The Business of Photography

[HDNitehawk]

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)

[Sheiky]

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.

Ah...that's the case. I didn't get it like that.
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:

What will the writing say tomorrow?

[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

[jrw]

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.