Photographer sued for refusing service

[yerlem]

If I was gay and someone didn't want to work with me, I would go find someone who did, taking someone to court to force them into doing something for you isn't going to make that person like you. its not going to change there opinion of you, its just going to make them hate you even more. just seems entirly counter-productive.

Their point probably wasn't changing their mind..it was either the noble cause of bringing attention to discrimination for sexual orientation, or just taking money from a less that clever photog who stated the cause for turning down the job.

 

[gsgary]

I think some issues with this for me, is the fact that because they are a protected group. you "have" to do it. as said, if they were black and klan members came in you wouldn't have to photo them because they are not a "protected" group. so, now does this mean I could tell fat people to go away because i don't photo fat people? does this mean if im a photographer, i could tell a hippy couple to go take a hike because they arn't a "protected" group? so to me it seems a bit unfair to say its okay to say no if your this group. but if your that group its unfair to say no. that to me really isn't equality.



Reality is you can't govern hate. equality laws for me just seem to make people like photoes hate gays more. the people who are okay with gays don't need laws to be okay with gays, and to those that hate gays, laws will never make them like gays.

If I was gay and someone didn't want to work with me, I would go find someone who did, taking someone to court to force them into doing something for you isn't going to make that person like you. its not going to change there opinion of you, its just going to make them hate you even more. just seems entirly counter-productive.

No but you could say you don't have any wide angle lenses

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).

Hmmm...I'm gay, and never shoved it anyones face.

If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
However the problem is that they want to take it outside of the home, they want to turn it into a status.

We do? How is it a status?
I like how you know all about what gay people want. Even if it IS misguided.

Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO!
Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO!

Thnak god!

Sexuality is something that should not be public.


That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".

Hooter's!
Many men do go around saying they like boobs and butts.
Heck, look at the comments in the Glamour photography threads here!

I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust.

I am sure you disgust many people.

We were born with different shaped reproductive organs for a reason. It's like plugging a fan into the wall. But the fan does not plug into another fan. It does not work at all.

We won't talk about what fit's where. Straight single AND married people do it that way too. Just in case you don't realise that.

If two men are able to legally get married, and never reproduce, then I should be able to legally marry a rock.

Sure if the rock can actually give consent.
BTW, that is the stupidest argument ever. But we hear it again and again. Why is that? Why is that the best you can do?



Oops. Sorry didn't see Tiredirons request.

 

[yerlem]

Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..

 

[unpopular]

A Christian who opposes gay marriage should express concerns of conflict of interest, rather than outright refusal. A photographer should explain that he or she may not have their best interest in mind, and allow the couple to decide how to proceed. Conflict of interest may also be a legally valid reason to refuse service, and photographers who oppose homosexual activities in states where sexual orientation is protected ought to consult with an attorney about this issue.

 

[unpopular]

Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..

I am not sure about that. While you cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of addiction, you can discriminate against their addictive behaviors or the results.

For example, you can't discriminate against a meth addict simply for having the medical condition of methamphetamine addiction, but you can discriminate against them for not having any teeth due to malnutrition as a result.

 

[Espike]

Okay, back to photography. Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people. They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse. Was this discrimination? Possibly. Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?

How about a hair stylist? I can think of many black hair stylists that are not comfortable working on white people's hair, and vice versa. Is that discrimination?

Or even something a little more close to the article. Let's say I am asked to do an Indian wedding...the full shebang. It can be 3 to 7 days of coverage and I've never done one before, don't know where I will need to be, and don't know what the important parts are. If I say no, can I now be sued for religious discrimination?

I say no, because those are limitations based on your lack of experience, or technical ability.

Okay, so you would say a lack of experience is a qualifying reason to say no. Well, lets say the studio that was sued doesn't have any experience around same-sex couples. When I shoot a wedding, I know where the bride and the groom are at all times. Everything from the getting ready stuff, to the places they are going to be, a general idea of what they are going to be doing, what moments to look for, how and in what order they are going to approach the officiant, and pretty much everything else. It's a very scripted affair. At the reception, I know which person is going to be wearing the garter, how the first dances are going to line up, etc.

For a same-sex commitment ceremony, all that goes out the window. I have no idea what happens at one of those, so for me, would I be just in refusing based on a lack of experience?

Yes, If you are indeed refusing based on lack of experience. The photographer in question stated that they decline the job based on religious and moral beliefs.

 

[IByte]

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?

Just tell them I voted Democrat, is that ok?

 

[jake337]

Jake - no, it doesn't. However you cannot deny service on the sole basis of certain criteria as defined by state and federal law. You can discriminate against dirty clothes, economic status, if they are wearing a hat inside or not (provided it is not a part of religious dress), cowboys, heavy metal fans, but you can't decriminalize against race, religion, gender, disability certain age criteria, national origin and in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.

However, it's bad practice to discriminate against anyone. For example, if you don't serve hippies, you may also be violating certain religious rights which are protected. For example, if you use dreadlocks as an indication someone is a hippy, you may be discriminating against members or the Rastafari Movement. Whether this was intended or incidental, it is still discrimination.

I understood that. Was just poking fun at this whole thread. See I always thought this whole discrimination thing was about jobs. Of course I can't tell a gay person they didn't get the job because the are gay.

But as a business owner, one should be able to refuse service for any reason whatsoever. It's their own business. Not saying I would. I wouldn't refuse service for any reason because that would be money in my bank account, food on the table and a roof over our heads.

But I believe I should have the right to refuse service for any reason because I own the business, not the public.


Anyways why would someone want a business to do work for them, when they know they do not want to do said work for them?


Just a sue happy country we live in I guess.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I refuse to shoot llamas. ****ing drama queens of the camelid family. I draw the line at alpacas.

 

[unpopular]

The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility in a specific and uniform way, they ought to be compelled to.

 

[12sndsgood]

Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..

But my issue is that you CAN discriminate certain groups and people. but not this certain selection of people(not just gays) to me that is not equality. that is making groups speacial.

I just feel a lot of what people do to "protect" people ends up making a bigger divide then if people are just left alone.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility, they ought to be compelled to.

They have no such responsibility. Just as they cannot force a citizen to purchase an item from them, they should not be forced to sell an item. It is a two way street.

And we aren't talking about whether or not we let somebody take an item from a shelf to a cash register. We are talking about creative effort.

Many people who design custom projects only accept the ones they will enjoy. The better those people are, the more they get to pick and choose.

If I am not going to enjoy a project, I am not going to do it unless money is a deciding factor. Either I really need the money or they offer so much I can't refuse. My enjoyment of the job greatly influences whether I will do it or not, and so far, I am not aware of any law that says I have to enjoy all jobs equally.

 

[IByte]

Wow, and hear I thought in the art world, people were open mind an above petty skin tone, sexuality. A bigot in the art world? What's next a gay white supremacist? Sorry it doesn't compute in my logical mind....gah syntax error!!

 

[12sndsgood]

The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility in a specific and uniform way, they ought to be compelled to.

now a days the majority of people are out there trying to make money. look at this site. how many people were for the gays versus a few people who are against. the majority of people will ask the most important question. "can you pay" forcing someone to do something with laws doesnt change peoples views. to me changing peoples views will do more to end racism or sexism. or gay gender equalities. then trying to force people in courts to do what you want.