Photographer faces law suit

Started Aug 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
santamonica812 Contributing Member • Posts: 861
Re: Clever Business

john9001 wrote:

However, I cannot image why a gay couple would want photographers who were biased since I don't know how they could ever be satisfied with the results.

-- hide signature --


because they want to stick it in your face.

That's a sort of harsh way of putting it.  You also could phrase it as:  "Because some people want to insist that anti-discrimination laws are followed, even if acting to enforce the law may cause those same people some amount of harm."  (e.g., getting a wedding photographed by someone who clearly does not want to be there)

I think there are many legal issues that are cut-and-dried; where there are clear good guys and bad guys.  This is not one of them.  I have great sympathy for people (even bigots) who simply don't want to be around certain folks.  Racists might not want to be around people of color.  Homophobes might want to avoid gays.  And so on.  But we (America, as a society, and a country ruled by laws) have decided that you are free to be as prejudiced as you want in your hearts and in your private homes, but you can't discriminate in many ways if you open a business to the public.  Don't want to be around black people (Jews, the disabled, the elderly etc)?  Then don't open a restaurant or a market.  Don't like the current laws?  Then amend your (state or federal) constitution(s), or elect different political representatives.

The reason why I think the photographer should have won--as a matter of law--is that (as a photographer) I see photography as an art form.  And artists should be allowed to pick and choose their subjects . . . even if those artists are bigoted scummy a**holes.  But the courts in this case have rejected this view of photography, rejected this argument, and so it's not surprising to see this court ruling.

I don't think the state Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's ruling.  But I think there is a small chance (maybe 10%) that the US Sup. Ct will eventually grant cert, and then we can have a clear, uniform rule.  (As it currently stands, I can see courts ruling in the opposite way, depending on the particulars of each state's anti-discrimination statutes and/or constitution.)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow