Court rules against Christian photographer

06/06/2012 11:28:06 AM · #204

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Skip:

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by Skip:
[note: personally, I'll photograph anything (that won't get me put in jail) for anyone, especially if they're willing to pay.]

You whore.

you want a punch in the gut? or do you want me to yell for your mommy?

fight,fight,fight...

Go on skip hit him! Don't worry about his abs if you need some like that I'll ask Gyaban to help out. Although that might be beyond even his skill ;)

Only joking ;)

06/06/2012 11:29:31 AM · #205

Originally posted by mike_311:

It was meant as a joke, but I'm sure he'd lose.
I don't do emoticons, which is why we need a sarcasm font.

CS

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/06/2012 11:34:16 AM · #206

Most states have "at will" employment which means you can fire someone for any reason other than the few discriminatory reasons protected.

Sir, I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't even know what that means, but you're fired!

pamb

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

06/06/2012 11:34:18 AM · #207

Originally posted by Skip:

The BUYER should be the one doing the discriminating.

Best piece of advice in the whole thread...

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/06/2012 11:34:26 AM · #208

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Skip:

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by Skip:
[note: personally, I'll photograph anything (that won't get me put in jail) for anyone, especially if they're willing to pay.]

You whore.

you want a punch in the gut? or do you want me to yell for your mommy?

fight,fight,fight...

It was meant as a joke, but I'm sure he'd lose.
I don't do emoticons, which is why we need a sarcasm font.

bring it. i don't fight fair, either.

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/06/2012 11:40:28 AM · #209

Originally posted by Spork99:

And out come the bigots...

Oh please, you are going to play that card? The problem is the photographer didn't feel like they could, under their beliefs and morals, photograph this couple. I don't see where they are saying I don't photograph gays. It is not a person they are signaling out, it is an act that they feel is immoral and would not feel right promoting that... now it is possible that they are being selective and therein lies one issue. Do they refuse to do maternity or baby photos for unwed parents? Do they refuse "anniversary" photos of a couple not married but lives together? And so on... I can feel an act is immoral to my standards set by my God but not hate, discriminate or be a bigot. Just because I follow a moral code that I feel is right does not mean that I think anyone who does not follow my God should be expected to follow that same code. For example I can believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but have close friends who are a married homosexual couple. I should be able to tell that couple, I am happy for you and I hope you have a wonderful life together while still being able to follow my moral code and say I am sorry I would not feel right photographing your ceremony but I know this great photographer that may be able to help. But in your closed mind feel free to call me a bigot, I am happy with who I am and know what I am and what I am not.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

06/06/2012 11:40:29 AM · #210

Originally posted by Skip:

bring it. i don't fight fair, either.

I'm the heroin this clip.
I'll also bombard you with bad punch lines at the end.

CS

[Enough diversion from the main topic, but both movies are must sees.]

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/06/2012 11:41:08 AM · #211

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

i know and agree, i was playing off the playground banter.

06/06/2012 11:48:42 AM · #212

Originally posted by Skip:

Laws and rulings and ethics and morals and beliefs and philosophies aside, wouldn't you simply want someone who can do their best for you?

Of course, however discrimination occurs at the basic level of whether the seller will serve "your kind" at all. I'm going to do business with the bakery or auto mechanic that I think will do the best job, but if the proprietor slams the door in my face because I'm a Yankee or my tan is too dark, well, then I think it's reasonable to alert the playground monitors to such a blatant violation of the rules. The "buyer's choice" does not extend to restricting which part of the Yellow Pages you are allowed to choose from. The studio could have offered a reference to another photographer who caters to this particular clientele, but in lieu of that should simply do their jobs.

The salient points of the court's unanimous decision: "Being present at a ceremony to take photographs is not the same as participating in the ceremony as a member of a congregation or a celebrant." "While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take, in that it decides which pictures to take, which pictures to edit, and how to edit them, this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography." What the law is regulating is not Elane's artistic expression, but rather its business practice. The court characterized Elane as a "conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community." The owners are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies," but it "may not discriminate in its commercial activities against protected classes as the basis for expressing its religious opinion."

06/06/2012 12:08:00 PM · #213

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

The problem is the photographer didn't feel like they could, under their beliefs and morals, photograph this couple. I don't see where they are saying I don't photograph gays. It is not a person they are signaling out, it is an act that they feel is immoral and would not feel right promoting that... now it is possible that they are being selective and therein lies one issue.

Willock emailed Elane to ask about having them photograph her upcoming commitment ceremony, indicating in her email that it would be a "same-gender ceremony." Elane promptly declined, indicating that it photographs "traditional weddings." Willock emailed back to clarify the response, asking whether Elane "does not offer photography services to same-sex couples." Responding affirmatively, Elane stated "yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings."

She says it right in the court proceedings. Elane can feel homosexuality is immoral all she wants, but that particular group is protected by law, so her intolerance for homosexuals needs to be put by the wayside if she is to run her business.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Do they refuse to do maternity or baby photos for unwed parents? Do they refuse "anniversary" photos of a couple not married but lives together? And so on... I can feel an act is immoral to my standards set by my God but not hate, discriminate or be a bigot.

Bigotry is more about intolerance than hate. You could deny service for unwed parents, they would have little in way of repercussions as they are not protected under the law.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

For example I can believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but have close friends who are a married homosexual couple. I should be able to tell that couple, I am happy for you and I hope you have a wonderful life together while still being able to follow my moral code and say I am sorry I would not feel right photographing your ceremony but I know this great photographer that may be able to help.

You can tell them that as an individual, but as a business you can not. This was brought up already, but if you are the sole proprietor and employee in a business, the business and yourself are two separate entities under the law. This is an important distinction, one many people are having difficulty with. Someone already linked here earlier, but it explains the court ruling in detail.

CS

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 12:08:30.

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/06/2012 12:29:42 PM · #214

So the wonderful government is protecting the same sex couple from the evil Christian business owner, the same government that doesn't allow said couple to get married. I have a big problem with our government and the so called leaders.

Nikon MF Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D PC

06/06/2012 12:43:04 PM · #215

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

So the wonderful government is protecting the same sex couple from the evil Christian business owner, the same government that doesn't allow said couple to get married.

"New Mexican law does not explicitly permit or prohibit same-sex marriage." This was a commitment ceremony, not an official wedding.

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 12:44:50.

chazoe

Nikon Z7 FX

06/06/2012 12:47:36 PM · #216

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
So the wonderful government is protecting the same sex couple from the evil Christian business owner, the same government that doesn't allow said couple to get married.

"New Mexican law does not explicitly permit or prohibit same-sex marriage." This was a commitment ceremony, not an official wedding.

So Minso's point is spot on. The same government that won't acknowledge their marriage is protecting them from a photographer who is doing the same.

06/06/2012 12:58:34 PM · #217

Originally posted by chazoe:

So Minso's point is spot on. The same government that won't acknowledge their marriage is protecting them from a photographer who is doing the same.

Well since a commitment ceremony is not an official marriage, New Mexico doesn't have a problem with it and neither should the photographer.

06/06/2012 01:07:55 PM · #218

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

So the wonderful government is protecting the same sex couple from the discriminatory Christian business owner, the same government that doesn't allow said couple to get married.

Fixed that for you.
Scalvert pointed out it wasn't a marriage they were performing.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

I have a big problem with our government and the so called leaders.

I say the same thing about organized religion and their followers. A debate for another thread.
At least the government is trying to expand rights for individuals rather than suppress them.

CS

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 13:15:13.

06/06/2012 01:28:00 PM · #219

I don't understand what about homosexuality is so reprehensible.

Why are people intolerant towards homosexuals?
Why do members of society want to stop homosexuals from marrying?
How would allowing homosexuals to marry affect any facet of your life?

Remember it wasn't long ago homosexuals could have been replaced with African Americans in your country. I see this as being no different.

CS

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 13:28:38.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/06/2012 01:30:38 PM · #220

There's a thread around here somewhere with like 30,000 responses...