Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

If he did not shoot the wedding based on his religious beliefs, then that doesn't make him a bigot. Let's be careful throwing that word around.

To me, this is pretty vague. The couple being gay goes against his religion. Fine. But then there's also sexual discrimination that comes into play.

Gay marriages don't bother me any. I've shot a few. However I am of the opinion that people these days are just too damn sensitive. Got your feelings hurt? Hey, let's sue. Yes, it's important to protect your rights as an American, but come on man!

Should I have sued that Starbucks employee for saying I look like that Asian guy from Harold and Kumar (I don't...I'm not that good looking. :lol a few years ago? Nah...chalk it up to stupidity and ignorance. There's no cure for that. Move on with your life.

I say this not knowing the complete story beyond what was reported in the original link.

nicksan wrote in post #16412347
Should I have sued that Starbucks employee for saying I look like that Asian guy from Harold and Kumar (I don't...I'm not that good looking. :lol a few years ago? Nah...chalk it up to stupidity and ignorance. There's no cure for that. Move on with your life.

That's not a proper analogy for this case, I'm afraid to say. If that Starbuck's employee made that statement and then refused you service--well, that would be analogous.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16412378
That's not a proper analogy for this case, I'm afraid to say. If that Starbuck's employee made that statement and then refused you service--well, that would be analogous.

It was a business establishment serving the public. An employee made a racially discriminatory remark to a customer. While a refusal of service didn't take place, it was discriminatory, which is at the heart of the matter. Not that I would go down that path, but had I had evidence, I would have had a case, no? The couple was subjected to what they perceived as sexual discrimination. That's the basis of their lawsuit right?

Now if I was gay and was refused service because the photographer was very religious and couldn't find it in himself/herself to shoot my wedding, would I sue. Meh. I'd just move on.

I for one don't understand this exactly. Didn't they rule that obamacare can't force Christian companies to provide abortions? My dad's company sued the federal government over this b/c it's a menonite based company. I believe shortly after they sued Hobby Lobby won their suit.

I don't see how they can say "Ok company, you don't have to do something (pay for abortions) b/c it's against your belief" but they can say "ok photographer, you have to attend a gay wedding if its against your belief".

I'm not sure what the photographer said word for word, and I'm guessing that's the problem, but I don't see how someone can be forced to do something that is against their belief. Now I can understand if he said something like "you can't come in my studio because you're gay" or something of that nature…. that IMO is discriminatory.

Simply saying "I don't feel I can adequately do the job b/c my religious beliefs prevent me from begin present at this situation" IMO is not discrimination.

It seems like a real fine line…

nicksan wrote in post #16412461
Now if I was gay and was refused service because the photographer was very religious and couldn't find it in himself/herself to shoot my wedding, would I sue. Meh. I'd just move on.

...and you'd be well within your rights to just move on. And I bet the overwhelming majority of gay couples who got refused service moved on as well. And I'm sure if you got told to move to the back of the bus because you were Asian you would have just moved to the back of the bus.

For change to happen though people have to stand up and be counted. The law is the law: and just because you don't want to stand up for your rights doesn't mean that other people can't stand up for theirs. The couple, by choosing to stand up for their rights, did nothing wrong.

Not sure how I feel about this one. I do't know the full story, but to me, it sounds like the photographer is an idiot and the couple were money-hungry.
On the other hand, what if someone refused to photograph black people or Jewish weddings, wouldn't that be the same basically?

There are very easy ways to turn down a job and not get in trouble, I quote a very high price, or state that date is not open.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16412144
Having a different viewpoint is not the issue here--acting in a way that discriminates based on that viewpoint is.
...
Again, the photographer is allowed to have their point of view. It is their putting their bigoted view in practice that is a problem. Should we also be considerate of the 'point of view that's different from our own' when it is black folk or interracial folk being refused service because of their color or the photographer's religious beliefs ? Nonsense--we call that racism.

Good points and thank you for making them - I hadn't considered the difference between views and actions when making my original post.

On the face of it the racism example is a good analogy, but when you look a bit closer maybe it's a different thing for some people?

My perception of public opinion is that some people associate 'gayness' as an intrinsic part of a person (I do hope I'm not offending anyone by my terminology here - not my intention), while others seem to see 'gayness' as a lifestyle choice. In which case some people who discriminate against gay people will be discriminating against the person (which I think most of us would say is unacceptable), while others will feel they are discriminating against a lifestyle choice - which I would suggest is a more difficult thing to agree or disagree with.

With racism it's surely the same for everyone - you're simply discriminating against the person - is there any other possibility?

For the record, my own position is as follows...

• All people (irrespective of anything) are entitled to have their human rights upheld and protected.
  
• Should non-gay people's rights override those of gay people - absolutely not.
  
• Should gay people's rights override those of non-gay people - absolutely not.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16412144
If you consider 'not discriminating' a burdensome expense then I find that somewhat sad.

I'll take that as a question, even though there was no question mark . I don't find 'not discriminating' a burden, or an expense - quite the opposite, I try my best to be unconditionally inclusive with everyone I meet, whatever the situation and circumstance. So I'm sorry that you read that into my words.

The reality is that we all discriminate to some degree or other about all sorts of things - but I do think it's good to be able to have this debate, and I'd like to think that I at least will learn something from it.

Rob

With the precedent that this court has set, what if a couple from Westboro Baptist ask an openly gay/lesbian photographer to photograph to their wedding? Then if that photographer declined based on beliefs, could that photographer be sued as well now?

Anytime you chase the courts and make them rule on something like this, in the long run, it always seems to create a bigger mess.

banquetbear wrote in post #16412608
...and you'd be well within your rights to just move on. And I bet the overwhelming majority of gay couples who got refused service moved on as well. And I'm sure if you got told to move to the back of the bus because you were Asian you would have just moved to the back of the bus.

For change to happen though people have to stand up and be counted. The law is the law: and just because you don't want to stand up for your rights doesn't mean that other people can't stand up for theirs. The couple, by choosing to stand up for their rights, did nothing wrong.

Yeah, yeah...squeaky wheel and all that. I get it. You pick your battles and move on. The Starbucks thing I mentioned? Not worth my time or effort. There will always be ignorant people out there. There is absolutely no cure for that. You can stand up and be counted sure. But you just can't change ignorance.

I'm not discounting standing up for your rights. Are we in a better place than say 40 years ago. Sure. But we have a long ways to go to a place we will probably never get to. People will always be people.

Again, pick your battles. Being denied wedding photography on the account of being gay and because that goes against the photographer's religious belief is not really a defining battle to win. To me, it comes off as just another money seeking greed driven case. That was my very first impression. Things become diluted. Evey one and their Mother's are suing, complaining, whining.

That said, if the photographer declined with derogatory comments, that would be different, like, "No. I refuse to shoot your weddings b/c I don't like f****ts". Nah man. That person needs to be taught a lesson. If that Starubucks employee was like "Here's your coffee you slanty-eyed Jackie Chan g**k", then yeah, absolutely, I'd have been more vocal. Probably called out a manager there. Maybe escalate the issue to corporate and give them a chance to right a wrong. The lawsuit would be the last resort. For a lot of people out there, it's the first option.

Money, money, money...

Trent Gillespie wrote in post #16411606
I don't think its an issue of whether or not you can refuse work based upon preference, but when you discriminate customers based upon their sexual preference, a lawyer's blood turns green. The photographer should have refused the work based upon the premise that the timing or venue wouldn't have worked, instead of a moral obligation.

The lawyer can't sue anybody, a client has to hire them. I haven't followed the case at all, but a better excuse should have been used is about all. I'm not a photographer, but I do have a job and I have no problem taking care of most anybody. As a health care professional I have told people I will not see them for a number of reasons, sexuality would never be one, but you can certainly refuse service. Not emergency service, that's different.

I think this has all gotten a bit out of control. If a photographer stood them up on their wedding day because he found out they were gay and wouldn't do it, I'd hope they take everything from him.

If it was a year out and the photographer didn't want to cover a gay wedding, no harm, no foul. People won't always accept your lifestyle regardless of what it is. and that is NOT exclusive to gay people.

I want a nude photoshoot with my wife, you don't feel comfortable doing it, should I be able to force you to? I want pics of my kids, you shoot sports and hate kids, should I be able to sue you? I guess if you leave me at the alter so to speak, yes, because I have been "harmed" I was expecting a photographer and you left me hanging.

You tell me no with plenty of time to find many other willing photographers? I can't say there is really any reason to sue, regardless of the reason. I know courts see it differently, but I do think it's getting out of hand.

Markk9 wrote in post #16412835
There are very easy ways to turn down a job and not get in trouble, I quote a very high price, or state that date is not open.

That "very high price" can get you in trouble too. Turning down a job isn't the only way to discriminate.

This is interesting. As a christian male I have my personal beliefs in what 'marriage' means. That said, I am doing a wedding this weekend for a same sex couple, and I am more than happy to help them capture their love on their special day, and also to push myself as a photographer. Still, I think the photographer has the right to politely decline work. If I would have declined this person, I certainly would have gone out of my way to NOT put my beliefs in the front of the decline.

chevyzen wrote in post #16413121
I want a nude photoshoot with my wife, you don't feel comfortable doing it, should I be able to force you to? I want pics of my kids, you shoot sports and hate kids, should I be able to sue you?

I think we need to keep in mind that discrimination is defined as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things". Discrimination can actually be legal, unless the trait or category that's being discriminated against has been listed as a protected status such as age, gender, ethnic background, sexual preference. Don’t want to shoot someone because they have blonde hair, that’s your choice but it might not be the best business choice if public opinion turns on you.

Refusing to photograph a nude person(s) your good, nude is not a protected classification. Refusing to shoot kids, I would think that there would be legal grounds for age discrimination on this one depending on how the photographer was marketing themselves. Sports shooter could equal trouble, professional sport shooter and they'd probably be OK.

Additionally with the situation flipped in only the one way, a homosexual photographer refusing to shoot a heterosexual wedding, the law would treat the two cases the same. Both would be discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference. The catch though is, public support and opinion may not turn out the same way.

qdrummer21 wrote in post #16413225
I think we need to keep in mind that discrimination is defined as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things". Discrimination can actually be legal, unless the trait or category that's being discriminated against has been listed as a protected status such as age, gender, ethnic background, sexual preference. Don’t want to shoot someone because they have blonde hair, that’s your choice but it might not be the best business choice if public opinion turns on you.

Refusing to photograph a nude person(s) your good, nude is not a protected classification. Refusing to shoot kids, I would think that there would be legal grounds for age discrimination on this one depending on how the photographer was marketing themselves. Sports shooter could equal trouble, professional sport shooter and they'd probably be OK.

Additionally with the situation flipped in only the one way, a homosexual photographer refusing to shoot a heterosexual wedding, the law would treat the two cases the same. Both would be discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference. The catch though is, public support and opinion may not turn out the same way.

You're right on most counts but children photography and nudes are considered genres. No one is forced to shoot genres they do not normally shoot. That would be like expecting a cabinet maker to build the frame of a house just because they both happen to be working with wood.

Weddings are a genre but gay weddings are not a separate genre, they're simply weddings. If you shoot weddings and advertise yourself as a wedding photographer, you have to take all gay, straight, interracial, etc weddings.