Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

gjl711 wrote in post #16413905
I would think that this would get you in trouble even quicker as you are being openly discriminatory. A hetero couple pays $$ and a gay couple pays $$$$$$.

Well I wouldn't label it that way on my price list!

You would know better than I whether or not you were being discriminatory. But an 'I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do' (which seems to be the mantra of some in this thread) isn't exactly relevant to what the law is.

chevyzen wrote in post #16413932
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?

In case it wasn't entirely clear up to this point my posts have been on the point of view of "discrimination doesn't pay the rent" or a job is a job so don't be so full of yourself and just take pictures.

Shifting gears a bit, it does really bug me that the rights of the minority always seem more important than the rights of the majority. Why should my beliefs be sacrificed because they are different than someone else?
I have really had it with the race card, the gay card, the disabled card, the single mother card, and any other reason someone can dream up because they find that screaming discrimination is easier than taking personal responsibility.

No, I am not refusing to rent an apartment to you because you are black, gay, or whatever. You were declined because your credit sucks, you don't have a job, a bag of crack fell out of your pocket while you were looking at the apartment and you have an active warrant for your arrest. He was my best applicant that week.

(Yes, that was one of my applicants but he didn't cry discrimination because I gave valid reasons for declining him. I was very careful to document the reasons he was declined because not doing so is stupid and leaves you open for a lawsuit.)

chevyzen wrote in post #16413672
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.

Overweight people, smokers, and appointment-skippers are not legally protected classes. So, this analogy isn't relevant.

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

I don't think "Has children" is a legally protected class either. Many institutions have a minimum age requirement, such as bars and nightclubs.

chevyzen wrote in post #16413932
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?

Possibly. It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if age is a protected class, except as regards employment, or programs that receive federal assistance.

In any case, I might assume that medical providers could be handled as a special case. I think most reasonable people would agree that a 5-year-old has different medical requirements than a 25-year-old or a 70-year-old.

Did you miss the point about 'white' and 'male' and 'christian' being protected classes in exactly the same way as 'black' and 'female' and 'gay' and 'jehova's witness' are ?

I think we all agree that people should take responsibility for themselves. But that has nothing to do with the fact that discrimination occurs and that when it does we should enforce the relevant laws.

edit: in your rental example you were NOT discriminating (in the legal sense)--you were rejecting the applicant for reasons having nothing to do with their race etc. No one here is arguing you aren't allowed to reject that applicant for the reasons you stated.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16414010
In case it wasn't entirely clear up to this point my posts have been on the point of view of "discrimination doesn't pay the rent" or a job is a job so don't be so full of yourself and just take pictures.

Shifting gears a bit, it does really bug me that the rights of the minority always seem more important than the rights of the majority. Why should my beliefs be sacrificed because they are different than someone else?
I have really had it with the race card, the gay card, the disabled card, the single mother card, and any other reason someone can dream up because they find that screaming discrimination is easier than taking personal responsibility.

No, I am not refusing to rent an apartment to you because you are black, gay, or whatever. You were declined because your credit sucks, you don't have a job, a bag of crack fell out of your pocket while you were looking at the apartment and you have an active warrant for your arrest. He was my best applicant that week.

(Yes, that was one of my applicants but he didn't cry discrimination because I gave valid reasons for declining him. I was very careful to document the reasons he was declined because not doing so is stupid and leaves you open for a lawsuit.)

I know they aren't a protected class, that isn't what I was saying. It was in reference to someone saying your thoughts and feelings can't dictate business and they can.

I've stated sexual orientation is a protected class, I understand it, I really don't have a lot of ammo or desire to fight against it because I think it has been necessary in a lot of instances. I just think it is going a bit far, and maybe it's necessary for now till people just really don't care and people are treated like people. but if you're looking for something to happen 6 months from now and one person doesn't want to do it for you, for whatever reason, I'd just move on. There are 100 others that would be glad to. Unless they left them at the alter in terms of a photographer, I think whatever reason they gave would be good enough, or should be anyway.

To me the photographer's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's feelings. Religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment. The photographer is exercising his religious beliefs by refusing service.

This is different than serving food or selling clothes. Photographing a wedding is more than a journalistic act that is impartial. A photographer is tasked with capturing the emotion and feel of the wedding. A photographer has to be immersed in the event.

You can't force someone to be immersed in an event and to capture the emotion and story of an event with the best of their ability and as beautifully as possible when their religious beliefs an in direct conflict with such events.

You can't force a Jewish singer to play Christmas songs or a Muslim trash collector to collect your soiled Quran.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414028
I think we all agree that people should take responsibility for themselves. But that has nothing to do with the fact that discrimination occurs and that when it does we should enforce the relevant laws.

edit: in your rental example you were NOT discriminating (in the legal sense)--you were rejecting the applicant for reasons having nothing to do with their race etc. No one here is arguing you aren't allowed to reject that applicant for the reasons you stated.

In my example I was stating how I could have been accused of discrimination if I did not document the real reason for rejection. I have seen landlords get into trouble because they try to "be nice" and not say all the bad things that were the reason for the rejection. My point was not that I can't reject an applicant, my point is that any rejection can be considered discriminatory unless I document why it wasn't.

This isn't about 'feelings'--it's about being mistreated and rejected.

A photographer might also have views about interracial marriages that are informed by their religious convictions. Do you think they should be allowed to discriminate as well ? I don't see any difference.

Your second point seems to suggest that it is impossible for a photographer to 'capture emotion' and be 'immersed in the event' without sharing the worldview of the subjects being photographed. As stated, I don't believe in any gods, but I'm fully capable of being immersed and caring for the couple and being polite and getting great photographs even if I wildly disagree with their religious outlook.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
To me the photographer's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's feelings. Religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment. The photographer is exercising his religious beliefs by refusing service.

This is different than serving food or selling clothes. Photographing a wedding is more than a journalistic act that is impartial. A photographer is tasked with capturing the emotion and feel of the wedding. A photographer has to be immersed in the event.

You can't force someone to be immersed in an event and to capture the emotion and story of an event with the best of their ability and as beautifully as possible when their religious beliefs an in direct conflict with such events.

Some people may be falsely accused of murder. That fact hardly seems to suggest that there also aren't actual murders in the world and that we shouldn't investigate them and prosecute them when we find them.

I agree-no one wants you to be falsely accused.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16414076
In my example I was stating how I could have been accused of discrimination if I did not document the real reason for rejection. I have seen landlords get into trouble because they try to "be nice" and not say all the bad things that were the reason for the rejection. My point was not that I can't reject an applicant, my point is that any rejection can be considered discriminatory unless I document why it wasn't.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
To me the photographer's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's feelings. Religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment. The photographer is exercising his religious beliefs by refusing service.

I agree with you but it appears the courts disagree with both of us.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
This is different than serving food or selling clothes. Photographing a wedding is more than a journalistic act that is impartial. A photographer is tasked with capturing the emotion and feel of the wedding. A photographer has to be immersed in the event.

You can't force someone to be immersed in an event and to capture the emotion and story of an event with the best of their ability and as beautifully as possible when their religious beliefs an in direct conflict with such events.

As long as your contract promises you will capture images and not emotions you should be OK. The risk of discussing with the client far outweighs the risk of someone unhappy with their photos. One will land you in court and the other may result in no referrals from that wedding. This is a case where over-reaching laws apparently hurt the ones they are to protect because informing someone they could receive services they would be happier with eleswhere is not worth the risk.

Kind of like if I tried to book a photographer who only does weddings outdoors on bright sunny days, I would like to know if he is not equipped for a dark indoor church wedding. I wouldn't cry discrimination against church weddings. I would be thankful for the honesty, but that is just me.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
To me the photographer's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's feelings. Religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment. The photographer is exercising his religious beliefs by refusing service.

...and how well is that first amendment argument working in court for the photographer?

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414095
A photographer might also have views about interracial marriages that are informed by their religious convictions. Do you think they should be allowed to discriminate as well ? I don't see any difference.

The difference is that interracial marriages are legal everywhere and have been legal for 50+ years. That's very clear cut.

When gay marriage has been redefined in the last few years and is legal in 14 out of 50 states.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
To me the photographer's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's feelings. Religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment. The photographer is exercising his religious beliefs by refusing service.

The catch here is legally speaking in the US the photographer is not the company and a company has no right to a freedom of religion and therefore can't use it as a legitimate denial of business to a protected classification of individual. In the event of a single photographer shop you’re at least a sole proprietorship, and although it is hard to keep the two separate, the photographer is not the business. Each is a legally separate entity, even though they often share liabilities.

Now the workaround, although extreme, to this is that the employee could decide that this violation of their religious freedoms is unacceptable and quit the company. In the event of a single person shop this would result in the company closing.

facedodge wrote in post #16414072
You can't force someone to be immersed in an event and to capture the emotion and story of an event with the best of their ability and as beautifully as possible when their religious beliefs an in direct conflict with such events.

I agree completely, so legal or not, I wouldn't want to work with someone who didn't openly support my lifestyle whatever it may be.

If the couple is seeking a photographer for their wedding, it's evidently legal in their jurisdiction.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16414118
The difference is that interracial marriages are legal everywhere and have been legal for 50+ years. That's very clear cut.

When gay marriage has been redefined in the last few years and is legal in 14 out of 50 states.