This is alarming! (photographer sued)

The fact that it is a Christian site is irrelevant -- can you post another one? I'd be happy to read it. (And how would the facts change? We are not disagreeing that the photographer disciminated.) But I think you are the one missing the point. If I turn someone down, I am discriminating as well. Why is it OK for me to say, "No, I won't shoot you in that outfit", but not for her to say, "That would violate my religious beliefs?" Why is it OK for a guy to say, "I won't photograph second marriages"? How is that not discrimination?

I say that this case is worth paying very close attention to -- I think you are naive to assume the outcome can't effect you and others. Photographers/artists may not, so easily, be able to preserve their "style."

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887176
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 never said that wasn't her reason -- the point seems to be that photographers better be VERY careful what they say or they can be sued. Saying that you "reserve the right to refuse service" could land you in court if you are pressed further. (I'm looking, but it seems that only religious or "conservative" sites are posting about this. I'd like a MSM site for balance.)

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887193
The fact that it is a Christian site is irrelevant -- can you post another one? I'd be happy to read it. (And how would the facts change? We are not disagreeing that the photographer disciminated.) But I think you are the one missing the point. If I turn someone down, I am discriminating as well. Why is it OK for me to say, "No, I won't shoot you in that outfit", but not for her to say, "That would violate my religious beliefs?" Why is it OK for a guy to say, "I won't photograph second marriages"? How is that not discrimination?

I say that this case is worth paying very close attention to -- I think you are naive to assume the outcome can't effect you and others. Photographers/artists may not, so easily, be able to preserve their "style."

You have to have a basis in the law to successfully sue. The law protects certain classes of people who have been traditionally discriminated against. It doesnt protect discriminating (a loaded word because of context) againt non protected classes. I can discriminate or more rightly refuse to work with someone because I dont want to as long as I'm not discriminating against the protected class. So once again I cant find any legal basis where your right to be conservative is endangered. The case of the folks with the prohibition against second weddings might skate a bit closer to that line as second marriages are an issue with some religions, but once again the photographer would have to base that rejection in an actionable act of discrimination.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887193
The fact that it is a Christian site is irrelevant -- can you post another one? I'd be happy to read it. (And how would the facts change? We are not disagreeing that the photographer disciminated.) But I think you are the one missing the point. If I turn someone down, I am discriminating as well. Why is it OK for me to say, "No, I won't shoot you in that outfit", but not for her to say, "That would violate my religious beliefs?" Why is it OK for a guy to say, "I won't photograph second marriages"? How is that not discrimination?

I say that this case is worth paying very close attention to -- I think you are naive to assume the outcome can't effect you and others. Photographers/artists may not, so easily, be able to preserve their "style."

Its irrelevant? Its slanted to a non-gay politically motivated point of view. You have religion that has been high jacked by politicians and politics so how could it be irrelevant. Lets see what the courts have to say. I gotta feeling for them to take the case there is much more to it than whats in the article.

Put this on the back of your business cards:

"This is a private business. I reserve the right to refuse my personal services to anyone - without stating cause or reason."

bubbygator wrote in post #14887292
Put this on the back of your business cards:

"This is a private business. I reserve the right to refuse my personal services to anyone - without stating cause or reason."

And that has all the legal effect of a white bit of toilet tissue if you actually discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual preference.

I believe in money and supporting my family. I can't imagine being so overbooked that I'd need to turn down anyone unless they seemed shady or troublesome in a way that would prevent me from being paid. That said, I know some of you guys are always wall-to-wall booked. It happens.

Discrimination/racism/​sexism exists. Denying goods or services because of any of these is illegal, and any business operator opens themselves up to legal proceedings. That's really the only thing that's relevant here.

In choosing to operate a business in the US you are subject to this and all other relevant laws. If someone gets caught denying service and it can be legally proven in court, then I would expect the proprietor to be open to litigation.

What this photographer did is tantamount to a restaurant owner denying service to people for being black. Drop the hammer on her.

I was going to post something, but yours says it all very succinctly. Law does not protect your beliefs, whether or not based on religion if they are discriminatory. a restaurant can refuse to serve you if you dont have a shirt on, but not for being black. Or if you are of a religious persuasion who believes people of other religion are dirty (and this is definitely consistent with certain religious beliefs), can you refuse service? The answer is No. there are certain discriminations which are against the law, and the photographer here made it clear thats the reason she is not doing the photography. The only legal question remaining is as a photographer do you provide public accomodation. That I am not a lawyer or judge, and have no understanding of the law.
By the way, this law suite is not about monetary gain. They judgment is for legal fees, not any damages. it is to make a point.

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887051
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.

kevindar wrote in post #14887663
I was going to post something, but yours says it all very succinctly. Law does not protect your beliefs, whether or not based on religion if they are discriminatory. a restaurant can refuse to serve you if you dont have a shirt on, but not for being black. Or if you are of a religious persuasion who believes people of other religion are dirty (and this is definitely consistent with certain religious beliefs), can you refuse service? The answer is No. there are certain discriminations which are against the law, and the photographer here made it clear thats the reason she is not doing the photography. The only legal question remaining is as a photographer do you provide public accomodation. That I am not a lawyer or judge, and have no understanding of the law.
By the way, this law suite is not about monetary gain. They judgment is for legal fees, not any damages. it is to make a point.

OK, there's a real problem here because the RELIGIOUS are a protected class as well (not just by some current creation, but specifically protected in the Constitution itself) and religion discriminates. That is the issue with this particular case. Also, matters of conscience . . . the example of should an animal-rights activist be required to photograph a hunting party is a good one. Scary laws and sue-happy people seem to be a risk that photographers need to be aware of. Again, it's about WHAT YOU SAY to your customers when turning them down.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14887237
Its irrelevant? Its slanted to a non-gay politically motivated point of view. You have religion that has been high jacked by politicians and politics so how could it be irrelevant. Lets see what the courts have to say. I gotta feeling for them to take the case there is much more to it than whats in the article.

No one is disputing the facts of the case -- the religious site is posting them (as of Aug. 18.) I wish another site would if there is more information to be had. I do think it bodes well for the photographer that the case is being taken up. Regardless, this case should be of interest to all professional photographers.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887872
No one is disputing the facts of the case -- the religious site is posting them (as of Aug. 18.) I wish another site would if there is more information to be had. I do think it bodes well for the photographer that the case is being taken up. Regardless, this case should be of interest to all professional photographers.

To say why only religious sites are posting these stories would invite a broader political discussion that are frowned upon here.

There is laws to protect people from being discrimated against you can not use any of the following to decide if you will or won't work with some one
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age;


This is all standered HR stuff if you have ever had a job in a company with more then a few employees I'm sure this has been bought up many times ( ii know I get an anule reminder )

You could also end up getting sued if you ask a question such as : what country are you from ?
Because that should have no basis on wether you will work with them or not

You could how ever ask: do you speak fluent English as comunication is an important part of us working together?

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887884
To say why only religious sites are posting these stories would invite a broader political discussion that are frowned upon here.

Likewise the "restaurant" analogy.

But, it doesn't matter why it's being reported or not -- it's still a real case and it's happening now and could impact many.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887872
... I wish another site would if there is more information to be had. ....

Google "NM Photographer Fined" and you get lots of hits. After reading a few more articles I think that the photographer should loose. The photographers lawyer argued that the reason they did not take the job is because of their lifestyle and not for another reason. I'm smelling a rat though. I would not be surprised if the whole incident was staged. Couple come in for pictures, photographers make a stand based on beliefs and they push it to the supreme court over a 7k fine. It's a setup I tell ya, a staged case.