This is alarming! (photographer sued)

Can the government tell us what JOBS to take?? I pick-and-choose and turn down jobs all the time for a myriad of reasons. Can I now be SUED if I say no? Since when are we required to accept every job offer and can this case stand?

http://www.christianpo​st.com …-film-gay-ceremony-80205/

You can be sued if you are outright stupid enough to say that you are discriminating against someone.

This is where things get gray.

Case #1 = I have never done this type of photo event and I think that I would not be the best person for the job. You should find someone better, I would screw it up.

Case #2 = You people disgust me, I would never photograph an event like that. It's against my beliefs.

Case one I suspect would never have gone to court. I'm sensing that there was maybe a bit too much of case 2 involved.

Interestingly, I've seen wedding photog sites where they set other standards, like first-time weddings only. Religious weddings only. People who specialize in particular types of weddings (like Jewish ceremonies.) I, personally, market to homeschooled Seniors (in part, because they don't usually think to get Senior pics done), could I be forced to shoot public schooled Seniors? I also won't do sexualized or Vogue-type Senior pictures -- could that land me in COURT?

I guess the key here is to be careful what you say when you turn someone down and this is something new photogs should be instructed on as much as any other business policy. (still disturbing, though.)

"Case #2 = You people disgust me, I would never photograph an event like that. It's against my beliefs."

I highly doubt that anyone would say, "You people disgust me", when turning down the job, including the photog in this case.

A couple of issues occur to me. If your business model is setup where you generally get the word out by word of mouth, or networking its unlikely that anything remotely like this will ever happen to you. But lets say you put your name on a building, and adverstise your services. Once you do that you become in effect a public accomodation, you serve the paying public. Now because you have limited resources, namely time, you still have some right to limit who you serve. What you cant do is discriminate against members of the public based on religion, gender, race, or sexual preference. As for doubting whether someone actually said "you people disgust me" perhaps not, but all the articles I've read on this indicate the photographer refused to do the job based on the clients being gay. So regardless of the verbage, the idea was communicated.

To your specifics. You probably cant be sued for refusing a public school kid, unless he is of a protected minority and you made the reason clear. The rest comes down to style, nobody can sue you to take a photo in a style that you dont agree with.

She should never have been sued. She should have a right to turn down what she wants to turn down without being branded a hater and paying a fine for her beliefs. The ladies should have just found another photog and left it at that.

I love the last line of the article. It illustrates this point perfectly.

I turn down work all the time because its not what I do. I don't think a cardiothoracic surgeon would do micro neurosurgery and I'm sure he turns away those kinds of surgeries as he should. In America you can be sued for anything at anytime. The court just said they would hear arguments and that doesn't mean that they will win. And consider the site that posted this. Maybe we're not getting the entire story?

SkyBaby wrote in post #14887074
She should never have been sued. She should have a right to turn down what she wants to turn down without being branded a hater and paying a fine for her beliefs. The ladies should have just found another photog and left it at that.

I love the last line of the article. It illustrates this point perfectly.

Where do you draw the line? Should other business follow suit? Should the local grocery store refuse to serve them? Should the local pharmacist refuse them?

YankeeMom wrote in post #14886982
"Case #2 = You people disgust me, I would never photograph an event like that. It's against my beliefs."

I highly doubt that anyone would say, "You people disgust me", when turning down the job, including the photog in this case.

Perhaps not so directly but in reality this is what she was saying in perhaps a nicer way.

When we were first setting up to go full time my lawyer suggested that we add the phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at our discretion" to some of our marketing materials that were being handed out at the beginning. I've seen the same thing in many other businesses. I just don't see how someone can get sued over something like this. I would have simply said that I was already booked on the date in question if I didn't want to shoot it.

UGH -- this country is just WAY too sue-happy. Even my situation could become precarious, even thought it's unlikely. (Yes, she admitted that she didn't want to take the pics because they are gay, but what about the photographers who won't do 2nd marriages? And I'm not so sure that I can't get into trouble if I don't want to take sexy Senior pics, especially if the kid is a minority.) We all discriminate to some point; isn't that the same as saying, "It's not my style"?

As for the case, it was originally determined in 2008 -- this is an appeal and I can't find info. about it anywhere else! (I looked.) I am just very interested in this (for obvious reasons.)

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887105
Where do you draw the line? Should other business follow suit? Should the local grocery store refuse to serve them? Should the local pharmacist refuse them?

That's the problem -- right? Do we, as photographers, have to serve EVERYBODY? Can we pick and choose. I just turned down a wedding -- can they SUE?!

Explain how someone could successfully sue you for not taking sexy photos? Even if they were a minority. When someone hires you they do it for your skills and ability to create an image. You cant be forced to to shoot nudes for instance. You are buying into the hysteria and letting yourself be distracted from the legal basis of the suit. This is one of the problems of issues like this, the article you cited is from a pro christian source, and they want to make it seem like the person's creative freedom is compromised. But if you look at the facts, thats not what its about. Its about a business that is open to the public, not serving that public because of bias. A bias that you may or may not agree with, but the law doesnt.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887143
That's the problem -- right? Do we, as photographers, have to serve EVERYBODY? Can we pick and choose. I just turned down a wedding -- can they SUE?!

Did you say to the bride and groom, I cant serve you because you are (black, jewish, gay, muslim, etc?) insert minority here....... No, you didnt. If you offered a reasonable reason for not working with them, one that didnt violate the law, then you are golden. Please dont pretend that this isnt about discrimination based on the fact the people were gay.

I think if I'm not mistaken we are the only non-third world country where the loosing party doesn't have to pay all the cost. Also I'm pretty sure we are not getting the entire story from that article.