Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

We had a similar thing happen here with an pretty famous Inn that wouldn't host a lesbian couples wedding. They got their pants sued off as well and the couple were awarded an undisclosed settlement.

what about a restaurant refusing to serve a white couple with kids? it happens.

I do think sexual orientation should be a protected classification to a degree, but the law tries to make black and white, what isn't black and white. Going to eat? I guess most people expect to be able to walk into a restaurant and eat. It happens now so to speak. If I don't get to eat, I guess i'm "harmed" now?

A photographer for a wedding? well that is 6 months or more from now and if you're doing a wedding in a dark park at night in a bad part of town one might be inclined to refuse based on location and it's ok. You can say NO and they continue their search for a photographer, no harm, no foul.

why is this different? or I should ask, why "should" this be different? I know it is, i know if you refuse based on sexuality, you're probably going to get a hassle from a bunch of people you don't want hassle from. Seriously, at that point, you're out nothing and there are 100 other talented photographers that would probably be ecstatic to take your pictures for you.

It's like my example as a provider. If I don't like you, for whatever reason, I CAN tell you to take a hike. I have to refer you to another qualified provider, but I can most certainly tell you I'm never treating you again.

Now the difference is, if I lived in an area where I was the only provider for a few hundred miles, and people had a reasonable expectation of being seen for whatever was ailing them, I couldn't get out of it that easily but most of America is not that remote, so it's easier.

These points seem to ignore the obvious point that laws are in place to protect certain classes in part because historically those classes have experienced discrimination, often institutionalized.

That said, the white couple with kids is just as protected by anti-discrimination laws as a black or gay couple: IFF they were refused service on the basis of their whiteness (or any of the other protected classes). As a practical matter, I suspect this is a rare case.

To return again to the restaurant example, do you think it matters how many restaurants there are in the vicinity that the black gentleman could go to instead ? What does that have to do with whether or not discrimination is going on ?

chevyzen wrote in post #16413837
what about a restaurant refusing to serve a white couple with kids? it happens.

I do think sexual orientation should be a protected classification to a degree, but the law tries to make black and white, what isn't black and white. Going to eat? I guess most people expect to be able to walk into a restaurant and eat. It happens now so to speak. If I don't get to eat, I guess i'm "harmed" now?

A photographer for a wedding? well that is 6 months or more from now and if you're doing a wedding in a dark park at night in a bad part of town one might be inclined to refuse based on location and it's ok. You can say NO and they continue their search for a photographer, no harm, no foul.

why is this different? or I should ask, why "should" this be different? I know it is, i know if you refuse based on sexuality, you're probably going to get a hassle from a bunch of people you don't want hassle from. Seriously, at that point, you're out nothing and there are 100 other talented photographers that would probably be ecstatic to take your pictures for you.

It's like my example as a provider. If I don't like you, for whatever reason, I CAN tell you to take a hike. I have to refer you to another qualified provider, but I can most certainly tell you I'm never treating you again.

Now the difference is, if I lived in an area where I was the only provider for a few hundred miles, and people had a reasonable expectation of being seen for whatever was ailing them, I couldn't get out of it that easily but most of America is not that remote, so it's easier.

chevyzen wrote in post #16413837
if I lived in an area where I was the only provider for a few hundred miles, and people had a reasonable expectation of being seen for whatever was ailing them, I couldn't get out of it that easily but most of America is not that remote, so it's easier.

You're bound by hippocratic oath. That's a different set of expectations.

It's hard to draw rigid lines in gray areas. Reality is more complex than a law.

Do religious officials have the right to refuse marriage to gay couples?

What I find most troubling about this case is that a photography studio has been determined to be a “public accommodation”. Someone is saying that professional photography is a basic human right. BS! Even as a photographer I understand photography is an optional luxury item.

I have many jobs that I do to round out the budget because photograhy doesn't pay all the bills. I am a notary public and I know that I can get in some big time trouble for refusing to notarize something for a person because their beliefs conflict with my own because a notary is a “public accommodation”.

I am a landlord and there are laws that prohibit discrimination there. Personally, I would rent to anyone who would pay the rent and not destroy my property. I would never be so dumb as to say, "Sorry, I'm not renting to any gays this month."

I just don't see photography on the same level of basic human needs as housing or access to having legal documents witnessed.

That being said, anyone in any business is stupid for giving a discriminatory reason for refusing service. It is so easy to say you are booked or the photographer you had scheduled for the event was fired or quit or whatever and you don't have a replacement. If your contract is done the way it should be you are on the hook to give a full refund and nothing more.

Personally, I don't feel my protography is an endorsement of the subject. It is just a job. You wouldn't refuse to photograph a protest because you don't agree with the actions of the protesters. My mission statement is that I will photograph any event someone will pay me for as long as I am not photographing a crime being committed (news related excluded) or it is not a crime for me to be taking the photo. (trespassing to get the photo or something like that).

That attitude has gottem me some interesting work.

I don't think a restaurant, unless it is a private club, should be able to discriminate against anyone that is not offending other guests. ie, not a drunk from the bar next door looking for some fries and yelling loud enough for the entire restaurant to hear them.

I think going to eat IS different than hiring a photographer, unless of course you've hired the photographer and they're leaving you at the alter. In that case I don't care what their reason is, they should pay. But 6 months ahead? a year ahead? I don't think there is any need for protection, unless they can prove, that other than having their feelings hurt, they've been harmed in some way.

I would think a religious official as the right to refuse a gay marriage. Unless of course this official is an agent of the court as well and performs civil services all the time, then his personal views probably don't count But in a church? sure, the church doesn't grant any rights or responsibilities to that couple outside of religious connotations. The rest are granted by the gov't and you get a license for that.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16413879
What I find most troubling about this case is that a photography studio has been determined to be a “public accommodation”. Someone is saying that professional photography is a basic human right. BS! Even as a photographer I understand photography is an optional luxury item.

I just don't see photography on the same level of basic human needs as housing or access to having legal documents witnessed.

.

This person says it better than I

'Luxury item' and 'public accommodation' aren't mutually exclusive.

From wikipedia: Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include ... service establishments

Blaster6 wrote in post #16413879
What I find most troubling about this case is that a photography studio has been determined to be a “public accommodation”. Someone is saying that professional photography is a basic human right. BS! Even as a photographer I understand photography is an optional luxury item.

I have many jobs that I do to round out the budget because photograhy doesn't pay all the bills. I am a notary public and I know that I can get in some big time trouble for refusing to notarize something for a person because their beliefs conflict with my own because a notary is a “public accommodation”.

I am a landlord and there are laws that prohibit discrimination there. Personally, I would rent to anyone who would pay the rent and not destroy my property. I would never be so dumb as to say, "Sorry, I'm not renting to any gays this month."

I just don't see photography on the same level of basic human needs as housing or access to having legal documents witnessed.

That being said, anyone in any business is stupid for giving a discriminatory reason for refusing service. It is so easy to say you are booked or the photographer you had scheduled for the event was fired or quit or whatever and you don't have a replacement. If your contract is done the way it should be you are on the hook to give a full refund and nothing more.

Personally, I don't feel my protography is an endorsement of the subject. It is just a job. You wouldn't refuse to photograph a protest because you don't agree with the actions of the protesters. My mission statement is that I will photograph any event someone will pay me for as long as I am not photographing a crime being committed (news related excluded) or it is not a crime for me to be taking the photo. (trespassing to get the photo or something like that).

That attitude has gottem me some interesting work.

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.

I would think that this would get you in trouble even quicker as you are being openly discriminatory. A hetero couple pays $$ and a gay couple pays $$$$$$.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16413871
Do religious officials have the right to refuse marriage to gay couples?

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.

From the point of view of the government (and most people, I suspect), a restaurant and photography studio both offer services. I can't think of any relevant difference between them such that one should be allowed to discriminate.

Again, whether or not a black man COULD HAVE found another restaurant is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the initial restaurant he was refused service at was discriminating by doing so.

chevyzen wrote in post #16413887
I don't think a restaurant, unless it is a private club, should be able to discriminate against anyone that is not offending other guests. ie, not a drunk from the bar next door looking for some fries and yelling loud enough for the entire restaurant to hear them.

I think going to eat IS different than hiring a photographer, unless of course you've hired the photographer and they're leaving you at the alter. In that case I don't care what their reason is, they should pay. But 6 months ahead? a year ahead? I don't think there is any need for protection, unless they can prove, that other than having their feelings hurt, they've been harmed in some way.

I would think a religious official as the right to refuse a gay marriage. Unless of course this official is an agent of the court as well and performs civil services all the time, then his personal views probably don't count But in a church? sure, the church doesn't grant any rights or responsibilities to that couple outside of religious connotations. The rest are granted by the gov't and you get a license for that.

I offer services, I can tell you I am not treating your 5 year old for an ear infection and to leave my office, is that age discrimination?

nicksan wrote in post #16413050
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...

...yeah yeah, we get it, you can't be bothered. You've told us that.

How much money has the couple gotten so far? The city has sued on behalf of the couple and fined the photographer $7000.00, and that money was to go to the couple's legal fees. That ruling was made five years ago. You can keep repeating "money, money, money" as much as you like, but a judgement for court costs is not a "big fat court settlement". The couple did nothing wrong.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16413918
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.

well marriage did start out as just ways to pass along property and possessions before religions got involved. Anyway, you don't need a religion to be married, you don't even need a civil union in some states, just living together long enough automatically enters you into that big long contract we don't all have to pay lawyers to draw up for every marriage. It only gets expensive when you want to void that contract

those legal rights and responsibilities are already written, federally and at the state level. Whether you live together long enough, buy enough stuff together, go to a church or a court house or your backyard with your friend that can perform a service in that state, it automatically enters you into that contract already written. Doesn't really matter how you get there.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16413879
Personally, I don't feel my protography is an endorsement of the subject. It is just a job. You wouldn't refuse to photograph a protest because you don't agree with the actions of the protesters. My mission statement is that I will photograph any event someone will pay me for as long as I am not photographing a crime being committed (news related excluded) or it is not a crime for me to be taking the photo. (trespassing to get the photo or something like that).

That attitude has gottem me some interesting work.

I'm the same way. I'd shoot human sacrifice to gods if it was legal and I was hired to do it.

But I think the issue is active participation and legitimization of gay marraige by participation... as well as right to political protest. It's not refusing to serve food in a restaurant, which is denial of humanity.

Gay marraige is legal in 14 states only. Currently it's controversial and a bunch of people are actively working on it from both sides. Whether marriage itself is a "fundamental human right" or "union between man and wife" is subject to debate politically. Is forcing somebody to legitimize a union they don't believe in the right thing to do?

It goes past the fact of sexual minorities as protected groups. It's about definition of marriage as heteronormative or not, which is an open question in politics and is arbitrary in legislature depending on the state.

IMHO it comes down to this:
If you approach a political activist and ask them to participate in the very ceremony they're fighting against, is it discrimination for them to refuse or political protest?

Do individuals (and a corporation is an individual) have a right to have political interests and to advance them?