Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414122
If the couple is seeking a photographer for their wedding, it's evidently legal in their jurisdiction.

And that's why the courts ruled the way they did.

It's very nice of the couple to only sue for the fees.

I thought the Citizens United case said that business are people and are protected under the First Amendment. If they are allowed to give money for campaigns as free speech shouldn't the rest of the First Amendment protect them as well?

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.

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

Businesses aren't supposed to have religious beliefs.

I can photograph a wedding doped up on Benedryl so don't tell me a photographer has to be immersed in the event. Weddings are, for the most part, the same. The venues change and the people change but the concept of it does not vary and the purpose behind the photos does not vary.

If you can't take pictures of ANY wedding, perhaps you shouldn't sell yourself as a wedding photographer. Get out of the business of business entirely if it matters to you what your customers believe in, who they love, and how they identify in the world.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16414107
I agree with you but it appears the courts disagree with both of us.

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.

You can perfectly well tell a potential client that you're willing to do it but don't believe you'd be the best for them. It's NOT willing to do it that's unlawful.

My understanding of the Citizens United case was the Business had a first amendment protection for freedom of speech, but that it didn't reach to any of the other areas. I would guess that this precedent wasn't applied because refusal of service constitutes action which would be above and beyond speech. I'm not a legal expert though, so may very well be wrong.

It looks like the various appeals courts are divided on whether a for-profit business qualifies for freedom of religion, and that the supreme court has yet to hear the challenge.

http://www.worldmag.co​m …us_freedom_for_​businesses

cdifoto wrote in post #16414134
Businesses aren't supposed to have religious beliefs.

I can photograph a wedding doped up on Benedryl

Have do you know? Have you tried?

cdifoto wrote in post #16414134
Get out of the business of business entirely if it matters to you what your customers believe in, who they love, and how they identify in the world.

This goes back to my point. If you are in favor of traditional marriage, (Which I am, but that isn't the discussion) a large part of you feels like you are condoning the event by participating in it and recording it.

Could you sue a vegetarian for refusing to photograph a BBQ cook off? Better make that meet look as delicious as ever, Mr Vegetarian. You better make that gay wedding as magical and romantic as ever, Mr Christian.

Do you think if the photographer was Muslim instead of Christian that he would have lost?

Some of you guys are going way off base. The photographer in question told the clients that they were not available. That they were booked. Then the Person called back unanimously and asked under a different name and the photographer told her the date was open. When she was confronted, the photographer told her she refused to give her the date because for religious reasons she does not believe in gay marriage. It goes against her religious views so she refused to take the job. Big Mistake. And everyone should learn from this.

Thats discrimination when that someones class is protected under the law. Gays are now a protected class. You might not like it, but its the law. My suspicions is that Nickson is right. A pissing contest took place, some not so nice words were exchanged and the person who was scorned went on to prove a point. She probably recorded the entire thing.

All the photographer had to do was keep his views about gay marriage to himself and simply tell the client,," Im not a good fit for your wedding plans so I think you should seek someone else to photograph your event"------- End of conversation--------thats all anyone needs to say to a potential client.

I think this is a good learning experience so thats why i posted it for everyone to comment on. Do not let your personal opinions get involved with your business especially if it is contrary to the law. You have the right to say NO. Just be smart about the way you do it. The photographer in question, IMHO, screwed up big time. He/She should have just said...Im sorry. I dont think im the right person to cover your event......Dont get baited....just say NO and move on..........if they ask for an explanation why....Dont give one. Just say NO Thank You.

Sometimes that last word will come back and bite you in the Butt pretty hard......as it did here.

facedodge wrote in post #16414188
This goes back to my point. If you are in favor of traditional marriage, (Which I am, but that isn't the discussion) a large part of you feels like you are condoning the event by participating in it and recording it.

Could you sue a vegetarian for refusing to photograph a BBQ cook off? Better make that meet look as delicious as ever, Mr Vegetarian. You better make that gay wedding as magical and romantic as ever, Mr Christian.

Do you think if the photographer was Muslim instead of Christian that he would have lost?

...I am an atheist. I think god is a fairy tale. I have no problems photographing religious weddings. The religious background is unimportant. I'm photographing two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I'm photographing their friends and families who have come together to celebrate their union. Putting aside my feelings for religion is a pretty easy thing to do when I'm staring at two very happy people on the best day of their lives. You are trying to make photographing a gay wedding to be so much harder than it actually really is.

umphotography wrote in post #16414190
I think this is a good learning experience so thats why i posted it for everyone to comment on. Do not let your personal opinions get involved with your business especially if it is contrary to the law. You have the right to say NO. Just be smart about the way you do it. The photographer in question, IMHO, screwed up big time. He/She should have just said...Im sorry. I dont think im the right person to cover your event......Dont get baited....just say NO and move on..........if they ask for an explanation why....Dont give one. Just say NO Thank You.

Sometimes that last word will come back and bite you in the Butt pretty hard......as it did here.

LOL I thought the lesson was to just shoot it. Not how to avoid a lawsuit for refusing.

Where I live, discrimination doesn't need specific evidence or explanation to be actionable. The recipient needs to FEEL discriminated against and the feeling is actionable.

If I read this correctly, you're advocating discrimination (when a photographer feels like discriminating) and then offering advice about how not to get caught ?

umphotography wrote in post #16414190
Some of you guys are going way off base. The photographer in question told the clients that they were not available. That they were booked. Then the Person called back unanimously and asked under a different name and the photographer told her the date was open. When she was confronted, the photographer told her she refused to give her the date because for religious reasons she does not believe in gay marriage. It goes against her religious views so she refused to take the job. Big Mistake. And everyone should learn from this.

Thats discrimination when that someones class is protected under the law. Gays are now a protected class. You might not like it, but its the law. My suspicions is that Nickson is right. A pissing contest took place, some not so nice words were exchanged and the person who was scorned went on to prove a point. She probably recorded the entire thing.

All the photographer had to do was keep his views about gay marriage to himself and simply tell the client,," Im not a good fit for your wedding plans so I think you should seek someone else to photograph your event"------- End of conversation--------thats all anyone needs to say to a potential client.

I think this is a good learning experience so thats why i posted it for everyone to comment on. Do not let your personal opinions get involved with your business especially if it is contrary to the law. You have the right to say NO. Just be smart about the way you do it. The photographer in question, IMHO, screwed up big time. He/She should have just said...Im sorry. I dont think im the right person to cover your event......Dont get baited....just say NO and move on..........if they ask for an explanation why....Dont give one. Just say NO Thank You.

Sometimes that last word will come back and bite you in the Butt pretty hard......as it did here.

^ Maybe you should sue him

Haha. Too busy editing photos and shooting weddings for all sorts of couples to take the time to do that.

facedodge wrote in post #16414267
^ Maybe you should sue him

facedodge wrote in post #16414188
Have do you know? Have you tried?


This goes back to my point. If you are in favor of traditional marriage, (Which I am, but that isn't the discussion) a large part of you feels like you are condoning the event by participating in it and recording it.

Could you sue a vegetarian for refusing to photograph a BBQ cook off? Better make that meet look as delicious as ever, Mr Vegetarian. You better make that gay wedding as magical and romantic as ever, Mr Christian.

Do you think if the photographer was Muslim instead of Christian that he would have lost?

Tried and succeeded. It's not that hard actually. Beats shooting while sneezing, coughing, and with watery eyes making it impossible to see through the viewfinder.

facedodge wrote in post #16414188
Could you sue a vegetarian for refusing to photograph a BBQ cook off? Better make that meet look as delicious as ever, Mr Vegetarian. You better make that gay wedding as magical and romantic as ever, Mr Christian.

I've been pondering the question for a while, inspired by this thread. Some religions require abstinence from alcohol, coffee, or meat. A devout Muslim might not even be free to work in a place where liquor is served. There are also vegetarians who have secular moral reasons for their choice. Can a food photographer refuse a client because "I can't endorse drinking" or "I don't believe in eating pork," whether the grounds for the belief are religious or secular? Yes. Foods and beverages are not members of protected classes. People are.

To whoever said marriage was basically a religious institution: This is a misconception. To be married, a couple needs a license from the state. Having a religious ceremony is optional.

To posters who keep saying the gay couple wasn't really harmed, so why sue: The couple doesn't have to have been harmed for their suit to prevail. They only have to prove that discrimination was practiced. This kind of suit isn't about making up a loss to those two individuals particularly.