• 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

I don't have much know how of American legal system that's why I said I don't know if the same provisions apply there. After reading the Civil Rights Act briefly, even that act does not cover photograpgers and does not mention anything about a contract being rejected on racial or sexual grounds.
 
I'm also for marriage of whoever to whoever else as long as its mutually consented, and I'm also against this decision.
I don't care who you are, you got the right to decline someone's business. You will get a bad rep probably, and lose a lot of other potential customers, but that's entirely your choice.

And I also agree with MWF on the point that if seeing two guys or two girls offends the photographer in question at a personal level, perhaps he won't do the best job he can?
I like taking pictures but I'm not even a hobbyist at it, but I know I'd have more interest and thus my photos be better perhaps if I was shooting racing cars, than if I was shooting something which I'm not into, like, say, bull fighting.
 
Last edited:
I am of the belief that the photographer blurted out something stupid rather than being professionally tactful.

In my industry, we get sad sacks who will leave us holding the bag, so we quote out prices that are unattainable for them. You can see them coming from a mile away, the patterns are laughably predictable.
 
Why is a privately owned photography studio considered any kind of public accommodation?

I wonder if there was a contract written up that we aren't hearing about, and that's really what the lawsuit was about?
 
As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service to anyone.

However, you do not have the right to refuse service to a class of people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I could refuse service to a gay man who showed up drunk, or was being obnoxious, and I would be within my rights to do so. But I could not refuse service to all gay men. That would be discrimination.

For this photographer to say that he/she will not photograph a gay wedding because he/she doesn't believe in gay marriage is aimed at all gay & lesbian couples, not just the one that turned up.
 
CAPT_Howdy said:
As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service to anyone.

However, you do not have the right to refuse service to a class of people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I could refuse service to a gay man who showed up drunk, or was being obnoxious, and I would be within my rights to do so. But I could not refuse service to all gay men. That would be discrimination.

For this photographer to say that he/she will not photograph a gay wedding because he/she doesn't believe in gay marriage is aimed at all gay & lesbian couples, not just the one that turned up.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding!

You can argue all you want about what you "reckon" should have happened, but the fact is that, in the US, there is a short, explicit list of reasons you can't use to refuse someone goods/services from your hotel, car dealership, law office, photography business, etc.

If you are offering your service to the public (and are not a private club, in a legally-defined way), then you can't refuse service based on a potential customer's race, color, religion, national origin, age (if the customer is 40 or older), gender, familial status, disability status, veteran status, or genetic information. This is what applies across the country, and some individual states have added sexual orientation to that list.

Can you refuse to serve someone because they're a wanker? Sure. Can you refuse to serve someone because they're a Scientologist? No. Does it suck that you may have to work with or serve someone whose philosophy/skin color you dislike? Maybe. But sucking it up and dealing with it is what separates a professional from a hobbyist.
 
But as most people know the law is an ass.

The question here isn't whether she broke the law as it stands now. That fact is quite clear. What we are discussing is whether in this case the law should have been applied and whether her right to express her personal religious freedoms should be on a par with or even outweigh the law and the sexuality of the couple concerned.

And don't give me any of that "separation of church and state" BS either. Not until states in the Bible Belt stop trying to teach intelligent design in schools as fact and you have a tenant in the White House who got there without once mentioning God on the campaign trail.
 
I'm sorry for bringing up a discussion that has already settled, but I feel the need to bring up a point of view that I feel has not already been mentioned clearly.

I think there is a difference between declining to serve a homosexual couple, say, in a grocery store, and declining to photograph their wedding. The first act would be plain discrimination of the homosexual couple because of the their sexual orientation and beliefs. On the latter one, if the photographer opposes the same sex marriage, forcing the photographer to present the marriage of a same sex couple in a good light (if you are appointed by the marrying couple, you would certainly have to agree to present the wedding in a good light) would be a discrimination against his beliefs.

Someone brought the Westboro babtist chuch up as an example already, so I reuse it. If I was a professional photographer and was asked to photograph and present one of the Westboro babtist churchs demonstrations in a good light I would certainly deceline. I don't share their opinions, so I shouldn't be forced to present their opinions in a good light. But on the other hand any members of the Westboro church would be most welcome to my grocery store. Serving them in my store has nothing to do with promoting their beliefs. I think this same point may apply to photographing same sex marriages and serving same sex couples in other businesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. :+1:
 
villej said:
I'm sorry for bringing up a discussion that has already settled, but I feel the need to bring up a point of view that I feel has not already been mentioned clearly.

I think there is a difference between declining to serve a homosexual couple, say, in a grocery store, and declining to photograph their wedding. The first act would be plain discrimination of the homosexual couple because of the their sexual orientation and beliefs. On the latter one, if the photographer opposes the same sex marriage, forcing the photographer to present the marriage of a same sex couple in a good light (if you are appointed by the marrying couple, you would certainly have to agree to present the wedding in a good light) would be a discrimination against his beliefs.

Someone brought the Westboro babtist chuch up as an example already, so I reuse it. If I was a professional photographer and was asked to photograph and present one of the Westboro babtist churchs demonstrations in a good light I would certainly deceline. I don't share their opinions, so I shouldn't be forced to present their opinions in a good light. But on the other hand any members of the Westboro church would be most welcome to my grocery store. Serving them in my store has nothing to do with promoting their beliefs. I think this same point may apply to photographing same sex marriages and serving same sex couples in other businesses.
Click to expand...


So then, where do you draw the line? Should there be a list of "Types of business that are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?" Should the photographer be allowed to refuse a black or interracial couple to hire his business?

The bottom line is that everyone has to play by the same rules when it comes to discrimination. It may seem unfair in some cases, but unless you want to navigate a legal and constitutional minefield to create that list, that's how it's gonna be.
 
But it's your time, your income, you deal with it how you please. If he doesn't want a client, he refuses it and that's it, his reasons are his own. Many services companies have refused countless clients for whichever reason, be it an advertising agency, a lawyer firm, whatever. Each one has their own sets of rules and you simply can't force someone to work because you think he should.
 
villej said:
I'm sorry for bringing up a discussion that has already settled, but I feel the need to bring up a point of view that I feel has not already been mentioned clearly.

I think there is a difference between declining to serve a homosexual couple, say, in a grocery store, and declining to photograph their wedding. The first act would be plain discrimination of the homosexual couple because of the their sexual orientation and beliefs. On the latter one, if the photographer opposes the same sex marriage, forcing the photographer to present the marriage of a same sex couple in a good light (if you are appointed by the marrying couple, you would certainly have to agree to present the wedding in a good light) would be a discrimination against his beliefs.

Someone brought the Westboro babtist chuch up as an example already, so I reuse it. If I was a professional photographer and was asked to photograph and present one of the Westboro babtist churchs demonstrations in a good light I would certainly deceline. I don't share their opinions, so I shouldn't be forced to present their opinions in a good light. But on the other hand any members of the Westboro church would be most welcome to my grocery store. Serving them in my store has nothing to do with promoting their beliefs. I think this same point may apply to photographing same sex marriages and serving same sex couples in other businesses.
Click to expand...
ie.: The difference between a customer and a client is that customers are served, clients are represented.
 
Last edited:
mpicco said:
But it's your time, your income, you deal with it how you please. If he doesn't want a client, he refuses it and that's it, his reasons are his own. Many services companies have refused countless clients for whichever reason, be it an advertising agency, a lawyer firm, whatever. Each one has their own sets of rules and you simply can't force someone to work because you think he should.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that's why you're free to give a B.S. reason as to why you're not taking the job because you've got plausible deniability, but to openly (or even provably) discriminate against sexual orientation is illegal and will get your ass handed to you in court. Simple.
 
Last edited:
New development.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...photograph-gay-wedding-illegal-sterling-beard

NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The court found that Elane Photography?s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which ?prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person?s sexual orientation,? according to the ruling.

Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case ?provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.? In addition, the case ?teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation?s strengths, demands no less.?

The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, ?are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish? Bosson wrote. Nevertheless, in the ?world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.?

Doing so, Bosson said, is ?the price of citizenship.?

The ruling affirms a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico?s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography?s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court?s original and appellate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top