Can I refuse to shoot a couple, cermonoy or person for any reason legally?

nm.

LeeSC wrote in post #5638741
I think this is mainly based in people's religious backgrounds. While it is not a sin to be black or puerto rican, it is a sin to be a homosexual.

I am not saying that I feel this way, but know many religious people who think this way.

Ah. Well, as I said before, one of the ways slavery in the U.S. was justified was by Christians citing the Bible. So what if a photographer turns down a job from a divorced person, because divorce is a sin. Would that be acceptable?

I'm still seeing a glaring double standard here, regarding the ethics of turning down a gay couple vs. turning down a mixed-race couple....

Skip Souza wrote in post #5638718
Needs v. wants. People need food, shelter, clothing etc. for survival. No one needs a wedding photographed. <snip>

No one needs to eat in a restaurant if there's a grocery store next door, but you can't deny service based on a protected status. The intent, I believe, is to guarantee access to all that society has to offer, which includes professional services. I could be wrong, but that would be my preferred interpretation.

Equal isn't complicated, just the ways of getting around it.

It's not about "need." Discrimination laws don't only apply to services that are essential for life, they apply to any and all services, I'm assuming (but correct me if I'm wrong).

That is not the way I explained it to my kids. Food, shelter, clothing and an education were the needs that I would provide without hesitation. Everything else are wants and may or may not be provided as I saw fit. Not that they wanted for much, I just had to remind them from time to time.

That's a really good approach with kids, but I think the point is to NOT treat others like kids, but as equals.

jmtron wrote in post #5638710
I didn't mean this question legally; more personally. Specifically I'm asking the people who find it unacceptable to to turn down a job based on race, but acceptable to turn down a job based on sexual preference. My question: what's the difference between the two?

SlowBlink wrote in post #5638727
The common answer is it's a choice, therefore moral and against a code.

This viewpoint has been made a number of times, that it is OK to protect the rights of other races "because they had no choice", but that gay people have made a choice and so can be discriminated against.

I'll ignore any racist implications that might be present in the comment (they are black, but I'll not discriminate because they didn't have a choice) and concentrate on the bit about gays "making the choice to be gay".

Are you guys serious ??

People don't CHOOSE to be gay, any more than they choose to be male, female, black or white. It's in the genes just the same as everything else. People aren't straight for years and then decide to be different and suddenly become attracted to the same sex.

By shooting a gay wedding you aren't promoting a lifestyle / moral choice, people aren't going to see the wedding photos and go "Oh, that's soooo sweeet, I'm going to become gay".

Whether you are gay, straight, or swing both ways is decided before you are born.

As has been pointed out by others, homophobia and discrimination is now largely found amongst the older generations. The younger generations are far more accepting of gays. This is similar to the way that racism is reducing as newer generations grow up in a society that does not discriminate, yet their parents still remember the segregation found during their childhood.

The longer a group has equality, the more it becomes accepted as normal. So, just as few would disagree with womens equal rights, racial equal rights etc., in another generation gay rights will be accepted by the vast majority, although there will still be some religious objections I'm sure.

Personally, I would find it hard to support a god that would create gay people and then condemn them for being gay. But then, I see a lot of what is written in the bible as the word of people who want to put their own point across. I won't get into that rant here though.

I apologise for being slightly off topic, as this isn't the legal advice you are after, however if you are willing to shoot coloured weddings "because they had no choice but to be coloured", then by the same logic you should shoot gay weddings.

Documenting an event does not imply personal support for that event, many good war photographers don't support the wars they are covering.

When I did weddings I was approached to shoot a Jehovah's Witness wedding. I am most definitely NOT a supporter of that religion, however I put that to one side and concentrated on the people involved and did my best efforts to cover the event. Whilst I did not support their beliefs or certain aspects of the lifestyle, I found them to be nice people and they were very happy with the results.

I fully understand that you have religious beliefs, but wedding photographers may get commissions for Methodist, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Islamic weddings etc., etc. I am sure that some of those will also not be in line with your belief system, however you don't need to hold the same beliefs as your clients in order to produce a good set of wedding images. The same goes for gay weddings.

Bravo Graham - glad somebody finally stated it this way. I was getting ready to make a similar statement but you made it faster and more eloquently than I could.

With all the gay bashing, hate mongering, discrimination and outright hostility towards the homosexual community, why would so many people choose to go out of their way to embrace that particular lifestyle? Life is hard enough as it is with all the normal trials and tribulations. Why look for more aggravation?

Living in a large city with a significant gay population, I'm actually surprised that I've never in all my years been approached to photograph any sort of gay event. I am not interested in the lifestyle nor do I promote it. And I do NOT consider photographing a gay union promoting that lifestyle choice. I have a certain sensitivity to discrimination, in all its obvious as well as sneaky little forms, and will not contribute to it.

But I would actually be interested in photographing another type of celebration, just as I have always enjoyed shooting Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Chinese-Irish, African American and many other types of weddings.

sandpiper wrote in post #5639144
......about gays "making the choice to be gay".

Are you guys serious ??

People don't CHOOSE to be gay, any more than they choose to be male, female, black or white. It's in the genes just the same as everything else. People aren't straight for years and then decide to be different and suddenly become attracted to the same sex.

By shooting a gay wedding you aren't promoting a lifestyle / moral choice, people aren't going to see the wedding photos and go "Oh, that's soooo sweeet, I'm going to become gay".

Whether you are gay, straight, or swing both ways is decided before you are born. ......

Documenting an event does not imply personal support for that event, many good war photographers don't support the wars they are covering.

......

Last I checked it is no longer illegal for people of different races to wed, the same cannot be said for gays in all states. I understand your logic in wanting to represent one in a similar light as the other but the religious undertones are not as palpable when discussing gay marriage as opposed to inter-racial marriage. The discrimination is just the same as far as I am concerned, but there is a little more legal and religious meat involved.

Honestly I understand the OP's issue with being "told what to do" but the very good point was made that you need to decide if you are an artist or a business person becasue as the latter you have to be very careful.

I would like to add that while this is a very volatile subject I think everyone here is really doing a great job in promoting discussion as opposed to getting too far gone on either 'side' of it and I appreciate that.

A person very close to me is Gay. He is also deeply religious and he has a wonderful church that he attends with his common law husband. He's literally the smartest, most organized and BEST person I know. He's almost too nice and too righteous. Is that possible?

Now take me. Degenerate liberal, fiscally conservative, uber-atheist proto Libertarian. But I'm hetero. Religious persons should NOT want to shoot my wedding 10 times over before refusing my friend. Religion should in theory have no bearing.

If you have to openly think about the implications of refusing gay and lesbian couples I think you are in the wrong business. Sorta like a race car driver that doesn't work on the Sabbath.

I think I should get off this topic now.

PC, you can very easily avoid shooting dangerous sports and sexually explicit material. But as soon as you hang out your "Wedding Photographer" shingle, you are wide open and post an invitation to the general public.

When doing business with the public, you always run the risk of a potential lawsuit if yo pi$$ somebody off. It may be frivolous. They may lose. But it will tie you up and cause aggravation and lost time.

As I recommended before, either find yourself busy on the calendar with some other legitimate acitvity, or be totally honest with the couple about you orientation and preference. Tell them you have no experience at all doing a gay wedding. Make it very clear to them that you are so uncomfortable with their lifestyle, that you have no doubt your distress will affect the quality of your work, and that they are better served by another who has no issue with such an event. You'd be completely truthful here. Hopefully they would take the hint and shop elsewhere.

But even with the above advice, from what you've told us so far I believe you will always live with the anxiety of some potentially unacceptable client. IMHO I really don't feel you should be going into wedding photography.

pcunite wrote in post #5638380
.....For me I don't want to do gay weddings, dangerous forms of sports, and sexuality explicit material. Those are all protected activities.........

cosworth wrote in post #5639235
Degenerate...

You? A degenerate? Tell me it ain't so...

:p

PC, do you sell software and s/w consultation services to gay people? If you do, then how would this be different from selling photographs and photographic services to gay people?

Both gays and straights use s/w to entertain, improve, and manage their lives. Since you are already selling this type of service to everybody, why can't you sell photography then? There seems to be a contradiction here....

pcunite wrote in post #5632934
To make my point more clear.

I run a software business and I don't care who or what my customers do (as long as it is legal) I will sell to anyone.

My wife and I want a photography business and we view it as art. We don't want to be forced to create certain types of art, namely: Pornography, violence, hate, or unions between a man and two women, unions between a woman and her dog...

You get the idea...