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

jmtron wrote in post #5638608
I don't think were talking about fine art here, we're talking about commercial photography, right? If there are any fine art photography cases along these lines, please let us know.

As far as the gubmint requiring one to shoot something--I don't think that's ever been the case exactly. It wasn't the gubmint that filed the suit, it was the couple, right? But where should the line be drawn? I'm a professional photographer. Should I be allowed to turn down jobs based on race? If no, then why is it OK to turn down a job based on sexual orientation?

All photography is an art form though. If you are commercially shooting weddings, you are still applying lighting techniques and making a "statement" with your photos. Is there a difference between painting on a canvas, piece of film or digital sensor?

If a painter refused to paint a picture of a homesexual couple because he didn't feel it suited his style, would we be having this conversation?

In regards to the Government, while they have not come out and said "you must do this", the ruling was made against the photographer in this specific case. The group that made this decision was an arm of the government.

jmtron wrote in post #5638650
No, I was just asking. Where do you draw the line? I keep asking the same question, but it's basically gone unanswered.

If it's not OK to turn down a job based on race, why is it OK to turn down a job based on sexual preference?

Or are they both unacceptable? Or...?

I think the legal answer depends on the protected status of the group in question. If you're asking me where I personally draw the line, I would prefer to know that the people in question were committed to treating each other with care and respect, and wiling to treat the rest of the world in kind. More than that is not mine to ask. If you're asking a hypothetical question in the context of our current society, well, that answer is clearly not yet settled.

jmtron wrote in post #5638638
We're talking about photographer as business person on this thread. As far as I know, the government doesn't legislate the content of artists.

I know. I keep seeing the government has no right to dictate art. This is not the case. An Artist providing a service is bound by the same regulations as a waiter serving a plate of fries. You serve everyone equally.

I agree that photography is an art form. I'm making the distinction based on legality. If I run a business and charge for my services, I must follow laws that apply to businesses.

If the painter did commissions, and turned down a portrait job from a gay couple, then yes, he could be sued and we would be having this conversation--it would be the same issue as the photographer. If the painter was a fine art painter, who didn't do commissions, I don't think he or she could be sued for the content or lack of content in his paintings.

That's right, because our judicial system is part of the government, and it is a legal issue to sue someone. Also, the government is responsible for enforcing discrimination laws.

monochrome wrote in post #5638675
I think the legal answer depends on the protected status of the group in question. If you're asking me where I personally draw the line, I would prefer to know that the people in question were committed to treating each other with care and respect, and wiling to treat the rest of the world in kind. More than that is not mine to ask. If you're asking a hypothetical question in the context of our current society, well, that answer is clearly not yet settled.

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?

Interesting thread. Good to see some thought provoking material on a message board.

Needs v. wants. People need food, shelter, clothing etc. for survival. No one needs a wedding photographed. Ours' wasn't and and we have survived quite nicely thank you.

Why should one party be able to force another party to bend to their will when there is no need for it? Is this a way of getting acceptance or of creating hate and discontent?

California is now scrambling to reword marriage certificates to be gender neutral. Instead of Husband and Wife it is now Party A and Party B. The law of unintended consequences. Thanks a lot. I am very happy that our wedding certificate reads Husband and Wife.
It is too bad that this was not thought through so that everyone could get what they needed.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5638679
I know. I keep seeing the government has no right to dictate art. This is not the case. An Artist providing a service is bound by the same regulations as a waiter serving a plate of fries. You serve everyone equally.

Yes, that's why I've been pointing out the distinction between fine art and commercial art. The photographer that got sued is a commercial artist. Fine art photography means you don't take assignments, you go shoot whatever you want.

Here's another oddball thought. Food preparation and presentation is no doubt an art. What rules, legal or social, apply to the caterer in this situation?

The common answer is it's a choice, therefore moral and against a code.

Send all your gay, lesbian, mixed race/objectionable marriage referrals to me. I'll gladly shoot them and I'll pay you a finders fee.

I like to make money. If I want to be choosy then my business model may not survive. The 21st century is rife with this conflict as the world tries to grow up. Consider that your business model (if you so choose to refuse gay marriage) is outdated and that the guy down the street WILL shoot gay marriages and will put you out of business before too long because he's/she's progressive and WORKS WITH THEIR CLIENTS to deliver THEIR vision and to make THEIR day special.

You claim to not have an employer. I submit your are dead wrong. Every person that walks through your door is your employer.

I find it odd that you could not just say gay marriage in your opening post. Shy? Uncomfortable? Wanting to not upset the gay community?

Your beliefs are yours, but if you feel the need to skulk around a subject then you might have to revisit why you can't come out and say it and what motivates you.

Spoken like a true capitalist Jason

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?

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.

Skip Souza wrote in post #5638718
Needs v. wants. People need food, shelter, clothing etc. for survival. No one needs a wedding photographed. Ours' wasn't and and we have survived quite nicely thank you.

Why should one party be able to force another party to bend to their will when there is no need for it? Is this a way of getting acceptance or of creating hate and discontent?

California is now scrambling to reword marriage certificates to be gender neutral. Instead of Husband and Wife it is now Party A and Party B. The law of unintended consequences. Thanks a lot. I am very happy that our wedding certificate reads Husband and Wife.
It is too bad that this was not thought through so that everyone could get what they needed.

I don't like the idea of anyone forcing someone to do something against their will. But it's not such a simple issue. What about when a landlord refuses to rent to a person of color. Should the person that got denied the apt. be allowed to sue based on discrimination, provided that they can prove that's why they didn't get the place? I think so. Is that forcing landlords to do rent to minorities? I guess, in a sense, yes it is. We live in a society with laws, and we are all "forced" to abide by them.

What should governments role be regarding discrimination?

monochrome wrote in post #5638722
Here's another oddball thought. Food preparation and presentation is no doubt an art. What rules, legal or social, apply to the caterer in this situation?

If I'm makng dinner for friends and someone crashes I don't have to serve them. If I'm a waiter and I don't like metrosexuals I have to serve them regardless of my personal beliefs. Religion doesn't trump equal rights.