This is alarming! (photographer sued)

To everyone: Don't you feel it would be good to move on and let this fire burn itself out? It certainly doesn't need a fresh supply of gasoline, does it?

gonzogolf wrote in post #14891893
If you look at the lawsuit this photographer's business is actually a public accommodation, not simply as you say a private business.

It's my limited understanding that public accomodations are physical establishments. I'm not sure wedding photography as a service falls under the categories of public accomodation. If this case was about taking photos at the photographer's studio, I'd come out on the other side of the law and say that the studio is indeed a place of public accomodation.

Nathan wrote in post #14891910
Putting myself out on a limb here and will probably be shot down:

I'm religiously agnostic. Many of my closest friends in college were born-again Christians. I work in Boston and I'm proud to support gay marriage and that I live in a state that does, too.

That said - I agree with the photographer's right to turn away customers. Because the photographer feels that working a gay marriage fundamentally offends her core set of beliefs, then she should be able to turn the customer away respectfully without fear that the legal system would obligate her to work against her will or suffer consequences. To some people, it may seem bigoted or hateful or whatever you wish to call it... but right or wrong, do people not have the right to be bigoted and hateful?

From a moral point of view, I think the photographer in this case is wrong. From a legal point of view, I think the photographer is in the right.

You won't be shot down -- apparently, political and religious free-for-all is fair game on the board now . . .

David Arbogast wrote in post #14891955
To everyone: Don't you feel it would be good to move on and let this fire burn itself out? It certainly doesn't need a fresh supply of gasoline, does it?

Yeah, I have made my point about tolerance towards our fellow human beings (all of them, including gays).

So, I'm out of here.

David Arbogast wrote in post #14891955
To everyone: Don't you feel it would be good to move on and let this fire burn itself out? It certainly doesn't need a fresh supply of gasoline, does it?

Since this is turning into an anti-religious tirade, I have reported it and it should be locked soon. If I am not allowed to fully respond, then they should not be allowed to fully attack.

SkyBaby wrote in post #14891837
It's her choice. She's a private business. All she needs to do is have a sign somewhere (or put it on the back of her business cards) that reads "I hold the right to refuse service to anyone" and she is golden.

Sorry, SkyBaby. It didn't work for the owner of a "whites only" lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960, and it's not going to work today.

Nathan wrote in post #14891958
It's my limited understanding that public accomodations are physical establishments. I'm not sure wedding photography as a service falls under the categories of public accomodation. If this case was about taking photos at the photographer's studio, I'd come out on the other side of the law and say that the studio is indeed a place of public accomodation.

The lower courts did call it a public accommodation. I think the determination was that the photographer owned and advertised a studio open to the public and that regardlesss of the physical location the photos were taken the business was an accomodation.

Say I am NOT in a licensed/professional/​whatever business. Say I am a (highly talented) amateur photographer (with great equipment) who shoots weddings of my friends/acquaintances. If someone asks me to shoot their wedding, can I be sued if I say no???
... or can I legally just hand them my card that says "I reserve the right to refuse anything!"

YankeeMom wrote in post #14891984
Since this is turning into an anti-religious tirade, I have reported it and it should be locked soon. If I am not allowed to fully respond, then they should not be allowed to fully attack.

Nobody has attacked you or anyone else. Since the first post, (actually the title of the thread) you have attempted to inflame and paint yourself as someone on the losing side of some discussion. When people respond with something you do not like, it goes to the same responses by you, and the same excuses as to why you can't explain yourself.

if you really feel that way, please do not post things like this any more, because this cae is clearly about politics and religion. however, above both, it is about photography and thus all are pertinent to the discussion.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14891984
Since this is turning into an anti-religious tirade, I have reported it and it should be locked soon. If I am not allowed to fully respond, then they should not be allowed to fully attack.

I agree.

bubbygator wrote in post #14892003
Say I am NOT in a licensed/professional/​whatever business. Say I am a (highly talented) amateur photographer (with great equipment) who shoots weddings of my friends/acquaintances. If someone asks me to shoot their wedding, can I be sued if I say no???
... or can I legally just hand them my card that says "I reserve the right to refuse anything!"

You aren't in business. Just say no. Why is this so difficult?

bubbygator wrote in post #14892003
Say I am NOT in a licensed/professional/​whatever business. Say I am a (highly talented) amateur photographer (with great equipment) who shoots weddings of my friends/acquaintances. If someone asks me to shoot their wedding, can I be sued if I say no???
... or can I legally just hand them my card that says "I reserve the right to refuse anything!"

If you arent in business, then no you cant be made to serve them professionally.

mikeinctown wrote in post #14892019
Nobody has attacked you or anyone else. Since the first post, (actually the title of the thread) you have attempted to inflame and paint yourself as someone on the losing side of some discussion. When people respond with something you do not like, it goes to the same responses by you, and the same excuses as to why you can't explain yourself.

if you really feel that way, please do not post things like this any more, because this cae is clearly about politics and religion. however, above both, it is about photography and thus all are pertinent to the discussion.

First of all, don't tell me what to post.

Second, don't blame me for you or anyone else's bad behavior or for breaking board rules.

Third, the case is active (not settled) and has a long-reaching affect to many photographers. I could care less if a.) it affects you personally or b.) what you think about the merits of the case.

Fourth, it's clear that you and the tough guys are just using this case as an excuse to air your biases in a setting where you cannot really be challenged (coward-like.)

Fifth, for those who care about libertarian principles, pay attention to this case.

Closed for repairs.

It has been determined that this thread his damaged beyond repair and shall remain closed.