Instead of the religion threads...

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/11/2008 10:47:21 AM · #1

Decided to browse other websites, instead of getting sucked into the religion discussions this morning. Didn't wanna stir up any ill-will. Instead, I found this article:

Christian Photographer Fined $6,637.94 For Not Filming Gays

Title is Cut & pasted; the woman was NOT 'fined' - her corporation was told to pay the plaintiff's court costs / legal fees.

Please discuss, but keep it civil. I have NO intention of debating the rights & wrongs of anyone's religious beliefs. In fact, I wish there was an 'ignore' button in real life concerning religion, as it invariably leads to someone getting offended / angry / rude.

Rather, how could this have been better handled? How can we as photographers be responsible citizens & business owners, yet follow our own hearts & minds?

bennettjamie

Canon EOS-6D

04/11/2008 10:59:43 AM · #2

I think this is a case of our rights not being held to the constitution. It is very unfair to the photographer. I believe photographers and artists should have the right to shoot or create whatever they want, and just because she would not shoot this particular work, she should not be punished. I just wish everyone would stop judging, and trying to make money out of something so small.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

04/11/2008 11:08:08 AM · #3

If you read some of the supporting documents, it seems that one partner emailed the photographer and she refused, saying that she only photographed "traditional" weddings and then later, her partner called and asked about a 'wedding' on the same date, leaving out the 'lesbian' detail and the photographer readily agreed.

I have some questions:

Why would they want someone to photograph their union who was incapable of being fully engaged in the job?

What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

I'd like to know what prompted the 2nd contact made by the partner? Did the photographer refuse the job in an arrogant, judgemental manner?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/11/2008 11:08:40 AM · #4

Is that all there is to the story? If so, that is totally wrong.

I turned down a bride a couple of weeks ago.

Can she sue me for refusing her 'wedding'?

I don't shoot nudes.

Can someone sue me for telling them no?

If not, why does it matter if it is hetero or same-sex 'wedding', or if the photographer is Christian, Buddhist, or worships the spaghetti dude in the sky?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/11/2008 11:15:08 AM · #5

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I agree, Spazmo (did I just say that?!?).
++++++++++++++
I don't want to start a war here, but in other places, even in these very forums, I have seen references to Christianity being shoved down a person's throat. Some people do not think homosexuality is right. Why should this Christian photographer be forced to witness and preserve something she thinks is wrong -- essentially shoving same sex marriage down her throat?

gwe21

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G ED

04/11/2008 11:18:10 AM · #6

This is just a silly ridiculous lawsuit!

I believe that every person is FREE to believe what they want to believe. FREE to think, and feel, and discuss what they want to discuss. I think fining someone for not wanting to go against their moral values is wrong.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church convinced that everyone I met was going to hell because they smoked, or drank, or said Sh#$ sometimes... I grew up with an overbearing father who only wants you to think his way or no way.

That is NOT how it should be. We are all humans, we all have love and feelings, and emotions. We all have the basic desire to be "good", to do the right thing..etc..

I guess people now call me a liberal, but I just do not believe in telling others how to think and feel. There is nothing wrong with Christians (or other faiths) to go and spread the word of Jesus, because that is what THEY believe in. A person doesnt have to listen. Its just that simple. No one here is better than any other person. We are all mortals, our time here on Earth is limited and no one REALLY knows what happens to us when we die, we all have our beliefs. So why spend time on Earth bickering about what is right? Or crying because someone says God in a sentence? Live your life every day for what YOU believe in, be happy, put the hate out of your heart and maybe have an open eye and mind to others.

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/11/2008 11:20:09 AM · #7

//www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html

"New Mexico, January 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony", was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday.

A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a "commitment ceremony" that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination."

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/11/2008 11:23:34 AM · #8

I guess I fall in the middle of this somewhere and can see both sides. What if it were a black couple, and the photographer said that they only shoot white weddings? Would you consider that grounds for discrimination? Surely you would( I hope). There is really little difference, at least imo. Now I completely agree that I wouldn't want someone to take my 'wedding' photos who didn't feel comfortable, for whatever reason, and would move on to the next photographer. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/11/2008 11:25:51 AM · #9

I think the court's decision was based on a corporation (the woman's company) denying services based on the customer's sexual orientation.

When a company offers services to the general public, it isn't allowed to discriminate based on age / gender / religion / etc. / etc.

The photographer was not sued. Rather, the LLC was sued for breaking the anti-discrimination laws of their state.

_eug

Nikon D50

04/11/2008 11:27:13 AM · #10

Many of the sites I'm reading about this are saying that the issue is about photographers being able to choose what they shoot, but ignoring the fact that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation in N.M. If the photographer, had said "I can't shoot your 'wedding'" she would have been fine, but she said "I can't shoot your 'wedding' because your are lesbians."

If she'd kept her reason to herself she wouldn't be in trouble.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/11/2008 11:29:19 AM · #11

Just to be argumentative - this absolute statement is not necessarilly the case. Given, we may be one of the LEAST discriminated against.

Originally posted by trevytrev:

though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought.

AndyMac24

Canon EOS-40D

04/11/2008 11:29:43 AM · #12

I still struggle to see how a political view (social liberal) is classified with the religions. It seems to say that social liberals are not Christians. I am a Christian, no specific denomination because I feel none of them are 100% right. I grew up Catholic, but stopped going after high school. I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe he was the son of God and died for our sins. I do not believe that other religions are wrong, they all teach the basic same thing.... treat your neighbor as you would yourself. As far as the "social liberal" in me (which is not the same thing as a economic liberal) I try to be on the moderate end. I see social and conservative ideas i like. It's when religious people mix up religion and politics and try to force their morals on the country through laws that makes me sick. Believe what you want and let me believe what I want and stop mixing politics and religion!!!!

Dup from prev post but it fits here too.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/11/2008 11:37:43 AM · #13

Originally posted by metatate:

Just to be argumentative - this absolute statement is not necessarilly the case. Given, we may be one of the LEAST discriminated against.

Originally posted by trevytrev:
though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought.

I agree.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/11/2008 11:41:24 AM · #14

As much as I am intrigued by this case, I just puke at the readers comments to follow: "The freaking proof that the liberal whackos have warped this country and is destroying freedom."

These are the same wackos that ended slavery and allowed everyone to vote, right?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/11/2008 11:42:59 AM · #15

Originally posted by metatate:

These are the same wackos that ended slavery and allowed everyone to vote, right?

No, that was a while ago. These are new wackos. ;-)

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/11/2008 11:43:47 AM · #16

the comments are ridiculous. i read the first two or three and decided i had better things to do.

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/11/2008 11:51:15 AM · #17

This thread makes me sad. I followed the link to the original story, and of course there are comments like "The freaking proof that the liberal whackos have warped this country and is (sic) destroying freedom" and "I wonder if the Human Rights Commissioner is a 'Lesbian'."

Extremist blather aside, my first reaction is to say of course it should be the decision of the photographer/artist. But whatever your opinion, it's an interesting case. What makes the photographer or artist special? By charging money for his work, the photographer becomes a business person. So then what makes the photographer different from another businessman, legally speaking? Can then a caterer or florist refuse service to lesbians? How about a restaurant owner?

What are the parallels between this case and a case where a pharmacist refuses to fill certain prescriptions because of his religious beliefs?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

04/11/2008 12:01:28 PM · #18

Originally posted by karmat:

I agree, Spazmo (did I just say that?!?).

It's OK, stranger things have happened.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

04/11/2008 12:03:31 PM · #19

Originally posted by trevytrev:

though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought.

Says who? Once upon a time, that may have been the case, but no more.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/11/2008 12:04:36 PM · #20

Very good points. The prosecuting attorney must have used similar language.

Originally posted by citymars:

What are the parallels between this case and a case where a pharmacist refuses to fill certain prescriptions because of his religious beliefs?

Patrick_R

Canon EOS-60D

04/11/2008 12:15:28 PM · #21

It may also come to more a business solution than you are thinking. A future client might be turned away because they were uncomfortable with a past shoot the artist did. I would feel wierd looking at a portfolio with that in it.

on another note....

My biggest problem with homosexuality is that its very self contradicting. For example, if you don't believe that God created the earth then you pretty much have to go with evolution. The problem with that mix is that homosexuality is completely against the evolutionary principle. There is no way for them to pass down there bloodline without the other sex being involved.

If you were to have a world full of lesbians, a world full of gay men and, a world full of straight male and females. The mixed gender world is going to be the ONLY one of the three to not die off in one generation. Does anyone see what I'm saying?

Trinch

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/11/2008 12:16:17 PM · #22

Originally posted by citymars:

So then what makes the photographer different from another businessman, legally speaking? Can then a caterer or florist refuse service to lesbians? How about a restaurant owner?

Citymars, I was thinking along the same lines. I see no difference between a restaurant posting a sign saying 'No Blacks will be served' a photographer saying 'No same-sex couples will be photographed'.

My high school history teacher once taught me that you have the freedom to swing your arm. But that freedom ends when your arm reaches someone elses face. In this case, I think there was a face in the way.

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/11/2008 12:19:01 PM · #23

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

on another note....
My biggest problem with homosexuality is

Yup, that is another note entirely. Let's keep this discussion on track as well as we can, anyway.

Trinch

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/11/2008 12:19:15 PM · #24

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

The problem with that mix is that homosexuality is completely against the evolutionary principle.

Perhaps it's evolutions way to make sure the human race does not overpopulate itself into extinction. And given the population trends in the last century, I applaud anyone who choses not to reproduce.