Photographer sued for refusing to provide service...

[Mira]

Originally Posted by joekolero

I guess if one is a bigot, they aren't smart enough to just refuse service without giving a reason.

Why do I need to give a 'reason'

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by Mira

Why do I need to give a 'reason'

That was actually the reason I posted this. Apparently, just sending a price structure to one person who provides no details and refusing another that does provide details can lose a lawsuit.

For whatever reason, I think that is something that we need to take into consideration during our consultations.

There are lots of gigs I would refuse after having the pertinent facts, and there are lots of vague inquiries that I might send 'base' prices to, expecting a furture meeting and that a contract would resolve everything later.

In this case, a 'couple' did one of each and managed to win a lawsuit. That should be enough of a reason for a photographer to take notice of this without having to drag in the whole gay marriage debate.

[Steven G Webb]

An old adage says, "Discretion is the better part of valor". It holds true today. Be discrete. Or as my daughter said, "If you can't say something nice, be vague".

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Originally Posted by Songman45

An old adage says, "Discretion is the better part of valor". It holds true today. Be discrete. Or as my daughter said, "If you can't say something nice, be vague".

Bingo, sure we have a right to free speech in the US... But we don't have the right to force someone else to listen to our speech.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by SpeedGraphicMan

Bingo, sure we have a right to free speech in the US... But we don't have the right to force someone else to listen to our speech.

No, and somebody shouldn't have the right to force somebody to take photos of their free speech, either.

[joekolero]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

In this case, a 'couple' did one of each and managed to win a lawsuit. That should be enough of a reason for a photographer to take notice of this without having to drag in the whole gay marriage debate.

Putting the word 'couple' in quotations might be enough for the discriminated parties to figure it out.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by joekolero

Putting the word 'couple' in quotations might be enough for the discriminated parties to figure it out.

I am not worried about what the 'discriminated parties' figure out.

I am more worried about a court saying a client has the right to insist that a photographer take a job.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

No, and somebody shouldn't have the right to force somebody to take photos of their free speech, either.

They don't. The photographer could have asked for more details first, then done the nice thing and said "No thank you" WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING FURTHER.

Unfortunately, the photographer had to voice his "Holier than thou" opinion.
Which is why he got deep-fried.

The whole point behind the "Gay Marriage" debate is not free-speech nor religion.

It is whether the US Constitution and Bill of Rights permits gay couples the same rights as non-gay couples.

I myself am not gay... As for my personal beliefs... I take the path of the wise man and keep my big mouth SHUT.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by SpeedGraphicMan

They don't. The photographer could have asked for more details first, then done the nice thing and said "No thank you" WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING FURTHER.

Unfortunately, the photographer had to voice his "Holier than thou" opinion.
Which is why he got deep-fried.

The whole point behind the "Gay Marriage" debate is not free-speech nor religion.

It is whether the US Constitution and Bill of Rights permits gay couples the same rights as non-gay couples.

I myself am not gay... As for my personal beliefs... I take the path of the wise man and keep my big mouth SHUT.

I don't care about your personal beliefs.

This thread was about business. As in, should somebody send a 'rate package' to a vague client. Based on this court case, I am seriously reconsidering it.

Honestly, there are some things I don't want to photograph or be a part of. Whether or not gay marriage is one of those things is irrelevent.

The fact is, photographers are getting sued for not wanting to photograph what people want them to.

[keithdewey3]

Surely there must be more to the case against him. I think the court went too far in equating a photographer's services to a restaurant or public place.

I have turned down jobs because I just didn't want to work with the people doing the hiring. I didn't tell them I decided not to take the assignment because I didn't like the way they conducted themselves or that because they were a**holes. I just said I am not going to be able to take the job. No reason was necessary though I probably would have told them the reason if they had insisted.

I guess the message the court is sending is to keep your reasons to yourself. You only have the right to express yourself if you are a protected class or if your expression is politically correct.