debating if the law exists, I am debating if it's Constitutional. I don't think it is. I hope this case goes farther in the courts.
Since we are discussing laws on the books, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage. How can the state of New Mexico Human Rights Commission, NOT a COURT of LAW, punish someone because they don't want to photograph the wedding when the state doesn't legally recognize same-sex marriage? Is this law not recognizing gay marriages correct? By the reasoning of some on these boards that just because a law is in the books it must be right.
I'm going to again state that I would take the job and I understand that holding my services out to the public would require me to uphold the law; however, there are people (such as my mother-in-law as stated before) that would probably not feel comfortable being the photographer at a "commitment ceremony" because of their religion.
These same people, if true to their religion would not be prejudice against homosexual's or refuse them service at their restaurant or shop, but to actually be a part of something that is against your religion (and I feel that being the photographer means you are a big part of it) is something that you just might not be able to do. That does not mean you are racist or a bigot and it does not mean you are homophobic. I think for someone to suggest that is a little hypocritical. That is just my opinion and it only stands for people who are truly not prejudice....the people in question here may very well be bigots, I just don't think we should lump everyone who might turn this job down into the same group.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Fortunately your views on the constitutionality of anti-discrimiantion laws is not supported by current case history.
It does not overrule the first amendment. The two biggoted photographers in NM are still free to express any inanities they wish. They just can't discriminate in their business practices.
[/QUOTE]
The Human Rights Commission does not make laws it only enforces the laws that have been passsed by the state legislature. There can be laws against discrimination based on sexual preference while still having a law that bars same-sex marriages. In time these silly laws against same sex marriages will fade away just as many of our discriminatory practices of the past have faded away.
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 remember when I was growing up. My father would take a drive through our neighborhood once a month to make sure that "they" were not moving in. I was cautioned not to drink from a coke bottle but to pour it in a cup because a black person might have touched the bottle. My grandmother didn't want me to go to the local beach because blacks also swam there and I might pick up a disease.
Now my mom, dad and grandmother were wonderful people. Whenever I brought a black, hispanic, etc home with me they always treated them fine. They were however bigots. They unfortunately had bigotry instilled in them by their culture that they could not overcome.
People can find justification for their prejudices and bigotry in their religion. Hell, the bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, multiple marriage, etc. Unfortunately bigotry is bigotry no matter what jsutification or explanation is used in an attempt to explain it away.
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!"