Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 07 Apr 2014 (Monday) 21:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Supreme Court and Photography

 
this thread is locked
h2ofarmer
Member
Avatar
38 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
     
Apr 11, 2014 14:47 as a reply to  @ post 16817626 |  #271

excellent reply


Gear:
Canon EOS 5D Mark III .... Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,807 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8941
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Apr 11, 2014 16:05 |  #272

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16826739 (external link)
I've never seen any documents from ancient cultures stating specifically why marriage was developed. I don't think they exist.

The evidence isn't in documents. It's in our brains and bodies.

hairy_moth wrote in post #16826776 (external link)
So, as a wedding photographer, do you feel compelled to accept any ceremony? If you were asked to cover a bris, or a bar mitzvah, would you, as a wedding photographer, feel compelled by law to accept that job?

Under the assumption, of course, that you're not Jewish.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,882 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8755
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Apr 11, 2014 16:40 |  #273

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16826739 (external link)
... I've never seen any documents from ancient cultures stating specifically why marriage was developed....

Actually, I'm pretty sure that historically it is clear that marriage was a business transaction long before religion got involved. The union of clans.. etc.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:14 |  #274

hairy_moth wrote in post #16826776 (external link)
Hmm.. Who doesn't understand? The fact that this reached the US Supreme Court (they didn't hear the case, but it landed there and they decided to let the lower court ruling stand) indicates that this was anything but a cut and dry case.

Are you aware that New Mexico does not have same-sex marriages or even same-sex civil unions? This was not a "Marriage Ceremony" by any stretch of the imagination.. it was a "Commitment Ceremony."
Even if you believe that a "wedding photographer" does not have the right to turn down a wedding, do you really believe that 'turning down a "commitment ceremony" falls under the "not knowing the first thing about running a business" category. Maybe, if NM had same sex civil unions, it could have been classified as such.

So, as a wedding photographer, do you feel compelled to accept any ceremony? If you were asked to cover a bris, or a bar mitzvah, would you, as a wedding photographer, feel compelled by law to accept that job?

In a state without civil unions, those are about as close to a wedding as a "commitment ceremony." Maybe you have a moral objection to cutting off sensitive parts of the body, or you are grossed out by it, does that matter? Be careful though, Jewish people are a protected class, you can't discriminate against them legally.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I approach life like Banquet Bear -- I don't get exercised about how others live their lives. But, if I did, I would never turn away a client based on a prejudice against a protected class, BECAUSE I'M NOT STUPID! If the law says I can't refuse service because of reasons A - Z? I'm not going to refuse service.

Now, you (like far too many people on this thread) are creating quibbles and strawmen that have nothing to do with the question at hand. But let's expand the argument. Let's say I advertise myself as an event photographer. I would still not refuse service to a member of a protected class because of their membership in said class. Now I might inform a potential client that I am unfamiliar with the workings of a bris, what the most important moments are and when various participants might be most likely to be a good or significant shot and that I might not be the best person to shoot the event (which is true). But if they still hired me, I'd shoot it.

Now explain to me how that argument would work for a wedding between two straight people versus a wedding between two gay people.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:39 |  #275

A question based on something brought up earlier (it being a commitment ceremony)

How specialized can you expect to be under these circumstances?
If you set up a wedding photography business and then are expected to also shoot commitment ceremonies, what parameters can you set for your business?

Just as someone can set up a kosher deli, can you set up a "Christian wedding photography" business and specialize in those faith based ceremonies if you never imply you do anything else?

What if you are a "family event" photographer that does birthday's, bar mitzvas, sweet 16s, etc do you think someone could try to hire you for a wedding and you turn that down?

I feel like that because this isn't a regulated business, you might intend to do one thing, but be required to do another because of who asked you to do it. If you say you do "engagement photos" but not weddings can you be "forced" to photograph any couple that asks?

Just some thoughts...


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:47 |  #276

Interesting argument...
A kosher deli does not have to serve non-kosher food, but they CANNOT refuse service to a member of a protected class.

I suppose you could set up a Christian wedding photography business and only shoot Christian weddings, but I would think you would have to serve any person who wanted to have a Christian wedding and some Christian sects consecrate same sex marriages, so... guess you're back at square one.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:51 |  #277

AlFooteIII wrote in post #16827246 (external link)
I would never turn away a client based on a prejudice against a protected class, BECAUSE I'M NOT STUPID!

The law she was accused of violating was a "public accommodation" law. The Court of Appeals determined that a photo studio is considered a public accommodation. Now maybe that is common sense to you, but as far as I know, no photography studio has ever been determined by the court to be a public accommodation. She did turn down the event because of "membership in said class." She turned it down because she only did traditional weddings -- this wasn't a wedding. I am not saying she was right or wrong, just that it was not a case of "not knowing the first thing about running a business." There are 19 pages of arguments in this thread alone with people on either side, there is not even agreement in this forum, and I venture to say that many of them, on either side, run very successful business.


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:55 |  #278

Your analogy isn't, er, analogous. A kosher deli isn't discriminating by virtue of only selling kosher food, because (normally speaking) they aren't refusing their service to anyone.

Engagement photography and wedding photography are fairly distinct categories of photography; and as far as I know, there is nothing about any law that suggests you are compelled to suddenly shoot a genre outside of your ostensible specialty.

What gets sort of ridiculous to me is the idea that shooting a gay wedding counts as a different genre (different from a 'hetero' wedding). In actuality if you were to watch a wedding photographer shoot a 'hetero' wedding, you could replace the hetero couple with gay folk and the photographer wouldn't really have to require any more or less photographic skills to do their job well. For me this makes it fairly clear that from a photographer's perspective there really isn't a genre distinction that one could potentially use to argue for being able to discriminate without legal repercussions.

MattPharmD wrote in post #16827283 (external link)
A question based on something brought up earlier (it being a commitment ceremony)

How specialized can you expect to be under these circumstances?
If you set up a wedding photography business and then are expected to also shoot commitment ceremonies, what parameters can you set for your business?

Just as someone can set up a kosher deli, can you set up a "Christian wedding photography" business and specialize in those faith based ceremonies if you never imply you do anything else?

What if you are a "family event" photographer that does birthday's, bar mitzvas, sweet 16s, etc do you think someone could try to hire you for a wedding and you turn that down?

I feel like that because this isn't a regulated business, you might intend to do one thing, but be required to do another because of who asked you to do it. If you say you do "engagement photos" but not weddings can you be "forced" to photograph any couple that asks?

Just some thoughts...



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Apr 11, 2014 19:58 |  #279

More quibbling. "She turned it down because she only did traditional weddings-- this wasn't a wedding."

Explain this?

Willock sent Elane Photography the following email inquiry:
We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM.
This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing infomlation.
Thanks

Later on the same day, Ms. Elaine Huguenin gave the following response to Ms. Willock:

Hello Vanessa,
As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer's portfolios.
-Elaine-

Ms. Willock was not sure whether Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response meant that Elane Photography did or did not offer its services to same-gender couples and sought clarification on November 28, 2006, as follows:

Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I'm a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
Thanks,
V,messa

On November 28, Ms. Elaine Huguenin clarified her previous response to Ms. Willock in the following way:

Hello Vanessa,
Sony if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!
Have a great day.
-Elaine


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:01 |  #280

Skip Souza wrote in post #16821430 (external link)
While my religious beliefs may state the same sex weddings are wrong, it is not my place to enforce those beliefs on the happy couple. Their union does not affect me in the least. Hope they have a happy life.

My question is why do the same sex couple believe that it is their RIGHT to force me to participate in their wedding that I for religious reasons find sinful. I may recognize their legal union but why must I Participate? Should I be able to go to Ishmael, the Kosher Caterer and force him to provide ham dinners?

This whole issue was not about the couple obtaining photography for their wedding, it was about them being able to force their will upon those that have a belief of faith that rejects their acts, nothing more.

I have to chime in here. Skip you nailed the issue 100%. I agree that you should serve and sell to the general public at large. But it's the forcing of religious people to PARTICIPATE in and promote (via their art) activities and BEHAVIOR that, by the tenets of their faith, is immoral, is the real concern in this case (religious freedom is our first right in the Constitution.) I think that one of the reasons this case could have been ignored is because a similar case is being heard concerning Hobby Lobby and religious freedom.

Sadly, it's an issue that (and this thread proves) can rarely be talked about or considered with attack and name-calling (thus our continued and growing cultural divide.) Similarly, I find the pretense of astonishment that this issue is a religious affront, to be disingenuous and dishonest.


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:03 |  #281

AlFooteIII wrote in post #16827315 (external link)
More quibbling. "She turned it down because she only did traditional weddings-- this wasn't a wedding."

Explain this?

There is no such thing as a same sex wedding in NM -- of course she doesn't cover it.


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:08 |  #282

Luckless wrote in post #16823839 (external link)
So, the law as written allows Person A to hold a view and legally discriminate against Person B, but Person B, holding the exactly opposite view of Person A will not only be breaking the law for doing the exact same thing as Person A, but society in general is encouraged to hate Person B?


This doesn't sound horribly broken to anyone?

YES. It is unequal protection under the law.


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:15 |  #283

So really you have no argument other than a gay couple's ceremony pledging the joining of their lives doesn't use the same word as a straight couple's ceremony pledging the joining of their lives.

Just so you understand how ridiculous that sounds for a professional to think that quibble holds any legal water.

YankeeMom -- the Hobby Lobby case has nothing to do with denying service to a protected class. Same with Luckless' strawman.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:17 |  #284

The Hobby Lobby case is about religious conscience and will certainly affect future law. Other states are pushing legislation similar to what was vetoed in Arizona. This will strengthen the protection (since the religious are, likewise, a "protected class.")


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,171 posts
Gallery: 263 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7902
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 11, 2014 20:21 |  #285

YankeeMom wrote in post #16827352 (external link)
The Hobby Lobby case is about religious conscience and will certainly affect future law. Other states are pushing legislation similar to what was vetoed in Arizona. This will strengthen the protection (since the religious are, likewise, a "protected class.")

Please stick to photography and the supreme court. We aren't allowed to verge into religion nor politics and any response to your last couple of posts require going into both topics.




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

30,761 views & 0 likes for this thread
Supreme Court and Photography
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is pamira
861 guests, 252 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.