|
Forums >
General Industry >
Can a Models Refuse Same-Sex Shoots?
READ CAREFULLY! The U.S. Supreme Court has changed the rules for photography and modelling. The U.S. Supreme Court last week let stand a New Mexico ruling that a photographer that handles weddings cannot refuse same-sex weddings. The photographer, sued by the same-sex couple, unsuccessfully used the defenses of religion and 1st Amendment rights to artistic free speech. The case began in New Mexico when Elane Huguenin of Elane Photography refused on religious grounds to photograph a lesbian wedding. A sexual discrimination complaint was filed against Elane Photography and the business was convicted and fined. Elane appealed. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that Elane Photography is a “public accommodation,” and because they photograph wedding ceremonies they cannot refuse a gay-commitment ceremony (even if it is not a legal wedding). On Monday, April 7, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Elane Photography's appeal. One lower court judge stated: "… this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less." The effect of the court's ruling is to say that refusal of a same-sex performance that is commonly done for mixed-sexes constitutes gender bias and a photographer can be sued. This is true even in states where same sex marriages are not performed! Note the court said "even if not a legal wedding". How far reaching is this ruling beyond the realm of professional photography? What about professional models? If a female model hires out do to a scene with a male model, even in artisitic nude, is that model now compelled by gender-bias laws to accept a similar shoot with a female? Or, more seriously, vis-a-versa. Can a female model still legally state she will only do artistic nude scenes with female models? Since this is a professional act, not a personal one, refusal of a female model to shoot with a male solely based upon sex is prejudicial and thus subjects the model to civil action. Remember, the courts rejected Elane Photography's free speech and artistic claim. Let's go a step further: Models do wedding-wear shoots. Often these are bride and groom performance. If that model is approached to portray a same-sex scene, does that model still have a legal ability to refuse the shoot on religious or moral grounds? What is your opinion on how this latest Supreme Court Same-Sex Rights action affects the modelling and photography business? If your religion prohibits you from encouraging or portraying a same-sex act, will you continue your photography or modelling career? [Created by ePostWriter, The Premier Autonomous Post Writing Software: Let Your Computer Think and Write For You.] Apr 09 14 08:18 pm Link sure she can. on the ground that her grandma die again Apr 09 14 08:21 pm Link An article on the matter: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … r/7304157/ Note the quote in the article: "That could include marketers, advertisers, publicists, website designers, writers, videographers and photographers — and perhaps others." Apr 09 14 08:23 pm Link The world is changing and it no longer possible to use sexual orientation as a reason to DISCRIMINATE. If you don't want to do the job decline, no need to throw a person's sexuality into the reason. A similar thing happened in the uk where a couple refused to accommodate a gay couple in their bed & breakfast on the grounds of their sexuality. It's becoming a poor world if you're homophobic. Apr 10 14 01:35 am Link Not a good comparison. The model isn't being hired by the other model, it's the other model's gender not sexuality that is the issue and the difference has some effect on the model's job depending on the nature of the shoot. Photographing a gay wedding is the same as photographing a straight wedding. A better comparison would be can a model turn down a job on the basis the photographer hiring her is gay. No, probably not but I've never seen that come up as a particular issue for most models. Apr 10 14 02:18 am Link sure they can. anyone can refuse anything, they just have to stop being so stupid as to how they refuse it. Instead of saying "i won't do your wedding because you're a lesbian" they say "I'm booked up, sorry" some people make more trouble for themselves than they need to. Apr 10 14 02:26 am Link Darren Brade wrote: You don't have to be "homophobic" to percive such rules as somewhat idiotic... Apr 10 14 03:43 am Link Ton of problems with your example. 1. There is a world of difference between a business which offers services to the general public (like a wedding photographer) and an individual offering professional services to a business (a model). In most jurisdictions the first is covered by anti discrimination laws while the second has a much lower test to pass. 2. Not doing a shoot based on the content o the shoot is a lot different from not doing a shoot based on the sexuality of the phorographer. Can a Jewish model refuse to eat pork chops on a shoot - yes of course. Can a Jewish model refuse to work with a Muslim photographer just because they are a muslim? - much more questionable. The test I tel the people at work to use is "substitute in the word Black for Gay" if your conduct still seems OK then it probably is. Apr 10 14 04:02 am Link There are a lot of misrepresentations in the OP. This had nothing to do with weddings, the event in question wasn't even a wedding. The is no marriage equality in New Mexico, so marriage laws had zero to do with it. The photographer in question refused to photograph an event, based on the fact that the couple it honored was gay, which ran against the anti discrimination laws. The judge ruled that the photographer had photographed many not legally binding events and that this did not substantially differentiate from other work the photographer had done, and that the only reason for the refusal was to discriminate against the parties involved. The rules for this are pretty simple, if you provide a service to the public, then you must be willing to provide that service to the entire public. So if you bake 7 layer wedding cakes, you must be willing to sell that wedding cake to whoever wishes to purchase it, regardless of their race, religion, or in some states, sexual orientation. The case in New Mexico, if you actually look at it was really badly argued, and had the attorneys for the photographer been better at their job, the outcome may have been different, but it was so peppered with anti-gay animus that the outcome was inevitable. No case has yet come up in a state with marriage equality to actually define the situation, any reasonable analyst will tell you that this case is a very bad example from which to take anything. The wedding cake cases that have come up have ruled against the bakers because the bakers were not being asked to produce something outside their usual product, and would not even need to be at the event. They have no more right to decide who can eat their cake, than Macys has a right to tell you where you can wear a shirt you bought there. Anyone fear mongering that models would be forced into "same sex" shoots is just trying to stir up trying to stir up some crap. Edit to clarify. New Mexico legalized marriage equality in December of 2013, but the photographer case predates that and was not in reference to a legal marriage, so marriage law still had nothing to do with it. Apr 10 14 04:24 am Link Let's see what the ruling of the Hobby Lobby case which will probably come out in June. It has to do with a business forced to do something against their religious beliefs. Apr 10 14 04:29 am Link Makes me glad I'm a private entity and can pick and choose what I want to shoot. Apr 10 14 04:31 am Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Actually the Hobby Lobby case isn't about religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had been paying for and providing those benefits for years, until the ACA went into effect, they also remain heavily invested in pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives, so it obviously isn't against any religious conviction Apr 10 14 04:34 am Link 1. You should have started with this paragraph: Karl Callwood wrote: It demonstrates a very deep and comprehensive lack of understanding of the subject matter, and informs your bias well enough for me to get the gist of your malfunction. Most people could then disregard the rest as the political masturbation that it is, and not bother reading it- if they wished to do so. Fear not, I read the whole thing anyway. Apr 10 14 05:24 am Link Let's say you did hire a model for a same sex wedding shoot and that he/she said they were uncomfortable with it. Do you really want to use a model that doesn't want to do the project that you are interested in shooting when there would be at least 100 models out there that would be happy to do it? Apr 10 14 05:32 am Link OP, I understand your point. But for someone to be in legal trouble for turning down a modeling gig because it's asking them to do something they feel uncomfortable with, someone will have to challenge them in court. I don't see that happening. Apr 10 14 07:50 am Link I think there is a difference between a model, an individual, accepting a booking and a business offering a service. The constitution prohibits "forced servitude." I don't think you could force an individual to work for someone, while you can regulate discrimination by a business. Apr 10 14 10:47 am Link A couple points: 1) That case dealt specifically with the New Mexico Human Rights Act. If you're not doing business in New Mexico, that law doesn't apply to you. Check the laws in your area to see what does apply to you. 2) The law deals specifically with businesses that act as "public accommodations." If you're not offering your services to the general public, you're likely not covered by the law. So if there is a model in New Mexico who offers his or her modeling services to the general public, she or he would not be able to discriminate against clients based on their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. Whether that model in that unlikely business scenario would be prohibited from saying, "I don't post with male models," is beyond my understanding of the law. Apr 10 14 11:15 am Link no way im going to refuse....my only real pretend chance to marry the girl of my dreams  Apr 10 14 11:21 am Link Karl Callwood wrote: THERE Apr 10 14 11:34 am Link Weird. When we discussed this in OT earlier this week, the thread was locked. But here we are discussing the same exact subject and it's all fine and dandy. Anyway, nobody's been forced to do anything by the ruling, and nobody will be forced to do anything because of the ruling. Oh, and... Karl Callwood wrote: The law is not the actual cause for an apparent choice between a person's personal religious conviction and being able to do their job. Someone's personal religious convictions are the actual cause for any difficulty anyone may be experiencing in that regard. So it's best to address the actual root cause of the problem, rather than blaming a non-discrimination law for the problem. Apr 10 14 11:39 am Link I don't shoot Weddings... but I can't imagine WHY you Wouldn't shoot a Same-sex wedding??? What am I missing here? Apr 10 14 11:39 am Link yes. Apr 10 14 11:50 am Link The issue w op isn't the intent, but the understanding of labor laws and how employment and contract work actually takes place. Firstly, an individual is not a business. Did she incorporate herself? (You can, btw, just FYI). Secondly, contract work is typically at will. This means the contract can be terminated for any reason by the employer and does not need To legally be given to the person contracted with. Ie. Had the photographer of the gay couple just stated they were uninterested in shooting, they wouldn't have been found guilty. By giving a discriminatory answer they were guilty per the newly passed law. I'm not advocating don't ask, don't tell, but it is legally supported. Basically, had the photographer in question had the inkling of decency to keep her mouth shut, she wouldn't have been taken to court. This basically means at some point the photographer actually told the couple, either verbally or in writing that she wouldn't help them because on the singular reason They were gay. In addition, this also means she confirmed that she did this with multiple people! Say what you want but the problem with a business doing this is it has happened before in us history in the past. Please remember most recently civil rights movement when blacks were denied patronage. I'm glad it's a law. However, a store can still express their opinions. Citing the chick fil a stand on gay marriage. However, while chick fil a expressed their opinion publicly as is supported by the first amendment, they did not deny service to gay couples, nor treat gay patrons differently then heterosexual ones Apr 10 14 12:17 pm Link TomFRohwer wrote: Not idiotic if it's bringing the law into line with discrimination based on gender or race. Apr 10 14 03:55 pm Link Michael Kerrek wrote: This Apr 10 14 03:59 pm Link Ok, the topic raised has to do with a court case regarding wedding photographers and doing business with a same sex couple. I doubt that this will have an effect on us. Maybe this thread should end. Apr 10 14 04:06 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: smh Apr 13 14 10:07 pm Link A Supreme Court ruling saying that someone that specifically offers a particular public service cannot discriminate against a class of people. Forum topic title "Can a Model Refuse Same-Sex Shoots?" That's quite a leap...! Apr 14 14 01:28 pm Link I would suggest that a much more accurate example would not be a matter of what kind of look or model that an artist might choose to hire for his work, or type of art that he should create... Instead it would apply more to if that same fictional artist advertised his services for hire, indicating that he'll do a painting of couples (for example), but refused to do so because a couple was gay or due to their particular race, or what have you. Just to try and keep things much more grounded in what's really being ruled on here! Apr 14 14 01:42 pm Link Karl Callwood wrote: Come again? Apr 14 14 01:55 pm Link I don't understand the thought of going to court to force someone who despises me to take my money. I've spent most of my life avoiding doing business with people who hate things I like and who actively support ending, stopping, closing down, and hating things I support. Apr 14 14 02:00 pm Link barepixels wrote: Lol, perfect. Apr 14 14 02:05 pm Link I think artists are somewhat exempt. Actors, for example, refuse to act in movies all the time based strictly on the merits of the creative work and their comfort with it. They aren't obliged to say why they don't want to do it, of course. Apr 14 14 02:12 pm Link Karl Callwood wrote: What got the photog in hot water wasn't that she didn't shoot the wedding (much like your fictional Marcia could have chosen to do whatever she wanted legally). It was that she made a point to make a point that she was refusing to shoot the wedding because she believed lesbianism was a bad thing. The law doesn't prohibit someone from an opinion. It prohibits people from using their bigotry and racism as an overt reason for public denial. I think people wouldn't even question the law if the lesbian plaintiff had sued say a obgyn for refusing an annual based on her orientation. (Meaning no one should be turned away IMO) Apr 14 14 02:31 pm Link 
Photographer Posts: 106 Sarajevo, Federacija Bosna i Hercegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina too many complications here. if one doesn't like the concept of the shoot, they don't do it. reasons are totally irrelevant. nor you have obligation to expalin them at all. what is not said can save you from many troubles. just use explanation like "I have some other arrangments" or "not at the moment, thank you" or something similar in order o be professional and give some answer at that's it. you don't like it, don't do it, end of story. Apr 15 14 06:53 am Link Karl Callwood wrote: This SC decision and the position you're attempting to put out there have almost no connection. Apr 15 14 07:25 am Link I guess it won't be too long before someone can get sued for not liking the way they look  . If that's the case, hell I'm RICH!! .Apr 15 14 07:38 am Link I don't see the ruling as far reaching, I see the ruling as saying hey "don't say I won't shoot you because you are gay or black or green" and use religion as a defense of your bigotry. That's what the ruling says. No where does it say that you can't be too busy to do it... It has nothing to do with a model who isn't a business “public accommodation,” but rather a temporary employee. Very different. Apr 15 14 07:43 am Link Paul Ferris wrote: You got it right! Apr 15 14 07:43 am Link Lost Viking wrote: If the photographer is willing to do a crappy job to spite a lesbian couple and is willing to let his or her reputation slide based on those crappy images being shown around town, the photographer is an idiot. Apr 15 14 07:50 am Link |
