Professional duties

[wanderingone]

In this case all the photographer has to do is say she doesn't take photos of same-sex couples.

That's probably not true everywhere. Personally I would view that as discrimination, and in areas where orientation is included in anti discrimination laws a person who provides a service may not be able to refuse to take pictures based on the orientation of the person(s) requesting to purchase the service.

 

[wanderingone]

A photography is producing works of art, so by that standard, what would you think of saying, "I don't want to produce a picture of two women kissing or holding hands?"

I wouldn't agree to that from someone who is a wedding/portrait photographer as a primary business and advertises their business to the general public.

 

[keith99]

I guess I don’t understand what difference the size of the business makes…one person or 100,000…you’re saying its bad if Tesco (whoever they are) discriminates but it is not bad when Joe Web, freelance web designer does the same thing…and yes I know you didn’t want to call it discrimination…but that is what it is…

Why is it OK for small companies but not large ones?

So what size does a business have to be before discrimination becomes a bad thing?

Because a large business (relative to the local environment) can in fact deny the goods or services in question. A small one can not.

Of course figuring out large can be a bit of a problem. Joe's Taco stand is large if it is the only 'restraunt' within 20 miles.

The reasonable intent of Government is to insure people are not denied goods or services. In America personal freedom is also valued. The ideal is to accomplish both, and allowing small businesses the right to deny service is a part of freedom.

 

[stan1980]

How many examples are you going to give me? I can't turn the church down because they are Christians, I can turn them down if they refuse the conditions under which I allow my work to be used.

Well seeing as we're talking hypothetically here, I wasn't sure why you feel you can't turn down a church whose values you might not agree with, and why you can turn down a political party whose values you might not agree with. Ignoring the laws that are currently in place, how do you justify that?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not sure size of business is the main distinction, although it might have some bearing. What I think is the most important distinction is artistry or advocacy. When I practiced litigation, I turned down a few clients because I didn't think they had a legitimate case. But most of the time, I was too afraid of my own liability to tell them they didn't have a legitimate case, so I would quote them a very high retainer or otherwise convince them I wasn't the best lawyer for them. Later, when my practice changed, I told clients I didn't handle litigated matters, so if the case went to court they would have to change lawyers. If they needed a lawyer who was willing to litigate, I offered to act as a consultant, helping them interview litigators to find the right one for them (at my regular hourly rate).

But as a consultant I often told clients that there were a few lawyers who were like OJ's dream team. They were good actors. They could take any case and make it convincing. However, most lawyers were not that good, and if they didn't believe in their client's case, the judge or jury would be able to tell, even though the lawyer did his or her best and never failed in any duty of care. Effectively advocating something you don't believe in is hard for most people, and rightly so. Integrity is an important value and a good character trait.

Could I represent a heinous criminal? If I were an experienced criminal attorney, of course I could. Could I make my words convincing to a judge or jury if I disbelieved my client? Probably not.

The same applies to art. The artist's feelings about the event are communicated in the artwork. If you are painting or photographing something that you think is ugly, but are required to make it appear beautiful, how well will you succeed? Some artists are better at that than others. I looked at the photographer's website and came away with the impression this photographer sees herself as an artist who puts a lot of herself into her work, and would simply not be able to make a gay wedding look as beautiful as she can make a traditional wedding look. What if she were honest about this with the couple? What would you say in that case?

 

[TooCurious]

Okay, so what if a church, who have been very vocal of their hatred of gays asks you to go along to snap pictures of an area where there are a lot of gay people hanging out, holding hands, kissing in public. Knowing this will be used for homophobic propaganda, are you in your rights to turn them down?

That one's actually pretty simple. "I'm sorry, I won't photograph anyone who hasn't consented to allow their image to be used. I'll happily take pictures of anyone you like who's willing to sign this release form describing how their image will be used."

 

[stan1980]

That one's actually pretty simple. "I'm sorry, I won't photograph anyone who hasn't consented to allow their image to be used. I'll happily take pictures of anyone you like who's willing to sign this release form describing how their image will be used."

Clever clogs!

 

[scraparcs]

I'm not sure size of business is the main distinction, although it might have some bearing. What I think is the most important distinction is artistry or advocacy. When I practiced litigation, I turned down a few clients because I didn't think they had a legitimate case. But most of the time, I was too afraid of my own liability to tell them they didn't have a legitimate case, so I would quote them a very high retainer or otherwise convince them I wasn't the best lawyer for them. Later, when my practice changed, I told clients I didn't handle litigated matters, so if the case went to court they would have to change lawyers. If they needed a lawyer who was willing to litigate, I offered to act as a consultant, helping them interview litigators to find the right one for them (at my regular hourly rate).

But as a consultant I often told clients that there were a few lawyers who were like OJ's dream team. They were good actors. They could take any case and make it convincing. However, most lawyers were not that good, and if they didn't believe in their client's case, the judge or jury would be able to tell, even though the lawyer did his or her best and never failed in any duty of care. Effectively advocating something you don't believe in is hard for most people, and rightly so. Integrity is an important value and a good character trait.

Could I represent a heinous criminal? If I were an experienced criminal attorney, of course I could. Could I make my words convincing to a judge or jury if I disbelieved my client? Probably not.

The same applies to art. The artist's feelings about the event are communicated in the artwork. If you are painting or photographing something that you think is ugly, but are required to make it appear beautiful, how well will you succeed? Some artists are better at that than others. I looked at the photographer's website and came away with the impression this photographer sees herself as an artist who puts a lot of herself into her work, and would simply not be able to make a gay wedding look as beautiful as she can make a traditional wedding look. What if she were honest about this with the couple? What would you say in that case?

That might work, but it sounds like the lawsuit-happy would have sued anyway.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Yeah. Probably.

It took me about 15 years to develop an intuition about who was "lawsuit-happy."

 

[Verv]

I´d like to see the question raised in the "Gays vs. Christians" thread discussed without the partisanry the OP already started the discussion with.

I have mixed feelings on the subject.
On one hand I am all for preventing and prohibiting discrimination.
On the other hand I see a justified interest of everyone not to be forced to do something that goes against their conscience just because they are being payed for it.
Actually, don´t like the idea that people are expected and obliged to abandon their conscience "because it´s a job".
There are definitely a couple of things I would like to reserve the right not to support or help promoting, be it privately or professionally.

Yeah, this is what I agree with. People should be able to do whatever they want to do and the government should have no power of compulsion.

That's exactly it, wanderingone - it's acceptable to refuse to produce things you don't want to produce, but not acceptable to refuse to serve people you don't like.

Why?

If you are a government worker I can see why because the law requires you to serve all Americans to a certain standard but in private business why can't people have standards?

Should clubs and restaurants no longer have the power to enforce dress codes?

 

[quatona]

Thanks for everybody´s thoughts, so far!
Plenty of relevant aspects in your responses...