Maybe the photog just didn't like them. It is a bunch of crap that either side is making this about discrimination. The photog got into this herself by proclaiming she refused due to religious beliefs, implying one is right and another is wrong. (Isn't that how wars start?)
If we meet a couple and do not feel it is a "fit", we decline. This is for both parties benefit. There is no discrimination about it.
We welcome diversity and find the differences in ceremonies very interesting. We are not taking place in the ceremony or being asked to endorse their beliefs or customs, we are simply recording it. Some we simply do not wish to attend.
There was a thread quite some time ago about a Christian couple rejecting a photographer because the photographer said he (or she, can't remember) were atheist. The general consensus was that the photographer should sue them for discrimination and lot's of people were furious and protesting against the religious righteousness blah blah blah so sue their @sses... Funny how it is the other way around now...I wonder what the same people would say to this.
Just respectfully decline. There was no reason to bring religion into the discussion. Odds are, the two were religious themselves and were incredibly offended. Barn Dog is right, there is no easier way to get the litigation wheel turning then to light a social firecracker like this right in front of their faces.
agreed-you can simply say either "i'm booked" or "i don't think this is going to work out"-leave it at that-why give them ammunition? if they want to sue you, they'll have to guess why you declined to shoot for them
pffft. f- that. if i prefer not to serve you for any reason, it is my right. you cant make people tolerant, you can only hope. let them sue, i will be on oprah, cnn, fox news..... ok maybe not fox news. but you get my point.
now if i got turned away at a store for looking different 'i'd be like -cawl johny kawkrin'. so its a double edged sword. but i cant photograph a same sex wedding, I would loose my customer base. i would have cancellations left and right. i'd be in the same boat as the photographer, but for a different reason.
Yes you should pick and choose. Its a condition of AIPP membership here that if you feel that you are not able to do justice to a particular client, you need to advise them to seek an alternative shooter.
Something tells me the photographer offered more information about why not, then he/she should have. I booked, on vacation, polishing my door knobs that day, anything. I bet they said something like, " your gay and that bothers me". This could have been handled so much easier.
It seems to me that discrimination works either way.
As pointed about above, why isn't it discriminating against me to try to force me to do a job I don't feel I can do a good job of for whatever reason, any less than my discrimination against you because I feel I can't do your job for whatever reason. Seems to be a two-edged sword.
And, again, I agree that we can give too much information.
As Sam Hassas said, "the photographer offered more information about why not" -- but on the other side of that coin, we don't know whether the hiring parties may have persisted in pressuring for an answer!
Seems they're in too big a hurry to sue. Seems to be an epidemic in this country!
No offense to the sensible-headed members of this forum, but it could only happen in America!
I don't think either side is exactly blameless here, the couple has no right to attempt to FORCE someone to photograph their wedding (and let's face it, the photographer is not going to be on top form anyway) and as wedding photographers I think we have every right to chose what work we do, but come on, turning down (presumably paid) work purely on the basis of an intolerant, inflamatory, vastly outdated book? Sheer madness to someone who lives in a country that is (in practice if not principle) rather atheistic.
I have thought about what I would do if asked to shoot a Civil Ceremony
I think I would probably decline. Not because I am anti Gay, each to his/her own and all that, but I'm not sure I would know how to cover it, so don't feel I could do justice to the couple.
That's what I'm feeling anyway. Maybe if the question did arise and after talking to the couple I may feel differently who knows.
I'm trying to sort out what difference, if any, there is between a photographer refusing service to someone because of their race, ethnic background or sexual preference and McDonald's or WalMart refusing service.
I'm leaning towards photographers having the right to refuse service based on their beliefs, but they don't have to be jackasses about it, as many Christians nowadays seem to be.
The photographer was a COMPLETE idiot stating the reason for declining the job. That is what landed her in legal trouble.
It's absolutely no different than if she had said "No..I'm not shooting your wedding because you are an interracial couple".
She should be sued for being stupid....I'm just kidding.
On the flip side, the plaintiff's are being completely unreasonable "..has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony."
There are many wedding photographers accepting and declining same sex weddings, and many same sex couples finding good wedding photogs (possibly after a few refusals), and all without any legal action. To get a wacky case like this you need "special" folks on both sides.
I had a thread last year about this and got roundly boo'ed around here.
I'm a baptist minister so I refused to photograph some gay weddings.
I think it's a shame that those states would take away my rights,
as soon as they legalize Kiddy Porn I guess we'll have to shoot that too.
dmacmillan wrote:
I'm leaning towards photographers having the right to refuse service based on their beliefs, but they don't have to be jackasses about it
Doug
Maybe we should extend that to doctors...lawyers..pharmacists...
Do you see where we start on a slippery slope?
I can understand a photographer declining based on what Steve Blagg said...not knowing how to shoot it, not knowing what the protocols are, etc.
But to refuse to photograph a wedding based on religion, race, etc....
That's illegal in this country.
Edited by Mark McCardell on Feb 08, 2008 at 06:46 PM GMT (Reason: removed harsh statement..)
sivrajbm wrote:
I had a thread last year about this and got roundly boo'ed around here.
I'm a baptist minister so I refused to photograph some gay weddings.
I think it's a shame that those states would take away my rights,
as soon as they legalize Kiddy Porn I guess we'll have to shoot that too.
Jarvis
So following your logic, if a doctor were to refuse to perform surgery on you because you were a black baptist minister...and was sued for that...
You would think it was a shame that the state was taking away his rights?
Mark McCardell wrote:
So following your logic, if a doctor were to refuse to perform surgery on you because you were a black baptist minister...and was sued for that...
You would think it was a shame that the state was taking away his rights?
Think about it, would you really want someone that has a grudge against you doing something important for or to you? I wouldn't.
I cannot and will not condone an abomination. Lev 20:13
i agree that we don't have to chastise someone or really make a point of it at all, but politely decline-but i also see sivrajbm's point in that i'm a christian as well and why should i have to suspend my belief system for someone else's? i would hope that they would be as tolerant and understanding about my convictions-i can simply refer them to another photographer without making a scene
i think this is a happy medium-intolerance cuts both ways-in the end, we're all professionals here and should treat one another with the same consideration and respect we use with clients
