Katsung wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 … -same-sex/


I'm sure this decision will be supported by most people on MM.  However, I find it terrible.

Americans are losing more freedom and liberty everyday.

The word "politics" is actually in the URL

So, yeah... no. It would be great to discuss this, but we can't do that here anymore.

Katsung wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 … -same-sex/

I'm sure this decision will be supported by most people on MM.  However, I find it terrible.

Americans are losing more freedom and liberty everyday.

Horse shit! At the very least these particular Americans are merely being compelled to observe the law and operate their business within the bounds of the law.

If you are going to be in business you have to comply with the laws applicable to that business. That applies to restaurants; hotels; camp sites; car dealers.......... and photography businesses. Nothing stops, or conversely requires, this lot exercising their 1st. A rights. They just can't do it on the backs of the public to whom they are offering their services. If they want to pick and choose then they should just close the "business" and get a profile on MM or some other NON-business environment where they can do what they like as far as picking and choosing who to work with.

The legally protected classes of the public exist exactly because of people like that. Those are comprised broadly of of discrimination based on: race; sex; religion; age; marital and family status; and of more recent addition, sexual orientation.

Get over it!

Studio36

Lohkee wrote:
And that's a shame. Regardless of how one feels, this court ruling directly affects photographers. What could be more pertinent to Model Mayhem or those in the business of photography?

Agreed. But the ruling could be regarded as shining a harsh, unforgiving light on a totally dishonest exploitation of "religious belief" for purely malicious purposes, and, as such, this topic is doubly "controversial".

IBTL.

Katsung wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 … -same-sex/


I'm sure this decision will be supported by most people on MM.  However, I find it terrible.

Americans are losing more freedom and liberty everyday.

So we should go back to restaurants not serving blacks, etc., if they don't "approve" of them?

I realize it's not as black & white an issue as that (no pun intended), but I'm sure they, as religious people, don't want to be discriminated against either.

studio36uk wrote:

Horse shit! At the very least these particular Americans are merely being compelled to observe the law and operate their business within the bounds of the law.

If you are going to be in business you have to comply with the laws applicable to that business. That applies to restaurants; hotels; camp sites; car dealers.......... and photography businesses. Nothing stops, or conversely requires, this lot exercising their 1st. A rights. They just can't do it on the backs of the public to whom they are offering their services. If they want to pick and choose then they should just close the "business" and get a profile on MM or some other NON-business environment where they can do what they like as far as picking and choosing who to work with.

Studio36

Yeppers (and then some).

MMDesign wrote:
So we should go back to restaurants not serving blacks, etc., if they don't "approve" of them?

I realize it's not as black & white an issue as that (no pun intended), but I'm sure they, as religious people, don't want to be discriminated against either.

Exactly!  I know what it is like to be discriminated against.  If it were a gay couple refusing service to a Christian couple, then perhaps people would understand that discrimination is wrong in any case.  I've been refused service simply for being with a black man who happened to be my boss.  I've also been discriminated against for looking white ... and also for looking like a long haired hippie.   I have also been told that I cannot be the wedding photographer for a friends wedding unless I converted to their (jehovah's witnesses) religion.  Discrimination is just wrong no matter how you try to excuse it!

MMDesign wrote:

So we should go back to restaurants not serving blacks, etc., if they don't "approve" of them?

Yes.  Its called FREEDOM.   

If a business doesn't want to serve someone they should have that right.

If someone doesn't want to go to that business they should have that right.

Based on this ruling photographers can now be FORCED to photograph models based on race and even gender.

It seemed like the majority of people on MM supported the ousting of the Mozilla CEO because "its a private business".  Well, photographers are a private business.

This is just another case of government forcing citizens to do something against their will.

This isn't freedom.  This isn't liberty.  This is a police/nanny state.

Lohkee wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Horse shit! At the very least these particular Americans are merely being compelled to observe the law and operate their business within the bounds of the law.

If you are going to be in business you have to comply with the laws applicable to that business. That applies to restaurants; hotels; camp sites; car dealers.......... and photography businesses. Nothing stops, or conversely requires, this lot exercising their 1st. A rights. They just can't do it on the backs of the public to whom they are offering their services. If they want to pick and choose then they should just close the "business" and get a profile on MM or some other NON-business environment where they can do what they like as far as picking and choosing who to work with.

Studio36

Yeppers (and then some).

It may not mean anything particular to the American readers here but you, in particular, will know what it is if I were to say:

NO blacks
NO dogs
NO Irish

Studio36

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Discrimination is just wrong no matter how you try to excuse it!

Something can be wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I noticed you have no men in your port.   I hereby order you to have an equal amount of men and women in your portfolio.

Katsung wrote:

Something can be wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I noticed you have no men in your port.   I hereby order you to have an equal amount of men and women in your portfolio.

Ummm, you do realize that this only applies to those doing business with the general public, right?

Katsung wrote:
Yes.  Its called FREEDOM.   

If a business doesn't want to serve someone they should have that right.

If someone doesn't want to go to that business they should have that right.

Based on this ruling photographers can now be FORCED to photograph models based on race and even gender.

It seemed like the majority of people on MM supported the ousting of the Mozilla CEO because "its a private business".  Well, photographers are a private business.

This is just another case of government forcing citizens to do something against their will.

This isn't freedom.  This isn't liberty.  This is a police/nanny state.

You really don't get it, do you?  How far back in time do you want to go?  Back to when blacks were not served?  Or when Irish and Chinese were considered disposable labor ... paid shit for wages doing dangerous jobs because blacks were valuable property, and the slave owners didn't want to risk the loss of their property?  Or how about when women couldn't vote?  Interracial marriage was illegal?   Just how far back do you want to go in your quest for a time when we had freedom?

Katsung wrote:

Yes.  Its called FREEDOM.   

If a business doesn't want to serve someone they should have that right.

If someone doesn't want to go to that business they should have that right.

Based on this ruling photographers can now be FORCED to photograph models based on race and even gender.

It seemed like the majority of people on MM supported the ousting of the Mozilla CEO because "its a private business".  Well, photographers are a private business.

This is just another case of government forcing citizens to do something against their will.

This isn't freedom.  This isn't liberty.  This is a police/nanny state.

That's not freedom, that's ignorance.

Katsung wrote:
Based on this ruling photographers can now be FORCED to photograph models based on race and even gender.

AS A BUSINESS, OFFERING SERVICES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ADVERTISING SUCH, you haven't be able to [legally] do that ^^^ for nearly half a century! Not a thing in the world to do with this ruling.

HELLO!

Studio36

SEE: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), in particular Title II as applies to businesses, outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

This year, 2014, see the 50th anniversary of this law.

studio36uk wrote:

AS A BUSINESS, OFFERING SERVICES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ADVERTISING SUCH, you haven't be able to [legally] do that ^^^ for nearly half a century! Not a thing in the world to do with this ruling.

HELLO!

Studio36

SEE: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964), in particular Title II as applies to businesses, outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

This year, 2014, see the 50th anniversary of this law.

The majority of the CVA of 64 should be repealed.  It was a freedom and liberty crushing monstrosity.

Katsung wrote:

Something can be wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I noticed you have no men in your port.   I hereby order you to have an equal amount of men and women in your portfolio.

You didn't look far enough ...





But you know what?  I understand where you are coming from to an extent ...
the best thing we can do is boycott those businesses that discriminate ...
no, better still, we should be thrilled that there are many photographers like myself,
who are happy to shoot same sex weddings.  Their money is as good as anyone's!

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Their money is as good as anyone's!

Too right, think pink



Studio36

Bobby C wrote:
If you don't want to follow the law and  govt rules and regulations, than don't be a lame ass hypocrite and use any govt public services like the roads and highways, hospitals, the police, public schools, water, national parks, electric and sewage connected to the govt grid etc. Also don't accept any govt subsidies. Protest the big farms, banks and corporations that get tax breaks/govt assistance. And when you get disabled or old, don't take any social security income.

Unfortunately far too many want to be able to pick and choose which laws to follow and which not.

Studio36

Paul AI wrote:
This hasn't been locked yet?  lol

It is not a political discussion. It is a discussion about BUSINESS matters and in particular the BUSINESS matters of photography BUSINESSES.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Unfortunately far too many want to be able to pick and choose which laws to follow and which not.

Studio36

Yup. Some people are infected with the "cherry picking" disease.

Katsung wrote:

Something can be wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I noticed you have no men in your port.   I hereby order you to have an equal amount of men and women in your portfolio.

So, if you are taking pictures in a public place and a random person tells you that you must stop, then you would just pack up and call it a day right?

Or would you say, "According to the law, I can take photos here"?

studio36uk wrote:

It is not a political discussion. It is a discussion about BUSINESS matters and in particular the BUSINESS matters of photography BUSINESSES.

Studio36

I have was told that I cannot be the wedding photographer for a friends wedding unless I converted to their (jehovah's witnesses) religion.  The couple had already asked me to shoot their wedding, but their church told them "no!"  What can I do about that?  Make them convert to a more inclusive rather than exclusive religion?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If it were a gay couple refusing service to a Christian couple, then perhaps people would understand that discrimination is wrong in any case.

Actually, the couple would probably be promptly baked a hero cookie.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Frankly, I understand the legal aspect of this...however forcing someone against their will to do a job for you will likely result in shitty work.

+1

Why would anyone want to force someone to shoot their wedding against their will. It seems like a sure way to ruin your wedding day imagine how awkward that would be.


I wouldn't want anyone in my wedding who doesn't want to be there.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I have was told that I cannot be the wedding photographer for a friends wedding unless I converted to their (jehovah's witnesses) religion.  The couple had already asked me to shoot their wedding, but their church told them "no!"  What can I do about that?  Make them convert to a more inclusive rather than exclusive religion?

Churches fall under the "private group" rules.  This is why groups like the Boy Scouts (until very recently) banned gay's from joining.  It is like you being able to say who does and does not have the ability to enter your home.

Katsung wrote:

The majority of the CVA of 64 should be repealed.  It was a freedom and liberty crushing monstrosity.

You just sit at your computer and your hands uncontrollably mash out words at the keyboard don't they?

beta wrote:
I am sure the refusal to do the job is deeper than the article states. Just saying no or I can't do that date does not get you into the Supreme Court.

Or maybe I missed something in the article?

It's **why** they refused (which happens to be illegal in their State).

A-M-P wrote:
+1

Why would anyone want to force someone to shoot their wedding against their will. It seems like a sure way to ruin your wedding day imagine how awkward that would be.


I wouldn't want anyone in my wedding who doesn't want to be there.

Basically. Which is why I don't have any problem with the law, it's not gonna be an issue. The fear that they gays are going to go out and force a bunch of bigots to take their money and do jobs for them against their will just to be assholes is fucking ridiculous. They want good service just as much as straight people, and they still have to pay so they're sure as fuck not gonna put money towards shitty service done by someone who hates them. The only reason they would is if they had no where else to go. If you're the one wedding photographer in Podunk Montana...sorry, you gotta photograph the gay people. It's not their fault you're the only one with the camera and if you hate them they're probably not thrilled you're the only one available either, so you're both unhappy, get over it.

I emailed a handful of photographers, I met with two. Some didnt even get back to me, the first ones I met with seemed a little meh, and they wound up booking their last event for the year before I could get them a deposit, and it worked out great because the second ones I met with I liked a hell of a lot better.

If either of them had been downright unpleasant or just didnt show enthusiasm...I wasn't giving them any money. And if they read the required description of my wedding in the contact email I sent and didnt feel like shooting it, all they had to do was not respond, or tell me they were booked, or something. They wouldn't have said "actually I don't like you, so no, I won't shoot your wedding! You can't make me!" And make a big fucking deal of it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What can I do about that?

Like any other business...you can find another client. Although legal, this idea that you should force anyone to do business with someone they don't agree with, or like is retarded at best.

Lohkee wrote:

It's **why** they refused (which happens to be illegal in their State).

Yes, I understand that, but the **why** was probably stated louder than a simple  *no I can't photography your wedding*.. The article does not affectively translate that part...

beta wrote:
I am sure the refusal to do the job is deeper than the article states. Just saying no or I can't do that date does not get you into the Supreme Court.

Or maybe I missed something in the article?

The conversation probably went like this:

Gay Couple: We want you to shoot our commitment ceremony.

Photographer: Sorry, I can not do that.

Gay Couple: Why can't you do this?

Photographer: Because I am Christian and I don't do business with homosexuals.

Gay Couple:  ...

Gay Couple (Bridezilla Equivalent): WHAT?!?!

And then it all kind of goes down hill from there.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Like any other business...you can find another client. Although legal, this idea that you should force anyone to do business with someone they don't agree with, or like is retarded at best.

I thought forcing people to do things against their will was generally frowned upon in the US.

Paul AI wrote:

I thought forcing people to do things against their will was generally frowned upon in the US.

Yeah. Tell that to the IRS