Photographer sued for refusing service

[Bitter Jeweler]

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

Yeah, that's not why this country is in the toilet. :roll:

 

[Espike]

I think the key here is that they didn't ask for something that was not offered. From the article, the photographer declined the job stating that they only do traditional weddings. The plaintiff's partner called and asked for the same service ( a "commitment ceremony" ), but didn't mention that it was for a same sex couple. The photographer responded by providing a price list. That, IMO proves discrimination.

 

[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.

Discrimination should not be illegal.

Gee, I wonder how minorities feel about that. Interesting viewpoint George. Unfortunately it's those kinds of viewpoints that set this country back in terms of societal normalcy, and creates dissent because people "don't want to look at it." Imagine if Rosa Parks never existed? Imagine if the Greensboro Sit-in's never happened?

Yeah George, people don't deserve to be equal. Black people shouldn't even be able to vote, should they? They're only 3/5ths of a person, after all, right?

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?

Yes, lets assume that the photographer is so close minded, brainwashed, and ignorant to the point that they can't stand to look at two people during one of the happiest moments of their life. It's not like he/she's going to be photographing them in the bedroom "after hours." The most he's going to see are two people of the same gender standing next to each other, and kissing at some point or another. If you can't stomach that right now, you better get used to it.

I hear the Westboro Baptist Church is looking for new members, if you're interested.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

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?

What difference does it make what else you said?
Discrimination is discrimination, whether you want to propose "specific cases" where it should be legal.
Your opening statement stands, and stands on it's own. "Discrimination should not be illegal." Think about it.

And wow, because I cannot believe I read that. I can't.


edited to correct my quote.

 

[davisphotos]

Should it be legal for restaurants to refuse to serve gay couples? Taxi cabs to refuse to pick them up? Landlords to refuse to rent to them? Doctors to refuse them care? Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?

 

[snowbear]

Discrimination should not be illegal.

I really hope this is a typo.

 

[o hey tyler]

Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?

If only you could... Wait, can you?

 

[yerlem]

don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****

 

[imagemaker46]

Photographers should have the right to refuse to work for anyone that they choose not to. As a professional I can't think of any situations, apart from illegal ones that I would not shoot, if people want to pay me the money, I'm there. Unfortunately in the States, more than in Canada, people can sue for pretty much anything. The MacDonalds coffee spill from years ago, so a clumbsy person spills hot coffe into her lap, that's not MacDonalds fault. People drink 20 bottles of coke a day and sue Coke because they are obese. Stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.

It sounds to me that the whole situation was handled wrong, from start to finish. Discrimination is, and always will be alive and doing well. We don't have to like it, disagree with it, or agree with it, just try to change it. Easy to say, impossible to do.

 

[o hey tyler]

don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****

LOLS

 

[Mach0]

Discrimination is still discrimination and it's illegal. Wrong is still wrong at the end of the day. I would have just said I am going to be on vacation or some other bs excuse. I'm glad the photographer lost for the simple fact of him being dumb enough to say that as his reason.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

Misplaced argument.
Neither McDonalds not this company can advertise as providing a service to the public and then refuse to provide it to members of the public based on certain conditions.

 

[gsgary]

Only in the US

 

[RichardsTPF]

the simple fact of him being dumb enough to say that as his reason

One more thing to learn before a noob want to start a business.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I feel there is a difference between a black person being denied service at a restaurant and being denied photos. I think you have a right to be accepted in any restaurant but not choose and force any photographer to take your photos.