FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

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.

With that mindset, if you were black, you'd just drink out of the water fountain on the right.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
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.

I'd wager the opposite. If the gay couple hadn't fought this bigoted business, they would probably feel like crap the rest of their lives. By standing up to bigotry, whether they win the court case or not, they know that at least they tried and would feel empowered.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Better to start your own religion.  Avoid taxes! 

Just join the Universal Church of Life.  They allow anyone to become a "priest" of their religion just by filling out a web form. 

Yep.  This is a real thing.  And, as far as I know, perfectly legal.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I find many religions are filled with hypocrisy.

To clarify, religions are not filled with hypocrisy, PEOPLE are filled with hypocrisy.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

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.

What would be hypocritical of a gay couple or gay photographer refusing to do a Christian marriage service?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
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.

So you have discriminated against a personality type by raising your rate?

JonPhoto wrote:

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

The mark of a true professional is being able to set your personal feelings aside and do the best job possible so, if it was required by law, then yes. Of course, this is why I choose **NOT** to hang my shingle out. I have the freedom to pick and choose.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

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.

So we are OKAY with discrimination, as long as you lie about it.

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

Excuse me?  It IS about freedom to choose.  If I want Freedom from religion, then I demand it!  Why can't I have Freedom from religion?  You tell me.

Bobby C wrote:

I'd wager the opposite. If the gay couple hadn't fought this bigoted business, they would probably feel like crap the rest of their lives. By standing up to bigotry, whether they win the court case or not, they know that at least they tried and would feel empowered.

you see it as bigotry...many see it as personal/religious choice. If the reverse happened, it'd never hit the news and the word "bigotry" would never be uttered.

Lohkee wrote:

The mark of a true professional is being able to set your personal feelings aside and do the best job possible so, if it was required by law, then yes. Of course, this is why I choose **NOT** to hang my shingle out. I have the freedom to pick and choose.

And a pro photographer should have those same freedoms too.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Excuse me?  It IS about freedom to choose.  If I want Freedom from religion, then I demand it!  Why can't I have Freedom from religion?  You tell me.

You do have freedom from religion. A person also has a freedom to choose a religion and live by those standards. They should not be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

Bobby C wrote:

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

How far do we want to do take this?

Let's be honest...there are some CREEPY religious people out there.  And probably some creep wedding customs from some of them.

I'm Christian.  But I can't stand creepy religious people.  You know, the cult like wack jobs.  I don't think I could do a cult wedding.

We have to be careful about what doors get opened here...thankfully, cult people tend to stick amongst themselves.

But then...I don't like shoot ANYONE's wedding.  I've talked my way OUT of more weddings than I have shot.

JonPhoto wrote:

And a pro photographer should have those same freedoms too.

Not according to the law. I suppose they could try and get the law changed via the processes in place if they felt that strongly about it. Somehow, I doubt there is enough people who would agree with them to have much of a chance.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

you see it as bigotry...many see it as personal/religious choice. If the reverse happened, it'd never hit the news and the word "bigotry" would never be uttered.

Religious freedom/choice applies ONLY to your personal freedom to choose and follow a certain religion. It DOES NOT extend to discriminating others just because you prescribe to a certain religion.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

To clarify, religions are not filled with hypocrisy, PEOPLE are filled with hypocrisy.

All rigth, I agree that many of the leaders of various faiths have caused wars, and death to many innocent people through out history.  Including in more recent times, Jim Jones and David Koresh.  Religion is completely manmade based on human beliefs.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So we are OKAY with discrimination, as long as you lie about it.

We are ok with a private business owner making decisions which affect the owner in a positive or negative way. Like it or not, I am not required to tell you why I can't photograph your wedding on a specific date. If a couple showed up and the bride couldn't afford my rates, in many people's eyes here I'd be discriminating against her financially.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So we are OKAY with discrimination, as long as you lie about it.

Unfortunately, yes.  That is what our personal choice is limited to when we choose to have a public business. 

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

JonPhoto wrote:

And a pro photographer should have those same freedoms too.

Nope. Not when your business is public.

JonPhoto wrote:

What would be hypocritical of a gay couple or gay photographer refusing to do a Christian marriage service?

I don't know?  That is why I asked if there is any examples of such a couple so we can ask.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

All rigth, I agree that many of the leaders of various faiths have caused wars, and death to many innocent people through out history.  Including in more recent times, Jim Jones and David Koresh.  Religion is completely manmade based on human beliefs.

I'll not argue with you on religion. That, along with political discussions isn't allowed on MM. Suffice it to say, religion works for billions of people world-wide.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
[We have to be careful about what doors get opened here...thankfully, cult people tend to stick amongst themselves.

Yes, indeed we do. If we allow discrimination against same sex couples in the name of personal beliefs then where do we draw the line? Slippery slope anyone?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
If a couple showed up and the bride couldn't afford my rates, in many people's eyes here I'd be discriminating against her financially.

Whoever thinks like that is just plain wrong.

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.

And I do take a stand.  I have no problem talking about what I think is right or wrong.

If someone said they wouldn't shoot my wedding because I'm white and my girlfriend is Vietnamese, I'd find someone that would.  And if sufficiently pissed off, I'd make sure others know that the photographers I originally sought are shitty discriminating people.  That way, others can choose to do or NOT do business with them based on that knowledge.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
So you have discriminated against a personality type by raising your rate?

Absolutely!  If my personality don't jive with yours, then sue me!  Gather all the Bridezillas who threaten to injure their photographers and launch a lawsuit on their behalf! 

Christopher Hartman wrote:

And I do take a stand.  I have no problem talking about what I think is right or wrong.

If someone said they wouldn't shoot my wedding because I'm white and my girlfriend is Vietnamese, I'd find someone that would.  And if sufficiently pissed off, I'd make sure others know that the photographers I originally sought are shitty discriminating people.  That way, others can choose to do or NOT do business with them based on that knowledge.

sometimes it's better to be happy than right

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Suffice it to say, religion works for billions of people world-wide.

That's fine and dandy. Great for them. But just because religion worked for them does not mean they can go around discriminating against others.

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.

So you're ok with discrimination then?  As long as it's done secretly?

Lohkee wrote:

Not according to the law. I suppose they could try and get the law changed via the processes in place if they felt that strongly about it. Somehow, I doubt there is enough people who would agree with them to have much of a chance.

I know it's the law. I think it is wrong. This is why the case is trying to get to the SCOTUS. You are right, if there is a politically correct issue at hand, freedoms seem to go to the wayside.

Bobby C wrote:

That's fine and dandy. Great for them. But just because religion worked for them does not mean they can go around discriminating against others.

once again...you call it discrimination, some/many call it personal choice.
This conversation would be entirely different on a not so liberal board.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So you're ok with discrimination then?  As long as it's done secretly?

This is not an issue of secrecy. It is an issue of private vs public entities/businesses.

JonPhoto wrote:

I know it's the law. I think it is wrong. This is why the case is trying to get to the SCOTUS. You are right, if there is a politically correct issue at hand, freedoms seem to go to the wayside.

Nope. Not trying. The SCOTUS refused to hear it. Simply stated, it's done been tried and failed

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
once again...you call it discrimination, some/many call it personal choice.
This conversation would be entirely different on a not so liberal board.

You can be as racist and bigoted as much as you want in a private setting. But once you are in a public setting the game changes.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Absolutely!  If my personality don't jive with yours, then sue me!  Gather all the Bridezillas who threaten to injure their photographers and launch a lawsuit on their behalf! 

So, you're okay with YOU not holding all clients to the same standards because of personality clashes but can't see how a religious photographer's personality would clash with this particular set of clients?

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. 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.

Wrong. You CAN turn them down if you want to. The New Mexico statute only applies to cases of discrimination for very specific reasons. You can't just "take the gay issue out of the equation", because it IS about the gay issue (and other *very specific* issues). 

The current ruling (the one the Supreme Court declined to address on appeal) isn't about FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING "against their will".

It does not compel anyone, at government gunpoint or under duress of potential penalty, to provide a service against their will.

It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

Note that at no time during this matter has the photographer in question been actually compelled to provide a service to the aggrieved couple, nor has such an idea even been suggested.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

How far do we want to do take this?

Let's be honest...there are some CREEPY religious people out there.  And probably some creep wedding customs from some of them.

I'm Christian.  But I can't stand creepy religious people.  You know, the cult like wack jobs.  I don't think I could do a cult wedding.

We have to be careful about what doors get opened here...thankfully, cult people tend to stick amongst themselves.

But then...I don't like shoot ANYONE's wedding.  I've talked my way OUT of more weddings than I have shot.

I understand you.  Even though I am being negative towards the few bridezillas I've delt with, I have shot many weddings that were a pleasure to be doing so.  The most enjoyable were for other photographer couples, also models and musicians.  They seemed totally are on the same creative wave length with me.  Also it's been a pleasure to shoot same sex weddings.  The vast majority of weddings I've shot have been good experiences.  It's been the few where I've felt my life or physical well being was in danger.  A wedding can be a volatile event with so many people coming together and emotions ... there are more fights, and other unexpected things that happen at weddings than most might expect.  I've seen a lot of interesting things that I could write a book about!

kickfight wrote:

Wrong. You CAN turn them down if you want to. The New Mexico statute only applies to cases of discrimination for very specific reasons. You can't just "take the gay issue out of the equation", because it IS about the gay issue (and other *very specific* issues). 

The current ruling (the one the Supreme Court declined to address on appeal) isn't about FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING "against their will".

It does not compel anyone, at government gunpoint or under duress of potential penalty, to provide a service against their will.

It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

Note that at no time during this matter has the photographer in question been actually compelled to provide a service to the aggrieved couple, nor has such an idea even been suggested.

+1

kickfight wrote:
It does not compel anyone, at government gunpoint or under duress of potential penalty, to provide a service against their will.

It merely reinforces that, per New Mexico law, you cannot REFUSE someone service BECAUSE they are gay, and that there are penalties for refusing someone service ON THOSE GROUNDS, and that there are remedies for those who have been refused service ON THOSE GROUNDS.

So, penalties enforced by the government for refusing service is not the same as compelling someone under duress of potential penalty?

Bobby C wrote:

You can be as racist and bigoted as much as you want in a private setting. But once you are in a public "setting" the game changes.

you keep using those terms...not sure you really know what they mean.
There are far too many people here advocating extremes. It's not good for anyone. It means that 99% of a population is forced to conform to something they don't believe in. When there are thousands of businesses out there who perform the same services, I see no reason to turn a molehill into a mountain...but then again my money isn't wasted on fighting a ridiculous argument all the way to the SCOTUS.