Photographer sued for refusing service

[Espike]

I just read an article in which a photographer was sued for refusing service to a same sex couple in New Mexico. The courts ruled that the photographer had discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?

Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post

 

[Trever1t]

not discrimanation based on race, creed or sexual orientation, no. All they had to do was refuse without reason.

 

[chuasam]

Bigger question is why would a client want to hire a photographer that was unwilling?

 

[tirediron]

Sad.

 

[12sndsgood]

Bigger question is why would a client want to hire a photographer that was unwilling?

once they found out they wouldn't photograph them due to her being gay they came back so they could catch them and take them to court. They had no intention of using them as there photographer. As trevor said, just say no, don't give a reason.

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

No wonder this country is in the toilet, people use their sexual orientation to exploit people who knowingly don't agree with it.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Personally I disagree with the courts on this one.

I don't agree with same sex marriage but I'm not arguing or fighting against it. But I should be able to decline services for any reason including my own opinions on these kind of matters. Photography is an art. I can't see myself trying to photograph two men or two women in that manner. I don't "feel" it.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I also disagree with the court, but I also disagree with how the defense seemed to present it's case.

Personally, I just would left the religion out of it completely. I am pretty sure, in New Mexico, a same-sex couple cannot get married. If the studio says it only does weddings, that should be the end of it. I also assume the price list that was presented to the 'other half' was for a wedding.

A black guy can't walk into Mcdonalds, order a steak, and then sue because he didn't get it. It's simply not on the menu.

 

[o hey tyler]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

At the same time to me that's like me going to a Vegan eatery and suing for discrimination because they don't serve meat. I feel in the context of what happened it is just a way to get money from someone not to "advance our society towards unity"

 

[Kerbouchard]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

Discrimination should not be illegal.

Let's assume, that the next time around this Studio takes the gig because they are afraid of the legal backlash. They are still equally disgusted, distracted, and the quality of their work is going to reflect that. And, once they get through the wedding, they still have to stare at the images for hours upon hours doing editing, so instead, they hurry through that, also.

So, in Case A, they don't take the gig and the 'couple' gets another photographer who gives them their best work.
And, in Case B, they take the gig and the 'couple' gets a photographer that doesn't want to be there and substandard work.

Which 'Case' is more fair to the couple?
Which 'Case' is more fair to the photographer?

 

[yerlem]

No wonder this country is in the toilet, people use their sexual orientation to exploit people who knowingly don't agree with it.

You can't "not agree" with someone's sexual orientation. It's like not agreeing with someone's colour of hair, or height. "Oh, I'm sorry, I don't agree with how tall you are, I can't take your picture". sounds stupid, huh? well, just as stupid as not wanting to take someone's picture because they are gay, or black, or any other thing that bothers you about a person, even though it doesn't directly affect you.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Discrimination should not be illegal.

Wow.

 

[yerlem]

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.

Discrimination should not be illegal.

Let's assume, that the next time around this Studio takes the gig because they are afraid of the legal backlash. They are still equally disgusted, distracted, and the quality of their work is going to reflect that. And, once they get through the wedding, they still have to stare at the images for hours upon hours doing editing, so instead, they hurry through that, also.

So, in Case A, they don't take the gig and the 'couple' gets another photographer who gives them their best work.
And, in Case B, they take the gig and the 'couple' gets a photographer that doesn't want to be there and substandard work.

Which 'Case' is more fair to the couple?
Which 'Case' is more fair to the photographer?

Perhaps it would be fair to have an actual professional do the job, not someone who is going to do a bad job because of personal reasons.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Discrimination should not be illegal.

Wow.

What do you mean, 'Wow.' I went on to specifically say why I felt that was the case. You taking a small part of what I said is inflammatory and unnecessary. If you feel that something I said was inaccurate, why don't you mention that, instead of your typical 'one word' answers?