What won't you take photos of? Even if you were paid to do so...

[unpopular]

So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?

Yep.

So what about other services. Should serving Jews be at the option of the restaurant owner, what about grocery stores?

 

[480sparky]

This was once more commonplace than refusing to do business with homosexuals.

Yes it was. But was it a belief that was inculcated by an established religion?

 

[unpopular]

This was once more commonplace than refusing to do business with homosexuals.

Yes it was. But was it a belief that was inculcated by an established religion?

That's hard to establish exactly. Certainly segregationists *used* religion to justify it, and one photograph in particular does come to mind, but I can't find it ATM. I don't much care for the government saying "this doctrine is genuine ... that doctrine is not". Certainly the first amendment can be interpreted to limit freedom of religion where it violates the protected rights of others.

It's hard to imagine how people used religion to justify segregation, but at the same time I am not in a position to determine how genuine these beliefs were, and I think any time the government steps in and say "this belief is genuine ... this belief isn't" it entangles the church and state. When you do this, you get into some pretty weird situations, take the peyote laws for example. What I think the government can say is that "this practice violates the rights of this group, and is not protected under the first amendment". You can still believe whatever you want, but you cannot act on those beliefs in such a way to limit the liberties of others.

 

[kathyt]

So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?

Yep.

So what about other services. Should serving Jews be at the option of the restaurant owner, what about grocery stores?

That wasn't the question you asked. I feel if a PHOTOGRAPHER, not myself, feels uncomfortable shooting an event or a wedding in which he or she can't come on board 100% because of certain beliefs or whatever the case may be, then they are not the right PHOTOGRAPHER for the job. I am just referring to this profession at the moment and I know this does not apply to every business or profession. Sometimes it is not the right fit for the photographer or the client.

 

[unpopular]

I see what you're saying, it's more of a conflict of interest, and I'll tend to agree. But that's not the same issue at stake. Instead this photographer admitted that he refused to provide services to a gay couple not because he felt he could not provide adequate services, but rather because they were gay in a state which recognizes homosexuals as a protected class.

In one case, the photographer wouldn't feel he could ethically charge money while in the other he acts in a discriminatory way. I have no idea if this would actually hold up in court, and I'm kind of on the fence if it should or not, but the two circumstances are different.

 

[gsgary]

****ing religion it does my head in i will shoot anything any religion and sexuality, nudes are free

 

[Fred Berg]

Weapons. I find photos which seek to glamourise firearms particularly sickening.

 

[The_Traveler]

^^^^^^^^^
what Fred said.

Lew

 

[JSER]

If it was legal, anything

 

[ClickAddict]

The issue of a photographer saying no to a gay couple vs a restaurant / retail is that in the case of a restaurant/retail the owner is simply providing a service they do to everyone else. (Serve food, sell shoes...) For a photographer you are not just selling prints. You are forced to attend a religous ceremony which goes against your beliefs. In my mind if a photographer who is clearly against gay marriage (Which i am not. I fully support everyones rights), if they were to not sell some of their artwork to gays that would be wrong, but to refuse to attend a wedding would be justified. Certainly in those states that allow gay weddings, they do not force the priests to perform them do they? This of course would apply to any profession that would attend the wedding. (Musician's doing the ceremony, priests, photographers, videographers....)

 

[gsgary]

The issue of a photographer saying no to a gay couple vs a restaurant / retail is that in the case of a restaurant/retail the owner is simply providing a service they do to everyone else. (Serve food, sell shoes...) For a photographer you are not just selling prints. You are forced to attend a religous ceremony which goes against your beliefs. In my mind if a photographer who is clearly against gay marriage (Which i am not. I fully support everyones rights), if they were to not sell some of their artwork to gays that would be wrong, but to refuse to attend a wedding would be justified. Certainly in those states that allow gay weddings, they do not force the priests to perform them do they? This of course would apply to any profession that would attend the wedding. (Musician's doing the ceremony, priests, photographers, videographers....)

If you are doing a job it should not matter what religion they are or if they are gay you get the job done if not the photographer or what ever they are not fit to practise, what ever religion you are or sexuality you should help each other

 

[ClickAddict]

So would you say the same for the preist? Should he be forced to marrys gays? I find that crosses the line. His religous views are taken away from him. And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony. If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong. This of course is a personal belief. If I was a professional and doing weddings, I'd love to do gay weddings. Would be something different than most shots, wether it's 2 grooms or 2 brides, it would open up a lot of creative opportunites. And to me doing other religionswould be fine as well (I'd certainly want to attend one beforehand to get a feel of various rites they may perform so as not to miss anything critical) But to someone who is deeply into their religous beliefs and if those beliefs say gay marriage is wrong, they should not be forced to bear witness to the event, which is in effect also giving approval. I certainly understant the person who says it's a job I do it, my beliefs aside. All the power to them. I just don't think that mentality should be legeally imposed on everyone.

 

[Dikkie]

Baptism or immersion or somethings like that, for children.
Because they aren't able yet to choose to believe, or choose their religion.
It's always their parent/family who obligates the child without permission.
Can't agree... baptism at the age of +21 is ok for me.

 

[ClickAddict]

Oh and as for myself, once I get to a point where I would be taking on on clients, there's nothing (legal of course) I wouldn't shoot once I felt I was capable. (I'd start with family portraits, and engagement shots sort of thing first, refusing weddings, until I felt confident enough to to them.)

 

[12sndsgood]

I said I wouldn't do wedddings, did that and somewhat enjoyed it. Said I wouldnt do babies and Ive done two now and enjoyed it. I don't think i'm going to limit myself by writing down a hard line of what I would or wouldn't do until i'm asked to do it.