This is alarming! (photographer sued)

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887905
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.

It's only going to impact those that openly discriminate. You keep speaking of some greater risk, but there really isnt one. Thats buying into the fearmongering.

gjl711 wrote in post #14887933
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.

Yes, you can find articles on the 2008 case, but not on the appeal that is being set to be heard soon. (And I don't want to be the next set-up or "test case" . . .)

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887947
It's only going to impact those that openly discriminate. You keep speaking of some greater risk, but there really isnt one. Thats buying into the fearmongering.

It's a scary, sue-happy world . . .

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887966
It's a scary, sue-happy world . . .

But its actually not. There are people with a vested interest in making you think so. But how many people do you personally know that have been sued capriciously?

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887905
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.

Yes It's a real case, but it happened years ago, and the only people who can learn from it are probably too stupid to do so.

Seriously, we all know the laws regarding discrimination, and we know that if someone is stupid enough to offer some religious belief to attempt to bypass the law, then they're going to look at this case and determine that the law is wrong. So IMO the many that could be effected probably deserve it.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887958
Yes, you can find articles on the 2008 case, but not on the appeal that is being set to be heard soon. (And I don't want to be the next set-up or "test case" . . .)

Well it's easy to avoid, just like speeding tickets, just stay the right side of the law.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887858
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.

Ok. so this case can be argued on many levels, ethical an legal. First, there is an obvious hypocrisy for anyone that sites religion as their objection to homosexuality and gay marriage. Adultary is one of the 3 mortal sins in judocristians, the other two being Blasphemy and Murder. It is part of the 10 comandments. Does the photographer ask his clients if they have already had sex? or have they been previously married, and this marriage is now growing out of an adultrerous relationship? Is not adultery a much bigger threat to sanctity of stability of marriage than gays?
but I digress. This is a legal issue.
So you can question whether any portion of population deserves laws protecting them against discrimination. The fact is there are such laws, for segments of the population which have been traditional persecuted. And most would agree for good reason. The animal right activist analogy does not apply here, b/c simply, vivisectionists and taxodermists are not a protected group that have been persecuted. simple as that.
The mere reason that these laws exist, is to protect those minorities.
Now comes the issue of religious rights vs anti discrimination laws. The religious freedoms protected by the constitution is to allow us to practice our religion without fear of persecution, within confines of law. So Polygamy is illegal, though its a part of certain religions.
Essentially, when it comes to that, the rights of your fist ends when my nose starts. You can practice your rights as long as they dont impinge on laws and rights of the others.
Christianity is not and should not be protected than any other religion when it comes to freedom of religion. In fact the spirit of this freedom was again to protect the minorities. However, the public laws and rules and freedoms of others is the limit for anyone's religious freedom.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887858
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.

We are granted religious freedom via the first amendment, of course. But no freedom is absolute. You cannot take the first amendment as excuse to impugn the rights and freedoms of another. Nor does religious freedom supersede federal law. The government doesn't allow Rastafarians to use cannabis as part of their religious practice, for example. Nor are Mormons permitted to be bigamists (not that they really practice that much these days).

We've been through this kind of thing before, the same arguments used to be used against interracial marriages. But we determined that this kind of discrimination wasn't right, or more the point, wasn't constitutional. So while there were some who found interracial marriages reprehensible, the law says that if you are going to offer services to people of the same race who marry, you have to offer them to people of different races too.

So, if you're going to operate a service to the public and you don't want to be sued, don't deny your services to protected classes.

And, as has been brought up already, "hunters" are not protected classes. You can stop bringing that up as a good example, it's really not.

I am not going to get into the religion V gay debate -- but, what I want to know (and what this case might determine) is if a wedding photographer has the RIGHT to limit his/her jobs to just conservative Christian/Jewish/Musli​m, first-time weddings? I know photographers who do that (and advertise that way) -- are they in jeopardy? I find this whole thing very personally threatening, particularly as I move forward in this field. I am not asking if people APPROVE of this policy -- just the legality of it. Can we not focus on our own interests? This is why the lawsuit alarms me.

A restaurant can refuse to serve someone because they are not properly dressed, because they are obnoxious, because they are too busy, or any number of reasons of conduct or behavior. What they can't do is say "we don't serve your kind". You can't distriminate based on race, religion, belief, etc. The photographer could have lied and said they had the stomach flu and everything would be fine. The same way some restaurants require a tie and jacket to keep out the riff-raff, but outrighly denying service based on beleif is not legal.

The line of "it's my business and I will serve who I want" was also used during the black movement.

That was an example of a violation of conscience.

gonzogolf wrote in post #14887996
But its actually not. There are people with a vested interest in making you think so. But how many people do you personally know that have been sued capriciously?

Two. I know of two...personally.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14887958
(And I don't want to be the next set-up or "test case" . . .)

Well, that's easy to avoid. Don't discriminate against anybody because they are gay, or black, or jewish, or moslem etc.

If you treat all potential clients equally, as human beings, then you won't have a problem. I no longer do weddings, but when I did I accepted weddings in a variety of shapes and sizes, including some involving "minority" groups. Yes, I was sometimes out of my comfort zone, I initially had no idea what to expect at a Jehovah's Witness wedding for example. However, I got to observe others rituals and ways at close hand and met some interesting people in the process.

They didn't all hold the same beliefs as myself, yet one of my beliefs is that everybody has the right to be themselves and believe what they wish. I would never discriminate because theirs are different to mine. They are still human beings wanting to celebrate their love for each other. My only part in that was to capture the memories for them as best I could, my belief system, their race, creed or sexuality had no bearing on whether or not I accepted a shoot.

Treat people equally and you won't have a problem, I don't understand what you are worrying about.

My husband and I were many years ago. (Not over an issue like this.) Thankfully, the case was dismissed, but it is very scary.

YankeeMom wrote in post #14888173
I am not going to get into the religion V gay debate -- but, what I want to know (and what this case might determine) is if a wedding photographer has the RIGHT to limit his/her jobs to just conservative Christian/Jewish/Musli​m, first-time weddings? I know photographers who do that (and advertise that way) -- are they in jeopardy? I find this whole thing very personally threatening, particularly as I move forward in this field. I am not asking if people APPROVE of this policy -- just the legality of it. Can we not focus on our own interests? This is why the lawsuit alarms me.

You can create products and advertising that would specifially target a certain group, but you can't specifically refuse service to others outside that group based solely on group membership.