Gay Weddings

Im Kirk said:

Yes you can refuse to do it if the ceremony itself is not legal. There is no such thing as a legal gay ceremony in this state so to refuse to do it is not against the law..you cannot be prosecuted for refusing to break the law....

Click to expand...

You still do not understand.

Based on your reply above, what law are you breaking? Please show me the law that says same sex marriages are not legal in WV and so anyone photographing same is breaking the law. Suppose a couple from Nova Scotia comes down to WV and asks you to take their photo, now what are you going to do - they are legally married here. You could be successfully sued for refusal.

What I am trying to help you understand is if you refuse to take on a job based on a prohibited grounds you can be sued. The fact the ceremony is not legal is not of concern, it is not illegal to photograph a same sex couple, so they are not asking you to do something illegal. Discriminating on same sex grounds may not be a listed grounds in WV, , the question you'd need to ask a lawyer in your state is "could you be successfully sued" on those grounds, the lawyers answer will be dependent on your states HR act, the recent court interpretations in your state and any federal law applicable. You seem to think you know the answer, I am suggesting you might actually want to speak to a lawyer to find out.
Just trying to help people understand,
Bill

--
http://www.billcurry.ca

a clause in your contract stating that you reserve the right to turn down clients / weddings, without having to give a reason.

That way there can surely be no comeback.

Shops and pubs here sometimes publicize the same thing, that they reserve the right not to serve you.

BC in NS said:

You are incorrect. If you are a photography business you can not turn down people on grounds which are listed as discriminatory by your overseeing regulatory body. You are confusing individual rights with the responsibilities of a business owner.

Click to expand...

It's the same as a shop, you can refuse service to anyone and you don't have to give a reason at all.

You are not obliged to provide services to anyone or any company that you do not wish to.

BC in NS said:

Read the New Mexico case - they were successful, they would have been successful in Canada as well, and in many other countries, states and municipalities.

Click to expand...

The mistake they made was giving a reason..give none you do not have to.

To be honest why would anyone want to sue bar making some cash..would you really want a photographer to do an event or wedding if they were not happy with the circumstances?

Easy to make up an excuse you're too busy, price not enough, family member sick etc etc. You don't even have to give those reasons.

You can't make people provide a service they don't want to.

And when you're talking about only 100 people--a very small church congregation--that's okay. I suspect they weren't really envisioning or intending to create an entire Puritan nation. The colonial charters did have boundaries.

It's kind of hard to say the Puritans hadn't been persecuted when they had to kill the king to get their way.

If you ever get a chance, try slogging through Roger Williams' "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution." Roger Williams was a radical Puritan, but he was even more radicalized by the extent of persecution the Puritans did endure in England--to the point of realizing that allowing any religion to have the gun of the sheriff absolutely corrupted the religion.

It was Roger Williams in "The Bloudy Tenent" who coined the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State." Unfortunately, the idea of removing state power from church leadership (and vice versa) did not sit well with...anyone who had either. Williams got booted out of pretty nearly everywhere and had to spend a number of years out in the wilderness with the Indians.

Williams did eventually found the state of Rhode Island under the specific premise of freedom of religion, as well as the first Baptist congregation in America. If you check even the most recent Baptist doctrine on the separation of Church and State, it's there, and very boldly worded, too. However, many Baptists--particularly Southern Baptists* don't agree with that provision of their own doctrine.

When Thomas Jefferson (who was a state-religion-believing Anglican) wrote to the Danbury Baptist congregation that the new federal government would not impose a state religion, he merely cribbed the words of their own founder to assure them.

It was plucky Rhode Island that made sure some words to keep the new federal government were explicitly written into the Constitution. By that time, the idea was generally accepted, but Rhode Island was the lone holdout that refused to vote to ratify the Constitution until a separation clause was put into writing. As soon as the Bill of Rights was written and ratified by enough states (those having already voted to ratify the Constitution) thus guaranteeing its passage, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution.

It should be noted that the Southern Baptist convention has some significant peculiarities, one being that it was specifically created to allow southern Baptists to own slaves--which the mainstream Baptist doctrine prohibited.

'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

ColourBlind said:

a clause in your contract stating that you reserve the right to turn down clients / weddings, without having to give a reason.

That way there can surely be no comeback.

Click to expand...

...until someone is refused on a listed grounds. Obviously a clause like that might help you, but if you refuse and you are somehow revealed as having discriminated on a prohibited grounds, you could still be sued.

ColourBlind said:

Shops and pubs here sometimes publicize the same thing, that they reserve the right not to serve you.

Click to expand...

Correct- they can refuse on reasonable (i.e. not prohibited) grounds - such as you drank too much already, you didn't pay me the last time, etc. etc.

Not on the grounds you're in a same sex marriage, or because of your race, religion, etc.
--
http://www.billcurry.ca

Barry Fitzgerald said:

BC in NS said:

You are incorrect. If you are a photography business you can not turn down people on grounds which are listed as discriminatory by your overseeing regulatory body. You are confusing individual rights with the responsibilities of a business owner.

Click to expand...

It's the same as a shop, you can refuse service to anyone and you don't have to give a reason at all.

You are not obliged to provide services to anyone or any company that you do not wish to.

Member said:

Read the New Mexico case - they were successful, they would have been successful in Canada as well, and in many other countries, states and municipalities.

Click to expand...

The mistake they made was giving a reason..give none you do not have to.

To be honest why would anyone want to sue bar making some cash..would you really want a photographer to do an event or wedding if they were not happy with the circumstances?

Easy to make up an excuse you're too busy, price not enough, family member sick etc etc. You don't even have to give those reasons.

You can't make people provide a service they don't want to.

Click to expand...

Same answer as to the other poster:

...until someone is refused on a listed grounds. If you refuse and you are somehow revealed as having discriminated on a prohibited grounds, you could still be sued.

--
http://www.billcurry.ca

ColourBlind said:

a clause in your contract stating that you reserve the right to turn down clients / weddings, without having to give a reason.

That way there can surely be no comeback.

Shops and pubs here sometimes publicize the same thing, that they reserve the right not to serve you.

Click to expand...

Your profile says you're in the US, so when you say "here" combine with "shops and pubs" I'm guessing you're actually in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

In another post, I've already run down the contextual history of the Jim Crow laws that have only recently been overturned in the US (by "recently" I mean there are still two living generations of Americans who remember that period). You don't have that kind of history, so you haven't needed this kind of remedy.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

BC in NS said:

...until someone is refused on a listed grounds. If you refuse and you are somehow revealed as having discriminated on a prohibited grounds, you could still be sued.

Click to expand...

Unless they can read your mind I'd say you were fairly safe.

Regarding the OP and article it was fairly obvious the persons concerned were "fishing" for a photographer who would refuse so as to sue them and get some money out of them.

I find that very much appalling and purely designed to make money out of nothing.

MrPhotoBob said:

From what I read on that lawsuit, the studeo actually told them that was the reason they were refusing to photograph them.

Click to expand...

There is no point to being a Christian unless you openly testify as to why you behave the way you behave. That's part of the shtick.

However, Jesus did not avoid association with "sinners" and there is nothing in scripture prohibiting doing business with non-Christians. Christians have no Biblical authority whatsoever to try to control the activities of non-Christians.

In fact, the Apostle Paul specifically wrote, "I don't care what those outside [the Chuch] do. God will judge those outside [the Church], you judge those inside [the Church].

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

ColourBlind said:

a clause in your contract stating that you reserve the right to turn down clients / weddings, without having to give a reason.

That way there can surely be no comeback.

Shops and pubs here sometimes publicize the same thing, that they reserve the right not to serve you.

Click to expand...

No, that will not work for you, you DO have the right to refuse an assignment, such as an assignment that may damage your equipment or something, but to say that you could use that to maybe refuse service to a certain race, or even to someone with sexual preferences you do not agree with will not be allowed by the courts. You CAN use your theory and refuse a wedding assignment on the grounds of your fear of heights if someone tells you that they are going to get married in hot air balloon 50 miles up, but not use it to discriminate a certain class of people; no, not in this day and age. If the courts would allow people to use your theory, we could refuse people are services just because they are of the Baptist religion and we do not wish to photograph Baptist because you are of the Catholic religion and may not believe in the Baptist religion.

Shops and restaurants use that to refuse people service who are NOT properly dressed for their establishment, or patrons who are conducting themselves improperly in their establishment. If you go into a shop and you have mud all over you, and you wish to try on their very expensive clothing , they do have the right to say no.

That is what those signs are refering to, not to refuse a certain class of people.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

BC in NS said:

You are incorrect. If you are a photography business you can not turn down people on grounds which are listed as discriminatory by your overseeing regulatory body. You are confusing individual rights with the responsibilities of a business owner.

Click to expand...

It's the same as a shop, you can refuse service to anyone and you don't have to give a reason at all.

You are not obliged to provide services to anyone or any company that you do not wish to.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true, if you have a restaurant in a all white area of town and a black couple took you to court because you refused them services, and then it was discovered that you were refusing all black patrons service, how long do you think that the courts would allow you to operate in that manner.

Member said:

Member said:

Read the New Mexico case - they were successful, they would have been successful in Canada as well, and in many other countries, states and municipalities.

Click to expand...

The mistake they made was giving a reason..give none you do not have to.

To be honest why would anyone want to sue bar making some cash..would you really want a photographer to do an event or wedding if they were not happy with the circumstances?

Easy to make up an excuse you're too busy, price not enough, family member sick etc etc. You don't even have to give those reasons.

Click to expand...

That will not work either. We had an establishment that had a membership clause and they were not allowing blacks to join. Two guys went there, a black guy went in and was refused membership because they were no longer taking memberships, and then his buddy who was white went in within a matter of minutes and was sold a membership. They are no longer in service. People will set you up and put you out of business fast.

Member said:

You can't make people provide a service they don't want to.

Click to expand...

Barry Fitzgerald said:

BC in NS said:

...until someone is refused on a listed grounds. If you refuse and you are somehow revealed as having discriminated on a prohibited grounds, you could still be sued.

Click to expand...

Unless they can read your mind I'd say you were fairly safe.

Regarding the OP and article it was fairly obvious the persons concerned were "fishing" for a photographer who would refuse so as to sue them and get some money out of them.

I find that very much appalling and purely designed to make money out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Not really to make money, but to stop those types of practices.

That is where the problem is, once you are found out about your business practices, people will go after your establishment and try and shut it down even if they have to set you up in order to do it, it is not worth it.

MrPhotoBob said:

Barry Fitzgerald said:

BC in NS said:

You are incorrect. If you are a photography business you can not turn down people on grounds which are listed as discriminatory by your overseeing regulatory body. You are confusing individual rights with the responsibilities of a business owner.

Click to expand...

It's the same as a shop, you can refuse service to anyone and you don't have to give a reason at all.

You are not obliged to provide services to anyone or any company that you do not wish to.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true, if you have a restaurant in a all white area of town and a black couple took you to court because you refused them services, and then it was discovered that you were refusing all black patrons service, how long do you think that the courts would allow you to operate in that manner.

MrPhotoBob said:

MrPhotoBob said:

Read the New Mexico case - they were successful, they would have been successful in Canada as well, and in many other countries, states and municipalities.

Click to expand...

The mistake they made was giving a reason..give none you do not have to.

To be honest why would anyone want to sue bar making some cash..would you really want a photographer to do an event or wedding if they were not happy with the circumstances?

Easy to make up an excuse you're too busy, price not enough, family member sick etc etc. You don't even have to give those reasons.

Click to expand...

That will not work either. We had an establishment that had a membership clause and they were not allowing blacks to join. Two guys went there, a black guy went in and was refused membership because they were no longer taking memberships, and then his buddy who was white went in within a matter of minutes and was sold a membership. They are no longer in service. People will set you up and put you out of business fast.

MrPhotoBob said:

You can't make people provide a service they don't want to.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I know the law you have a right to refuse service to anyone and you are not required to give a reason. You cannot force anyone to do a job they don't want to.

And you should not give a reason if the photographer was stupid enough to refuse giving a reason that is their own fault.

A bit of common sense works wonders here. Say you met a bride and discussed providing shots for her..say you didn't like here attitude and you did not want to do the job..so what? She's going to sue you?

Nuts completely nuts.

Don't give a reason ever..you're safe

Barry Fitzgerald said:

MrPhotoBob said:

Barry Fitzgerald said:

BC in NS said:

You are incorrect. If you are a photography business you can not turn down people on grounds which are listed as discriminatory by your overseeing regulatory body. You are confusing individual rights with the responsibilities of a business owner.

Click to expand...

It's the same as a shop, you can refuse service to anyone and you don't have to give a reason at all.

You are not obliged to provide services to anyone or any company that you do not wish to.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true, if you have a restaurant in a all white area of town and a black couple took you to court because you refused them services, and then it was discovered that you were refusing all black patrons service, how long do you think that the courts would allow you to operate in that manner.

Member said:

Member said:

Read the New Mexico case - they were successful, they would have been successful in Canada as well, and in many other countries, states and municipalities.

Click to expand...

The mistake they made was giving a reason..give none you do not have to.

To be honest why would anyone want to sue bar making some cash..would you really want a photographer to do an event or wedding if they were not happy with the circumstances?

Easy to make up an excuse you're too busy, price not enough, family member sick etc etc. You don't even have to give those reasons.

Click to expand...

That will not work either. We had an establishment that had a membership clause and they were not allowing blacks to join. Two guys went there, a black guy went in and was refused membership because they were no longer taking memberships, and then his buddy who was white went in within a matter of minutes and was sold a membership. They are no longer in service. People will set you up and put you out of business fast.

Member said:

You can't make people provide a service they don't want to.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I know the law you have a right to refuse service to anyone and you are not required to give a reason. You cannot force anyone to do a job they don't want to.

And you should not give a reason if the photographer was stupid enough to refuse giving a reason that is their own fault.

A bit of common sense works wonders here. Say you met a bride and discussed providing shots for her..say you didn't like here attitude and you did not want to do the job..so what? She's going to sue you?

Nuts completely nuts.

Don't give a reason ever..you're safe

Click to expand...

I can see that, but I am saying that it can not be a blanket policy to refuse all gays, all blacks, all Asians or something of that type. Although I can say that I have NEVER refused a wedding for any reason other than a true conflicts in my schedule. I can get along with anyone, there is no wedding that I could not shoot because I did not like someone. It is not all about the photographer, it is about the bride and groom in making their day a day that they will remember with pride.

You must set all of your feelings and silly hang-ups aside and do the job that you are ask to do as a profeshional.

KEVZPHOTOS said:

dradam said:

The christians stole it back from the Islam nation, who stole it from the christians, who stole it from Islam, who stole it from the Romans, who stole it from the Babylonians and Mesopotamians, who stole it from....

Where, precisely would you like to end this?

Click to expand...

Xristianity has only existed for 2,000 years...so lets try starting there...that's when they began their $hit-stirring in the Middle-East region and beyond

Click to expand...

Fine, 2000 years ago the middle east was occupied by the roman empire which, 350 years later, morphed into the christian roman empire under Constantine and Theodosius. This was later conquored by the Islamic empire. In this way the crusades were an attempt to reclaim and hold previously christian lands.

This is all to say that your understanding of history is sketchy at best, and at worst is just some cereal box nonsense that you read once and parrot because you think it makes christianity look bad. The mere fact that you latch onto the crusades as your prime example of destructive christian warfare is proof that you have only a glancing sense of what you are talking about. I loathe to give you more ammo for your hate speech but perhaps you should look up the thirty years' war.

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

There's no way to candy-coat any of this...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But theres clearly a way to twist it to your small minded point of view.

Click to expand...

You mean...like Xristians do...ie: pretend that it's a wonderful, peaceful, loving ideology...but really, there's a hidden underlying manifesto to eventually create a Xristian world?

IF one looks at the last 2,000 years...there has been far more 'negativity' assocaited with Xtristianity....than positive elements....and that's the bottom-line here.

Click to expand...

Any christian that denies that horrible things have been done in the name of christianity is as ignorant as you are, claiming that christianity is inherently evil. The breadth and depth of good, charitable works done by religious people and organizations throughout the millenia easily matches the evil done by religious people; even if you go so far as to attribute conflicts such as the spaish conquest of america to religion (though they are, at best, tangentially related)

Member said:

WE are not discussing Chinese domestic wars, or African tribal conflicts.

Click to expand...

That is entirely because of your bigotry against christianity. If you were truely as appaled by the loss of life and suffering of other members of the human race as you pretend to be than you certainly WOULD be talking about these things.

MrPhotoBob said:

You must set all of your feelings and silly hang-ups aside and do the job that you are ask to do as a profeshional.

Click to expand...

You can't do a professional (proper) job if you do not want to do a specific job. I have refused jobs before based on my own personal opinion..very few but it has happened.

I also withheld prints because one client did not pay me an attendance fee for over 6 months even after they were invoiced many times. They then asked for prints after they paid I refused. I don't want customers like this anyway.

I provided photos for a well known company in the EU a large retailer and they did not adhere to my 30 days terms. I won't provide them with services in the future because of that.

I do the jobs I want to..and I'd advise others to do the same.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

MrPhotoBob said:

You must set all of your feelings and silly hang-ups aside and do the job that you are ask to do as a profeshional.

Click to expand...

You can't do a professional (proper) job if you do not want to do a specific job. I have refused jobs before based on my own personal opinion..very few but it has happened.

I also withheld prints because one client did not pay me an attendance fee for over 6 months even after they were invoiced many times. They then asked for prints after they paid I refused. I don't want customers like this anyway.

I provided photos for a well known company in the EU a large retailer and they did not adhere to my 30 days terms. I won't provide them with services in the future because of that.

Click to expand...

Right- every single one listed above are not discriminatory reasons. They are completely reasonable.

Member said:

I do the jobs I want to..and I'd advise others to do the same.

Click to expand...

Wrong - first off anyone giving blanket legal advice is definitely on thin ice (you'll notice all my words here contain statements like may, could, etc.)

Secondly, while your technique MAY allow you to escape a suit for awhile, I would suspect that eventually that catches up to you, if you ever decline for what are discriminatory reasons.
Just saying...
Bill

--
http://www.billcurry.ca

Barry Fitzgerald said:

You can't do a professional (proper) job if you do not want to do a specific job. I have refused jobs before based on my own personal opinion..very few but it has happened.

Click to expand...

If you do this consistently against a protected category, sooner or later you're going to get snagged...

...unless you're not good enough for anyone to care.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

RDKirk said:

If you do this consistently against a protected category, sooner or later you're going to get snagged...

...unless you're not good enough for anyone to care.

--

Click to expand...

Maybe you could get sued for "not agreeing to take sports pictures" even if you're not a sports/action shooter. One day a bit ore common sense will hit people too ;-)

I wouldn't even want somebody to take photos of an event if they did not want to.

Folks can argue discrimination all they want maybe I can't take a job taking shots of a burger for a fast food shop because I throw up at the smell of cooked meat..

Discrimination is a big word but the reality of life is people make their own choices on what they want to do, or not.

Logical folks will simply decline to give a reason for not taking a job on.

Ability has little to do with it there are good and bad all over the place.

Personally I would not have a problem doing a gay wedding none at all, but those who do it's up to them to make a choice. Discrimination exists in many forms age, height, size, accent, race, being disabled, personal history, even if you have bad acne you could be discriminated against. We live in an imperfect world I don't run to a lawyer every time though..

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Discrimination is a big word but the reality of life is people make their own choices on what they want to do, or not.

Click to expand...

See, there's where you're missing the point - discrimination in the sense of what we're discussing here is a legal concept, not a vaguely worded definition. It means when you fail to accommodate someone as a business on a prohibited grounds. The grounds are well defined, but vary according to each governing body. The point is you do need to be aware of what the laws are in your jurisdiction, in order to know what is discriminatory and what is not. Your list has some discriminatory things and some not.

--
http://www.billcurry.ca