An odd legal case-Only in America??

Thing is, if the story is true and I doubt it too, but it does pose an interesting thought and ethics problem, it's not that the photographer refused to do business with the client, it is the reasaon given that sets her up for discrimination charges. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, gender, sex orientation, etc. Simple, in my mind, or is it: my mind is simple?
 
Roger

Of course what you say makes sense, but I was not arguing about rejecting a job for technical reasons, that is perfectly reasonable to me.

You are right about the slippery slope too, that's why I believe that if you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it to anyone irrespective of race, religion, sexuality, political beliefs, eating habits, .. add your own here....

I have nothing against religion in general, it's the idiots that think that their religion is the only right one that get on my nerves.
 
fgianni said:
Roger

Of course what you say makes sense, but I was not arguing about rejecting a job for technical reasons, that is perfectly reasonable to me.

You are right about the slippery slope too, that's why I believe that if you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it to anyone irrespective of race, religion, sexuality, political beliefs, eating habits, .. add your own here....

I have nothing against religion in general, it's the idiots that think that their religion is the only right one that get on my nerves.
Click to expand...
Dear Francesco,

What interests me here is that it would be possible, if an individual were thin-skinned enough, to take one of my technical examples as racism; and indeed, the Jewish wedding example is cultural-technical, rather than equipment-technical.

And here's another slippery slope for you. Presumably you would refuse to photograph a wedding that involved human sacrifice. Well, fine, that would be against the law anyway. But now let's take a couple of neo-nazis getting married, with friends in regalia. Illegal in some countries; arguably not illegal in others (it's certainly not illegal to wear nazi uniforms in the UK). How comfortable would you be photographing that? And assuming you were not comfrtable (personally, I'd be intrigued at the photojournalist aspect) how would you get out of it?

As for your point about religion, increasingly, I do have a problem with religion, as soon as anyone starts telling me that it deserves a privileged place. A place, yes, but why privileged? If you insult my religion (assuming Buddhism is a religion), it's basically your problem; we're not much good on crusades, fatwas and the like. I have a REAL problem with the very idea of blasphemy. Either God exists, and is above such petty things, or He/She doesn't, in which case, who cares?

Cheers,

R.
 
Hi Roger

Well I still think that if I decide to offer a service to the public (which I won't since my photographs are rubbish enough that it would be ripping people off), then I will consider my duty to offer the service to everyone engaged in legal activities, including the nazi fools.

About your earlier example I will simply resolve the issue moving to a different country, since I could never live in a place where human sacrifice is legal.

Anything else I am with you 100%
 
If the original story were true, I have my doubts, and is as stated it is discrimination pure and simple. That is fairly easy to deal with through law. Refusal to do the photography by saying you are booked, while not really being so, maybe a polite politically correct way to side step the situation. It is still discriminatory although hard to prove. The polite politically correct way really makes my skin crawl because it is so much harder to deal with. Anyway, that is life I guess.

Bob
 
If the photographer was a private individual like a student taking pictures for "tips" on the side like a wedding or Bar Mitzvah here and there then there is no problem with a refusal. But in this case this photographer ran a business most likely registered and paying taxes and all that. She is then subject to state and federal laws regarding running a place of commerce one of which is not discriminate against customers based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and such and such. This was how the US Supreme Court got all those restaurants and country clubs to serve blacks, Jews and other historically discriminated groups. The US Constitution especially the Bill of Rights is not a liberal fantasy.

Of course you can refuse service to anyone but just not for discriminatory reasons. I can be refused service if I walk into a restaurant not properly dressed.
 
Last edited:
The New Mexico Human Rights Bureau website does not have a case log access so I can't ascertain if this alleged complaint is real. It is being debated on the UCLA religion law maillist as though it is. The NM rights statute is sufficietnly broad to cover the refusal to provide service as a violation.

However NM also has a religious freedom protection statute that specifically allows refusal to provide service on the basis of religious belief, and prohibits goverment from restricting this exercise unless "the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The human rights statute is the more recent, and represents the "compelling interest".

To my mind this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, but a rule of law issue. These are the laws of our country and it seems to me that the conservatives, of all our citizens, are most supportive of the concept of the rule of law. Why not here?

BTW - native americans can only use peyote in religious ceremonies on tribal lands, which by treaty are not fully subject to State or Federal law.
 
fgianni said:
...

I have nothing against religion in general, it's the idiots that think that their religion is the only right one that get on my nerves.
Click to expand...


Now I would agree that no one should have the right to forcefully push their religious beliefs on another person. Nor am I angry with anyone who wishes to have a religion different from mine.

However, I wonder what value any religion would have to the practicioner who did not believe it was the only right one? I can respect that in a person whether I agree with their beliefs or not.

And this isn't meant as a put down of any kind, so if any one wishes to comment, please don't take it as food for argument. It just seems that if religion is important to someone, they should think it is the most right, or find the one that is.

Sort of off topic I guess, so feel free to ignore my comments if you wish.
 
I am a Christian and I am not offended in any way by homosexuals or, for that matter, any kind of marriage ceremony they might want to have. Christ never mentioned homosexuals as far as we know. Bigotry can hide behind any religion. So this is not a freedom of religion issue. Plus, we don't know the full story since it appears only the advocacy websites have posted anything on this.
 
Keith said:
It must be tough being a gay christian in this world then ... obviously they are like the unicorn!
Click to expand...

Actually, if you take that out to the end, you are right.

Besides all that ... Ohmygosh! I never thought of it before. Do you think that in the context of this thread, that is why Noah didn't take him?
 
On the whole 'Just say no thanks' to the business, that may not even be an out. You could actually look to see if photographers have shot gay cerimonies. If you haven't, you'd be guilty of discrimination if they could show that you had turned away even just one couple.

What about a polygamist wedding. Granted it's illegal now, but so were the gay unions at one time, let's be progressive here. What about a wicken wedding where everyone's naked?

At least they had the 'manners' to say they were uncomfortable. They could have been pricks and have shot the wedding and made it so that one only bride was in the frame at a time.

What if the photographer advertised as specializing in traditional weddings, or big church weddings?

I guess a real Christian business person would 'Love the sinner, hate the sin, but love the sinner's money the most.'

Interesting story, if its true.

Can't believe that this hasn't been shut down, or is Stephen using this thread to start a list of people to black list.


Please, no discussions of Black Lists.
 
oftheherd said:
However, I wonder what value any religion would have to the practicioner who did not believe it was the only right one? I can respect that in a person whether I agree with their beliefs or not.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, an individual that understands that his religion is his chosen way to fortify and improve his soul has much more value than one that believes that his religion owns The Truth.

If your Religion the only true one it follows that all the other are false, and their followers worship false idols instead of the true God/Gods, from there feeling the need to convert them to save their soul it's but a short step, and of course if force is needed to achieve this worthy end, well hurting the bodies could be an acceptable loss if the souls can be saved. And it all starts again....

If there is a God he is beyond the differencies between Hindus and Muslim, or Christians and Buddhists, religion does not come from God, it comes from man, and as such it can be one of the ways to get closer to the spiritual part of the universe, but never the only way.
 
It would never have been an issue if the photographer had just made up any BS excuse to decline the work rather then feel the need to lecture the potential client on their morals and lifestyle. Photgrapher avoids doing something they find immoral, client walks away with their dignity intact and not feeling offended. A win win for everyone but the lawyers.
 
HAnkg said:
It would never have been an issue if the photographer had just made up any BS excuse to decline the work rather then feel the need to lecture the potential client on their morals and lifestyle. Photgrapher avoids doing something they find immoral, client walks away with their dignity intact and not feeling offended. A win win for everyone but the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that.
 
Somehow I'm in the mood today to enter the fray on this one.

In general, private businesses have the right to refuse to "serve" anyone for any reason, so long as it's not an explicitly prohibited reason. The prohibited reasons are those associated with protected classes. Protected classes are those identified by race, gender, ethnicity, etc. The term "protected class" is a misnomer becuase it does not mean to infer or connote preferred status, but merely that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for that reason; i.e., treat the person the way you will but keep it independent of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I also believe that the law re private association is different than in situations where there is a business setting.

Under U.S. federal law, my understanding is that sexual orientation is not a protected class. Depending on the state, my understanding is that some states include sexual orientation as a protected class and others do not.

Assuming that sexual orientation is a protected class in the state where the incident occurred, and assuming that this actually was intended to be a business transaction, then it could well be prohibited to refuse to do business with someone based on sexual orientation. This contrasts with the right to refuse to allow that person into one's home for a visit because of their sexual orientation. Or, for example, the right to refuse to photograph someone as a favor because one did not like their sexual orientation.

As some have commented, this would be no different than someone coming into a store and being refused service for no other reason than that they were black, or a woman, or 58 years old, or ethnically Norweigan.

I happen to fall on the side of supporting the idea that decisions whether to do business with someone must be made independent of sexual orientation. Of course it is difficult to look into others' hearts but I do not see a problem with the law attempting to heighten awareness so that hearts are changed for the better. It certainly would be better all around if, in fact, decisions were not made dependent on sexual orientation.

It has been suggested that this thing could have been avoided if the photographer merely came up with a pretextual reason for his refusal. All I can say is that the law does not have any sense of humour, and it would not be helpful in general if it did. The law expects people to tell the truth, and this person did. It shouldn't go beyond that. It just so happens that the photographer's truth, which they have every right to keep in their head, may not be acted upon in the marketplace.

Every time that the law intervenes in this way, it must be acknowledged that someone's rights are infringed in exchange for other rights being protected. Government is elected to weigh one against the other. Child labour laws and zoning laws are perfect examples in areas that were once very hotly debated.
 
julianphotoart said:
Somehow I'm in the mood today to enter the fray on this one.

In general, private businesses have the right to refuse to "serve" anyone for any reason, so long as it's not an explicitly prohibited reason. The prohibited reasons are those associated with protected classes. Protected classes are those identified by race, gender, ethnicity, etc. The term "protected class" is a misnomer becuase it does not mean to infer or connote preferred status, but merely that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for that reason; i.e., treat the person the way you will but keep it independent of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I also believe that the law re private association is different than in situations where there is a business setting.

Under U.S. federal law, my understanding is that sexual orientation is not a protected class. Depending on the state, my understanding is that some states include sexual orientation as a protected class and others do not.

Assuming that sexual orientation is a protected class in the state where the incident occurred, and assuming that this actually was intended to be a business transaction, then it could well be prohibited to refuse to do business with someone based on sexual orientation. This contrasts with the right to refuse to allow that person into one's home for a visit because of their sexual orientation. Or, for example, the right to refuse to photograph someone as a favor because one did not like their sexual orientation.

As some have commented, this would be no different than someone coming into a store and being refused service for no other reason than that they were black, or a woman, or 58 years old, or ethnically Norweigan.

I happen to fall on the side of supporting the idea that decisions whether to do business with someone must be made independent of sexual orientation. Of course it is difficult to look into others' hearts but I do not see a problem with the law attempting to heighten awareness so that hearts are changed for the better. It certainly would be better all around if, in fact, decisions were not made dependent on sexual orientation.

It has been suggested that this thing could have been avoided if the photographer merely came up with a pretextual reason for his refusal. All I can say is that the law does not have any sense of humour, and it would not be helpful in general if it did. The law expects people to tell the truth, and this person did. It shouldn't go beyond that. It just so happens that the photographer's truth, which they have every right to keep in their head, may not be acted upon in the marketplace.

Every time that the law intervenes in this way, it must be acknowledged that someone's rights are infringed in exchange for other rights being protected. Government is elected to weigh one against the other. Child labour laws and zoning laws are perfect examples in areas that were once very hotly debated.
Click to expand...


Thank you for this!
 
Well said danwilly! Here's what I think is important, finding out what groups support hate in any fashion and publicize that hate. There are good Christians here, two have come forward to denounce the hate this photographer showed this couple. They should be thanked for denouncing the hate, if more and more Christians stand up and say no more this country can move on to issues that really do affect us.

Do any of you who secretly hate the thought of same-sex marriage think it will hurt this nation? Do you truly believe there is a gay agenda or was that just some fat man spewing hate from a pulpit? This country does need some healing and it's not going come in the form of religion preaching hatred, it's going to come in the form of love for the diversity this nation has become.

If you hate I have no use for you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom