Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

OhLook wrote in post #16416186
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.

Your right, it is, but instead of arguing the validity of gay marriage, race, religion, or how one feels about any of the above, we can stick to the argument of how as a professional photographer one is to deal with something that you might personally find repugnant. My take away from the case is that if you want to be a professional photographer and someone hires you to take pictures of a legal activity, you are legally obligated to provide that service whether it fits into your worldview or now.

gjl711 wrote in post #16416356
Your right, it is, but instead of arguing the validity of gay marriage, race, religion, or how one feels about any of the above, we can stick to the argument of how as a professional photographer one is to deal with something that you might personally find repugnant. My take away from the case is that if you want to be a professional photographer and someone hires you to take pictures of a legal activity, you are legally obligated to provide that service whether it fits into your worldview or now.

So if taking pictures of 2 consenting adults having sex is legal should I do it if it makes me uncomfortable.

My take from this is a true professional knows when he/ she is or is not up to the task, for whatever reason. I'm not for discriminating for the sake of discriminating, but if someone feels they aren't up to the task, find a way to politely say no and provide a referral. There's no need to force something on either side and make an uncomfortable situation. There's no shortage of photographers out there…. that's evidenced by the # of people complaining about "shoot and burns"

abbypanda wrote in post #16416389
So if taking pictures of 2 consenting adults having sex is legal should I do it if it makes me uncomfortable.

My take from this is a true professional knows when he/ she is or is not up to the task, for whatever reason. I'm not for discriminating for the sake of discriminating, but if someone feels they aren't up to the task, find a way to politely say no and provide a referral. There's no need to force something on either side and make an uncomfortable situation. There's no shortage of photographers out there…. that's evidenced by the # of people complaining about "shoot and burns"

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

abbypanda wrote in post #16416389
So if taking pictures of 2 consenting adults having sex is legal should I do it if it makes me uncomfortable.

Funny question.. Taking it one step further, if someone was professionally employed as a photographer in the p0rn industry, but only did straight stuff, could he be sued if he refused a gay gig (sexual preference being a protected class)?

cdifoto wrote in post #16416400
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

SEriously. I can tell by your 33,000 posts on here you love posting on the net but don't start again. The quote I referenced said "legal activity".

hairy_moth wrote in post #16416401
Funny question.. Taking it one step further, if someone was professionally employed as a photographer in the p0rn industry, but only did straight stuff, could he be sued if he refused a gay gig (sexual preference being a protected class)?

My knowledge of the porn industry is limited to what I learned watching Boogie Nights but I would say this is not anywhere near the same situation.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16416456
If you advertise it as one of the services you provide then yes you should do that. Just like someone who advertises to take wedding photos should provide that service. How hard is this?

What if somebody wants you to do underwater photography? Ever do any of that? If you don't offer the service why couldn't you turn it down?

Yes but point is, regardless of what services I offer there will be a time that something makes me uncomfortable, for whatever reason. We are all humans and inevitably governed by our emotions at least in part in our decision making process. To deny that is not realistic.

I use martial arts as an example only b/c I've done it for my entire life. I teach martial arts, yes, and grappling is one of those. I've turned down grappling male students that made me uncomfortable, while I grapple others. I've turned down jobs that made me feel uncomfortable.

Being professional means that acknowledging that we are all governed by our emotions, life experiences, etc and that factors into our decision processes. Simply, being professional doesnt mean just doing a job for the sake of doing it. If you don't feel up to the task, just be polite, courteous, say no, and give a referral. I am all about doing my best and if for whatever reason I feel I can't do my best for my customer I turn down the job for that reason.

abbypanda wrote in post #16416211
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.

I understand that extract from the court's opinion to mean that the owner has a religious purpose in starting the business. I don't take the next step and conclude that the business itself has a religious identity, with special privileges.

Oh, I think it's up to him. He can make esthetic decisions. He can exclude from his website all photos where the couple is overweight, or they're over 40, or people dressed too casually for his taste, or the bride's mother had obviously dyed hair, or the groom had a beard, or the bride had a mustache. Maybe the bride was taller than the groom, and he thinks it looks funny. Maybe he thinks a wedding with two brides and no groom looks funny, too.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16416226
If you have no religion you should not be seeking a religious marriage. . . .
If you are not religious then you should be looking for a civil union.

No, sorry. If you are not religious and you want a marriage, you should be looking for a civil ceremony.

I guess you still believe that marriage is essentially religious, despite my best efforts. That idea comes from medieval Europe, where the Christian Church (there was just one) had a great deal of power over daily life. Marriage is between the couple themselves and between them and the society they live in.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16416279
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 ?

Ooh, talk about a sneaky question!

There are too many other posts I'd like to reply to, not enough time.

The thread needn't be a political debate if people would stop saying how they feel about same-sex marriage and stick to the topic of how to make decisions in your photography business during a time of changes in the law.

abbypanda wrote in post #16416389
So if taking pictures of 2 consenting adults having sex is legal should I do it if it makes me uncomfortable.

If you advertise it as one of the services you provide then yes you should do that. Just like someone who advertises to take wedding photos should provide that service.

What if somebody wants you to do underwater photography? Ever do any of that? If you don't offer the service why couldn't you turn it down?

abbypanda wrote in post #16416389
My take from this is a true professional knows when he/ she is or is not up to the task, for whatever reason. I'm not for discriminating for the sake of discriminating, but if someone feels they aren't up to the task, find a way to politely say no and provide a referral. There's no need to force something on either side and make an uncomfortable situation. There's no shortage of photographers out there…. that's evidenced by the # of people complaining about "shoot and burns"

Of course, this is the way is should be! I am concerned there could be a significant legal risk to refusing a service you normally provide to someone because they are a member of a protected class. Either provide the service or be prepared to be used as a stepping stone to advance someone's civil rights agenda.

OhLook wrote in post #16416490
Oh, I think it's up to him. He can make esthetic decisions. He can exclude from his website all photos where the couple is overweight, or they're over 40, or people dressed too casually for his taste, or the bride's mother had obviously dyed hair, or the groom had a beard, or the bride had a mustache. Maybe the bride was taller than the groom, and he thinks it looks funny. Maybe he thinks a wedding with two brides and no groom looks funny, too.

None of those are protected groups. Mustache is not a protected group. Casual dress is not a protected group...

I can understand if you think its up to him but I caution photographers in that regard. I've seen people advise on here "just do it and don't put it in the portfolio". Start making a habit of that and it looks real discriminatory. How would a gay couple feel if you put up sneak peaks of everyones wedding on FB but theirs?

No different than excluding the blacks from your portfolio, etc.

I'd caution anyone to take caution in this regard, and this is why I said in my previous post, if you can't do a job to the best of your ability, just don't do it. And this is also why I'm deeply concerned about the government forcing people to do a job they can't do to the best of their ability. B/c in the end if they aren't "in" to the job, it won't be their best work anyway. In todays society and business world, customers have options.

Even regarding fat folks. What are you going to say "I didn't include them b/c they are fat". Doctors get sued now days for telling clients they are fat, and fat isn't even a protected class…. at least I don't think yet.

re the quote you referenced about business identity. The religious ones are getting special circumstances. The way it looks now they stand a good chance of getting exemptions from obamacare's forced abortions. I consider that "special privileges" or however it's called. I will await the final decision on this.

A photographer's portfolio is not a service to the couple. It is merely a collection of works that the photographer wishes to show. If the contract stipulated that a sneak peak will be included, that's different from a portfolio.

Fat isn't a protected class either. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Winning is a different matter. Show me a court case where a doctor lost the suit and on what grounds.

OhLook wrote in post #16416490
No, sorry. If you are not religious and you want a marriage, you should be looking for a civil ceremony.

I guess you still believe that marriage is essentially religious, despite my best efforts. That idea comes from medieval Europe, where the Christian Church (there was just one) had a great deal of power over daily life. Marriage is between the couple themselves and between them and the society they live in.

That's your narrow personal view.

Marriage as a construct is designed to apply pressure on the couple to stay together to bring up children which are a benefit to, instead of a burden on the society they live in. That's a basic anthropological fact.

Every religion that existed historically in scarce resource environment supports this. It's not limited to medieval europe.

And there wasn't "just one" christian church, since 4th century.

I think this might be the case, which is somewhat bothersome to me because part of my enjoyment of this thread is conversing with people who actually have different values and beliefs than I'm normally exposed to. I literally don't know anyone who is really invested in defending discrimination. Anyone making those kinds of arguments at a party, e.g. would be interpreted as engaging in some kind of dada or avant garde colbertian performance art.

cdifoto wrote in post #16416400
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

cdifoto wrote in post #16416511
A photographer's portfolio is not a service to the couple. It is merely a collection of works that the photographer wishes to show. If the contract stipulated that a sneak peak will be included, that's different from a portfolio.

Fat isn't a protected class either. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Winning is a different matter. Show me a court case where a doctor lost the suit and on what grounds.

It doesnt matter if it's a service to the couple. It matters if you start making a habit of excluding folks based on a reason that could appear discriminatory.

yes anyone can file a lawsuit, that is precisely why I mention this to caution others.

Define "winning".

Someone sues you for this. You spend a bunch of $ and time from your business to fight it and "win".

Did you really "win"?

Point being, take caution, because yes most definitely in todays society people can and WILL sue for any reason.