Wedding Photographer gets his Butt Sued off

abbypanda wrote in post #16415208
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.

Once again, BUSINESSES do/should not have religious viewpoints or moral stances. The people within them, sure, but not the business as a unit performing in the public sector.

Is it 100% cut & dry? Of course not. But businesses used to refuse service to "coloreds" on religious grounds. There were "whites only" water fountains on religious grounds. Heck there are WARS on religious grounds. If we allow freedom of religion to trump all, people would kill and do all kinds of other harm to others at will and claim it was their religious right, and no law could argue with it.

Do you REALLY want to go there?

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415205
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.

No not immunity from discrimination.

If your religion prevents you from performing a task, you shouldn't have to do it.

Should a hard line Muslim photographer that isn't religiously allowed to see women naked be forced to take naked pics of me for my boyfriend if I'm not married?

If he says no is he acting according to his religion or because he "is intentionally discriminating against a woman"

I'm sure there will be various opinions on that. I have mine.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415216
No not immunity from discrimination.

If your religion prevents you from performing a task, you shouldn't have to do it.

Discriminate all you like, but be prepared to get legally slapped for it.

I dare say that no one in this thread believes in freedom of religion in any kind of non-qualified way. There are limits. When religious ideas conflict with laws, e.g., or more generally, when they result in harm to others, those religious freedoms end. To stay relevant to this thread, gay people are being harmed when they are discriminated against.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415208
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.

cdifoto wrote in post #16415214
Once again, BUSINESSES do/should not have religious viewpoints or moral stances. The people within them, sure, but not the business as a unit performing in the public sector.

Is it 100% cut & dry? Of course not. But businesses used to refuse service to "coloreds" on religious grounds. There were "whites only" water fountains on religious grounds. Heck there are WARS on religious grounds. If we allow freedom of religion to trump all, people would kill and do all kinds of other harm to others at will and claim it was their religious right, and no law could argue with it.

Do you REALLY want to go there?

As I said i can be abused both ways.
The courts ruled thus far in the case against obamacare that businesses have a right to their beliefs and it's an equal form of evangelicalism.

Religion can cause people to kill (holy wars)
Religion can also keep people from what they feel is forced murder (forced abortion as mandated by Obamacare )

abbypanda wrote in post #16415216
Should a hard line Muslim photographer that isn't religiously allowed to see women naked be forced to take naked pics of me for my boyfriend if I'm not married?

What are the chances of a hardline Muslim photographer who's religion forbids nude photography being in the nude genre in the first place? Are you saying he'd be shooting only men until he came across you? Nudes are a genre, not a protected class of people and no law forces any photographer to photograph nudes anymore than they force any photographer to shoot weddings.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415219
I dare say that no one in this thread believes in freedom of religion in any kind of non-qualified way. There are limits. When religious ideas conflict with laws, e.g., or more generally, when they result in harm to others, those religious freedoms end. To stay relevant to this thread, gay people are being harmed when they are discriminated against.

Yes gays are harmed when discriminated against.
When the government forces people to do things that conflict with their religious beliefs they are equally harmed.

It goes both ways

I guess when I punch someone my hand hurts--it's true. It goes both ways.

As I said a page or two back, if you see 'not discriminating' as something burdensome, that seems really sad to me.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415228
Yes gays are harmed when discriminated against.
When the government forces people to do things that conflict with their religious beliefs they are equally harmed.

It goes both ways

abbypanda wrote in post #16415228
When the government forces people to do things that conflict with their religious beliefs they are equally harmed.

That's a cross you have to bear when you enter the business sector. Business, not personal.

As an individual you can think whatever you want but as a business you cannot. Deal or get out of business.

Haven't you noticed that as an employee you also have to keep your trap shut? You can't disparage other protected classes without risking your job, even if you're just a lowly mailroom grunt.

cdifoto wrote in post #16415221
What are the chances of a hardline Muslim photographer who's religion forbids nude photography being in the nude genre in the first place? Are you saying he'd be shooting only men until he came across you? Nudes are a genre, not a protected class of people and no law forces any photographer to photograph nudes anymore than they force any photographer to shoot weddings.

Was an example and you get the point if you have to argue the "chances"
Point is I'd never feel he's discriminating me just acting according to his beliefs

but nudes aren't a protected class like weddings aren't a protected class. Women are protected much like gays.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415233
As I said a page or two back, if you see 'not discriminating' as something burdensome, that seems really sad to me.

Indeed.

I find it baffling that some people consider it to be an effort...unbearable in some cases...to simply provide services to everyone.

abbypanda wrote in post #16415239
Was an example and you get the point if you have to argue the "chances"
Point is I'd never feel he's discriminating me just acting according to his beliefs

but nudes aren't a protected class like weddings aren't a protected class. Women are protected much like gays.

Women are protected but this isn't even discriminating. This is asking someone to shoot a genre they don't shoot. You can't pull the woman card on everything. It doesn't always apply just because you're female. They're turning you down because you're nude, not because you're a woman. If I don't shoot nudes, nudes can be turned down no matter what possible protected class someone happens to be in. I don't even need a religious reason. I can simply say I don't shoot nudes. I can't say I don't shoot gay nudes or black nudes or asian nudes or Catholic nudes but if I don't shoot nudes I simply don't have to. If I do shoot nudes, I would then need a non-protected class reason not to.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16415233
I guess when I punch someone my hand hurts--it's true. It goes both ways.

As I said a page or two back, if you see 'not discriminating' as something burdensome, that seems really sad to me.

If y read my posts I have no problem servicing gays. I've had many gay couples bring children to my gym. I have a lesbian couple right now.

I just believe the government shouldn't force someone to violate their religious principles solely bc they are a business owner.

The courts Seem to be changing their tune as they rule on obamacare and employer mandated abortions for religious based companies

cdifoto wrote in post #16415243
Women are protected but this isn't even discriminating. This is asking someone to shoot a genre they don't shoot. You can't pull the woman card on everything. It doesn't always apply just because you're female. They're turning you down because you're nude, not because you're a woman. If I don't shoot nudes, nudes can be turned down no matter what possible protected class someone happens to be in.

I never said I was asking him to shoot a genre he didn't shoot you made that up. Yah maybe he shoots nude men idk. It was an example and you have no response other than to say "well that wouldn't happen anyway". And if it did I wouldn't feel he's discriminating for turning me down for his religion. I'd politely say thanks and wish him a nice day.

I equally find it unbearable the lack if mutual respect for others religions and rights to run a business according to their belief

abbypanda wrote in post #16415258
I never said I was asking him to shoot a genre he didn't shoot you made that up. Yah maybe he shoots nude men idk. It was an example and you have no response other than to say "well that wouldn't happen anyway". And if it did I wouldn't feel he's discriminating for turning me down for his religion. I'd politely say thanks and wish him a nice day.

I equally find it unbearable the lack if mutual respect for others religions and rights to run a business according to their belief

You can't just say "IDK" because the exact scenario is critical. If he only shoots daffodils, that matters. If he only shoots weddings, that matters. If he only shoots hummingbirds, that matters. You can't just throw up "if he's Muslim..."

If he photographed female nudes and turned you down it's probably because you're ugly. It wouldn't be because you're female. Or nude. Ugly isn't protected.

He could possibly turn you down on the basis of female IF he only ever shot male nudes but honestly that's one I'm not 100% sure about. It would be gender based but it could be considered genre if he lists himself as a master of the male form and not female.