Michael Kerrek wrote:
1. You should have started with this paragraph:


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.

If you don't (or won't) understand the difference between a person attempting to hire/utilize a public accommodation, and a person refusing to take a particular job (your same-sex model "example"), then I don't know why you'd expect anyone to engage in a conversation with you on this topic. They're not even remotely the same thing. We're not talking apples and oranges, here- more like apples and hockey pucks. One is a client/employee relationship, and the other is business/consumer.

2. We have had to create laws so that stupid bigots didn't get to fuck over entire groups of people when they and their ilk decide they don't like said group. We had to pass laws so that businesses couldn't refuse service to women, black people, interracial couples, jews, muslims, atheists, the blind, the deaf, the handicapped, gay individuals, you name it.

3. If a person is so stupid that they actually tell [fill in group here] that they don't want to serve them *because* they're [fill in group here], then they deserve all the negative attention and consequences that come with it. If you don't have the sense to keep your bullshit to yourself, we should absolutely know where you're hiding.

4. Freedom of religion doesn't give you carte blanche to be shitty to people. If my religion said I get to punch out people I disagreed with, you'd certainly argue that you shouldn't be expected to take a fist in the face just because my religion says it's cool.

+1

Karl Callwood wrote:
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?

I'm really not seeing why a model wouldn't have a choice. Since when do smart or branding conscious models, forget "professional", not have a choice in any of the work they do? Models marketing themselves to lingerie, nude, or any other genre doesn't obligate them to do traditional heterosexual or same sex situations implied or more literal in a photo shoot.

As was already pointed out that case wasn't well reported on in the media and it was also poorly argued.

Then there is the other point already made, people should be a bit more polite and use a modicum of common sense when declining working with anyone.

Karl Callwood wrote:
Homework time:

Case Study 1: Sheila has done several artistic couples scenes with males. One day she is cast to do a role with Jim, whom she knows to be gay. She refuses on those grounds. Discrimination, hate crime or no crime?

Case Study 2: Marcia may or may not be LGBT, but she only does couples scenes with females. She has a husband and two children. She made a one time exception and did a TFP bride and groom shoot to help out a friend's kid who wants to get into photography. A male models sees Marcia in the kid's portfolio and contacts Marcia to shoot. Marcia refuses and points out that her profile states she does not shoot with males. Would the case be different if the groom had been played by Marcia's husband? Discrimination, hate crime or no crime?

Bear in mind that the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be infringed upon without due process and is a primary consideration in all U.S. tort matters. How would you rule on the case studies?

Not enough information.  Are Sheila and Marcia in New Mexico (or another state with an identical law)?  Does they operate as public accommodations?  If so, those are illegal forms of discrimination. 

To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen a model conduct business as a public accommodation.

Karl Callwood wrote:
READ CAREFULLY! The U.S. Supreme Court has changed the rules for photography and modelling.

For those of you who have not yet heard, the U.S. Supreme Court last week let stand a New Mexico ruling that a photographer that handles weddings cannot refuse ...

I didn't need to read further to base my thoughts.

Looking just at the above sentence, "A photographer may not refuse..."

How far will this go, a photographer, (person, business, student or group,) may not refuse anything? What?

That is crazytalk.
Jen

GPS Studio Services wrote:
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.

Apparently you can force someone into servitude if the reasoning is not considered legal.

If money is exchanged, you might have a hard time proving it is/was not a business transaction. 
I'm an individual.  I'm a business as well.

MB Jen B wrote:

I didn't need to read further to base my thoughts.

Looking just at the above sentence, "A photographer may not refuse..."

How far will this go, a photographer, (person, business, student or group,) may not refuse anything? What?

That is crazytalk.
Jen

I recommend reading further to base your thoughts. 

First, this law applies specifically to New Mexico.  State laws vary, and some other states have similar laws. 

Second, this isn't about photographers.  This is about any business that acts as a public accommodation, including some photographers.  For example, if you have a photography studio in a public place where anyone off the street can walk in and get service from you, then you're limited in the reasons for which you can deny someone service.  You can't deny them for being Chinese, female, or Methodist.  You also can't deny them for being gay. 

If you're a person, student, business, or group that is not a public accommodation, the law doesn't apply to you.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
No. Being a bigot is a choice.

Are you sure? I swear people are born that way!

SVDigital wrote:
My bottom line is, is the government dictating to me what jobs I can take and what jobs I can refuse?

No. The government is not dictating any such thing. Anyone can still refuse to provide a service to anyone else for whatever reason, including twisted creepy bigotry. What anyone cannot do is discriminate BASED on that twisted creepy bigotry.

In other words, one can't openly state "sorry, gay couple. I can't provide you this service BECAUSE you're gay." One can't have a sign on one's door that reads "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason, especially if you're gay." Etc.

A photographer can still passively refuse to shoot a gay couple. That photographer will have to come up with very creative and very subtle ways of refusing to do so, careful to avoid dropping any hint or clue that would expose their bigotry as the true reason for their refusal. The photographer will have to endure the inconvenience of figuring out how to run a business while also being a bigot. This will hopefully give pause to consider why they are allowing their bigotry to interfere with their business decisions, noting that non-bigots do not have to endure dealing with such an awkward impediment while abiding by a very simple, straightforward law that extends equal accommodation to the greatest number of citizens.