Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

cdiphoto,

I was assuming the shooting of the kids would be the kids playing sports. Re-reading the post that may have been a bad assumption.

Great points and clarification.

cdifoto wrote in post #16413331
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.

That's kind of my point. Why? I understand discrimination laws. I fully agree that gay people should marry, always have. Marriage in this country is largely a collection of rights and responsibilities granted to 2 consenting adults by state and federal gov't agencies dealing with everything from taking a sick kid out of school, to taxes, property division and death benefits. The church thing? please, most every catholic I've ever known that was married in a church were living together and screwing long before they were married and therefore ineligible for a "church" service by the very religion they so loudly proclaim today, but that's another story.

But if I don't want to take your picture, why do I have to? Regardless of the reason? You can still be married, you can still find 100 other photogs that would gladly take your picture. only like christian, catholic church weddings? ok. Want to specialize in atheist, outdoor under a gazebo weddings? fine with me. Only want to shoot weddings on the 3rd saturday of every month for those with brown hair'd and blue eyed brides with size 7 feet? Great, specialize away. I don't care.

Just dont' say, yes, then backout at the last minute, because now you've caused "harm" to someone. Turn them down right away, nobody has been "harmed" just offended, and we should still have a right to offend people

chevyzen wrote in post #16413575
That's kind of my point. Why? I understand discrimination laws. I fully agree that gay people should marry, always have. Marriage in this country is largely a collection of rights and responsibilities granted to 2 consenting adults by state and federal gov't agencies dealing with everything from taking a sick kid out of school, to taxes, property division and death benefits. The church thing? please, most every catholic I've ever known that was married in a church were living together and screwing long before they were married and therefore ineligible for a "church" service by the very religion they so loudly proclaim today, but that's another story.

But if I don't want to take your picture, why do I have to? Regardless of the reason? You can still be married, you can still find 100 other photogs that would gladly take your picture. only like christian, catholic church weddings? ok. Want to specialize in atheist, outdoor under a gazebo weddings? fine with me. Only want to shoot weddings on the 3rd saturday of every month for those with brown hair'd and blue eyed brides with size 7 feet? Great, specialize away. I don't care.

Just dont' say, yes, then backout at the last minute, because now you've caused "harm" to someone. Turn them down right away, nobody has been "harmed" just offended, and we should still have a right to offend people

Sorry but that's just not how business works. You're not considered an individual when you're in business. Businesses are not to have viewpoints or feelings. The individuals may, but they must keep them to themselves.

sure it does. I'm a health care provider, if you're overweight, smoke, or skip appointments,don't follow recommendations I can give you the name of another provider and tell your ass to take a hike. Is it good business practice? sometimes it is, sometimes it wouldn't be. It's my decision to make, based on my feelings and viewpoints.

I think jefzor summed it up well.
Wouldn't you think a gay couple would see out a photographer that shows or promotes gay wedding imagery on their website?

chevyzen wrote in post #16413575
Just dont' say, yes, then backout at the last minute, because now you've caused "harm" to someone. Turn them down right away, nobody has been "harmed" just offended, and we should still have a right to offend people

This is the reasoning: saying yes and backing out later when you find out that the couple is gay shows that your basis for changing your mind was their sexual orientation. That's how discrimination is tested, whether it's discrimination by race, sex, or physical disability.

Is it possible that some gay couples are just looking for a photographer whose work they like ? The presumption that gay couples always, or should seek out manifestly pro-gay businesses seems to suggest that 'gayness' is always on their minds. I would suggest that it probably isn't.

scorpio_e wrote in post #16413728
I think jefzor summed it up well.
Wouldn't you think a gay couple would see out a photographer that shows or promotes gay wedding imagery on their website?

cdifoto wrote in post #16413623
Sorry but that's just not how business works. You're not considered an individual when you're in business. Businesses are not to have viewpoints or feelings. The individuals may, but they must keep them to themselves.

Explain the new york store refusing service on religious holidays. Your point doesn't hold.

You don't give up rights when you work for a business.
You don't give up rights when you start your own business.

And an act that's discriminatory doesn't stop being discriminatory because it was done by a person, not a business.

Sorry-I don't know the NY story. But if the store closes and doesn't serve anybody on that day, it's hard to argue that it's discriminating, no ?

edit: ah, I see--you were just addressing the individual vs. business point raised by CDI.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16413753
Explain the new york store refusing service on religious holidays. Your point doesn't hold.

You don't give up rights when you work for a business.
You don't give up rights when you start your own business.

And an act that's discriminatory doesn't stop being discriminatory because it was done by a person, not a business.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16413761
Sorry-I don't know the NY story. But if the store closes and doesn't serve anybody on that day, it's hard to argue that it's discriminating, no ?

It's not an argument for discrimination. It's an example where you don't give up your beliefs when you own a business in response to CDI's post

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16413749
Is it possible that some gay couples are just looking for a photographer whose work they like ? The presumption that gay couples always, or should seek out manifestly pro-gay businesses seems to suggest that 'gayness' is always on their minds. I would suggest that it probably isn't.

Agreed, but the possibility of being insulted and discriminated against may be on their minds.

For some, certainly. I guess I don't like the idea of suggesting gay people seek out specifically gay-friendly photographers any more that I like the idea of telling a black man in 60's Alabama that he should be looking for a black-run restaurant rather than bothering those hard-working white restauranteurs. Sometimes you just want a good meal.

OhLook wrote in post #16413779
Agreed, but the possibility of being insulted and discriminated against may be on their minds.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16413770
It's not an argument for discrimination. It's an example where you don't give up your beliefs when you own a business in response to CDI's post

It's one thing to close business altogether and another to close business to certain groups.

^ you're misreading his point like I did.

What's the difference between a photography studio (single photographer or multiple) refusing to shoot homosexual wedding and a restaurant (single employee or multiple) refusing to serve a homosexual couple? How about a black couple in these two examples?

The business type shouldn't matter. The real question is do you believe that sexual orientation should be a protected classification. The fact of the matter is, no matter what business your in or what you belief is, if you refuse service based on that criteria, and get caught, you could be in for some legal problems.