• 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

As much as I support the fact that everybody can love and marry whoever he or she wants, this is ridiculous. We are not talking about a restaurant that is by default an open and public space, run by a company that relies on as many customers being there as possible. We are talking about an effort-based contract that requires both sides to agree on certain terms and on both sides to be willing to actually come to terms. Its like if Chris Harris would sue Ferrari because they don't like his face and won't give him press cars. Sure it would be in Ferraris interest to get out as many (positive) reviews as possible, just like it would be in the photographers interest to get as many contract-jobs as possible. But then again Ferrari can be picky about who they work with, just like the photographer.

But then there is the "but what if" thing that turns all that into a big steaming pile of troubled shit: If they have every right to do so for whatsoever reasons, what would happen if they go ahead and wouldn't hand out any press-cars to all british reporters, because they don't like Brits? That would clearly be a form of general discrimination which should not exist. But that is exactly the spot where the disciminated side has to just be above that. In the example brits should just go "well then fuck you Ferrari, there are other ways", just like Chris Harris did, and in this threads case the couple should have done exactly the same. Deal with it, call another guy and solve the whole fucking issue within 5 minutes. Because you can't possible to it right for everyone, ever.

Just my 2ct.
 
MWF said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but public businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people. If you apparently have such strong opinions about certain things, perhaps you shouldn't start a public business in the first place. Imagine what would have happened had the same happened, but instead of a gay couple, with a black couple.
 
Adunaphel said:
I'm sorry, but public businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people. If you apparently have such strong opinions about certain things, perhaps you shouldn't start a public business in the first place. Imagine what would have happened had the same happened, but instead of a gay couple, with a black couple.
Click to expand...

That's a specious argument. The fact is that the religious freedom of the photographer (or the B&B owners) should carry the same weight as the sexual freedom of the same-sex couple.

Would you tell the parents of Muslim children whose allegedly halal school meals have been found to have traces of pork that they are being racist for not eating the same as everyone else or would you respect their religious views?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it wasn't the best.

My point is that what we have here is one person or couple's rights being placed above another. If the photographer's religion means he/she is against same sex unions then it is their right to refuse and since wedding photographers are ten-a-penny what's the bloody issue? Grab the Yellow Pages and move on. Hell I'm sure a good proportion of professional snappers are gay anyway.

What I see here is people who are using this as a way to make some money and get on a soap box about something that really isn't an issue instead of respecting the rights of another human being to their religious views and personal choices. Are they really offended? Are gay rights so much of an underpromoted issue that they need to use this as a vehicle for their cause? I think not. This is just another example of an overly litigious culture that permits outrageous lawsuits purely on the basis of hurt feelings.
 
^ I agree, this couple almost exploited the legal system by using it to publicly voice their grievances and use the photographer as a sacrificial lamb. The
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone of how this couple has abused this situation. But I believe religious beliefs are never an excuse for discriminating against others. There is just no excuse for discrimination, period. Not ever.
 
Yes but you have to accept that this lawsuit constitutes discrimination against the photographer's religious beliefs. I don't condone mindless discrimination at all (unless it's aimed at certain Slovenians :lol:) but in this case I think the gay couple should have just accepted the status quo and walked away.
 
One point that hasn't been brought up is that there is a distinctive difference between being in favour of equal rights and tolerance towards homosexuality, and having to attend an all day event that has got homosexuality as its main focus, and is likely to feature a lot of openly homosexual behaviour. You don't have to be an all out religious bigot to just not feel comfortable there.
To use a more extreme example, what if he instead refused to shoot gay porn scene, I sure wouldn't fancy that myself either.
 
H0nzik said:
is likely to feature a lot of openly homosexual behaviour. You don't have to be an all out religious bigot to just not feel comfortable there.
To use a more extreme example, what if he instead refused to shoot gay porn scene, I sure wouldn't fancy that myself either.
Click to expand...

What in the world are the weddings like that you attend? I can't think of anything that would occur at a wedding that would make someone uncomfortable. :?
 
thats up to the photographer to decide.. maybe not uncomfortable for you but there are situations that just are uncomfortable to others. This limits the job opportunities for the photographer but I think it is up to him to decide.
 
Here's a thought.

Let's imagine a Caucasian photographer is invited to work at the traditional wedding of a Hindu couple but decides to turn the work down not on the basis of colour but because he feels that he is not enough in tune with their cultural nuances and sensitivities to feel he can do the commission justice. Does that make him racist or someone with integrity? I would say the latter but if they were to sue him for being racist he'd be pretty pissed off.

That's essentially what this photographer has done - the work was declined because her beliefs conflicted with the subject matter in hand. Whether you agree with her beliefs (and I don't) I do support her right to religious expression in the so-called land of the free to make that choice and stand by her convictions. And while the argument that a public business should not refuse service on the basis of sexuality there is a marked difference between a shopkeeper refusing to serve an openly gay customer and a photographer refusing to cover a same-sex wedding which is against their Christian principles.

Had they approached her just for a normal sitting and not for the wedding and been refused then I would consider that a different matter.
 
Let's see this in legal terms. I am not sure if this applies in US but in UK and most of Asia the rules are that if a customer approaches a business, the customer is making an "offer", not a "demand". It is up to the business to accept that offer. If the business rejects it on whatsoever reason, the customer cannot sue the business for non-performance of a contract, as no contract had been entered into.

For example, you go to a shop and choose a chocolate bar priced at $2. You go up to the counter, you are making an offer to buy the chocolate for $2. The business can reject it on any ground, personal or legal.

So in my opinion the case is legally flawed and should have never been entertained.

Personal preferences aside, this is just bullshit. I am tired of all these groups, communities playing the victim-gag. If you are different, stand up and convince the world that you are right instead of suing every second person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
predator101 said:
Let's see this in legal terms. I am not sure if this applies in US but in UK and most of Asia the rules are that if a customer approaches a business, the customer is making an "offer", not a "demand". It is up to the business to accept that offer. If the business rejects it on whatsoever reason, the customer cannot sue the business for non-performance of a contract, as no contract had been entered into.

For example, you go to a shop and choose a chocolate bar priced at $2. You go up to the counter, you are making an offer to buy the chocolate for $2. The business can reject it on any ground, personal or legal.

So in my opinion the case is legally flawed and should have never been entertained.

Personal preferences aside, this is just bullshit. I am tired of all these groups, communities playing the victim-gag. If you are different, stand up and convince the world that you are right instead of suing every second person.
Click to expand...

A-fucking-men!!!! :clap:
 
H0nzik said:
One point that hasn't been brought up is that there is a distinctive difference between being in favour of equal rights and tolerance towards homosexuality, and having to attend an all day event that has got homosexuality as its main focus, and is likely to feature a lot of openly homosexual behaviour. You don't have to be an all out religious bigot to just not feel comfortable there.
To use a more extreme example, what if he instead refused to shoot gay porn scene, I sure wouldn't fancy that myself either.
Click to expand...

Ok, we understand your point, but your wording is poorly chosen and can be mistaken as sounding ignorant, be careful if you say it like that in public.


predator101 said:
Let's see this in legal terms. I am not sure if this applies in US but in UK and most of Asia the rules are that if a customer approaches a business, the customer is making an "offer", not a "demand". It is up to the business to accept that offer. If the business rejects it on whatsoever reason, the customer cannot sue the business for non-performance of a contract, as no contract had been entered into.

For example, you go to a shop and choose a chocolate bar priced at $2. You go up to the counter, you are making an offer to buy the chocolate for $2. The business can reject it on any ground, personal or legal.

So in my opinion the case is legally flawed and should have never been entertained.

Personal preferences aside, this is just bullshit. I am tired of all these groups, communities playing the victim-gag. If you are different, stand up and convince the world that you are right instead of suing every second person.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Well said.
 
Last edited:
predator101 said:
Let's see this in legal terms. I am not sure if this applies in US but in UK and most of Asia the rules are that if a customer approaches a business, the customer is making an "offer", not a "demand". It is up to the business to accept that offer. If the business rejects it on whatsoever reason, the customer cannot sue the business for non-performance of a contract, as no contract had been entered into.

For example, you go to a shop and choose a chocolate bar priced at $2. You go up to the counter, you are making an offer to buy the chocolate for $2. The business can reject it on any ground, personal or legal.

So in my opinion the case is legally flawed and should have never been entertained.

Personal preferences aside, this is just bullshit. I am tired of all these groups, communities playing the victim-gag. If you are different, stand up and convince the world that you are right instead of suing every second person.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is not correct in the US. Businesses are not allowed to reject customers for certain reasons, namely race, age, etc. This all stems out of white businesses refusing to serve black people and laws going into effect to prevent that.

See Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for an idea about the above. In certain states, similar rights have been extended to sexual orientation.

That said I am no lawyer or history major so I could be completely in the wrong here.
 
Last edited:
On one hand I see the goal of the couple..to make an example out of the photographer.

But on the other hand...would you want a photographer/caterer/florist to have to serve you after you found out they weren't really willing to do the work. I'd feel like they wouldn't perform their best work (or worse...) which is something I'd want if I were paying good money personally.

Personally the photographer should have just said she/he was busy that day/weekend and while they'd love to help celebrate the couple's special day, there's no way they'd be able to squeeze in a time slot for them and maintain high quality, blah blah blah...

There's a "right" way to reject work for reasons that aren't exactly PC (as much as I personally think the photographer's reason was BS) and there's a "wrong" way. The photographer did it the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
Photographers were utter morons if they openly turned down the booking based on it being a same-sex marriage - that was just inviting a lawsuit. If you want to discriminate, tell them you've got other arrangements, whatever. Make a up a bullshit excuse and get on with it. They can still try to sue you, but they'll have a hell of a time proving you did it based on sexual orientation alone.

Hell, I've done it before. Turned down a shoot ostensibly due to a scheduling conflict, when in reality the potential client was just a crazybitch.
 
Last edited:
While I think it's silly to discriminate, from purely a contractual law standpoint I don't see any problems with this. As long as you are in a business were you don't have a monopoly on certain services, or you perform a public service you (as a photographer) should be able to do jobs for whoever you like, this is also known as positive contractual freedom. On the other hand this also includes the freedom to decide not to not take a job, negative contractual freedom. This is of course providing you do it before you sign a contract to do the job.

However, if the contract was already signed, then I'd say the photographer would be in trouble for walking away with such a weak excuse. Not only would that be discrimination, but also a breech of contractual obligations.
 
That's it in a nutshell pretty much.

I've closed customer accounts in the past and asked them to go elsewhere although in my case it wasn't down to any form of prejudice or religious conviction but just because they were utter wankers.
 
So, now small businesses can't choose who they want to serve? As usual, politics ruin everything.

"Sorry, we're all booked up" or "we've scheduled holiday plans to be out of town" would have diffused this situation just fine without ruffling anyone's feathers.

I guess nobody here has heard of Abercrombie & Fitch (who only sell to "skinny and attractive people"). They may be dicks for doing it, but there are thousands of other choices in the market. Get over yourself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top