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..

Actually I said it was a religious ceremony that was unwisely intertwined with civil law. A better alternative would have been to make a separate process under the law. That was not done so we have what we have today--a bastardization of civil & religious law and it is a mess. Separation of church & state was a good idea at some point for a very good reason. Now look what we've done.

Two separate processes, legal and religious, would have made everyone happy and eliminated people being offended because they are told their religious beliefs are wrong according to the state.

I believe you're a stand up dude who would do the right thing; I'm just surprised that you see the problem here as the 'getting caught' and not the discrimination. I want people who discriminate to get caught. But I do get your point--looked at purely from the standpoint of running a business (without any concerns for what kind of society we want to live in), your advice may be sound.

umphotography wrote in post #16414412
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

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16414513
I believe you're a stand up dude who would do the right thing; I'm just surprised that you see the problem here as the 'getting caught' and not the discrimination. I want people who discriminate to get caught. But I do get your point--looked at purely from the standpoint of running a business (without any concerns for what kind of society we want to live in), your advice may be sound.

No I agree. The real problem is discrimination. But I also firmly believe that many in the gay community have a point to prove, as evident by the individual that set up this photographer, so we should all be educated enough to not fall into this type of trap. I think the photographer got set up and I also think he/she discriminated as well. I see both sides of the argument.

Bottom line. set up policies and treat people with kindness and respect and dont let your personal opinions cloud your judgement with your business.

From my personal point of view. I do not discriminate and I do not see color. Do onto others as you would want done to you is how i live. I left a very secure job in law enforcement because I just could not deal with the blatant discrimination from law enforcement toward the minority communities. It was a big problem in the 60's,70's and 80's. Maybe not as bad these days. But when i was in,, it was horrible. I know very well what discrimination as all about. It gets my blood to boil thats for sure. You better not involve children when im around is all i have to say. You will quickly see the error of your ways. I hate people that discriminate and live with hatred towards another race..look out if you cross that path in front of me. I will jump down someones throat w/o hesitation.

umphotography wrote in post #16414552
No I agree. The real problem is discrimination. But I also firmly believe that many in the gay community have a point to prove, as evident by the individual that set up this photographer, so we should all be educated enough to not fall into this type of trap. I think the photographer got set up and I also think he/she discriminated as well. I see both sides of the argument.

Was the photographer set up, or did the couple call back out of curiosity because they got a vibe from the previous conversation(s)?

cdifoto wrote in post #16414634
Was the photographer set up, or did the couple call back out of curiosity because they got a vibe from the previous conversation(s)?

That's what I am thinking too. I got the impression that they were just looking to hire the photographer but were suspicious when they were fobbed off, and put in another enquiry for the same date to see if he was lying.

Being "set up" suggests that they were out to get him from the very start, and manipulated events to get him to turn them down, and I don't see any evidence (or even a suggestion) of that.

My feeling is that they believed he was discriminating against them, and decided to see if that was actually the case, or if he was telling the truth.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16414357
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.

Sure, but the meaning of marriage for them doesn't change the history of marriage as an institution or its functions in the society where they live. Marriage can have all sorts of meanings. A teenaged couple might think of it as a way to escape being ruled by their parents.

As marriage is legally defined, it does include permission from the government (i.e., meeting the conditions for a license), and it needn't include a religious element. Considering oneself to be married, without having a government license, doesn't create a marriage.

When matters of inheritance involving a couple come up, it won't be the church that gets involved. It'll be the state. Same with child custody and many other things.

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.

I'm glad you said this. I was wondering whether some of the posters here thought Rosa Parks was anything more than a bus passenger with sore feet and a grudge. Don't people know what a test case is? Ms. Parks was carefully selected to represent a class. Other black bus riders had suffered discrimination before, but she was the ideal plaintiff.

Blaster6 wrote in post #16414500
Actually I said it was a religious ceremony that was unwisely intertwined with civil law.

It isn't essentially a religious ceremony, though. People got married in ancient times long before the current world religions existed. The ritual may include religious elements, but a civil ceremony establishes a couple as married in the eyes of society as well as a religious ceremony does.

Another example of a segment of society demanding you accept their beliefs but refuse to acknowledge yours.

rob0225 wrote in post #16414827
Another example of a segment of society demanding you accept their beliefs but refuse to acknowledge yours.

They're not demanding that we accept their beliefs. They're only demanding that we photograph them the way we'd photograph any other couple.

Business should be secular in that everyone is treated equally. Period. We don't have to worship with our clients or even hang out with our clients but we do have to provide the same service to everyone.

OhLook wrote in post #16414691
As marriage is legally defined, it does include permission from the government (i.e., meeting the conditions for a license), and it needn't include a religious element. Considering oneself to be married, without having a government license, doesn't create a marriage.

Like I said before. You don't get to define what marriage is for other people.

People marry within religious framework without a contract with government.

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.

How did you manage to miss 50 years of women's rights and activism that changed legal framework? Patriarchy, gender wage gap... etc.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16414954
Like I said before. You don't get to define what marriage is for other people.

That's right. The law defines what marriage is for everyone in the jurisdiction, and I don't make the law.

In this country, if you don't have a governmental license (a license, not a contract), you aren't married.

cdifoto wrote in post #16414876
They're not demanding that we accept their beliefs. They're only demanding that we photograph them the way we'd photograph any other couple.

Business should be secular in that everyone is treated equally. Period. We don't have to worship with our clients or even hang out with our clients but we do have to provide the same service to everyone.

Businesses should treat people equal yes…secular, no. Businesses should have a right to equally turn away any job or service that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

IMO that is the fine line of "discrimination" vs "religion". "I'm not going to photograph you b/c you are gay and I don't like that" is different than "My religious beliefs prevent me from attending a gay marriage ceremony, and thus I cannot adequately perform the job to the proper standards".

There should be nothing wrong with #2.

After all, why would a gay couple who wants someone who feels the way #2 feels to do that? Why should a gay couple expect any business owner to violate their personal religious beliefs? They shouldn't.
That's equality. Equal respect. I would never go in any business that had a religious or personal view that conflicted with mine and complain that they didn't service me to the standard of my belief while going against their own. I would never expect someone to do that.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415166
Businesses should treat people equal yes…secular, no. Businesses should have a right to equally turn away any job or service that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

IMO that is the fine line of "discrimination" vs "religion". "I'm not going to photograph you b/c you are gay and I don't like that" is different than "My religious beliefs prevent me from attending a gay marriage ceremony, and thus I cannot adequately perform the job to the proper standards".

There should be nothing wrong with #2.

After all, why would a gay couple who wants someone who feels the way #2 feels to do that? Why should a gay couple expect any business owner to violate their personal religious beliefs? They shouldn't.
That's equality. Equal respect. I would never go in any business that had a religious or personal view that conflicted with mine and complain that they didn't service me to the standard of my belief while going against their own. I would never expect someone to do that.

"I'm not going to photograph you because my obscure, made up just so I can be a bigot religion forbids me from catering to blacks and Jews."

See what kind of slippery slope you get on when you allow religious exceptions?

Here's an idea. And it's perfectly legal. If you don't want to photograph a gay, interracial, or any other type of wedding say this:

"I am legally obligated to accept your business and will do so if you insist, however I would like to make it clear that personally I do not support, endorse, believe in, or accept your way of life, creed, religion, or skin color."

Simple. You have neither objected to their service nor turned them away due to any protected class but at the same time have made it clear to them that you're personally going to hate it. Leave it at that and you won't get into trouble because you have not discriminated against them by denying them service. You do have every right to feel however you want, believe whatever you want, and state whatever you want. This gives them the opportunity to know how you are and back out. If they still hire you, suck it up like the professional you claim to be.*

*consult with an attorney as I only play one on the internet.

I hope you don't mind my saying so, but it sounds to me like you're suggesting that religion should be able to be used as some kind of blanket immunity from claims of discrimination. I'm not sure why the SOURCE of their beliefs is relevant here. Moreover, you're only being consistent if you also think it's acceptable for a person to refuse to serve a black person for religious reasons.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415166
Businesses should treat people equal yes…secular, no. Businesses should have a right to equally turn away any job or service that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

IMO that is the fine line of "discrimination" vs "religion". "I'm not going to photograph you b/c you are gay and I don't like that" is different than "My religious beliefs prevent me from attending a gay marriage ceremony, and thus I cannot adequately perform the job to the proper standards".

There should be nothing wrong with #2.

After all, why would a gay couple who wants someone who feels the way #2 feels to do that? Why should a gay couple expect any business owner to violate their personal religious beliefs? They shouldn't.
That's equality. Equal respect. I would never go in any business that had a religious or personal view that conflicted with mine and complain that they didn't service me to the standard of my belief while going against their own. I would never expect someone to do that.

cdifoto wrote in post #16415193
"I'm not going to photograph you because my obscure, made up just so I can be a bigot religion forbids me from catering to blacks and Jews."

See what kind of slippery slope you get on when you allow religious exceptions?

Yes certainly.

But what a slippery slope we are on when Menonite based companies (with a professed public statement) like my dads have to start paying for abortions as mandated by the law.

What a slippery slope when people are forced to do things that truly put them in moral predicaments.

Then what? Do they have freedom of religion? I don't believe so.

The constitution gives religious freedom. Not religious freedom to "everyone except business owners"

It goes both ways and certainly each side can be abused.

And in the end mutual respect by both parties is the answer.