Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

It sounds like you would have opposed the civil rights act of 1964 which basically forced businesses to serve black folk. According to you, so long as the business owner claimed religious reasons (e.g. god don't want us mixin' with coloreds) they should be allowed to turn black folk away.

What about the case of a couple refusing to take their child to the doctor because their read of their particular religious text tells them that faith and only faith will heal their child ? Should the government allow them their religious freedoms ? Or should the government step in when harm is being done ? I feel like these examples are so obvious that it's embarrassing bringing them up.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415245
If y read my posts I have no problem servicing gays. I've had many gay couples bring children to my gym. I have a lesbian couple right now.

I just believe the government shouldn't force someone to violate their religious principles solely bc they are a business owner.

The courts Seem to be changing their tune as they rule on obamacare and employer mandated abortions for religious based companies

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415265
It sounds like you would have opposed the civil rights act of 1964 which basically forced businesses to serve black folk. According to you, so long as the business owner claimed religious reasons (e.g. god don't want us mixin' with coloreds) they should be allowed to turn black folk away.

What about the case of a couple refusing to take their child to the doctor because their read of their particular religious text tells them that faith and only faith will heal their child ? Should the government allow them their religious freedoms ? Or should the government step in when harm is being done ? I feel like these examples are so obvious that it's embarrassing bringing them up.

"I'm a good person, I swear! Everyone's equal in my eyes (but only because the law says they have to be. Damn gub'mint)."

cdifoto wrote in post #16415264
You can't just say "IDK" because the exact scenario is critical. If he only shoots daffodils, that matters. If he only shoots weddings, that matters. If he only shoots hummingbirds, that matters. You can't just throw up "if he's Muslim..."

If he photographed female nudes and turned you down it's probably because you're ugly. It wouldn't be because you're female. Or nude. Ugly isn't protected.

He could possibly turn you down on the basis of female IF he only ever shot male nudes but honestly that's one I'm not 100% sure about. It would be gender based but it could be considered genre if he lists himself as a master of the male form and not female.

I said idk to your assumptions that you interjected. It doesn't matter bc the what ifs aren't the point.

Point is if someone turns me down and cites a religious belief I would not be offended.
I am not harmed. I can find someone else. That's the point.

There can be plenty of other examples. Take wrestling. Wrestling is popular in the Middle East. I wouldn't show up at some middle easterners gym here and expect to grapple men and proceed to complain if I wasn't allowed to and cite discrimination. If their religion forbids it. I'm ok with that.
They aren't trying to hurt me. They are just keeping on with their faith. I'm ok with that and I always will be regardless if whatever further nit picks you put on it.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415276
I said idk to your assumptions that you interjected. It doesn't matter bc the what ifs aren't the point.

Those "what ifs" are everything. The law has these things called "finer points" and those "what ifs" determine it all. My point is a Muslim photographer whos religion forbids him from seeing naked women PROBABLY isn't going to be photographing them as a business, you cannot make him via the law, and it would not be discrimination on his part.

If he IS shooting nudes as a profession, he cannot hide behind his religion to reject you for that service.

cdifoto wrote in post #16415283
Those "what ifs" are everything. The law has these things called "finer points" and those "what ifs" determine it all.

I'm not gonna argue what ifs with you when your first response you say "what are the chances". It's illustrating a point and your hung up on a "what are the chances now let's forget the point and nit pick"

And yah the law does determine it. And they determined that companies have a right to their faith and they don't have to pay for employees to kill their babies if they see it as such, even though federal law says it's required. And I believe that ruling can have massive impact on areas such as this and I hope it does.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415276
There can be plenty of other examples. Take wrestling. Wrestling is popular in the Middle East. I wouldn't show up at some middle easterners gym here and expect to grapple men and proceed to complain if I wasn't allowed to and cite discrimination. If their religion forbids it. I'm ok with that.
They aren't trying to hurt me. They are just keeping on with their faith. I'm ok with that and I always will be regardless if whatever further nit picks you put on it.

You leave out a lot of critical specifics ie variables. Here are two dead obvious ones:

1. There are a lot of countries in the Middle East, and each has its own laws, different from each other and other non-Middle Eastern nations, where women do not have the same rights provided to them.
2. Is the ME gym private, or is it public?

abbypanda wrote in post #16415292
I'm not gonna argue what ifs with you when your first response you say "what are the chances". It's illustrating a point and your hung up on a "what are the chances now let's forget the point and nit pick"

And yah the law does determine it. And they determined that companies have a right to their faith and they don't have to pay for employees to kill their babies if they see it as such, even though federal law says it's required. And I believe that ruling can have massive impact on areas such as this and I hope it does.

You don't get it at all and the fact that you're in business (or claim to be) frightens me. You are FAR too simplistic in your thinking.

cdifoto wrote in post #16415297
You leave out a lot of critical specifics ie variables. Here are two dead obvious ones:

1. There are a lot of countries in the Middle East, and each has its own laws, different from each other and other non-Middle Eastern nations, where women do not have the same rights provided to them.
2. Is the ME gym private, or is it public?

Was referring to a gym in the us owned by someone from Middle East. Since I didn't say private there's no reason to assume it would be anything but public. See, interjecting variables and nit picking. Who cares either way point is I wouldn't be offended if they turned me down, as I said before. I respect their choice that if they feel it's unfit for a woman to wrestler men more power to them.

Your thinking is equally simplistic with what appears to be a blanket idea that everyone should be void of religion as soon as they open a business. I should care less if it "frightens you".

cdifoto wrote in post #16415298
You don't get it at all and the fact that you're in business (or claim to be) frightens me. You are FAR too simplistic in your thinking.

Maybe if we all thought the way you saw fit the world would be a great place

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415265
It sounds like you would have opposed the civil rights act of 1964 which basically forced businesses to serve black folk. According to you, so long as the business owner claimed religious reasons (e.g. god don't want us mixin' with coloreds) they should be allowed to turn black folk away.

Exactly.

Anybody can blame their discrimination on their religion, the only difference between your example and the one under discussion is that the photographer is claiming he can discriminate because "God don't want us mixin' with gays". That should be no less offensive than saying it about black people, and gays have the same rights in law.

Besides, the photographers belief is still a personal choice, as a christian you can still be nice to gay people. Many christian churches have openly gay clergy, most of those branches of christianity that don't allow for that still accept openly gay couples in the congregation. There are a lot of gay christians out there. Even the Catholic church is starting to relax its traditional anti-gay stance, there are openly gay priests and even Pope Francis has come down from his predecessors stance.

So, with a large part of the christian world accepting gays for what they are, surely those christians who are still anti-gay are taking that stance because they don't like gays, not because their religion forbids them mixing with gays.

As a wedding photographer I shot weddings for Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Protestant couples etc., Heck, I even shot a pagan wedding once. None of those align with my own religious beliefs, however my beliefs follow the christian teachings of "do unto others", "love thy neighbour" etc., and see me as a person who hates discrimination for any reason. Using religion to hide behind is simply trying to justify one's own opinions to the world (and possibly themselves).

I know gay christians, and they are welcomed at their church as an openly gay couple. They obviously meet a lot of other christians from various denominations and are generally welcomed as fellow christians and not reviled because they are gay. Yes, they do meet some opposition from some christians, who say they are opposed to gays for religious reasons, but with the vast majority of that church accepting the couple, are those few who stand against them following their religion or their personal bigotry against gays?

As the quote above says, the same argument was used by racists who didn't want to mix with blacks. Nobody is asking the photographer to become gay, or even endorse the gay way of life, just record an event that happens to include gay people. You don't need to hold the same beliefs as the person you are photographing, nobody is asking the photographer to change his beliefs, just not to discriminate against those who were born different to himself.

If God has an anti-gay attitude, why does he create so many of them and then decree that they be persecuted and discriminated against throughout their life? God is not against gays, and church teachings that are came from the same people who added all the anti-witch stuff in the middle ages because of personal politics and discrimination (and because it was profitable).

cdifoto wrote in post #16415264
If he photographed female nudes and turned you down it's probably because you're ugly. It wouldn't be because you're female. Or nude. Ugly isn't protected.

Oh, snap!

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415265
It sounds like you would have opposed the civil rights act of 1964 which basically forced businesses to serve black folk. According to you, so long as the business owner claimed religious reasons (e.g. god don't want us mixin' with coloreds) they should be allowed to turn black folk away.

That example may be difficult to point out in the written religious doctrine. Written documentation in established religions on the subject of marriage is easy to find. That's why you can't compare the two.

If it were legal, and it might be under some circumstances.... Would any of you agree to photograph a wedding between brother and sister, some old man and a 12 year old, a man and a sheep?

To some homosexuality is a perversion similar to above. You are just not tolerant of those beliefs.

facedodge wrote in post #16415627
If it were legal, and it might be under some circumstances.... Would any of you agree to photograph a wedding between brother and sister, some old man and a 12 year old, a man and a sheep?

To some homosexuality is a perversion similar to above. You are just not tolerant of those beliefs.

None of those are protected classes. However, if we hypothesize that these things are protected in addition to being legal, then yes I would.

Remember: I don't have to shoot everything NOW; only protected classes that fall under genres I cover. You don't have to shoot gay weddings if you don't shoot weddings. You don't have to shoot black nudes if you don't shoot nudes.

sandpiper wrote in post #16415571
As a wedding photographer I shot weddings for Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Protestant couples etc., Heck, I even shot a pagan wedding once. None of those align with my own religious beliefs, however my beliefs follow the christian teachings of "do unto others", "love thy neighbour" etc., and see me as a person who hates discrimination for any reason. Using religion to hide behind is simply trying to justify one's own opinions to the world (and possibly themselves).

As professionals, this is where we should all be. I really want to fight for the rights of the photographer even though I don't agree with turning down the job. Don't forget there are rights on both sides of this argument. It is so easy to fall into the trap of seeing how only one party can be harmed.

How could photographing this wedding have harmed the photographer?
We have to understand that some people have unrealistic sensitivities. What wouldn't bother you or I may nearly kill someone else. What if this photographer had taken the job, knowing the subject violated everything she believed in and then when she saw the "gay kiss" she became physically ill, puked in her camera bag and passed out? What a magical moment! I am sure her clients would not be happy but at least they would not have a discrimination claim. (The kiss was OOF too.)

So let me ask you this? Would you prefer to be turned down in the beginning and have an opportunity to get someone who would do a better job for you or would you prefer to stand up for your rights and force someone to do something they don't want to do, knowing full well that the finished product may reflect this?