Another discrimination case?

Montreal photographer turns down gay wedding?

http://www.ctvnews.ca …oot-gay-wedding-1.3271507

Photographer respectfully declines a client and gets trashed on social media...As far as I know it's not a crime to have religious views and no-one should be forced to take on a client they are not comfortable with just because they want acceptance.

98kellrs wrote in post #18265619
Photographer respectfully declines a client and gets trashed on social media...As far as I know it's not a crime to have religious views and no-one should be forced to take on a client they are not comfortable with just because they want acceptance.

Restaurant respectfully declines to serve black patron...
Real Estate agent respectfully declines to show home to Hispanic buyer...
Taxi driver respectfully declines to drive woman wearing hijab...

If you put yourself out there for public service, it makes sense to SERVE the PUBLIC. Prejudice is still prejudice, even if you are polite about it.

Bassat wrote in post #18265652
If you put yourself out there for public service, it makes sense to SERVE the PUBLIC. Prejudice is still prejudice, even if you are polite about it.

Yes and no. It depends first and foremost upon the local jurisdiction. The Civil Rights Act in the U.S. prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of "public accommodation" on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin - i.e., discrimination against protected classes. U.S. Federal law, however, does not prohibit discrimination based on sex, gender identity or sexual orientation in public accommodations. State laws, on the other hand, may address these issues to some degree. Most U.S. states prohibit discrimination based on gender, although many state laws are still murky around the issue of gender-identity. Some states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation and some cities and towns have laws/ordinances prohibiting such types of discrimination even if the state does not.

I don't know all the details about "exceptions" to public accommodations laws. I do know that these exceptions don't allow private businesses to explicitly discriminate against people and individuals, but rather they allow them to refuse service under certain circumstances (e.g. no shirt, no shoes policies). Many courts have said as much as saying a business owner's religious rights do not give them license to discriminate someone else's protected class rights. However, there are many states that have also enacted state-level "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" which support private business owners' rights to exercise their deeply held religious beliefs. I'm not clear on how the conflict between public accommodations and these religious freedom laws is resolved... I am guessing it's unclear in many states and/or it depends on how conservative or liberal the supreme courts in each state are. I am an attorney, but not an expert in this area.

Legally speaking, it depends on what the laws in Montreal are... which I don't know. Maybe someone can shine some light for us on the topic.

From public policy and moral/ethical perspectives, to each his/her own.

Edit: Just found this interesting write-up designed for the U.S. photography community. Not sure how current it is, but it was written in 2015. This article provides a state-by-state overview of whether a photography can refuse to photograph LGBT weddings: http://improvephotogra​phy.com …photographer-must-decide/

Nathan wrote in post #18265994
Edit: Just found this interesting write-up designed for the U.S. photography community. Not sure how current it is, but it was written in 2015. This article provides a state-by-state overview of whether a photography can refuse to photograph LGBT weddings: http://improvephotogra​phy.com …photographer-must-decide/

Sorry, I don't think one has a right to stuff their own politics, or religion, down someone else's throat. In my private life, I can be as prejudiced as I care to be. That kind of behavior has no place in civil society. If I were in a restaurant, and the host(ess) refused to seat a gay/black/disabled/fat​/(pick a religion) couple, I'd get up and leave. And I'd certainly go public with my disdain for that establishment. The establishment should EXPECT disdain and ridicule. If they can be public about their lack of acceptance for this or that group, I can be public about my lack of support for them.

Nobody asked the photographer to BE gay. Allow me to make a huge supposition. They only wanted the photographer to take photographs. Last time I checked, pointing a camera at someone is not an endorsement of anything, including race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else.

Honestly, this topic turns my stomach. We live in the richest, free-est, most democratic county ever to have existed. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with someone else's lifestyle. They should be free to pursue it as long as they afford others the same courtesy. I am proud and happy to be a member of a profession that prides itself on providing the best service possible TO EVERYONE.

Would have been easier to just say "sorry I'm double booked"

Or just don't be a knob and shoot the wedding. They are clients buying a service.
I have a number of friends who are in same sex relationships/marriage​s ... I honestly don't understand the issue.

Jethr0 wrote in post #18266427
Would have been easier to just say "sorry I'm double booked"

That has been tried. It doesn't work, legally, if the photographer is later found out to have been lying to avoid taking the job. Charges of discrimination can be brought.

I was just outlining the legal landscape, presenting the status of the laws. I'll keep my personal opinions to a minimum, but I don't disagree with you.

Nathan wrote in post #18266484
I was just outlining the legal landscape, presenting the status of the laws. I'll keep my personal opinions to a minimum, but I don't disagree with you.

It does seem a bit like my rant was directed at you. No, it was not. I was railing against the idea that you presented in your last paragraph. Like my old pal RK once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

The "I won't shoot (c'mon - with a camera!) gays" crowd just appalls me. When was the last time anyone walked into the kitchen of a 5-star restaurant and asked about the chef's sexual preferences? It's 2:00 AM and this photog needs a taxi in pouring rain storm. Does he first check the sexual practices of the driver. "No, thanks. You appear to be gay. I'll walk." This whole thing is just a bunch weak-minded, quasi-conservative, self-righteous individuals who honestly believe their self-granted 'rights' are more important than the constitutionally granted civil liberties of some group they happen do despise. May they someday lose something precious just because someone else didn't like them. Any one of us could be the next Matthew Shepard.

Bassat wrote in post #18266529
This whole thing is just a bunch weak-minded, quasi-conservative, self-righteous individuals who honestly believe their self-granted 'rights' are more important than the constitutionally granted civil liberties of some group they happen do despise.

That's not the kind of statement I expect to hear from someone who's expressed a wish that we all just get along. It's apt to inflame members who hold the opposite opinion from yours. I know they exist, because this topic has been discussed before on POTN.

Not being one of the people you're talking about, I can only understand their point of view from the outside, but here goes. They don't see themselves as detached vendors who are simply selling a service. They believe that photographing a wedding is a way of participating in it or endorsing it, and they believe that same-sex weddings are wrong and they shouldn't be forced to act against their conscience.

If that seems irrational and immoral, try to put it in a context of other forms of protest. Civil disobedience is one example. Another is boycotting a business to show disapproval of some of its actions.

Threads on this topic were locked when people couldn't get along. I think we can try harder.

Bassat wrote in post #18266529
I was railing against the idea that you presented in your last paragraph.

Not the line that you quoted, right? That's just someone's map of where states are on the issue. I'm assuming where you saw what I wrote about religious freedom acts and that's where your reaction comes from.

I'm a supporter of gay marriage and other LGBT rights. From a public policy perspective, I think rights should be extended to everyone. I think what's unique to this situation is that the issue may conflict with a photographer's exercise of religious rights. This is different than a situation where a chef is asked to serve food to gay patrons or a taxi driver is asked to pick up gay passengers. A chef's and a taxi driver's personal beliefs do not generally come into conflict with their work. There's also a difference between exercise of religious beliefs and discrimination. A Jewish chef might only cook kosher food - if a gay couple asked him to prepare some non-kosher meat, he could refuse not because they are gay but because he doesn't prepare non-kosher to anyone. A Seventh Day Adventist taxi driver who was driving around in his taxi on a Saturday may be able to defend himself in court on religious grounds for refusing a gay couple who needed a ride only if he truly observes the Sabbath. If he otherwise works on Saturdays or was picking up other passengers, then he was more likely discriminating against the would-be customers.

I think that a Christian wedding photographer's situation is different and customers should try to respect that. In addition to performing a service, they are also actively participating in witness and observance of a religious event. A non-Christian photographer would simply be taking photographs, but not be evoked personal feelings on a religious level.

Personally, I think it is questionable when a gay couple sues a wedding photographer for discrimination - basically saying that their civil rights are greater than religious rights. Not all rights are equal, but in this case they're pretty close and I don't think one set of rights is more important than the other. It doesn't sit well with me if a photographer is falling victim to someone's political agenda to make a point. When we got married, we shopped around for a wedding photographer - not just for someone who took good photos, but also someone who was a good fit. If a photographer told us, "I don't want to refuse clients, but I'm not comfortable shooting traditional Vietnamese wedding you are describing," then we might not be happy about it but we'd move on. We don't want a photographer who was honest in telling us he was going to be uncomfortable for the several hours we were going to hire him. We're not going to turn around and say that he's white or black or Chinese and was discriminating against us.

OhLook wrote in post #18266576
Threads on this topic were locked when people couldn't get along. I think we can try harder.

I know political discussions are frowned upon, but I hope this doesn't get closed. I like civil discourse. Hoping people can discuss without being offensive.

.

Nathan wrote in post #18266811
I'm a supporter of gay marriage and other LGBT rights. From a public policy perspective, I think rights should be extended to everyone. I think what's unique to this situation is that the issue may conflict with a photographer's exercise of religious rights.

This is the very core of the issue. By forcing someone to not discriminate against anyone or any thing, you may be forcing that person to violate their own religious freedoms......which is then in turn discrimination against their beliefs and practices.

No kind of forced acceptance will ever completely work, no matter what the issue. Why? Because, by nature, humans tend to be vehemently opposed to other humans and their beliefs and practices. We are not intrinsically inclined to be tolerant of others, and laws that run counter to our very nature are doomed to fail, eventually.

As for the issue at hand, I cannot imagine wanting a photographer to shoot a super-important event for me if that photographer was uncomfortable about the event itself. Insisting on doing so seems to run against all of the advice that we read about finding a photographer who is a "good fit".

When people hire a wedding photographer, they are typically not looking for someone to simply document the event. They normally want images that capture their feelings about that special day. If the photographer - the person making all of the artistic decisions about the images - has feelings about the event that are diametrically opposed to your own, then how can you possibly expect the resultant images to be a visual expression of what that special day meant to you?

.

This is a good discussion.

Like many others I would never discriminate against a person because of his or her sexual orientation or identification.

Discrimination does, however, make perfect sense to me, both intellectual and emotional. If asked to participate in or otherwise support a Holocaust Denial White Supremacy Uber Alles celebration I'd refuse based on a confusion but powerful combination of religious, ethical and visceral grounds.

In my view, laws against discrimination in housing, educational, employment, public accommodation and the courts, though always imperfect, make sense because in those areas discrimination can be so harmful to individuals, groups and the whole society. Loss by discrimination of a couple's free choice of a wedding shooter does not, to me, rise to the level of substantial harm.

In short, this stuff brings me back to Rodney King. "I just want to say - you know - can we all get along? can we, can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible . . . "

Ought to be:

Photographer: I respect your right to get married. It is, however, against my religious beliefs. It is something I don't understand and have difficulty accepting. I would feel uncomfortable photographing your wedding and would like to decline you as clients. You deserve a photographer who is excited about your marriage as you are.

Couple: Well, we respect your religious beliefs even though it saddens us that you do not support our marriage. We won't be seeking your services, but we also won't make you the target of our cause, either.

I think any photographer should be free to turn down any job they want to if they dont agree with what they are photographing....
How many of us would go and photograph a big game hunter killing lions and elephants if he asked us to ?
This is supposed to be a society that allows individuals to do what they believe is right regarding their own beliefs and morals...
Personally I dont think gay marriages are right and so I would not accept a job photographing one, if that upsets some people that is up to them but I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else......even if those opinions differ..