Being Gay, Lesbian, Muslim, Christian or Old doesn't automatically make someone immoral though.
Being a Nazi (using Agilulfo's example) does.
Being Gay, Lesbian, Muslim, Christian or Old doesn't automatically make someone immoral though.
Being a Nazi (using Agilulfo's example) does.
Last edited by ham; 06-06-2012 at 03:15 PM.
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)
Ah...that's the case. I didn't get it like that.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:
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote