Printable View
Ran across this article (Court rules against Christian photographer) on my local news web page and thought a string about the business of photography would be a good addition to our collection of informative strings. This particular article could certainly be controversial, but one that wedding photographers should be aware of.
It’s a matter of law and justice. The question is: must we obey a law we consider unfair?
If there were a law that forbid me to take photos of gay couples, I will disobey it. Consistently, I understand this photographer. Although for opposite reasons, he have acted the same way I would.
Nevertheless, as responsible citizens, we have to accept the consequences of disobeying laws, even those we consider unfair.
Not a question of law so much as ethics in my opinion. There's no way the photographer didn't know what the job entailed. A good photographer would have had the foresight to know what's on the agenda so he can plan his shots. If there was religious reasons as to why he couldn't shoot all the shots they were expecting, he shouldn't have taken the job.
In this business there needs to be full disclosure. He would have been able to adhere to his religious beliefs as an honest businessman and stayed out of legal trouble had he bothered to communicate with his clients.
Of course, this is assuming that the discussion never took place. If it was agreed that he would get that shot but didn't, citing religious reasons, then that's completely different.
Guess this: you were signed to take photos in a convention. Your client didn’t give you more information and you didn’t request it (yes, here is the problem but assume it happened).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco
When you arrive, you see it’s a convention completely legal but absolutely against your beliefs or ideas (let’s say a Nazi convention or whatever you want). You are aware that, with your work, you are going to promote those ideas and get paid for do so.
What should you do?
A: Professionalism is above all and you do the work.
B: Your beliefs are above all and you refuse to do the work.
C: Take the photos trying to capture the worst face of this people (both literally and metaphorically).
And of course D: Any other answer.
Ha! Well, assuming that for some unbelievable reason I take that job without any information (wowza) It'd most definitely be option B. I'd be firm on that one, especially when the scenario is the promotion of.. Whatever is anti my beliefs/values.
Even though I know that if there were to be media about the breech of contract that would probably bring more press than my photography would, similar to what happened with this photog, I don't think I could still bring myself to do it.
That's a big stretch though. I'd never take a job that unprepared.
I guess I am discriminating when I refuse to shoot a nude subject.
I have also flatly refused to shoot a wedding outdoors in July or August.
I have had a gay couple call to inquire about hiring me. I told them I was already booked for that day:rolleyes:
I've shot gays, lesbians, Muslims, Christians, and the last nude I shot was a 50 year-old woman. I didn't have an issue shooting any of them. Personally, I don't see the benefit (socially, morally, or economically) of discriminating against any group. I accept people's views and try to treat them with the respect they deserve as individuals; of course, acceptance doesn't necessarily mean agreement. In my mind, civilized people should be able to interact with one another without having to see eye-to-eye on everything. :-)
Being Gay, Lesbian, Muslim, Christian or Old doesn't automatically make someone immoral though.
Being a Nazi (using Agilulfo's example) does.
Well said. I totally agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I think your personal believes and opinions are in these cases the most important thing. You shouldn't take photos of a gay marriage if gay marriage is something that strives against your believes.
I don't know the background of the story, but if I were that photographer I would decline the request and be honest to tell why. I doubt it's illigal to have your own opinion. If the photographer was money-hungry and accepted it before figuring out the details...well that's just stupid and when you sign a contract you've got to do it.
On the other hand. If I were part of the couple and asked the photographer I probably would have mentioned the gay-thing as one of the first things. It's not a secret that not everyone is as comfortable around gay people as around "normal" couples. If you don't have the right vibe with your photographer or the photographer doesn't feel entirely comfortable I don't believe the photos will turn out brilliantly anyway.
For what it's worth: About a week ago I got the question to shoot a young couples wedding. Normally I wouldn't have declined right away and would have liked to get to know the couple first. However this one I declined immediately. In the town where I live a large number of people is religious(nothing wrong with that), but some are really strictly(with ancient rules in my opinion). Anyway this young couple were having a baby together and that is seen as big sin before marriage. Since it's a small town I live in and people talk a lot. These two youngsters are in some trouble and their families names have been dishonored. Therefor they are socially "forced" to make it a little bit right by marrying each other before they get the baby. I have seen one of these marriages happening before and it's definitely not the best day of the couples lives. It's more of a business deal than a celebration.
I didn't decline because of the couple, they are probably very nice people, but for my own reasons: I don't want to take pictures of things I disagree with or don't like to see. I think everyone has their standards and should stick with them. Photography is still sort of an art and you need to have your head straight doing it.
In the book “Animal Farm”, at the end the pigs end up living in the house. At night the laws written on the barns would be altered and changed, till gradually no one had any rights left. This suit really appears to have nothing to with a couple wanting to have a ceremony photographed, and everything to do with altering the writing on the barn.
The writing on the barn now says, if you own a studio that shoots events you have to shoot gay ceremonies if asked. You as a business owner have no choice or rights in the matter despite what you beliefs are. All of the points any one expresses here do not matter at all, You as a studio owner must shoot this event.
What will the writing say tomorrow?
(please do keep in mind that “pigs” in the book are a representation of the political powers that be, and I am not inferring that by any ones sexual orientation they are pigs. But I would infer that the political powers that be and most politicians, most of those guys are pigs IMO)
I have shot weddings where the bride & groom have been living together for some time. I have shot Idian weddings.
When I meet gay people I treat them pretty much the same as anyone else, with respect.
I do not decline shooting nudes or gays because they are in conflict with my Christian beliefs, which they are by the way. So is the couple who was living together before marriage.
I am uncomfortable with seeing any nude women other than my wife, therefor I decline to shoot nudes. I am also uncomfortable with being apart of an intimate cerimony with a gay atmospher. I make it a point to avoid situations that make me uncomfortable.
If I owned a resturant I would not have any problem with serving them like anyone else. If any of my customers got intimate in my resturant, gay or straight I would ask them to leave.
You as a studio owner cannot be forced to shoot "nudes"...... Yet...
Check the writing on the Barn again tomorrow for updates.
Not that I think most forms of discrimination and prejudice aren't silly, but I really question the judgement of the people (declining to work with the client) for how they went about it. Their general attitude makes it somewhat obvious they lack common sense. When working in a professional capacity and declining to work with anyone for personal reasons it is best to do so in a very general way so as not to cause a controversy.
For example, in this case the photographer could have simply stated they were not available for the event and just left it at that. If they didn't realize they were shooting a same sex ceremony, and found out upon arrival, then they were even dumber for not knowing that in advance and needed to suck it up and do it since it isn't reasonable to assume the couple could find another photographer on the spot.
There's another story floating around right now of a landlord that would not rent a unit to a member of the military because they did not believe in the wars we've been fighting lately and not only told the military member this outright, but did it on a phone voice mail recording.
In both these cases those business owners were their own worst enemy... instead of simply declining, they displayed a big neon sign over their head saying "Look at me! I'm discriminating!"
The only real way to say someone is discriminating is if the business owner (or employee) is dumb enough to make is clear that's exactly what it was. Business owners also have to be very aware that publicly airing their stance on controversial issues will cost them business. There are a good many people out there who will boycott based on that information. A friend of mine will do things like stop watching movies from certain actors or reading books from certain authors simply for a single off-hand political opinion they voiced somewhere. He won't buy Heinz Catchup based on the fact that a random member of the family married a politician he doesn't like.
So, whether or not I question the intelligence of these people not based on the fact that they were discriminating, I definitely do based on their obvious lack of sense in how they handled it.
Ah...that's the case. I didn't get it like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
There's a difficult boarder between serving people and doing your job. For example if you work in a hospital you must take care of anyone no matter what rase or how they are sexually orientated. I don't think any religion forbids you to help others with a different opinion.
In a different business a similar case like the photographers case this is going on here. Each town-government must have a certain amount of wedding-ministers(I think that's what you'd call them). Marrying for the law is separated from the church marriage here. You basically marry twice here. Having said that wedding-ministers do not necessarily have anything to do with who marries. In our town for example some people only want to get wed by people from their own church. So there is at least one wedding-minister from this specific church. The point is that these ministers don't work for the church, but they work for the government who says that a wedding-minister should wed any person no matter what.
Here's the problem: on a religious base these wedding-ministers refuse to wed for example gays. On one hand they "must" wed everyone no matter what, because they work for the state. On the other hand they have the right to express their religion and stick with their believes and standards. So both parties are wrong and right on different pages of the law. This makes it the hard part to control. In our town there are somewhat like 10 wedding-ministers I think and even though some refuse to wed certain people in the end there's always a wedding-minister that would wed you. Making it more of a work-around than a solution.
In the photographers case: if he advertises say 1000 dollar for a wedding ceremony without stating what the terms are...well you're pretty much offering a service without rules. So it's hard to decline anyone without being a racist.
If he/she clearly had stated on their website or advert that it was a Christian company, I'm pretty sure the gay-couple in this case would have looked further. At least it has a chance.
Anyway I think this is really the hardest thing to crack. Unfortunately for the studio the local law in this case considers the photo studio as a public service so they don't get to express their personal beliefs. It's a difficult case.
Luckily there are still sensible people around who work around these troubles, because I can think of a dozen other things that could be difficult this way. For example if you work with a construction company and you're Muslim and you have to help build a church or vice versa.
So I'll end with a guote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Jan
In this situation, you notice that the article says the case will be appealed. This is the way laws are defined in the US. The law is made, and then it is tested in the courts. Once precedence is set that is the way it is enforced. If this goes to the Supreme Court there will be no more debating whether this shop owner should or shouldn't, only if he did or did not break the law. This is the writing on the barn all who are vigilant should be aware of.
But in this case, in some instances I can see the gay couples point. At the Thunder game last week the fan photog came by to take pics, if you’re a fan photog in a public event I think the law applies and you should take everyone’s photo, even if the photog has to take a picture of an old, straight, fat white guy like me. If the couple came to the shop and the shop was an open public shop I could see the couples point as well, provided the service they were asking for is provided regularly at the shop. Obviously the couple’s event was not at the shop and the owner had to go to a different location to participate. I think the shop owner should have the right to accept or turn away contract work.
If you own a private shop that offers a service, should you be forced to participate in something against your religious beliefs? Should B&H be forced to be open on Friday's so I can buy new gear just because that is when I get paid and have my money?
Be sure that there are numerous photographers in New Mexico that would have shot this event for them. Both the shop owner and the couple rights should be honored, they should have been allowed to have the event and the shop owner should have had the right to not participate. IMO the party that didn't honor the right of the other is the couple.
Rick
If morality is how we are able to tell the difference between right and wrong and it is left to the church to decide whether same-sex marriages are moral, which I shall assume is a no in this case, how is it also possible to love thy neighbour when one is busy shunning them? Or is it the state that decrees what is moral and what is not? I have always wondered at the lack of one consistent unified moral code of conduct and over the years I have seen a few interesting cases in the news where church and state clash. Of course as the world changes and people migrate from place to place seeking a better life these things keep coming up with all of the different teachings from around the globe.
In the end, when running a photography business it is very prudent to remember that most of your dealings will be governed by contract law just as soon as you open your door to the general public.
In this case it is unfortunate that the article doesn't have details but the statement that the photographer acted on religious beliefs also potentially opens the door to further legal actions against the church for teaching the moral code that it does. According to the laws of state it is illegal to discriminate and yet the church is teaching its members to do so. Which is the higher authority?
Suppose that it would be best to point out that I don't mean to slam down on the church or the state, just mean to point out how easily the different codes of morality can be in conflict with each other. The division between church and state is not what it once was.
This whole case turns on the definition of a "public accommodation." traditionally, a public accommodation has been a business that is generally open to the public, such as a restaurant, a bar, or a hotel. It is generally illegal for those institutions to discriminate against clientele on the basis of protected categories such as race, gender and in some cases sexual orientation. And in my opinion, that makes perfect sense. I don't want to live in a world where a restaurant can turn away a gay couple. I don't want to return to a world where an African-American couple can't stay at a hotel on the road.
But calling a photography business a public accommodation is a stretch. If a photographer cannot turn down a client, even if it's for a reason that would be offensive to many people, then where do we stop? How far should we expand the definition of public accommodation?
Rick, there is an important distinction between your example and the actual case. Any business can set its hours of operation, and there is no authority that can force them to change those hours. B&H could choose to open on the third Thursday of every month only and we would all have to suffer through that. :) The tricky question, however, is who a business can be forced to serve. B&H, as a camera store, couldn't choose to serve just Jewish people, for example. So in this case, the question is what distinguishes a photography business from a company like B&H. That's what lawyers get paid to debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
The definition of who can be discriminated against, and what discrimination is changes over time. This case would have been laughed out of court 30 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
Perhaps we are a long way from demanding business stay open on Fridays or Sundays because they only close because of religious beliefs, but as time moves forward the writing on the barn changes and soon religion is not allowed. There are nations now that religion is forbidden and there are nations that only one religion is allowed.
Just change a little bit of law at a time, eventually you get where you want to go.
I think the distinction I was trying to make is both the couple and the photographer have rights. The photographer however is loosing some of his.
B&H has rights and can set what ever hours they like, I will still buy from them.
The question is pretty basic. Were their rights violated by providingdisparate treatment based on some legally identified protected class?
On the federal level, the Civil Rights Act specifies thefollowing as protected classes: race or color, religion, sex,, national origin
The Age Discrimination Act specifies age as a protectedclass and the American with Disabilities act Specifies disabilities as aprotected class
Most states have also placed these protected classes in their own anti-discrimination laws and somestates have even added additional protected classes such as sexual orientationsuch as in this case. New Mexico as withsome other states list sexual orientation as a protected class.
The funny thing with this case is that gay marriage isunlawful in NM, so they change the nameto "Commitment Ceremony" and all is legal.
So, as others havesaid, refusing to provide services based solely on one of the protected classesis unlawful.
Your analysis is correct only once a business is found to be a public accommodation. While similar, public accommodation discrimination laws are not the same as employment discrimination laws. They are often found in the same umbrella law (e.g. the Americans with disabilities act includes both public accommodation and employment discrimination provisions), but the analysis is slightly different.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
The case you shared with us is strictly a public accommodation case. The threshold issue is whether the photography business constitutes a public accommodation. If it does, then the next question is whether someone in a protected category suffered discrimination at the hands of the public accommodation. The court in this case found that the business was a public accommodation, which paved the way for a verdict in favor of the gay client.
Public accommodation laws (and courts' interpretations of them) have significantly expanded over the last 30 to 40 years -- as Rick appropriately reminds us, the writing on the barn does change over the years. The expansion of public accommodation laws is part of a larger trend to protect people who have traditionally suffered discrimination in this country. Despite the fact that I am a management-side employment lawyer and used to defend employment discrimination suits for large corporations, I'm very much in favor of this trend. But there must to be limits. This case, I believe, is one of those that crosses the line. They photographer's rights were violated as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks, Bob, for bringing this interesting case to the forum.
King, You are correct, I was just trying to bring to light the "protected class" idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
If anyone is looking to do some more reading on this case, I found this:
Just Shoot Me: Public Accommodation Anti-Discrimination Laws Take Aim at First Amendment Freedom of Speech
Its a nice look at this very case published in the Vanderbilt law review---Good stuff.
Can nightclubs and bars in the US not have those signs outside saying "Management reserves the right to refuse entry"?
Because they do here in the UK. My assumption is that unless you refusing to serve that person puts them in any danger (like a taxi driver refusing a young-female fare in the middle of nowhere) that a business can refuse to serve anyone.
I’m against superstition of any kind, all religions included. I refuse not only to work in religious ceremonies, no even to attend. But I would never support an “anti-religion” law. Laws are not the way to change social behaviours. With anti-discrimination laws you can force people to act as they were tolerant, but you can’t change his convictions.
I understand that a public accommodation, although private, implies a social responsibility. This is the reason why I would support laws in favour –for example- impaired people in those public places. Keep in mind that being impaired is not a choice, as being gay or religious.
But there must be a border between this social responsibility and personal freedom. In the case of this photographer, I think the border is crossed no matter what the law states.
With popular nightclubs, there are no laws preventing the denial of entry and discrimination against you if you are fat and ugly. The law applies if they deny access on the basis of race, disability and in some states sexual orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ham
Again, if you're fat and ugly they don't have to let you in. Of course they will blame it on there dress code, because if you are fat and ugly you are obviously wearing fat and ugly people's clothes which are not allowed.
I like their angle of photography being an expressive, artistic, medium and how prosecution for her refusal to convey something about the ceremony she doesn't believe in is a denial of her first amendment rights. I see undeniable logic there, and maybe that's how the industry will be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
"by being told that she must use the expressive art of
photography to communicate a particular message about same-sex
commitment ceremonies—was compelled to express a viewpoint she
disagreed with, in violation of her First Amendment free speech rights."
I only really had time to get through the first page, but thanks for posting that Bob. I'm definitely going to go through all of that.
Edit: I just read the next sentence. Never mind. Bah! So, my question:
How is there a line drawn between discrimination and the first amendment? Wouldn't discrimination be encompassed in "freedom of speech"? I suppose this is where public accommodation fits into this case? I guess I really should just read the rest before posting any more opinions about the matter.
Thanks Bob! I was curious to read more about this and the first few pages(and conclusion) are promising and understandable enough if you aren't familiar with all the professional terms:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
The Supreme Court of United States often finds itself trying to balance the First Amendment with discrimination issues. To an extent, individuals can "discriminate" lawfully under the First Amendment. We can think and believe what we want; but we can't always do what we want. While employers generally cannot discriminate based on protected categories like race and religion (which is relatively new), they can discriminate in other ways. For example, an employer can fire an individual because she has red hair. That would be stupid, but red hair is not a protected category. There is also a distinction between corporate speech and individual speech. Corporate speech is far less protected in the caselaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco
Since 1791 the Supreme Court has, at times, limited the freedom of speech to protect people. For example, you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. To do so would put others at risk of bodily injury, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech is not protected when it incites violence or can be expected to physically hurt somebody. Another example: the Ku Klux Klan is allowed to hold a rally in public so long as it registers the event and does not incite violence. This is indeed a very delicate balance.