Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography
Thread started 01 Dec 2017 (Friday) 08:35
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Cakes and Constitutionality: SCOTUS case would impact all businesses

 
this thread is locked
Nathan
So boring
Nathan's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Boston
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Nathan.
Dec 01, 2017 08:35 |  #1

Impact may be the wrong word, but this case will serve as new standard for how people should conduct their businesses, including photography. This case has to do with a bake shop discriminating against sexual orientation based on religious beliefs. We've already seen some news accounts of photographers getting in trouble for refusing certain clients.

Politics aside (that's against the rules here), I thought this would be of interest to members here.

http://www.abajournal.​com ...s_to_not_serve_cust​omers/ (external link)

It's a very interesting read and I think photographers here will draw direct correlations (expressive activity, first amendment rights, compelled speech versus freedom of speech).


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
moose10101
registered smartass
1,570 posts
Joined May 2010
Maryland, USA
Dec 01, 2017 18:34 |  #2

It’s a very interesting and significant case. I’ve been reading some of the amicus briefs; definitely not a casual read.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Dec 01, 2017 21:36 |  #3

There have already been similar cases of in the field of photography.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,961 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by CyberDyneSystems.
Dec 01, 2017 22:52 |  #4

Indeed, and that is likely why Nathan posted it on the photography forum.

I don't think any of those photo related cases made it to the US Supreme Court though.

I would like to see SCOTUS put this to bed for good, but I have to admit that after some of the decisions they've made with the majority of the justices we have now, I am not 100% confident in their ability to make the correct decision.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,642 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Dec 01, 2017 22:58 |  #5

Mods! Oh, mods! Jake is talking politics!


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Dec 02, 2017 13:32 |  #6

OhLook wrote in post #18508589 (external link)
Mods! Oh, mods! Jake is talking politics!


Jake has not mentioned political parties, siding with one versus another, nor chosen sides with individuals based upon political beliefs. He HAS questioned the soundness of decision making of a theoretically non-partisan body, which is more an issue of psychological evaluation (craziness of decisions) rather than politics.
Furthermore, one might say that questioning the motives of our houses of government is more an issue of educational status or medical status ("are they idiots or simply stupid?!") ...the status of 'idiot' is rating on the scale of intellectual disablement, while 'stupid' assesses the showing of a great lack of intelligence or common sense


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
archfotos
Member
87 posts
Joined May 2016
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by archfotos. 5 edits done in total.
Dec 05, 2017 07:32 as a reply to CyberDyneSystems's post |  #7

First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?! And why claim religious or artistic freedoms? I wonder if there are any underling economics involved - what if he primary serves ultra-conservative weddings and doesn't want to be band from their word-of-mouth recommendations.

If this is the case then no court can overrule capitalism it will be a continuing problem for small business. Do the photographers covering the pipeline protesters get hired on by the oil companies? If an adult video production company tries to hire a videographer are they going to be forced to take the job? There are so many what ifs...

I personally don't have enough clients to turn anyone away especially not upper end clients that would be happy to pay premium costs. But it seems if I had so many clients I could just have a business policy not to use a religious freedom excuse.

p.s. Just to set the record straight I'd have no problem working for anyone, lgbt, Halliburton, Exxon, as long as they paid me my rate.


DC Photographer (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Post has been edited 1 month ago by nathancarter.
Dec 05, 2017 09:44 |  #8

archfotos wrote in post #18511005 (external link)
First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?! And why claim religious or artistic freedoms? I wonder if there are any underling economics involved - what if he primary serves ultra-conservative weddings and doesn't want to be band from their word-of-mouth recommendations.


It's not an issue of capitalism, it's an issue of protected classes. If a baker denies service to a couple because they don't want to make cakes for black people, would that be OK? No, because in this instance, race is a protected class.

The problem gets murky when a class of people is protected by government but vilified by a religious group. Does the religious group's right to ostracize a class of people supersede that group's protections afforded by the government?

archfotos wrote in post #18511005 (external link)
If this is the case then no court can overrule capitalism it will be a continuing problem for small business. Do the photographers covering the pipeline protesters get hired on by the oil companies? If an adult video production company tries to hire a videographer are they going to be forced to take the job? There are so many what ifs...

That's not the right slippery-slope, because "Photographer" is not a protected class.

Please allow me to direct you to a more relevant slippery-slope:
What if a religious group decided that they didn't want to serve black people?


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,642 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Dec 05, 2017 11:08 |  #9

archfotos wrote in post #18511005 (external link)
First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?!

The case may seem petty on first thought, but the issues behind it aren't. The page that the OP linked to has a long section of comments attached. Some of the discussion there clarifies what the underlying conflict is.

The Colorado couple could go to another bakery for their cake. That'd be much easier than going to court. Or the baker could decide that overriding his beliefs just this one time and making the cake was easier on him than going to court. But both sides want to establish that the right they're claiming should be upheld.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,509 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Post has been edited 1 month ago by gjl711.
Dec 05, 2017 11:12 |  #10

nathancarter wrote in post #18511110 (external link)
It's not an issue of capitalism, it's an issue of protected classes. If a baker denies service to a couple because they don't want to make cakes for black people, would that be OK? No, because in this instance, race is a protected class.

The problem gets murky when a class of people is protected by government but vilified by a religious group. Does the religious group's right to ostracize a class of people supersede that group's protections afforded by the government?

That's not the right slippery-slope, because "Photographer" is not a protected class.

Please allow me to direct you to a more relevant slippery-slope:
What if a religious group decided that they didn't want to serve black people?

It could get a lot more complex. Does anyone in business have the right to refuse service to anyone else for whatever reason? If someone comes to you and requests that you shoot their <inset the most vile group you can think of> meeting, can you say no? Unfortunately, this case will have a winner and a loser. There is no middle ground and to properly discuss, it's going to get very political which is a big nono here.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

658 views & 3 likes for this thread
Cakes and Constitutionality: SCOTUS case would impact all businesses
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00118 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is hub21
895 guests, 450 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017