Lawsuit, Religion, Photography, Gay Couple

[Msterbeau]

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...and-theirs.html

Read the article and comments.. I'll comment later.

[freydis]

The photographer has every right to not do something she doesnt want to--- but to blatantly state their refusal based on the couple's sexual preferences is discrimination. Kind of a dumb thing to do, when one has a business. If she has a business license, she's probably in for a world of problems. Aside from the bad publicity, that is.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to see this go to court.

She stated that partaking in their ceremony, and a photographer is intimately involved in a wedding, would be against her religious beliefs.

Last I checked, there were these things built into our government... serperations... and foundation laws about NOT making laws that infringe on a persons religious beliefs.

Stating that it is part of her core religious beliefs is what makes this a Win for the photog.

[Steven]

"no shoes, no shirt, no servie, no shit."

"we retain the right to refuse services to anyone."

ever seen signs like that?

This photographer has the right to not involve herslef in doing business surrounding somehtign she beleives is wrong.

its her right. its your right to be pissed at her for it. but it is her right. and this nonsese about violating their human rights, please, nobody got violated, they just didint get their pciture taken by her, thats hardly a violation.

[n0Mad]

"Equal rights does not mean special rights."

[know_buddy_kares]

I find it so funny that a big deal is made over something so trivial. Yes she has the right to refuse business to them, but not for the reasons she's given. however she is an evangelical, and they seemed to throw out the whole judge not lest ye be judged yourself part of the bible... what it sounds like to me is she wanted to subtly get her point across with probably a snotty attitude that she thinks they're in the wrong for their choice, and that she's so much better because her religion is the right one and bla bla bla...

I do want to see this get taken to court, and I hope the lesbian couple win. The photographer brought her religion into this, and the evangelicals could stand to get slapped in the face... hard... with something called the REAL WORLD.

[Head Wreck]

i'm no fan of the evangelicals. we got an evangelical priest locally and thier sone is gullible as heck. he now thinks my friend Lal (a Hindu Brahmen) does witchcraft because the kid farted in training and lal joked about he could tell what he ate.

but seriously, thier suing more for the sake of $$ than prejudice

[Homicidalheathen]

'we love lesbians!'

To much Jerry Springer.

[freydis]

Many states have anti-discrimination laws. California is one example:

The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51(b), stipulates that business establishments must provide "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services" and not discriminate on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition." The businesses in question include, but are not limited to, hotels, non-profit organizations, restaurants, theaters, retail establishments, and beauty shops.

[freydis]

I hate to admit things like this, I'll fight for gay rights and equality until the end, but I still believe that the photographer is within their rights to not want to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony. It is their own poor business choice and I hope bankruptcy follows, but not legal action.

They can choose to not do anything they dont want to. The part thats put this into question is openly stating that they were denying services based on sexual preference.

Duh, if you dont want to do it, come up with a polite excuse. Dont openly admit discrimination, and then wonder why people are taking action against you.

[Steven]

"Equal rights does not mean special rights."

ditto and vice versa.

should these phtographers have been forced to do this job and shoot this couple even though it violated their principles?

[Kit Kat P]

Seriously the couple shouldn't have gone to that photographer in the first place.

[Steven]

Seriously the couple shouldn't have gone to that photographer in the first place.

oh my god I fricken love you

[Msterbeau]

Seriously the couple shouldn't have gone to that photographer in the first place.

They may not have known they had an issue with gays... That said, I can't see why they'd bother pursuing this whole thing. Move on and find yourself someone that would happily take your photo.

On the other side... if the laws of the state forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, then the photographers are guilty. I was noticing that anti-discrimination laws allow exceptions for certain businesses and/or projects. I'm not sure how they could have done it in this case...

[Msterbeau]

"no shoes, no shirt, no servie, no shit."

"we retain the right to refuse services to anyone."

ever seen signs like that?

This photographer has the right to not involve herslef in doing business surrounding somehtign she beleives is wrong.

its her right. its your right to be pissed at her for it. but it is her right. and this nonsese about violating their human rights, please, nobody got violated, they just didint get their pciture taken by her, thats hardly a violation.

You don't see signs like the later anymore because businesses can't refuse to serve you based on race, sex, etc... It may be petty but that doesn't mean it's not a violation.

The only time I see signs like the first one anymore are to enforce a dress code or behavioral standards. Not deny service for something discriminatory.

I'm kinda with Mark on this... Maybe it does need to see the inside of a courtroom in order to decide what takes precedence. : Affirming that religious beliefs are sacrosanct or abolishing discrimination? A quick bit of research indicates that the courts have made varying and sometimes contradictory decisions on this topic. Personally I hope they side for the later. If they side with the former, they open the door to all kinds of potentially dangerous or destructive "beliefs".

[jadnifer]

First off, if the photographer didn't want to take the couples' pictures because they were gay, she should have politely refused and given a reason why. Anything but saying, "Because you are gay."

The couple had a choice of going to another photographer but I see where they would be upset and feel that they were being discriminated against.

I don't know if I feel that this should go to court or not. On one hand, I don't think that it should because the photographer whas honest about why she wasn't going to shoot the photos. On the other hand, the blatant discrimination wasn't called for in the least bit. If it goes to court, I have a feeling that it's going to be a very bitter battle.

[Shade Everdark]

"Yes, do come in! Welcome, welcome. This is a proudly heterosexuals-only establishment."

[freydis]

Personally, I dont think it should go to civil court (as in awarding monetary fees and whatnot) but if their state has anti-discrimination laws, then they should either be fined (from the state/city) or their licence to do business be probationary or put in jeopardy. If there are no anti-discrimination laws, then bad publicity is merely the fruits of their not-so-good decision making. No one should be awarding money to anyone, methinks.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think it should go to Federal Court. State and Local courts do not have jurisdiction over the Constitution. This case is all about discrimination infringing on religious freedom.

Freedom of Religion on the one had...

if you can get out of going to war by claiming that it against your religion you damn well should be able to not take pictures of anything that is against your religion

against

Anti-Discrimination Laws

I'm not sure which Admentment to the Constitution covers this. I cant seem to find one that covers sexual orientation. Oh wait, thats becuase there is none.

The Bill of Rights trumps all local laws. A whole shit load of stuff has to change before the couple has a snow balls chance of winning.

[Kit Kat P]

Talk to anyone who's planned a wedding, they ask around to see who used whom. Also, when I talk to gay couples getting ready for a ceremony, foremost on their mind concerning contracts are those individuals that are comfortable in that type of setting.

In the couples defense, this is the first "religious" photographer whose website literally makes no mention of God at any point, even when discussing life goals, nature, beauty and love.

[Msterbeau]

Then perhaps the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include sexual orientation because that is as important to the people it affects as religion is to other and should carry equal protection.

I think it should go to Federal Court. State and Local courts do not have jurisdiction over the Constitution. This case is all about discrimination infringing on religious freedom.

Freedom of Religion on the one had...

if you can get out of going to war by claiming that it against your religion you damn well should be able to not take pictures of anything that is against your religion

against

Anti-Discrimination Laws

I'm not sure which Admentment to the Constitution covers this. I cant seem to find one that covers sexual orientation. Oh wait, thats becuase there is none.

The Bill of Rights trumps all local laws. A whole shit load of stuff has to change before the couple has a snow balls chance of winning.

[Steven]

"Yes, do come in! Welcome, welcome. This is a proudly heterosexuals-only establishment."

Dude, please....they didint get their pictures taken.

nobody harmed them

shot their dog

denied them shelter or food

slanderd them

abused them

this is hardly a "come on up the front of the bus, I'll be riding up there...." scenario.

honestly what are these people going to do when REAL problems come their way?

these photogrophers are free willed people in a free willed country. if they dont want to shoot a homosexual couple they dont have to, BFD. Likewise this free wileld homosexual couple has the right to take their money elsewhere, fine, no damage done.

My god people what have we become??

[freydis]

Dude, please....they didint get their pictures taken.

nobody harmed them

shot their dog

denied them shelter or food

slanderd them

abused them

this is hardly a "come on up the front of the bus, I'll be riding up there...." scenario.

honestly what are these people going to do when REAL problems come their way?

these photogrophers are free willed people in a free willed country. if they dont want to shoot a homosexual couple they dont have to, BFD. Likewise this free wileld homosexual couple has the right to take their money elsewhere, fine, no damage done.

My god people what have we become??

Personally, I see it as a simple legal situation.

Either they broke state/local business laws, or they didnt.

Either way, theyll be judged in the eyes of the public.

I dont deny that they have the right to not want to shoot the couple's ceremony.

I just think it wasn't very smart of them to openly refuse based on prejudicial bias. They have every right to not like lesbians, but to be a commercial business and openly say so? Not very smart. They will end up with bad press, and its a fact of life for businesses. You can live and die on press alone.

[Shade Everdark]

Dude, please....they didint get their pictures taken.

nobody harmed them

shot their dog

denied them shelter or food

slanderd them

abused them

this is hardly a "come on up the front of the bus, I'll be riding up there...." scenario.

honestly what are these people going to do when REAL problems come their way?

these photogrophers are free willed people in a free willed country. if they dont want to shoot a homosexual couple they dont have to, BFD. Likewise this free wileld homosexual couple has the right to take their money elsewhere, fine, no damage done.

My god people what have we become??

Oh, right, the 'suck it up, pansy' brigade has arrived.

Let me put this another way: I don't think this should go to court. The photographer has a perfectly legal right to say no to shooting the wedding. That does not mean I think there should be no consequences, however. I think said photographer should be publicly scorned to the point that she is too embarrassed to ever set foot out of her door ever again, and she should be bankrupted through lack of business, if that's the way she wants to run things. The problem with the first part of that solution is that people are progressively becoming too arrogant and/or too stupid to be moved by the scorn of their peers.

My patience for people like her and whatever perverted, hypocritical, static perversion of religion she's following is stretched quite thin. She is a dinosaur, and like the dinosaurs needs to become extinct. Period.

[Steven]

Oh, right, the 'suck it up, pansy' brigade has arrived.

Let me put this another way: I don't think this should go to court. The photographer has a perfectly legal right to say no to shooting the wedding. That does not mean I think there should be no consequences, however. I think said photographer should be publicly scorned to the point that she is too embarrassed to ever set foot out of her door ever again, and she should be bankrupted through lack of business, if that's the way she wants to run things. The problem with the first part of that solution is that people are progressively becoming too arrogant and/or too stupid to be moved by the scorn of their peers.

My patience for people like her and whatever perverted, hypocritical, static perversion of religion she's following is stretched quite thin. She is a dinosaur, and like the dinosaurs needs to become extinct. Period.

I never called you a pansy Shade.

although I do think somebody needs to suck it up.

and a Brigade speaks of numbers....its just little ol me in here.

ah....and you want a public scorning....saftey in numbers to drum this photographer out of town for having the AUDACITY for not compromising herslef because SHADE EVERDARK and Co. wants her to suffer?

you know whats probably going to happen?

Shes probably munchin on a double cheesburger and sleeping fine - because she is obviously the kind of person who does not wilt. How the public hates a person who does not embrace their role....

but hurry - catch a plane and start a media frenzy since your so impassioned about this poor couple who's lives have been SOOOOOOOOOO malicisously damaged.

I dont even know this gal and hey - she might even be an asshole. maybe even a big one.

but she should not have to yeild to anybody, and I tend to admire people who have the gumption to stand on their own feet. public scorning. I'd bake you all brownies if you tried that on me.