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.

I'm torn on this.

Yeah!! Fight discrimination!!  I'm all for that.

But then...there are certain things like...well...if I knew someone hated me...I wouldn't trust them to fix me a good meal.  I wouldn't trust them to photograph something very important to me.

I think I could trust them to wash my car...maybe...but all those car washes say they aren't responsible for damage so I probably wouldn't trust them either.

Imagine now...a wedding photographer being compelled to shoot a wedding they have no desire to be anywhere near, let alone to take photos at.  What if they are unable to set aside their differences and are uncomfortable the entire time?

This is a LOT different than wedding cakes.  This is a lot different an even a same sex family type photos shot in a studio.  The photographer is going to be surrounded by the couple's family and friends (presumably).  That's not to say they will all be homosexual...maybe NONE of them will be.  But if you really dislike certain people...you are NOT going to be comfortable and you're probably not going to be able to do a good job.

beta wrote:

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...

It's been an ongoing case for some time now. The photographers decided to make a huge issue out of "religious freedom" (same as sweet cakes by melissa) and (like melissa) got thoroughly stomped.

A-M-P wrote:
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.

Lohkee wrote:

It's been an ongoing case for some time now. The photographers decided to make a huge issue out of "religious freedom" (same as sweet cakes by melissa) and (like melissa) got thoroughly stomped.

Figured,,, thanks for the back story.

Paul AI wrote:

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

It isn't if the topic is deemed politically correct.

Lets take the gay issue out of the equation, it then becomes you cannot turn down someone regardless if you agree with the concept or not. Suppose you are pro-choice and a pro-life group wants to hire you for an ad campaign. Or a political group wants to hire you for a publicity drive that is morally against what you believe. You cannot turn them down.

Freedom goes both ways.

JonPhoto wrote:

It isn't if the topic is deemed politically correct.

Lets take the gay issue out of the equation, it then becomes you cannot turn down someone regardless if you agree with the concept or not. Suppose you are pro-choice and a pro-life group wants to hire you for an ad campaign. Or a political group wants to hire you for a publicity drive that is morally against what you believe. You cannot turn them down.

Freedom goes both ways.

Of course, if you can't for some reason conduct your business in accordance with the law, perhaps it's time to find something else to do?

Lohkee wrote:

It's been an ongoing case for some time now. The photographers decided to make a huge issue out of "religious freedom" (same as sweet cakes by melissa) and (like melissa) got thoroughly stomped.

The gay couple took them to court to make an issue out of it instead of going to someone who WOULD do the wedding.

JonPhoto wrote:
Lets take the gay issue out of the equation, it then becomes you cannot turn down someone regardless if you agree with the concept or not.

Lohkee wrote:

Of course, if you can't for some reason conduct your business in accordance with the law, perhaps it's time to find something else to do?

So free speech goes out the window then? You can be forced to do something that goes against your morals?

JonPhoto wrote:

The gay couple took them to court to make an issue out of it instead of going to someone who WOULD do the wedding.

Yeppers! Curse them gay folks for standing up for their rights! How **dare** they?!? Animals!

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
There's nothing stopping "said photographers" from showing up with a brownie camera and taking what amounts to crappy snapshots.

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.

In a way, this is about religion.  The couple with the photography business claim that their religion prevents them from accepting money, umm the job from a same sex couple because their own religion says same sex marriage is wrong.  My belief is that religion is a farce ... a scam to get over on our government tax free!  Also it's a great excuse to claim violations of Constitutional freedoms.

We NEED separation of church from State!  George Washington did not mention Christianity, he stated that we should have freedom to practice any or no religion if we want to.  Same sex marriage should be legal across the States, and people have the choice to quietly decline the job without making a court event out of it. 

This issue ended up in court because of an email.  If the couple (photographers) had simply stated "I'm sorry, we cannot accomedate you." and left it at that AND/OR if the couple getting married had left it alone ... as they did find another photographer.  Often times discrimination is not documented. 

In the same manner ... let's for example say that I belong to a religion that states I must only photograph beautiful people.  A couple comes to me to inquire about my wedding photography (I have since retired, but this is for shits and giggles) however, the bride is ugly!  Would it be proper for me to say "I'm sorry, but my religion states that I must only photography beautiful people and you are ugly!" 

I've had opportunity to meet every single potential wedding client in person before being hired!  If for some reason, I sense that the bride might be difficult to please or work with, or their requests are demanding, then I give a higher quote for doing the wedding.  When one bridezilla tried to have me beaten, that caused me to throw in the towel.  I have photographed same sex weddings before, and those were much easier on my nerves.

JonPhoto wrote:
So free speech goes out the window then? You can be forced to do something that goes against your morals?

As an artist, you can only create what "the man" tells you is appropriate to create.

ontherocks wrote:
you mean i'd have to shoot the wedding of a Republican if they wanted to hire me? over my dead body. lol.

but i think you hit the nail on the head. you can't refuse their money just because you don't agree with their cause or lifestyle or whatever.

I think that is wrong place for our society to be in, forcing someone to do something against their belief system.

JonPhoto wrote:

So free speech goes out the window then? You can be forced to do something that goes against your morals?

It never was a free speech issue (although they tried to pass it off as one). Try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater and see how far that one gets you.

ontherocks wrote:
but i think you hit the nail on the head. you can't refuse their money just because you don't agree with their cause or lifestyle or whatever.

you CAN however be busy enough that you can't take the job. As someone else mentioned, there are plenty of photographers out there who WILL take the job.
It reminds me of someone suing the boy scouts because their little girl wants to join. Common sense has been lost in America.

Lohkee wrote:

Yeppers! Curse them gay folks for standing up for their rights! How **dare** they?!? Animals!

Just pointing out it was the exact opposite of what you described. The photographers didn't make an issue of it, they were taken to court.

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.

Paul AI wrote:
Actually, the couple would probably be promptly baked a hero cookie.

Excuse me?  I don't understand?  Has there ever been a case of a gay couple discriminating against a Christian couple?

Christopher Hartman wrote:
t  The photographer is going to be surrounded by the couple's family and friends (presumably).  That's not to say they will all be homosexual...maybe NONE of them will be.  But if you really dislike certain people...you are NOT going to be comfortable and you're probably not going to be able to do a good job.

Didn't you know that lesbian/gay weddings always end in lesbian/gay orgies ? Oh, the humanity !

Paul AI wrote:

As an artist, you can only create what "the man" tells you is appropriate to create.

Baloney. This is not about art. It is about conducting your business in a lawful manner. Period!

JonPhoto wrote:

Just pointing out it was the exact opposite of what you described. The photographers didn't make an issue of it, they were taken to court.

And why were they taken to court? They broke the law and tried to justify it. After loosing the first round, why did they continue to pursue the matter all the way to the SCOTUS? A rose by any other name . . . .

Lohkee wrote:

It never was a free speech issue (although they tried to pass it off as one). Try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater and see how far that one gets you.

Yay, the old "yelling fire" illustration when someone is for putting a damper on free speech.

I just don't get it. We will have endless debates about the merit of the artistic expression of photography. However, those are tossed to the side when it is convenient for a PC cause.

Would you want to be forced to shoot a concept you didn't want to do?

Lohkee wrote:

Baloney. This is not about art. It is about conducting your business in a lawful manner. Period!

+1

Patrick Walberg wrote:

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.

Excuse me?  I don't understand?  Has there ever been a case of a gay couple discriminating against a Christian couple?

If a gay couple are photographers and they make a point they will not shoot a Christian straight marriage I would have no problem with that.

JonPhoto wrote:
Freedom goes both ways.

In other words, Freedom is bi.

JonPhoto wrote:

Yay, the old "yelling fire" illustration when someone is for putting a damper on free speech.

I just don't get it. We will have endless debates about the merit of the artistic expression of photography. However, those are tossed to the side when it is convenient for a PC cause.

Would you want to be forced to shoot a concept you didn't want to do?

Nope. But then, my doors are not open to the public. If they were, then I would operate my business lawfully and do the best job I could.

Lohkee wrote:

And why were they taken to court? They broke the law and tried to justify it. After loosing the first round, why did they continue to pursue the matter all the way to the SCOTUS? A rose by any other name . . . .

Because they have a right to challenge unfair laws.

JonPhoto wrote:
If a gay couple are photographers and they make a point they will not shoot a Christian straight marriage I would have no problem with that.

Me either

Xpat John wrote:
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.

I understand that there are certain faiths that will not accept an outsider. This is why I'm sorry that same sex marriage is not legal, so that those faiths that are accepting to it can include it. 

There are photographers who will not shoot an interracial wedding, but we don't hear about that because there is such a thing as covert racism which means it wasn't or couldn't be documented.  There are plenty of photographers out there to take up the jobs turned down by the exclusive folks.

JonPhoto wrote:

Because they have a right to challenge unfair laws.

All laws are unfair to someone. Shall we do away with all laws?

Lohkee wrote:

Nope. But then, my doors are not open to the public. If they were, then I would operate my business lawfully and do the best job I could.

So if someone wanted to do a racial stereotyping campaign to make different races look bad, you would do the best you could?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm torn on this.

Yeah!! Fight discrimination!!  I'm all for that.

But then...there are certain things like...well...if I knew someone hated me...I wouldn't trust them to fix me a good meal.  I wouldn't trust them to photograph something very important to me.

I think I could trust them to wash my car...maybe...but all those car washes say they aren't responsible for damage so I probably wouldn't trust them either.

Imagine now...a wedding photographer being compelled to shoot a wedding they have no desire to be any near, let alone to photos at.  What if they are unable to set aside their differences and are uncomfortable the entire time?

This is a LOT different than wedding cakes.  This is a lot different an even a same sex family type photos shot in a studio.  The photographer is going to be surrounded by the couple's family and friends (presumably).  That's not to say they will all be homosexual...maybe NONE of them will be.  But if you really dislike certain people...you are NOT going to be comfortable and you're probably not going to be able to do a good job.

Sometimes you have to make a stand for what you believe in.

If I was gay and discriminated against my entire life and someone told me that they wouldn't photograph my wedding (or whatever it was specifically), because I was an abomination before god, or something to that effect, I would probably seek to show them the errors of their ways.

Lohkee wrote:

All laws are unfair to someone. Shall we do away with all laws?

We have a right to challenge laws.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

We NEED separation of church from State!

At what cost? Too many read the US Constitution wrong. They think it says Freedom FROM religion rather than Freedom OF religion.

JonPhoto wrote:

We have a right to challenge laws. Slavery was legal until it was challenged

MMDesign wrote:

Sometimes you have to make a stand for what you believe in.

If I was gay and discriminated against my entire life and someone told me that they wouldn't photograph my wedding (or whatever it was specifically), because I was an abomination before god, or something to that effect, I would probably seek to show them the errors of their ways.

If I were gay, I'd use some common sense and hire a gay friendly photographer so my wedding photos turned out rather than winning a lawsuit and having shit memories associated with the most important day of my life.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm torn on this.

Yeah!! Fight discrimination!!  I'm all for that.

But then...there are certain things like...well...if I knew someone hated me...I wouldn't trust them to fix me a good meal.  I wouldn't trust them to photograph something very important to me.

I think I could trust them to wash my car...maybe...but all those car washes say they aren't responsible for damage so I probably wouldn't trust them either.

Imagine now...a wedding photographer being compelled to shoot a wedding they have no desire to be any near, let alone to photos at.  What if they are unable to set aside their differences and are uncomfortable the entire time?

This is a LOT different than wedding cakes.  This is a lot different an even a same sex family type photos shot in a studio.  The photographer is going to be surrounded by the couple's family and friends (presumably).  That's not to say they will all be homosexual...maybe NONE of them will be.  But if you really dislike certain people...you are NOT going to be comfortable and you're probably not going to be able to do a good job.

There is an element of social change/engineering going on here.

For example, there is no doubt in my mind that America is much better off without the "whites only/coloreds only" bullshit of the mid 20th century.  Sure the racists hated it and some blacks probably thought "why am I trying to go where people hate me?" but the fact is that it precipitated a change of mind in american culture (one that is still ongoing but still...).

Actions like these don't do a whole lot to change the minds of the bigots and racists -- it's very hard to change an individual's mind about such things, especially when they've been brought up knowing nothing else.  What these sorts of things do is act as a vaccine for future generations.  It gets parents and children thinking about their racism, about their ingrained prejudices that only exist because "this is the way it is". Yes there will be the invariable backlashes and yes the process takes time.  But we *must* inculcate the coming generations with a respect for equality.. that we truly *are* all created equal.

Freedom must be tempered with social responsibility.  Not just a responsibility to the person being discriminated against but to the creation of a better world for future generations.

JonPhoto wrote:
If a gay couple are photographers and they make a point they will not shoot a Christian straight marriage I would have no problem with that.

I would like ANYONE to find me a gay couple who would do that.  It would be an interesting case ... and a demonstration of hypocrisy.  I find many religions are filled with hypocrisy.

Xpat John wrote:
Don't fight against the rules, let them work for you.

If you want to pick and choose your clients based on your preferences, then simply create a "members only", private organization.  As a private organization you are able to say who you allow and don't allow in.

Allow people to join, where the shooting fee covers their membership and turn down those who you don't want to join.

Simple.  Not very ethical.  But simple.

Better to start your own religion.  Avoid taxes! 

I refuse to follow religions, but I know there is a God.