Conquer Club

"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.


Very specifically NOT a question of not knowing what to do because the ceremony might be different.
This was purely a refusal to provide a service for people whose stance disagreed with the photographers' stance. It's still a difficult question, but please don't introduce new and unfounded mitigating circumstances to muddy the field.

Presumably they would not do hot nude portraits, because that would clash with their values and beliefs.

I'm still in two minds on this one. I can see both sides.

jonesthecurl wrote:I can see both sides.

The affliction of the intelligent...

I also think both sides should get a life.
The gay couple: get another photographer. Or buy a camera!

To the photographers: it's just a job. And you're not the guardians of public morals. Take the pictures already.

jonesthecurl wrote:To the photographers: it's just a job. And you're not the guardians of public morals.

I agree with you, but there are people, like Mr. Bickle, who would completely disagree...

jonesthecurl wrote:"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.


Very specifically NOT a question of not knowing what to do because the ceremony might be different.
This was purely a refusal to provide a service for people whose stance disagreed with the photographers' stance. It's still a difficult question, but please don't introduce new and unfounded mitigating circumstances to muddy the field.

Presumably they would not do hot nude portraits, because that would clash with their values and beliefs.

I'm still in two minds on this one. I can see both sides.

I certainly can see both sides too...and a quote like that after-the-fact is slightly suspect even though it burns them... I think they should have gone with my reason, and not had to pay one damn cent. This is a tough one for me I guess, because I do look at many proposed projects, and simply walk away from some of them for various reasons. Certainly race or sexual orientation would never be a reason, but without a doubt, Ill walk, and never do a proposal from someone I dont get a good feeling from. If I dont like you, I most likely wont do business with you. The only time I end up working for people I regret working for, is when the wife is really nice and lures me in, and then I meet the husband who works me over. Sometimes people literally plan this from the beginning. It really can be brutal out there at times. My particular business allows me to get rid of people very easily with the price tag though. Every job is different, so there's nearly no way to know or suggest I raised my price to not get a job. In a case like this however, that really isnt an option, unless perhaps they said they charged by the bride...lol

Frankly, I don't really care if they'd turned it down because they didn't have the expertise, but as jones points out, that's not the issue. here. The issue is that they refused service on grounds of sexuality, and understandably, the folks got pretty pissed about it - wouldn't you be if your photographer you had lined up said "sorry, I'm not going to do it because I don't like your style" and, in short, behaved like a bit of an arse just to make it that much more difficult for you?

bedub1 wrote:A bus company like the city bus? That's a public service.

Could be that, or it could be a coach company (I don't know how it works in America, but here you can jump on coaches instead of trains to travel between cities as a low-cost option).

bedub1 wrote:You can discriminate against somebody because they don't have shoes, or a shirt(no shirt no shoes no service). You can discriminate against somebody because he's a male, or ugly. (try getting into a nice bar where there is a line). Or how about against somebody because they don't have on a suit(dress codes). How about against somebody because they are white(affirmative action) or against somebody who makes too much money (low income housing).

You're really mixing apples and oranges here. I never thought anyone would honestly support their argument by citing affirmative action - maybe the pros and cons of it are for another topic - but very few businesses can discriminate based on gender (unless they lack the expertise to deal with a certain customer - for example, a barber might not cut women's hair just because he can't). Discrimination based on appearance is usually based on the idea that appearance itself is an indicator of social status - so you can't say being refused entry to a posh restaurant because you look scruffy is that much different from a job refusing to keep you on if you don't abide with their dress code, or a supermarket selling you their finest profiteroles if you don't have the cash to pay for it. As for discrimination against someone who makes too much money, there are ways to make less money - and of course, the reverse applies (probably more so), there are some circles financially deficient people will never move in.

In short, discrimination based on colour, sexuality, and often gender, are right out. Discrimination based on money and what goes with it aren't.

"The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico."

bedub1 wrote:"The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico."

I believe I said in my earlier posts that this looks like a set up.

AAFitz wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.


Very specifically NOT a question of not knowing what to do because the ceremony might be different.
This was purely a refusal to provide a service for people whose stance disagreed with the photographers' stance. It's still a difficult question, but please don't introduce new and unfounded mitigating circumstances to muddy the field.

Presumably they would not do hot nude portraits, because that would clash with their values and beliefs.

I'm still in two minds on this one. I can see both sides.

I certainly can see both sides too...and a quote like that after-the-fact is slightly suspect even though it burns them... I think they should have gone with my reason, and not had to pay one damn cent. This is a tough one for me I guess, because I do look at many proposed projects, and simply walk away from some of them for various reasons. Certainly race or sexual orientation would never be a reason, but without a doubt, Ill walk, and never do a proposal from someone I dont get a good feeling from. If I dont like you, I most likely wont do business with you. The only time I end up working for people I regret working for, is when the wife is really nice and lures me in, and then I meet the husband who works me over. Sometimes people literally plan this from the beginning. It really can be brutal out there at times. My particular business allows me to get rid of people very easily with the price tag though. Every job is different, so there's nearly no way to know or suggest I raised my price to not get a job. In a case like this however, that really isnt an option, unless perhaps they said they charged by the bride...lol

Yes, I already said I think credit is due to the photographers for honestly giving their reason even though I think they are wrong. Of course they could just have claimed to be busy.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:"The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico."

I believe I said in my earlier posts that this looks like a set up.

It does look suspicious. Though I can think of two other scenarios: (i) it's not a set-up, the woman has been treated like this too often which is why she is in that line of work, and (ii) yes it's a set-up, she's gone to them because they treated someone else the same way and those guys didn't have the expertise to pursue it.

jonesthecurl wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:"The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico."

I believe I said in my earlier posts that this looks like a set up.

It does look suspicious. Though I can think of two other scenarios: (i) it's not a set-up, the woman has been treated like this too often which is why she is in that line of work, and (ii) yes it's a set-up, she's gone to them because they treated someone else the same way and those guys didn't have the expertise to pursue it.

I don't disagree or even say its wrong. In fact, both of those are highly probably reasons why it was a set up.

It could also have been a set up from the other direction, the photographers got wind that some sort of action was being planned and they decided to go ahead and stick to their guns. I doubt that, because it does not look as though the photographers had the best attorneys or a lot of backing (something no doubt about to change). However, you probably realize that this is how things are done here. Lawyers start by bringing cases in small 'friendly" venues, then gradually move up in the judiciary. With each "win", the ruling essentially becomes law (until opposed anyway). They build support, win in wider locals, until they are ready to go all the way to the supreme court, where the change becomes the universal law of the land. That is also why so much attention is paid to these "small" cases.