DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Instead of the religion threads...
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 202, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/11/2008 06:51:37 PM · #76
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
So the [insert "protected" people of choice here] rights supersede the rights of those who choose to practice their religion (though, that too, in theory is supposed to be allowed).

Think of it in terms of some other kind of discrimination, like race. You simply can't say, "We don't serve your kind here," no matter what religious or moral justification you may offer. If you turn them down for some non-biased reason like a conflict with your son's little league game, that's no problem, but as a business you do not have the right to refuse service based on sex, religion, race, etc. Imagine how outraged you'd be if the owner of a falafel stand refused to serve you because you're Christian.


Amen Shannon.
 04/11/2008 07:28:56 PM · #77
Originally posted by Matthew:
The same law is effective in the UK.

I had a long conversation about the law with some gay friends. They thought that the law was a bit of a waste of time. They are all too aware of being actively discriminated against very regularly. Refused tables in restaurants, ignored at the bar, chucked out of hotels, etc etc. Call me naieve, but I had no idea - It just doesn't happen to me.

It might not be a particularly effective law - some of the attitudes here pay testament to that. But it is an appalling state of affairs and must change. From small acorns etc...


Very well said, Matthew. While I can sympathize with the photographer's beliefs, I still think it was a wasted opportunity. Being raised Baptist, there are a LOT of religions / viewpoints / lifestyles that I am not familiar with. However, to photograph persons of differing beliefs (whatEVER they may be) simply allows me to learn more about people, to become a better photographer... and to share in a joyful occasion - something sorely lacking in our world, and something to be treasured by all.

Still a very valid discussion, and I hope that it continues peacefully.
 04/11/2008 07:39:33 PM · #78
Originally posted by TCGuru:
This was my question :) I suppose I am with karmat on that one... simply do not give them a reason beyond, "Sorry, I am full up." lol


Just don't then have an opening for someone who meets your personal standards.

I seem to recall someone saying that's what happened here, but what she didn't know was that the second person was with the first person.
 04/11/2008 08:30:32 PM · #79
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
This was my question :) I suppose I am with karmat on that one... simply do not give them a reason beyond, "Sorry, I am full up." lol


Just don't then have an opening for someone who meets your personal standards.

I seem to recall someone saying that's what happened here, but what she didn't know was that the second person was with the first person.


What happened is that there was some level of trickery involved on the part of the plaintiffs. Once the photographer declined an email request from one partner to shoot the same sex ceremony, the other partner called on the phone to arrange for the photographer to shoot a wedding on the same date, leaving out the same sex part.

04/11/2008 10:33:33 PM · #80
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
This was my question :) I suppose I am with karmat on that one... simply do not give them a reason beyond, "Sorry, I am full up." lol


Just don't then have an opening for someone who meets your personal standards.

I seem to recall someone saying that's what happened here, but what she didn't know was that the second person was with the first person.


What happened is that there was some level of trickery involved on the part of the plaintiffs. Once the photographer declined an email request from one partner to shoot the same sex ceremony, the other partner called on the phone to arrange for the photographer to shoot a wedding on the same date, leaving out the same sex part.


That "trickery" is part of my problem with it. They seemed to have had an ax to grind and an agenda. That bugs me.
+++++

I've been thinking about this this evening, and came to some conclusions.

I still think the photographer has the right to refuse to serve based on religious beliefs.

I believe homosexuality is wrong, and before you get your dander up and come at me with homophobic sensoring pitchforks, that does NOT mean I love my homosexual/bisexual/transsexual friends and family any less. It does not mean that I think they are less of a person. It does not mean that I won't work, play, whatever elbow to elbow with them. It does not mean that I don't think they don't love, laugh, and cry like a "straight" person. It doesn't even mean that I don't think they should have same-sex marriage. I really don't care. AND it doesn't mean that I think homosexual, bisexual, or transexual/transgendered people can't be Christians, if that is what they choose. What you do is your business. However, because it is a religious-based belief, I don't want to be forced to participate in the ceremonial parts of it. By not allowing me to refuse, legally, I am, in essence, being forced to participate in something that is contradictory to my religious beliefs. I should think that if someone was getting married, they would want all the participants (from the photographer to the caterer to the officiant) to WANT to be there and celebrate with them. So, in this case, it seems more about finding a way to sue more than wanting to celebrate their love in a marriage.

Color, gender, the others mentioned? I don't have a religious-based belief on those groups.

Some other ramifications of a case like this --

If I called up an atheist/agnostic, photographer and told them that my child was having an important event coming up, could they photograph it, and they agreed, and then, when I told them it was a baptism (or other sacred ceremony), and they said, no, sorry, I don't want to participate in that so I can't do it, should I sue? Can I force them to take part in a religious ceremony?

A Satanic group/coven calls me and says they want photographs of their ceremony (no sacrifices or anything illegal) next month. When I refuse, based on religious beliefs, can they sue me? (I would more be wondering why they wanted a Christian photographer in the first place).

The grand poobah, or whatever, of the KKK calls me and wants me to photograph their "unit" for their own "unit" stuff. I refuse because I believe they are a hateful bunch of bigots, can they sue me?

Now, as far as someone refusing to "serve" me simply because I am a Christian. If that happened to me (and it is interesting that you assume it never has), would I sue? No. (And this is Karma speaking for Karma). Why? I would have legal backing -- I could. But, it wouldn't be worth it. I have found that when something happens to "stop a path" in one direction, there is usually a reason for it. If I had contacted a lesbian photographer for my wedding, and she had said, "Sorry, I do not do traditional or religious unions because I am a lesbian" I wouldn't sue over it. I would be thankful that she was up front about it. Unless of course, I had an agenda and a point to prove. (Which is my biggest beef with the whole issue <---important note, if you are still reading).

I guess what I don't understand is why you would want someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you there in the first place. :/

And before you start blasting my mailbox, please note that if we were sitting with each other, I would be using a very calm, non-aggressive, non-angry voice (though it does have a pretty heavy southern drawl). I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply trying to explain why I feel the way I do -- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, religious belief or sexual orientation with my post.



04/11/2008 11:02:10 PM · #81
Originally posted by karmat:
Now, as far as someone refusing to "serve" me simply because I am a Christian. If that happened to me (and it is interesting that you assume it never has), would I sue? No. (And this is Karma speaking for Karma). Why? I would have legal backing -- I could. But, it wouldn't be worth it. I have found that when something happens to "stop a path" in one direction, there is usually a reason for it. If I had contacted a lesbian photographer for my wedding, and she had said, "Sorry, I do not do traditional or religious unions because I am a lesbian" I wouldn't sue over it. I would be thankful that she was up front about it. Unless of course, I had an agenda and a point to prove. (Which is my biggest beef with the whole issue <---important note, if you are still reading).


Rosa Parks could have just moved to the back of the bus, too. Unless, of course, she had an agenda and a point to prove.
 04/11/2008 11:09:27 PM · #82
Originally posted by karmat:

Color, gender, the others mentioned? I don't have a religious-based belief on those groups.


But what about persons who use their religious based beliefs on one of those groups. Such as KKK members who claim that their religion doesn't tolerate jews or blacks? Should they be allowed to discriminate since it is their religious based belief? They can make the same argument you did but with a different group of people to discriminate, it's really the same. Religion based beliefs are not a free pass to break the law.

Originally posted by karmat:

I guess what I don't understand is why you would want someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you there in the first place. :/


I agree and I would venture to say that in most cases if you were to sit down with a particular person and explain to them in a reasonable manner that your photography is an art as well as a business. That as a business you cannot refuse them as customers but that as a person/artist you have a fundamental issue with their race, lifestyle, fill in the blank, and that it may reflect in the quality of your work/art due to being uncomfortable about the situation. Tell them nicely that you feel they would be better to find someone who could perform without some bias and provide them a much better product than you could provide them. Reassure them if they still want to use you then you will. Most would realise that they don't agree with you and wouldn't want you to make their money anyway and take their business elsewhere. If not and they decide to go with you then that is the risk you take for running a business in a city, state, country with that law, though I doubt it would ever come to that if handled civilly.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 23:10:10.
 04/11/2008 11:15:21 PM · #83
Originally posted by karmat:
I still think the photographer has the right to refuse to serve based on religious beliefs.

You may think that, but you are not legally, and in my view ethically, correct.

If you are operating a business with services open to the public, you should be aware that the public is comprised of many different kinds of people, and it is not your right to select the kinds of customers you want based on arbitrary personal criteria. That is blatant discrimination. Once again, the excuse of religious freedom is not a good enough excuse when it violates the rights of another person. And discrimination based on sexual orientation, irrespective of your personal views, violates those rights.

Originally posted by karmat:
I believe homosexuality is wrong, and before you get your dander up and come at me with homophobic sensoring pitchforks, that does NOT mean I love my homosexual/bisexual/transsexual friends and family any less. It does not mean that I think they are less of a person.

Sure it does. If your judgement of these individuals causes you to withold your services from them, you have deemed them to be unworthy of your service for whatever reason.

Originally posted by karmat:
By not allowing me to refuse, legally, I am, in essence, being forced to participate in something that is contradictory to my religious beliefs.

Your religious beliefs should never be an excuse to make any group or any other person feel like they aren't part of your society when those people have done nothing to deserve that kind of distinction.

Originally posted by karmat:
I should think that if someone was getting married, they would want all the participants (from the photographer to the caterer to the officiant) to WANT to be there and celebrate with them. So, in this case, it seems more about finding a way to sue more than wanting to celebrate their love in a marriage.

You seem to be suggesting that two people who had no intention of getting married sought out those photographers who would discriminate against them so they could sue in a sensational way. If so, that's a strident accusation that would require proof. In any event, it's already been pointed out that the suit was for legal expenses and no other damages. It's a suit to demonstrate that such discrimination is commonplace, tolerated by the public, but still subject to sanction under the law. It is a just lawsuit and the right outcome.

Originally posted by karmat:
Color, gender, the others mentioned? I don't have a religious-based belief on those groups.

Many people do. The KKK and conservative muslims come to mind. Should their right to discriminate based on religious belief be protected under civil law?

Originally posted by karmat:
If I called up an atheist/agnostic, photographer and told them that my child was having an important event coming up, could they photograph it, and they agreed, and then, when I told them it was a baptism (or other sacred ceremony), and they said, no, sorry, I don't want to participate in that so I can't do it, should I sue? Can I force them to take part in a religious ceremony?

A Satanic group/coven calls me and says they want photographs of their ceremony (no sacrifices or anything illegal) next month. When I refuse, based on religious beliefs, can they sue me? (I would more be wondering why they wanted a Christian photographer in the first place).

The grand poobah, or whatever, of the KKK calls me and wants me to photograph their "unit" for their own "unit" stuff. I refuse because I believe they are a hateful bunch of bigots, can they sue me?

I'm sure you've already read all that has been said here before regarding protected classes. You seem to be bringing up issues already dealt with.

Originally posted by karmat:
I guess what I don't understand is why you would want someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you there in the first place. :/

I'm sure they didn't, but I'm sure they also didn't want such a person to be able to simply get away with this kind of behaviour scot-free for all time.

The guarantee of rights is generally to protect minority groups. In Canada, our Charter draws the ire of the conservative right all the time, because it stands for protecting groups that have no way to protect themselves from the majority. That's what people fail to realize. The majority view is not always the right view, morally, ethically, or legally.
 04/11/2008 11:17:30 PM · #84
Huh. Guess i have a twisted perspective (i'm not a white male, btw). I've always thought that middle-class, middle-aged, white males are the most discriminated against, seeing as how virtually every other group is protected by some law or sensibility or another.

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.
04/11/2008 11:21:37 PM · #85
Karma, you've raised several good examples. At first, I refuted a couple of your examples, then realized your overall point & reconsidered. And then flip-flopped some more, and some more! LOL

(THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE IN-GENERAL, not aimed at anyone...)

Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have valid points, but a few points still stand out in my (tired) mind:

DO we have the right to choose our customers, simply based on the individual / group's APPARENT stand on political or religious issues?
Is it even remotely possible that we (ANY of us) could make an error in judgment about another human being's position?
Can we state with absolute certainty that the customer is someone that we just couldn't bear to support in ANYTHING they do, simply because they differ from us in some way?
Do we really believe our customers are terribly concerned with OUR beliefs?
What about photographers who cover issues such as war - are they to judge, or choose sides? Or simply to document?

Please do not take any of this as arguing / yelling on my part... to be honest, I haven't even decided WHICH side of this case to agree with. It doesn't seem clear cut, and BOTH sides are standing for what they believe in. I'm simply stating that, no matter how we may feel about any person's actions, there is ALWAYS more than meets the eye.

We are there to document a period of time and the emotions & events which occur. We are not asked our opinions, nor do I think we should offer them.

04/11/2008 11:24:28 PM · #86
Originally posted by rossbilly:
We are there to document a period of time and the emotions & events which occur. We are not asked our opinions, nor do I think we should offer them.

You'd never know that from the forums of this site, that's for sure. ;-)
 04/11/2008 11:25:14 PM · #87
Having followed all the links right down to the actual original complaint, it seems pretty clear that:

a) there is a law in New Mexico that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation
b) the photographer freely admitted she broke the law

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

That the photographer feels she should be able to break the law with impunity is regrettable.

To do so using religion as crutch is a stretch; surely she is free to practice her religion but in this case, it's a business issue rather than a religious issue.
 04/11/2008 11:27:15 PM · #88
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I agree and I would venture to say that in most cases if you were to sit down with a particular person and explain to them ... that as a person/artist you have a fundamental issue with their race, lifestyle, fill in the blank, and that it may reflect in the quality of your work/art due to being uncomfortable about the situation ... Most would realise that they don't agree with you and wouldn't want you to make their money anyway and take their business elsewhere


You know, that may be exactly what happened. The photographer may well have said to herself "just be honest but polite, and she'll go elsewhere" and to the plaintiff, "I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable being part of a gay marriage."

Given the plaintiff's job, I can easily imagine her hearing that and deciding to push the issue anyway, and I don't have a problem with her pushing it. But we can't assume the photographer was rude about it.

L2, I agree that the legal issue seems cut and dried to me. The interesting things worth discussing, though, are whether the system is correct as it is.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 23:29:32.
 04/11/2008 11:38:26 PM · #89
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I agree and I would venture to say that in most cases if you were to sit down with a particular person and explain to them ... that as a person/artist you have a fundamental issue with their race, lifestyle, fill in the blank, and that it may reflect in the quality of your work/art due to being uncomfortable about the situation ... Most would realise that they don't agree with you and wouldn't want you to make their money anyway and take their business elsewhere


You know, that may be exactly what happened. The photographer may well have said to herself "just be honest but polite, and she'll go elsewhere" and to the plaintiff, "I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable being part of a gay marriage."

Given the plaintiff's job, I can easily imagine her hearing that and deciding to push the issue anyway, and I don't have a problem with her pushing it. But we can't assume the photographer was rude about it.

L2, I agree that the legal issue seems cut and dried to me. The interesting things worth discussing, though, are whether the system is correct as it is.


You could be correct, but as I stated that if the cutomer still wants to proceed with her despite the advice then she has no choice. That is what the photographer agreed to when she decided to do business in that state.
 04/11/2008 11:39:50 PM · #90
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You could be correct, but as I stated that if the cutomer still wants to proceed with her despite the advice then she has no choice. That is what the photographer agreed to when she decided to do business in that state.


I know, Trevor. I didn't say otherwise.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 23:46:02.
 04/11/2008 11:43:19 PM · #91
sorry, misinterpretation:)
 04/11/2008 11:46:07 PM · #92
Karma, you raise some interesting questions. If you're willing, let's explore this from outside your personal business realm to see where your boundaries lie.

Would you feel comfortable with a doctor in private practice refusing to help someone because he was gay?
How about a lawyer in private practice (I don't mean a public defender or district attorney)?
A guy at the sandwich shop?
A drycleaner?
A bar?

Would you feel comfortable with any of those refusing to serve someone with a face disfigured by a car accident (assuming that fits into the "disability" protected class)? What if that sandwich shop owner was afraid the seriously disfigured person would scare away other customers?

In other words, does the service being refused matter? Those are all "private businesses." And does the specific protected class matter?

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 23:46:32.
 04/11/2008 11:52:49 PM · #93
Originally posted by karmat:
And before you start blasting my mailbox, please note that if we were sitting with each other, I would be using a very calm, non-aggressive, non-angry voice (though it does have a pretty heavy southern drawl). I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply trying to explain why I feel the way I do -- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, religious belief or sexual orientation with my post.


Would it be reasonable to say that your position is that any business should be free to discriminate against any customer that they like, as long as they have a religious based reason for doing so ?

That seems to be what I'm reading in your posts. I know in your case it would just be because of sexual orientation - is that a specific case you think that deserves special merit, or that business entities should be able to bar whoever they like for whatever reason they like, if it has a religious grounding ?
 04/12/2008 01:59:29 AM · #94
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by karmat:
Color, gender, the others mentioned? I don't have a religious-based belief on those groups.

Many people do. The KKK and conservative muslims come to mind. Should their right to discriminate based on religious belief be protected under civil law?



Actually, it is protected. The KKK used to come and have a rally or whatever it is they do, on the courthouse steps in Benton Harbor, MI where I used to work. They received police protection and the city had to erect special fencing to protect them from the angry mob.

FYI - Benton Harbor is a poor, predominantly African American community that has seen several racially charged incidents over the past several years
 04/12/2008 06:41:28 AM · #95
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by karmat:
Color, gender, the others mentioned? I don't have a religious-based belief on those groups.

Many people do. The KKK and conservative muslims come to mind. Should their right to discriminate based on religious belief be protected under civil law?



Actually, it is protected. The KKK used to come and have a rally or whatever it is they do, on the courthouse steps in Benton Harbor, MI where I used to work. They received police protection and the city had to erect special fencing to protect them from the angry mob.

FYI - Benton Harbor is a poor, predominantly African American community that has seen several racially charged incidents over the past several years


Their First Amendment rights to free assembly are protected. Their members' "rights" to illegaly discriminate in their private businesses are not.

A story that seems to draw important parallels, around 1994 the Ku Klux Klan applied to participate in the state's adopt-a-highway program (for those not familiar, these are programs where groups, businesses, whatever, agree to periodically clean up trash along certain sections of highway, and the state posts signs indicating who has adopted each section). The state of Missouri denied their application, and the KKK took them to court and won. The courts held that Missouri's denial of the application was unconstitutional. Missouri posted the signs as required (but also renamed the section of highway after civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks).

~Terry
 04/12/2008 09:27:20 AM · #96
Originally posted by karmat:

I guess what I don't understand is why you would want someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you there in the first place. :/


I agree and I would venture to say that in most cases if you were to sit down with a particular person and explain to them in a reasonable manner that your photography is an art as well as a business. That as a business you cannot refuse them as customers but that as a person/artist you have a fundamental issue with their race, lifestyle, fill in the blank, and that it may reflect in the quality of your work/art due to being uncomfortable about the situation. Tell them nicely that you feel they would be better to find someone who could perform without some bias and provide them a much better product than you could provide them. Reassure them if they still want to use you then you will. Most would realise that they don't agree with you and wouldn't want you to make their money anyway and take their business elsewhere. If not and they decide to go with you then that is the risk you take for running a business in a city, state, country with that law, though I doubt it would ever come to that if handled civilly. [/quote]

IF someone contacted me to do a same-sex marriage, I should hope all parties involved could be mature enough to understand that.

IF someone contacted me to a do a same-sex marriage, I understand that I am forced by law to accept their money, even if someone else would probably do a much better job. Because, the law is not going to allow me to say, "I'm sorry. Because of my beliefs, I don't think I am the best photographer for this job. Can I help you find someone who will do better?"

So, if that makes me unethical or immoral in your eyes, I can't change that. I'm not asking you to change your mind (as stated before), only to try and understand where I, personally, am coming from.

With that, I will gracefully bow out of the conversation as I obviously have nothing more to add that is off merit or worth.

Peace to you all and happy shooting.
04/12/2008 09:39:28 AM · #97
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by karmat:

I guess what I don't understand is why you would want someone who doesn't want to celebrate with you there in the first place. :/


I agree ...


Oh Karmat, you make me laugh so hard. :)
 04/12/2008 09:43:25 AM · #98
Originally posted by L2:

Oh Karmat, you make me laugh so hard. :)


Me, too!
 04/12/2008 10:27:45 AM · #99
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by L2:

Oh Karmat, you make me laugh so hard. :)


Me, too!


Laurie, you feeling okay? ;)

Karmat: I asked the questions I asked in my last post as a way to continue what's been an interesting conversation. I hope I didn't make you feel unwanted.
 04/12/2008 11:32:58 AM · #100
Is there any distinction between a photographer as an individual and the LLC that is this particular photographer's business?

IN other words, if I am just a sole proprietorship, "Robt. Ward, Photographer", do these laws apply to me? I can understand that if the business entity is a corporation, it has to follow some very specific rules regarding discrimination, regardless of the personal feelings of the individual "acting for" the corporation (the photographer), but I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that the state can force me, as an individual, to do work that I do not want to do, for whatever reason.

I understand the legal concept of "protected classes", but my question is whether that law is binding on individuals, as opposed to legal business entities.

R.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:22:31 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:22:31 PM EDT.