Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

Blaster6 wrote in post #16413918
Absolutely and without a doubt yes!

A religious official is authorized to perform specific religious religious ceremonies in a specific manner based on the regulation of their denomination. Performing a ceremony that conflicts with the denomination rules is an unauthorized ceremony and is not considerd valid. Kind of like a baseball player running for a touchdown. It just isn't in the book.

A local minister in this area was recently fired by the church for performing a same sex marriage ceremony.

A catholic priest can forgive your sins because catholism allows it. Most protestant ministers can not because it is not one of the things they are allowed to do. In my mind there is really no difference.

Civil unions are an entirely different matter. The problem comes when a purely religious ceremony that was never intended to be woven into law is adopted to have legal and financial ramifications. There really should be a seperate legal contract involved with lawyers and written contracts, etc that could be in addition to or in place of the religious ceremony that gives you the legal rights. The religious marriage should carry no weight outside your religion. A mortgage contract should look simple compared to a marriage contract if we were doing it right.

Not sure about this! As same sex marriages become legal in more and more states/ countries, religious officials can, will and already are getting into serious trouble for turning down same sex marriages, on the grounds that this is discrimination. Religion plays into abortion too and more and more doctors can and will be on the hotseat for refusing services based on religious beliefs. I think its a hot topic with the direction of obamacare.

This thread is moving from the realm of photography and into a much more political arena. I suggest we get back on track else this threads going to get closed.

abbypanda wrote in post #16416117
I believe it's a fine line. Perhaps in my first example I should have said something like "I don't want to do your wedding b/c you are gay. I believe you are inferior, therefore I won't support it". vs "I am (whatever religion) and I cannot attend a gay wedding, therefore it would be impossible for me to do the job".

In one case, the person is trying to maintain that the other is inferior and deserves less treatment. In the other the person is trying to maintain their religious standard. This is probably where the photographer went wrong, and made it about them being gay as opposed to the fact that his religion prevents him attending certain aspects of the ceremony.

I'd accept all the distinctions you're making except that I don't think everything you're giving as a reason is factual. (1) The person who says "I won't shoot your wedding because I don't believe in gay marriage" doesn't necessarily believe that gays are inferior. She may believe that gays and straights have equal value but marriage is properly reserved for straights. (2) A photographer's religion might disapprove of homosexuality, or of gay marriage specifically, and yet not forbid members to attend the ceremony. (3) Some religions actually do hold that gays are inferior.

What do you mean by "a professed christian business"? Can a business have a religious affiliation? I get how a store that sells theology books, rosaries, and votive candles is Christian in one sense, but not how a photography business can be a professed anything.

I'd say those choices are entirely up to him.

Well, he won't let boys train with girls, either.

The distinction that I think needs defending (honestly, I think it's indefensible) is between a religious belief as a reason for making an exception to a law or policy and a secular belief as a reason for the same thing, where both beliefs are matters of conscience.

gjl711 wrote in post #16416162
This thread is moving from the realm of photography and into a much more political arena. I suggest we get back on track else this threads going to get closed.

I think it's about time.

The major argument is that you're either pro gay marriage or we're back to slavery and WWII germany.

gjl711 wrote in post #16416162
This thread is moving from the realm of photography and into a much more political arena. I suggest we get back on track else this threads going to get closed.

You're right that it might get closed, but the topic was implicitly political and religious from the start, and wedding photographers can gain from considering the various viewpoints on an issue that they may have to deal with in real life.

OhLook wrote in post #16416176
What do you mean by "a professed christian business"? Can a business have a religious affiliation? I get how a store that sells theology books, rosaries, and votive candles is Christian in one sense, but not how a photography business can be a professed anything.

yes a business can be. Look at Hobby Lobby. They sell crafts. The owner has a professed religious statement and states that is why the store is closed on Sundays, b/c he believes it should be that way for religious reasons. My dad's company makes kitchen cabinet doors. It's a menonite based company with a professed christian statement. Yes a business can be a professed anything b/c like I said, many photographers, etc are sole proprietors, sole member LLC, etc. Even an entity can have a professed belief it's no different than a mission statement. A court upheld their right to sue the gov't for forced abortions and this was their statement:

In spite of the new rules not containing an exemption for religious businesses, this week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, reversing the denial of a federal injunction and sending the matter back to the district court for further review.

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” the panel wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”

So yes, according to that court, a business can have a professed religious statement.


In regards to the portfolio issue you mentioned "I'd say it's up to him". I'd say it's not up to him. It's not up to the photographer if he wants to say no to a gay wedding, so good luck keeping all the gays he shoots off his portfolio and only putting the straight folks pictures up! That will come back around to bite him.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16416179
I think it's about time.

The major argument is that you're either pro gay marriage or we're back to slavery and WWII germany.

That's not true. I am for gay marriage. I believe gays deserve the same rights as anyone. I can't think of a constitutional reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and I've argued it with religious friends. Their only argument is religious and I don't feel government should impose religion on anyone. That could have implications and get out of hand.

With that said, we live in a world today where there are many business options. Capitalism wins out and any business that wants to maintain religious perspective, theres just as many who don't. Just like they want their rights (gays), I feel business owners should be able to enter the secular realm and succeed as a form of evangelicalism.

My argument is not against gay rights its about government interference and suppressing the rights of one for another. That's not equality

johnandbentley wrote in post #16416136
Not sure about this! As same sex marriages become legal in more and more states/ countries, religious officials can, will and already are getting into serious trouble for turning down same sex marriages, on the grounds that this is discrimination.

If you are having a religoius wedding you should be married by an officiant of your own faith. If you are a member of the faith you should share the same religious ideals of the person performing the ceremony. A catholic couple would not seek out a baptist minister to perform a catholic ceremony. A baptist minister could could perform a baptist ceremony but not a catholic one since it is not in the list of authorized ceremonies and would likely not know how anyway.
If your religion recognizes same sex marriage then you are set. If it doesn't you either need to change your behavior or change your religion. If you have no religion you should not be seeking a religious marriage. You simply can not legally mandate a religous ceremony be performed that conflicts with the doctrine of that religion.

If you are not religious then you should be looking for a civil union. These should be available to anyone not trying to comit some type of fraud.

Let's put it another way:
Let's say I am a doctor who specializes in foot surgery. I am board certified and quite good at it. Foot surgery is one of the the things I am authorized to do by my profession but abortion is not.
Now let's say obamacare says I must perform abortions or be guilty of discrimination and risk losing my medical license if I refuse. The new healthcare law says I am authorized to perform this service because I am a surgeon. The law now conflicts with my training and what I am authorized to do by my profession. If I attempt an abortion I will likely lose my medical license but at least would be dropped by my insurance provider. How is this different than a new law that says a marriage can be performed by someone not authorized to perform it?

OhLook wrote in post #16416176
The wrestling example is just another. Many religions feel women shouldn't wrestle men (or touch for that matter). . . . One now has his own gym. Last we spoke he would not let female students, even as young as 5, train with boys. He wouldn't let them partner either in the same class. Is he discriminating against women?

Well, he won't let boys train with girls, either.

Ok then, so I guess it's ok if I make blacks drink from the "black fountain" b/c I make the whites drink from the "white fountain"?

abbypanda wrote in post #16416219
I can't think of a constitutional reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and I've argued it with religious friends. Their only argument is religious and I don't feel government should impose religion on anyone. That could have implications and get out of hand.

That's between you and your friends. What you can't think of, and what they can't argue for is evidence of personal limits, not that those arguments don't exist.

gjl711 wrote in post #16416162
This thread is moving from the realm of photography and into a much more political arena. I suggest we get back on track else this threads going to get closed.

Yep I agree and I have been helping to derail this so I will help get it back on track.

If you are a photographer and you are scared of a discrimination case there are only 2 ways I can see to legally protect yourself.

1. Take the job, keep your mouth shut, make some money.
2. Take the job, no-show for the ceremony because you were too sick to get out of bed, refund the deposit with your profuse apploigies. (A double booking screw up could work too.)

All this said hoping you are the one who wrote the contract and you have a good failure to perform clause that is in your favor.

For me personally, I think it is horrible that same sex couples dont all have the same opportunity to get some sort of legal binding union that states and federal governments recognize, that insurance, hospitals, IRS recognize and gives the couple every right to a T that a traditional couple would get with their ability to marry. That said, as a Christian male, I just want this to be called something else like civil union or something, and not marriage that I would define as a union in front of God between a man and a woman. Still, my beliefs are for me, how I live, how i raise my kids, and how I vote... for others, how they live, raise kids and how they vote is on them, that is why we live in the land of the free! I am photographing a same sex wedding this weekend, and I hope to capture those great moments of the day for these two that they can cherish for many many years. My beliefs dont change, or havent been tarnished or changed in any way leading up to this and I am sure they wont change over the weekend either.

As stated I think you DO believe that the government should interfere and suppress certain religious 'freedoms'. I've already offered the case of the Chrisitan Scientist who uses only prayer to 'heal' their sick child. I believe you don't think it's fine to let the parents kill their child--even if they are simply following their interpretation of their holy text. You want "government interference".

Another curiousity. If there ever were a holy text that explicitly endorsed and in fact provided instruction regarding slavery and slave ownership, do you think that a person should be allowed under their religious freedom to own another person ? Should the government interfere with that religious freedom ?

abbypanda wrote in post #16416219
...
My argument is not against gay rights its about government interference and suppressing the rights of one for another...

You do know that marriage predates Christianity, right ? Christianity doesn't own as some kind of trademark, the institution of marriage.

johnandbentley wrote in post #16416277
For me personally, I think it is horrible that same sex couples dont all have the same opportunity to get some sort of legal binding union that states and federal governments recognize, that insurance, hospitals, IRS recognize and gives the couple every right to a T that a traditional couple would get with their ability to marry. That said, as a Christian male, I just want this to be called something else like civil union or something, and not marriage that I would define as a union in front of God between a man and a woman. Still, my beliefs are for me, how I live, how i raise my kids, and how I vote... for others, how they live, raise kids and how they vote is on them, that is why we live in the land of the free! I am photographing a same sex wedding this weekend, and I hope to capture those great moments of the day for these two that they can cherish for many many years. My beliefs dont change, or havent been tarnished or changed in any way leading up to this and I am sure they wont change over the weekend either.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16416279
As stated I think you DO believe that the government should interfere and suppress certain religious 'freedoms'. I've already offered the case of the Chrisitan Scientist who uses only prayer to 'heal' their sick child. I believe you don't think it's fine to let the parents kill their child--even if they are simply following their interpretation of their holy text. You want "government interference".

Another curiousity. If there ever were a holy text that explicitly endorsed and in fact provided instruction regarding slavery and slave ownership, do you think that a person should be allowed under their religious freedom to own another person ? Should the government interfere with that religious freedom ?

I didn't reply to your case about the sick child b/c it has nothing to do with business, that's a personal family matter. In this thread thus far we are only talking about the rights of business owners to exercise their faith through a secular business… Government getting involved in private family matters and religion is a whole other thread. I'm going to stick with business on this one.

In regards to slavery, again not a business idea per say, though you could argue it. But that is forcing someone to do something against their will.
Declining a customer due to your religious stance is in no way the same as enslaving and suppressing them against their will, or taking away their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Did the gay couple lose any of those things b/c 1 photographer said no?

We live in a capitalistic society, and there are plenty of photographers happy to offer services to photograph gay weddings. No one is saying that "no photographers should photograph gay weddings" and "it's not in a gay persons right to have their wedding photographed". It is within their right. And plenty of photographers are happy to do it, so there is really no need to government involvement. I would bet the photographers willing to do it out number the ones who don't. So just let the religious ones to their own. That is the thing about capitalism. For every service a business doesnt want to provide, another is willing to provide it b/c they see the $.