• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Photographer declines job to shoot same-sex wedding, sued for discrimination and lost

edkwon

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,812
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2020 Kia Telluride, Tesla Model Y
CN: Professional wedding photographers makes appt to meet with couple who wants to hire them for wedding shoot. During meeting photographer finds out couple is same sex and declines to take the job. Couple takes them to court for gender discrimination and New Mexico court rules in favor of couple and says Photographer does not have the RIGHT to decline the work.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/christian_photographers_sued_f.php

http://www.texasgopvote.com/comment/8273


Now, same-sex marriage debates and issues aside, let's look at the issues relevant to us. Can a professional photographer be ordered by the LAW what work he or she can choose to do or decline, personal reasons aside? I can see a business like a restaurant be sued for refusing to serve someone based on race or overt sexual orientation but does a photographer's work fall under this same kind of legal enforcement?
 
Wow, that?s a though one.
I am all for same-sex couples?s rights and all, but I think the photographer should have the right to refuse jobs based on his personal preference.
I think.
:unsure:
 
Taking aside issues of rights and laws, could they really trust a photographer who objects to their ceremony to take good photos? I mean the photographer is a professional and all, but photography is a creative business and having to fight your inner convictions can't be good for the creative process. Or maybe it'll add some helpful tension to the process.
 
First off, I'm 1000% behind Gay marriage and full equality to "traditional" marriage, but that isn't the issue here at all.

IMHO, that case should have been thrown out of court and never even considered and its ludicrous to me that the judge ruled that way. As a freelancer in another field myself, I feel like I have complete freedom to pick and choose who I want to work for, and have declined work in the past due to my personal feelings/beliefs (though its very rare).

I disagree with Redliner....there is no tough decision here. If someone doesn't want to do the job, then they should be fully free to decline doing so for whatever reason they want, especially when no decisions had been made and they were only doing a consultation. If money had crossed hands or an agreement had been signed and then photography company backed out, then they MIGHT have a case.

I hate how political this stuff is, and how people will take any opportunity to "Get one over" on the other side. I generally side with the equality side, but there are definitely some on that side that take it to far and this is definitely the case here.

Labcoatguy said:
Taking aside issues of rights and laws, could they really trust a photographer who objects to their ceremony to take good photos? I mean the photographer is a professional and all, but photography is a creative business and having to fight your inner convictions can't be good for the creative process. Or maybe it'll add some helpful tension to the process.
Click to expand...

That did occur to me too. Do you really want someone at your ceremony that hates what you are doing and has a deep seated philosophical difference of opinion to you? Even photography quality aside, I wouldn't want that person bringing that energy into a VERY important day in my life.
 
Last edited:
Redliner said:
Wow, that?s a though one.
I am all for same-sex couples?s rights and all, but I think the photographer should have the right to refuse jobs based on his personal preference.
I think.
:unsure:
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Although I guess can a store refuse service to say black people but not whites? I don't think they can. It's either public or private -- gotta pick. So maybe the photographer can't pick and choose.
 
Viper007Bond said:
Agreed.

Although I guess can a store refuse service to say black people but not whites? I don't think they can. It's either public or private -- gotta pick. So maybe the photographer can't pick and choose.
Click to expand...

This, essentially. People have to remember that if they are operating as a professional entity, then as well as talking the talk they have to walk the walk, which means they are subject to the same rules as other businesses. You can't discriminate against people because of your own beliefs or values.
 
Electric-Mayhem said:
That did occur to me too. Do you really want someone at your ceremony that hates what you are doing and has a deep seated philosophical difference of opinion to you? Even photography quality aside, I wouldn't want that person bringing that energy into a VERY important day in my life.
Click to expand...

I feel like the couple that filed the suit simply wants to punish the photographer for voicing her personal beliefs and make this suit as a threat and warning to other photographers to 'play ball and accept our clientele...or else' instead of simply moving on and find a photographer who actually wants to provide them with good photography services. It's almost as ignorant and close minded and someone who is against same-sex relationships.
 
Redliner said:
Wow, that?s a though one.
I am all for same-sex couples?s rights and all, but I think the photographer should have the right to refuse jobs based on his personal preference.
I think.
:unsure:
Click to expand...

I agree. Why should everyone be forced to be ok with same sex couples? I thought this was "land of the do whatever the hell you want."
 
93Flareside said:
I agree. Why should everyone be forced to be ok with same sex couples? I thought this was "land of the do whatever the hell you want."
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought too but it's because in this case they are operating a public business and therefore aren't allowed to discriminate. Just like how a store can't refuse to sell to people of a certain race or gender.

What if this was a big huge photography corporation that refused to develop a roll of film because the couple was mixed race?
 
A similar case to a couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast here in blighty the other year. Same point stands, if you're a business you serve the public, Viper has it correct in my eyes.
 
I guess I'm biased since I'm a freelancer too, which is a much more personal thing then hiring a big company. I'm sure there are no shortage of willing photographers out there to do this. I do see the sentiment, but I also think that any freelancing professional should be able to decline work for personal reasons.

I guess I would put it this way, there are so many different types of event that could hire a freelancer for this, and its just silly to require them to accept work from all of them. I would never accept work for a Scientology event or many other fringe groups, and its easy to put that in a similar light to how some Christians feel about the gay marriage thing.

I don't agree with them at all, but I also don't think everyone is required to have the same beliefs as I do and are entitled to believe what they want. I think the main mistake was probably how the Photographer handled the situation and I imagine it could have been handled in a way that wouldn't have brought a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
It's a slippery slope though, and even though you're a freelancer you're just a 1-person business. No different than a 1000 person one.
 
Insane. You should be able to decline work if you so choose and give no reason what so ever. It's like having to talk to a clot that perhaps you do not want to - there again you should not 'mouth off' saying you are against the 'what ever'.
 
Cobol74 said:
Insane. You should be able to decline work if you so choose and give no reason what so ever. It's like having to talk to a clot that perhaps you do not want to - there again you should not 'mouth off' saying you are against the 'what ever'.
Click to expand...

I believe there's a difference between declining work you don't want to do and declining work due the client's sexual orientation, the color of their skin, etc.
 
Viper007Bond said:
Although I guess can a store refuse service to say black people but not whites?
Click to expand...
I think a private establishment actually can do that. Why can an African American or Asian American club not let a Caucasian become a member? What about women-only gyms?

I could be wrong though, idk.
 
LeVeL said:
I think a private establishment actually can do that. Why can an African American or Asian American club not let a Caucasian become a member? What about women-only gyms?

I could be wrong though, idk.
Click to expand...

The key there is private vs public. A country club for example is private while a grocery store is public.
 
There are polite ways of refusing a job. Tell them that there's a conflict of schedule or you're going on a holiday.

But then again this is a business and gay money is as good as straight money.

Another way of doing this would've been to accept the job then outsource it but before you outsource inform the couple in advance. ;)

Also it helps to have in writing that you can refuse the job at any time for any reason.
 
You said this is slippery slope...but that goes in both directions. If the Westboro Baptist church called me up and asked me to work an event, I would definitely decline for a devout difference in beliefs. Should I be required to work for them then or is that being "religiously discriminatory"? It sounds like in the state of New Mexico, that would definitely be the case, which is pretty scary to me.

Like others have said, I'm sure the Photographer could have worded it differently or had a different reaction to tactfully decline. I wonder if the Judge made a special declaration on not being able to raise prices. I know in that situation, I would raise my fee's a bunch, as would be my right as a business owner.

Geez....I'm starting to sound like a few of my conservative friends...ok, time to get back to my more moderatel liberal leaning views.
 
Great, so I can force Hindi photographers to record cows being slaughtered and Muslim photographers to record people pissing on pictures of Mohammed now!

It cuts both ways. And that's the problem with laws like these.

That said, there are always ways around the laws, as with hiring. Thing is you have to come up with some other expressed reason that's not prohibited - "Sorry, I am booked all that month" would be one option, for example - even if that's not the real reason. Sadly, that's what these laws require.
 
Last edited:
OK so let's break it down.

I am all for same-sex unions and think that religious groups objecting because it's against their religion is like telling me I can't have a doughnut because you are on a diet.

In this case though if the photographer objected because of their own personal moral or religious beliefs that's a different matter altogether and is up to the individual. The same goes for the British couple who, because of their Christian beliefs, refused to allow a same-sex couple to stay in their guesthouse which is also their home and yet were successfully sued. So you have to make a few calls and find a photographer/B&B that will work for you? Big deal. Get over it and get over yourself.

It's time for common sense to prevail in situations like this and as others have said the judge should have thrown this one out. More and more we are seeing situations where you don't stand a chance if you are white, Christian (I'm not), employed, able-bodied and middle class.

It's equal rights, not additional ones. And as far as I know as the law stands here any establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone without giving a reason.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top