Originally Posted by Zerodog Or is this a case of harassment? The gay couple picks a Christian photographer and forces them to do something that they are not comfortable with. Sounds like they could just be trying to prove something. Isn't this america?

Everyone keeps projecting this on the gay couple. I didn't see anything where they tried to force the Christian photographer into doing something he didn't want to do. Had the photographer just warned he would be uncomfortable, the couple would have likely moved on and found a different photographer (seriously, are you gonna shell out $3000 on someone who is bigoted against you and will do a bad job? If so, I'll shoot your wedding for half the price )

Their lawsuit was not an attempt to poach some poor unsuspecting photographer. It was for being outright refused service.

Originally Posted by divamum Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . ...... All that said, I think it is also true that minority groups fighting for recognition and fairness DO tend to have an agenda, (if only because they have typically had to fight for any recognition and fairness). Given that we can't know all the facts of this case, it's tough to see how much is bigotry, and how much was a "let's prove a point" gesture on the part of the couple. From the limited amount I know, I suspect there was an agenda on both sides in this one.

This observation is key - it highlights the difference between the well-intentioned theory of equal access/protection under the law (and the regulations that result) and the real-world practical application of those regulations. Agendas do abound on both sides.

My personal experience in dealing with this difference was during a career administering the construction and modernization of educational facilities. We were subject to the Federal law regarding access for the disabled (another protected class - and rightly so), the Americans with Disabilities Act. No matter how well intentioned this law was conceived (the codes have been continuously updated, modified, improved, etc. since first adoption - a constantly moving target), trying to comply with and implement these accommodations with practical and economical construction methods (especially in retrofits), caused me to go prematurely bald and grey. It's not that it wasn't worth doing, it was - it's that it was often difficult to transform theory into practice. My point is - given enough time and correction tape - buildings full of government bureaucrats and legislators can muck-up any good intention.

With regard to access vs. agendas and how small-business can be caught in the crossfire (and very analogous to the wedding photographer), the following situation gained media attention here in SoCal and I presume ensued elsewhere as well. A single disabled person advocating for accessibility - normally a righteous and necessary endeavor - IMO perverted that goal by targeting small business storefronts with dozens of lawsuits alleging discrimination and failure to comply with the ADA. The storefronts targeted were, in almost every case, small and located in historical districts, old buildings, cramped quarters, sloped sites, etc. - places where compliance as a practical matter was either difficult or impossible and always expensive. As I said, I heartily agree with the intention, but this application of the code seemed punitive and mean-spirited to most observers and caused many of these small business' to cease operation, re-locate, incur astounding costs to settle out-of-court (read shakedown), or construct modifications. I know the law is the law, but doesn't common sense and real-world conditions have a standing in these matters? Oops - oh yeah, I forgot about the bureaucrats for a second. (forehead slap)

To me, these situations (including the wedding photographer's dilemma) illustrate the sometimes intractable conflict between Progress (Social Theory) and Liberty. Thank goodness we live in a country/society where these conflicts are debated, contended, and sometimes resolved in an atmosphere of - relative to many places - peace and freedom. Ain't America great? The answer is YES!

Reading the thread carefully trying to discern fact and personal thought –



The court ruled that right to free expression and to practice their religion has no bearing on their photography business. Wow. And I quote –“The court ruled that a commercial photographer isn’t expressing anything, but merely taking photographs. “By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message”



(A photographer not expressing anything; merely taking photographs and so by taking photographs is not expressing their own message? I facetiously say I’m so happy that a judgment call by the government knows what photography is and how a photographer approaches his art.)


So we have a private business owner running her personal business as she sees fit; whose religious rights are null & void. We have a private Christian owner/business who is instructed by state law - who they can do business with, and how to do business and what her business is. We have customers who felt their civil rights were violated and sued the small business owner.


It seems the photographer’s religious beliefs that is a business owner and runs the business in accordance with her religion/conscience were not protected but violated. The owner is unable to run her business without fear and coercion from the government; a constitutional violation. She receives no public funding, runs a Christian business – yet is ordered to take photographs of whoever is deemed protected or offended if not ‘served’?

Bride With Checkbook: "Hi, I love the work I've seen on your website and would like to talk to you about being my wedding photographer."
Photographer: Wonderful. Glad you liked the website. You should know that I'm a christian and only shoot traditional weddings."
BWC: Oh good. I too am a christian, and we plan a very traditional wedding. Church, minister, lots of attendants, crying moms, Dad giving me away, maid-of-honor, best man (Honey's big brother) flower girl, ring bearer, soloists, reception in the church fellowship hall, the whole thing. The only thing is, my Honey is a military officer, so there will be swords and all.
P: Sounds so romantic and right up my "traditional" alley! When can we meet?
BWC: Jessica and I could meet with you next Wednesday evening. Does that fit into your schedule?
P:
BWC: Hello?

Sorry Eia, but we have no "right" to do whatever happens to be in our religion. We don't let fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy, we don't let Jim Jones mix the koolaid, and we don't let Christians discriminate against minorities. Your "religious rights" as guaranteed by the government extend to the point where you can believe what you want, and you can act within the law. Discriminating against protected classes is not within the law.

If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work.

The owner is unable to run her business without fear and coercion from the government

I feel the same way about paying my taxes


Also, LOL Icebear

Ditto RE taxes!

So...if my customised christian greeting card business is targeting faith based audience....and say...a person of different faith, or any other people group wants their own saying on one of my cards...that is contrary to my faith...And reason for business....I cannot politely decline their business? An honest QR.

By the way...I am not ditzing people groups...i am more concerned about govt in my business!

Originally Posted by Demian Sorry Eia, but we have no "right" to do whatever happens to be in our religion. We don't let fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy, we don't let Jim Jones mix the koolaid, and we don't let Christians discriminate against minorities. Your "religious rights" as guaranteed by the government extend to the point where you can believe what you want, and you can act within the law. Discriminating against protected classes is not within the law. If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work. I feel the same way about paying my taxes "If the idea of photographing a same-sex wedding irreversible ruptures the moral depths of one's soul, than the wedding photography business is probably not a good career path. There are plenty of other careers (and plenty of other photography careers, even). But if the choice comes down to religion or career, and they choose career.... then it's not that bad. Suck it up and do the work."

Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it... Still ... I ...understand to a degree...try to understand back... but the main thing is Government and private business...gotta say Sam had strong points!

Originally Posted by Eia Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it... Still ... I ...understand to a degree...try to understand back... but the main thing is Government and private business...gotta say Sam had strong points!

Sorry man, but that's the breaks. If you can't serve people equally, either get over the hate or find a career where you can.

And man, this private business thing is ridiculous. What do you do if somebody robs you? Or reneges on a contract? Or slanders you? Or decides to use the same name as you? Or tells everyone your secret R&D?

"Private" business is build upon a host of government protections and regulations. I think it's ridiculous when small business owners rely on every single one, but as soon as the government tells them they have to treat people equally they flip out about "government intrustion".

Originally Posted by Sam Lets look at this case again. The gay couple knows the photographer is a Cristian who will not photograph their wedding / commitment ceremony. Yet they set up the photographer because they have been insulted. Please..................if one could sue simply based on being insulted I would own a very large tropical island. What are the damages suffered by this couple? Did it prevent them from getting married? Did it affect their relationship? Did it prevent them from obtaining photography services? As we all know there are thousands and thousands of photographers not only willing but eager and experienced with gay weddings ready to bid on the job. I don't see any damage. I see an agenda. I don't like agenda's being pushed down my throat. Now if she was the only photographer who could have photographed the wedding, (maybe had an exclusive arrangement at the venue) and that resulted in the couple not being able to have photos of their wedding, I am behind the law suite 100%. Sam

This is the most logical answer within the rights of all..

One thing that would have kept this photographer out of court, not actually telling the couple why they won't shoot the wedding. If the photographer said it was a personality conflict, and left it at that, then the couple could have never proved otherwise. This is one of those times a white lie would have been appropriate. But like was said on this page (page 5) of replies, I think both wanted their point of view vindicated, thus why the lawsuit wasn't settled because both sides had an agenda.

The best answer so far is "I'm booked". Why? It's polite and respectful.

Originally Posted by Demian Sorry man, but that's the breaks. If you can't serve people equally, either get over the hate or find a career where you can. And man, this private business thing is ridiculous. What do you do if somebody robs you? Or reneges on a contract? Or slanders you? Or decides to use the same name as you? Or tells everyone your secret R&D? "Private" business is build upon a host of government protections and regulations. I think it's ridiculous when small business owners rely on every single one, but as soon as the government tells them they have to treat people equally they flip out about "government intrustion".

Originally Posted by ian408 The best answer so far is "I'm booked". Why? It's polite and respectful.

The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard.

Go back to the pharmacist that did not want to dispurse the morning after pill because of his beliefs.

Just the facts here.

Originally Posted by ian408 The best answer so far is "I'm booked". Why? It's polite and respectful.

Only if you don't turn right around and accept another inquiry for the same date and get caught in your lie.
I think the best course of action would have been to say, "I'll do your wedding if you really want me to (send a check tomorrow) but I think you might be better served elsewhere." And mean it. No one's going to book you on that basis. You've been honest, you haven't broken the law, and you can go to church on Sunday and brag to your friends that you turned the job away.

Plans do change. But sure, it would be best not to accept something for the same date immediately.

Realistically though, it's a no win situation if there is perceived discrimination.

Wow... that opens a can...telling an artist a career path might not be a good choice... because of their religion......or.... so I should not pursue it...

A relevant tangent from Operaland:

I've come across more than one conservative Christian who has felt that acting out some operatic stories is "immoral" and makes them uncomfortable (this is before we even get to issues like stage kissing or - particularly in some more outlandish productions - simulated physical acts, nudity, fetish wear etc etc being part of the action). They either had to get past that, accept that they were acting and it wasn't THEM doing those things, or decide it crossed their religious boundaries and pursue an alternative career, since refusing to take direction isn't typically something one can do (at least not if you want to get hired anywhere else.)

For observant Jews and 7th day adventists there are schedule complications (an awful lot of performances happen on Fri and Sat nights). I know more than one singer who decided to step away from a significant career because they couldn't reconcile the conflicts with their religious beliefs.

I accept the difference here is there's no lawsuit/legislation involved, but my point is actually in direct reference to the "being an artist" comment quoted above. Sometimes you DO have to choose between your religious beliefs and being an artist.

PS I agree, Ian. As Blurmore said way earlier in this thread, it is the ONLY truly professional response. Of course, in John's scenario above, even that one could get tricky if somebody was looking to push the point....

Originally Posted by divamum PS I agree, Ian. As Blurmore said way earlier in this thread, it is the ONLY truly professional response. Of course, in John's scenario above, even that one could get tricky if somebody was looking to push the point....

There is no easy way out of something someone wants to push. And there are some people who make it their lives work to enforce laws by suing (and they do quite well although I'm not sure how they live with themselves as they put small family owned businesses out of business).

The important part of "I'm booked (or "I have plans") " is to convey politeness and respect to your customer regardless of your belief.

Originally Posted by ian408 The important part of "I'm booked (or "I have plans") " is to convey politeness and respect to your customer regardless of your belief.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by bham One thing that would have kept this photographer out of court, not actually telling the couple why they won't shoot the wedding. If the photographer said it was a personality conflict, and left it at that, then the couple could have never proved otherwise. This is one of those times a white lie would have been appropriate. But like was said on this page (page 5) of replies, I think both wanted their point of view vindicated, thus why the lawsuit wasn't settled because both sides had an agenda.

This seems to be repeated a lot throughout this thread. They are offended because they were given the honest reason why that studio wouldn't photograph their wedding. Had the studio simply indicated that they were booked, they never would have thought to pry more. There are more polite ways of doing things that are considered discriminatory and that's where the mess up is here that lead to the law suit in the first place.

The point is a Judge ruled who and why a small business photographer should photograph. I doubt a Christian business owner would want to lie (lies are never kind and polite) to protect their business from govt. coercion nor should they. I would not think to sue a photographer who declined my overtly faith based event if he as an atheist felt uncomfortable and he has that every right to decline. William's post is correct and just the facts:

"The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment covers two areas; The freedom to believe and the freedom to act. There are several cases and precidents by the Supreme Court on both parts of the Free Exercise Clause. What typicaly happens to the rights afforded under this amendment end up trumped by the individual states. The High court has ruled that the State Laws that apply under the freedom to act side prevail most of the time. This is apparently what has happened in NM. I know CA has a law on the books recenlty that will basically do the same same to this protected right. Most states do not have a laws that trumps this right to freedom of beliefs and the right to refuse service based on a religious belief. There are still several cases out there to be heard."

I keep reading over and over that the best and most professional way to deal with this situation is to lie.

I understand this ideology if your a politician or a lawyer, but some folks have this strange idea that it's preferable to tell the truth.

The point here is using a contentious issue to discuss individual rights and how they affect our ability to operate our small photography businesses. It is not about how to deliberately discriminate or deny anyone service and get away with it like a game.

Many say the photographer must respect the gay couples beliefs and life style yet few even suggest the gay couple consider the photographers beliefs or like style.

I also think this attitude is also blaming the victim. Yes, the photographer is the victim. What has the gay couple lost? Nada, zip, nothing. The photographer has lost $7000 and maybe the ability to continue her small business. The gay couple had an agenda, the photographer only wanted to live her life according to her beliefs and move on.

Back to the main point. The government is not the answer it's the problem. Let me tell you about how a government program implemented with good intentions has in at least one occasion backfired.

One day while in the office of a manager who worked in a different department I noticed him sorting through a stack of documents. Some went in the trash can others to one side. I was curious and asked what he was doing. He said he was going through resumes because he needed ti fill a slot in his department. I asked how with only a cursory glance he could throw some into the trash. He said if I see an African American name I throw it inn the trash. WHAT!!! Why the hell would you do that? Your potentially eliminating finding a great employee!

His response was that it wasn't worth the effort and risk. I said, what risk! Again his response, if I hire a white guy and it doesn't work out I can simple let him go and hire someone else. If I hire an African American and it doesn't work out the first thing I am going to face is charges of discrimination and and a law suite. This will take up valuable time I don't have.

Reprehensible maybe, illegal certainly, but from this managers view point the best risk reward decision.

The point is that the government even when trying to help can create a lot of collateral damage.

The government seems to posses zero ability to include any form of common sense into even the most well meaning laws.

Using the gay marriage issue as an example. About half of the American population supports it and half dosn't support it. I don't think calling the other half names is productive. I don't believe the government has the right to force or promote anyone to accept gay marriage or the gay life style. I also don't believe the goverment has the right to force gays to accept the belief that gay marriage is wrong. What I do think we can do is tolerate the others viewpoint and acknowledge a right to exist. That goes both ways.

Sam