An odd legal case-Only in America??

DougFord said:
Freedom of religious expression was one of the freedoms revered by the founders of this country.
Click to expand...

The photographer was not engaging in an act of religious expression. The photographer was refusing service to a member of the public based on sexual preference. That's behavior, not expression, and it's behavior that is illegal. If the photographer's church condones it, then that church is condoning illegal behavior.
 
Even though I hate being called a liberal fascist I'm done. The mere thought of being married to Barbara "Why would I trouble my pretty mind with all those dead" Bush freaked me the f&%k out.
 
First of all, Fascism, like Nazism, is a right-wing political movement. Hitler and Mussolini were not liberals. Second, peyote use for religous purposes does not hurt anyone but the user, and certainly the peyote church is not a bigoted movement, so your analogy is erronous on both issues. Third, and final, if you want to defend bigotry and facism, do it somewhere else!
 
When I tried peyote it wasn't for religious purposes at first, that came later when I saw the Lizard God.

On edit: Well said Rey, I was hoping someone would take that guy to task.
 
Last edited:
This wouldn't even become a court case in Holland. First, there's no legal contract, and, secondly, there's no legal obligation in this case for the photographer to make good on her offer of photographing events.
 
First of all, why are some people so upset by this thread that they feel the need to post pointless messages in huge type? Or to throw in all sort of gratuitous insults to people they have never met?

There are some quite interesting questions here, not least whether this is a real news story or invented. Increasingly I suspect the latter, mostly for the following reason:

Photography isn't like serving someone lunch (the 'segregated diner' argument). At least, not the way I do it. If the photographer doesn't relate to the subject, and doesn't think he or she could do a good job, that seems a legitimate point to make to the subject. Nor am I confident, with my LL.B. hat on, this would constitute discrimination, even if you pointed out why All you have to add, after all, is "I'm not saying I won't do it, just that I don't think I can do it well." At this point they'd be crazy to hire you.

As I understand it, the normal deal with wedding photography is 50% up front, 50% on delivery, but if neither the couple nor the photographer were the pictures and you were already at loggerheads with one another, you might well have to sue to get the money. You'd be crazy to take it on.

So, either we have two sets of crazy people (far from impossible, especially looking at some of the responses on this thread) OR we have a made-up story.

Cheers,

R.
 
minoltist7 said:
Sounds stupid for me. If you work as photographer for the profit, it is your commercial enterprise.
and it is your right to refuse service for anybody.
Click to expand...
Eminently true, and the only way you could get into this sort of mess is by being deliberately intransigent and rude. Which is why I suspect it's a made-up story. As I say, you'd need TWO sets of crazy masochists, the couple (after all, who wants to ruin their wedding/partnrrshipceremony with a lawsuit on the side?) and a photographer who wanted to be the target of a lawsuit.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
TWO sets of crazy masochists, the couple (after all, who wants to ruin their wedding/partnrrshipceremony with a lawsuit on the side?) and a photographer who wanted to be the target of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I agree. There are dozens of polite or "politically correct" reasons to refuse client without being rude
 
Assuming the article is real, the question is: "is it reasonable for a commercial photographer to refuse his services based on his/her beliefs?"

Before answering, thing about a white photographer refusing to shoot a marriage between black people because he believes that "Blacks are inferior beings", or someone else refusing to shoot a hebraic ceremony because "jews are the scourge of the Earth", where do you draw the line?

Is discrimination against one group less important than against other groups, or maybe does some group deserve less protection against discrimination than others, and who decides who is more deserving and who is less?
 
Last edited:
fgianni said:
Assuming the article is real, the question is: "is it reasonable for a commercial photographer to refuse his services based on his/her beliefs?"

Before answering, thing about a white photographer refusing to shoot a marriage between black people because he believes that "Blacks are inferior beings", or someone else refusing to shoot a hebraic ceremony because "jews are the scourge of the Earth", where do you draw the line?

Is discrimination against one group less important than against other groups, or maybe does some group deserve less protection against discrimination than others, and who decides who is more deserving and who is less?
Click to expand...

An entrepreneur in Holland is, up to a point, free to do business with the clientèle of his choosing, especially when offers are open to negotiation as with this kind of photography assignments. This has got nothing to do with discrimination but with doing sound and proper business. Roger said it already.
 
RML said:
An entrepreneur in Holland is, up to a point, free to do business with the clientèle of his choosing, especially when offers are open to negotiation as with this kind of photography assignments. This has got nothing to do with discrimination but with doing sound and proper business. Roger said it already.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are prepared to accept that someone will also be allowed to reject black people because they are black, and jews because they are jews then at least the playing field is level.
 
...the only way you could get into this sort of mess is by being deliberately intransigent and rude. Which is why I suspect it's a made-up story. As I say, you'd need TWO sets of crazy masochists...
Click to expand...

Roger, it's entirely possible to find crazy masochists in this day and age. If the photographer didn't have the decency to keep her beliefs under her bonnet, and the couple didn't have the sense to brush off an insult, then this situation could start circling the drain pretty quickly.

It's the website, again, that makes me doubt the story, not the circumstances.
 
kevin m said:
Roger, it's entirely possible to find crazy masochists in this day and age. If the photographer didn't have the decency to keep her beliefs under her bonnet, and the couple didn't have the sense to brush off an insult, then this situation could start circling the drain pretty quickly.

It's the website, again, that makes me doubt the story, not the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Dear Kevin,

I am sure you are right on all counts, especially craziness, which has been amply manifested in thus thread..

My only point is that if it were true (and like you, I don't think it is, for the reason you gave), the photographer would need to be pretty offensive, or the couple very thin-skinned, for it to go this far.

As I say, I believe it would have been possible for the photographer to make her views known politely, while turning down the job, if she felt she had to do so (though I can't see why she would feel that need).

In other words, all I am saying is that given the source (your point) AND the inherent improbability of the case, I'd be quite surprised if it were true.

Cheers,

R.
 
In Spain there was a "similar" case when same-sex weddings were approved. This time it was a restaurant owner who declined to celebrate the wedding... don't remember how it ended but it received a lot of time in tv-news.
 
Roger Hicks said:
As I say, I believe it would have been possible for the photographer to make her views known politely, while turning down the job, if she felt she had to do so.
Click to expand...

Roger, while your point seems very reasonable, there is still one thing that bugs me.
If you allow businesses to turn down customers on this sort of grounds, where do you stop?

A photographer can turn down a gay couple because they are gay, then a pub turns down a black customer because he is black, next a minimarket shows a sign saying "jews do not need to enter" because the owner does not like jews.

Where do you draw the line? Who should be allowed to turn down who, and who should not?
 
fgianni said:
Roger, while your point seems very reasonable, there is still one thing that bugs me.
If you allow businesses to turn down customers on this sort of grounds, where do you stop?

A photographer can turn down a gay couple because they are gay, then a pub turns down a black customer because he is black, next a minimarket shows a sign saying "jews do not need to enter" because the owner does not like jews.

Where do you draw the line? Who should be allowed to turn down who, and who should not?
Click to expand...
Dear Francesco,

I completely agree, but here we have a classic 'slippery slope' or 'bald man' argument. The latter, for those who are not familiar with it, postulates a man with a full head of hair. Remove one hair. Remove another. At the beginning, he is not bald; at the end he is. When does he become bald?

Let's take another example than the gay couple. I've only ever photographed one black friend, not very successfully (I found him hard to light). If someone black asked me to take their portrait, I'd not be racist to say, "Sure, but you might want to find someone who is better at it."

Nor would I be as comfortable trying to photograph a Jewish wedding as a Christian one, because I've been to ten or twenty of the former (I avoid weddings if I can) and none of the latter. It's a question of knowing what to expect. Sure, if one of my Jewish friends REALLY wanted me to photograph their wedding (at my age and theirs, unlikely), I could mug up on it; but it still wouldn't be as easy as a Christian wedding.

On the other hand, the establishing of a gay civil partnership is still sufficiently novel that I don't think there are many expectations for the photography: it's much more a question of what the participants want and I think I could handle that easier.

Thinking of those of my gay friends who are/were likely to form civil parnerships, I'd turn one down for other reasons than his sexuality (too much scope for falling out) but cheerfully shoot the other were it not for the fact that after she broke up with her last girlfriend she married a man (several years ago).

This, to me, is why this thread is interesting even if (as I suspect) the original story is not true. It has made me, and perhaps a few others, think hard about what they will and will not, and can and cannot, and prefer to or prefer not to, photograph. Also about the similarities between photography and another business (let us say, a bar) where the 'product' is not as personalized: serving someone a drink is different (it seems to me) from taking their picture.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom