Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

OhLook wrote in post #16414323
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.

Marriage can be more than one thing and it certainly isn't limited to the stupid contract with the government, the way it's legally defined.

People choose the conditions under which they get married and consider themselves to be married, even without having a government license. So for them, it's a religious institution.

OhLook wrote in post #16414323
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.

I'm fully aware of why they sued and won. I don't agree with it. Anti discrimination laws are great, when they're needed and a complete PITA and cumbersome in situations like these (if the previous recollection of events is true). If they didn't leave you hanging for a photographer after they said yes, then you're free to go find a new one. But they didn't want to, it seems they were looking for discrimination. I wonder how many photographers they interviewed to try and hire before they found one they could bait and hook?

Why would you want someone taking pictures of you and your event if they didn't want to be there?

^ Exactly. These people had a chip on their shoulder. They had something to prove. The photographer wanted to mind his own business and this couple went out of their way. This would be entrapment if the cops did it.

Granted it was wrong for the photographer to get into a nasty exchange of emails, but I don't blame him for feeling like someone was picking a fight with him, because they did.

That black woman went out of her way to sit at the front of that bus. Should have just stayed with her own in the back. Definitely a chip on her shoulder.

Just so you're aware of how your argument sounds.

facedodge wrote in post #16414378
^ Exactly. These people had a chip on their shoulder. They had something to prove. The photographer wanted to mind his own business and this couple went out of their way. This would be entrapment if the cops did it.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414386
That black woman went out of her way to sit at the front of that bus. Should have just stayed with her own in the back. Definitely a chip on her shoulder.

Just so you're aware of how your argument sounds.

What are you talking about? She was turned down politely. She could have moved on and found another photographer. There are probably hundreds in her area. Instead, she decided to try and trick him into revealing his lie, then found a lawyer and sued him.

Stop trying to equate black civil rights with gay rights to marriage. There is no comparison. Such comparisons cheapen what those who fought for equality went through.

This is more like if there was already someone sitting in that chair and she decided if that person didn't get up for her, she would sue them, even though there were empty chairs all around them.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414251
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 ?

No. Im offering advice on how to keep your butt out of court. A little common sense goes a long way in these situations. For what its worth to you, I have photographed 2 gay weddings this year and have 1 on the books for next year. But I still stand by my statement. Its OK to say no and leave it at that. The moment you interject your personal beliefs into this, you may very well be violating the law. Obviously, this photographer didn't know how to say know and probably didnt know how to keep his mouth shut-- hence,, thats why hes out about 7K plus his own costs

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.

I agree with what you said: it's illegal to refuse a class that by law is protected. However (per my previous post) under obamacare it's LAW that companies have to provide abortion. However a court has allowed Hobby Lobby's lawsuit challenging this to proceed against the federal government.

I feel this is contradictory to cases such as this, and wonder if better legal representation would help photographers with religious views in these circumstances (though I feel he went about it wrong).

A court ruled that a secular company can have christian values and allowed Hobby Lobby's case against the government to proceed, based on the fact that mandated abortion coverage violates their religion.… But a photographer does not have that same right? A photographer has to sit through a gay wedding if it violates his/ her religion? In both of these scenarios we are discussing laws: The law says you can't discriminate, the law says companies have to provide abortion coverage.

this was what the court wrote in regards to their decision regarding Hobby Lobby's challenge of Mandated Abortion Coverage:

In spite of the new rules not containing an exemption for religious businesses, this week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, reversing the denial of a federal injunction and sending the matter back to the district court for further review.

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” the panel wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”

I can not find any further information on the topic (past June) so i assume their suit agains the government is pending yet. Ultimately I feel the end ruling in situations such as this will set a precedent for religious businesses in many other situations.

like I said, anti discrimination laws are needed and are necessary, that black woman by the name of Rosa did the right thing and was fighting a just cause I think. If we were to fast forward to today and she was at a bus station with 15 buses with every available to her front and back but she decided she only wanted the one seat that put her next to someone that didn't want to sit by her and she decided to sue? I'd think she was crazy

abbypanda wrote in post #16414437
I agree with what you said: it's illegal to refuse a class that by law is protected. However (per my previous post) under obamacare it's LAW that companies have to provide abortion. However a court has allowed Hobby Lobby's lawsuit challenging this to proceed against the federal government.

I feel this is contradictory to cases such as this, and wonder if better legal representation would help photographers with religious views in these circumstances (though I feel he went about it wrong).

A court ruled that a secular company can have christian values and allowed Hobby Lobby's case against the government to proceed, based on the fact that mandated abortion coverage violates their religion.… But a photographer does not have that same right? A photographer has to sit through a gay wedding if it violates his/ her religion? In both of these scenarios we are discussing laws: The law says you can't discriminate, the law says companies have to provide abortion coverage.

this was what the court wrote in regards to their decision regarding Hobby Lobby's challenge of Mandated Abortion Coverage:

In spite of the new rules not containing an exemption for religious businesses, this week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, reversing the denial of a federal injunction and sending the matter back to the district court for further review.

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” the panel wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”


I can not find any further information on the topic (past June) so i assume their suit agains the government is pending yet. Ultimately I feel the end ruling in situations such as this will set a precedent for religious businesses in many other situations.

That's probably because pregnancy is not a protected class.

cdifoto wrote in post #16414455
That's probably because pregnancy is not a protected class.

Women are a "protected class" I'd argue. Women are protected with the right to abortion under Obamacare. Just like gays are protected with the right to live free of discrimination.

Either way, the law says "companies have to provide abortion". The law also says "companies can't discriminate". And the court ruled to protect religious views in one case. I feel with good representation a photographer can win that fight.

the nuts and bolts on the photographers end isn't about "protected class" The nuts and bolts of the lawsuit in both ends is "does a business have to violate it's religious values to comply with federal law." In one case (hobby lobby) courts ruled no. In gays vs photographers courts ruled yes.

facedodge wrote in post #16414411
What are you talking about? She was turned down politely. She could have moved on and found another photographer. There are probably hundreds in her area. Instead, she decided to try and trick him into revealing his lie, then found a lawyer and sued him.

Stop trying to equate black civil rights with gay rights to marriage. There is no comparison. Such comparisons cheapen what those who fought for equality went through.

This is more like if there was already someone sitting in that chair and she decided if that person didn't get up for her, she would sue them, even though there were empty chairs all around them.

Sure they could have moved on and found another photographer, just like black people could have moved on and found another cafe, library, shop, swimming pool etc., before they stood up and fought for their rights.

Of course there is a comparison between black civil rights and gay civil rights. It isn't that long ago that it was illegal to have a gay relationship and people were jailed for it, it still is in some countries and even punishable by the death penalty in places. Homophobia is still an issue and "gay bashing" is no different for those beaten up or killed for being gay, than it was (is) for black people beaten up for being black.

How can you say there is no difference in a group being persecuted and discriminated against for being born with the "wrong" colour skin, and another group being persecuted and discriminated against for being born with the "wrong" sexuality. Are you saying it is wrong to discriminate against the former, but OK to discriminate against the latter? If so, why is there a difference.

Yes, they stood up against discrimination. That is how we have come to the stage where it is possible for gay couples in love to marry the same as other people, in some states at least. Here in the UK, gays are still not allowed to marry, but a civil partnership has been brought in. Not perfect, but a whole lot better than 50 years ago when they could be prosecuted for simply having a gay relationship.

How do you think things have improved so much and gay people have become so much more accepted by other people? It's because they stood up for their rights and fought hard for them, the same as black people did. The only difference is that gay rights haven't yet come as far, and so still need fighting for.

abbypanda wrote in post #16414462
Women are a "protected class" I'd argue. Women are protected with the right to abortion under Obamacare. Just like gays are protected with the right to live free of discrimination.

Either way, the law says "companies have to provide abortion". The law also says "companies can't discriminate". And the court ruled to protect religious views in one case. I feel with good representation a photographer can win that fight.

You can argue it but women are no more (or less) protected than men. If men could get pregnant, the abortion ruling would apply to them as well.

facedodge wrote in post #16414188
Do you think if the photographer was Muslim instead of Christian that he would have lost?

That is an excellent point. Sadly, I believe things would have gone differently.

cdifoto wrote in post #16414477
You can argue it but women are no more (or less) protected than men. If men could get pregnant, the abortion ruling would apply to them as well.

Now you are correct on that. (if a man got pregnant) but again it boils down to the argument: "does a business have to violate it's religious beliefs to comply with federal law" (obamacare and discrimination both being federal laws). Discrimination laws prevent companies from discriminating based on a class of person, but in most cases (such as race, etc) religious values do not play in to that. In the case of gays it does, and this is where I feel the ultimate rulings in the companies vs the federal govt in obamacare will have massive impact.

In the event of obamacare they ruled a company has the right to practice religious standards as a form of evangelicalism that is "no different" and that the company had a right to refuse to perform part of a federal law that would violate their religious standards.

And for the record I am religious but I would have no problem shooting a gay wedding. Several of my child students have gay parents. First and foremost, I believe we are to love one another. I hope that if I photograph a gay persons wedding, that my beliefs are evident in a positive manner, not a negative manner. I also hope and believe that Hobby Lobby and other religious companies will win their right to maintain their faith practices in their business.

It's not so much a point as it is speculation with no basis in fact that seems fueled by a persecution complex.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16414484
That is an excellent point. Sadly, I believe things would have gone differently.