mhrm.. I thought that was the actual cooking & plating part. No? I would think that it's out of the norm for an establishment's cook to know who, exactly, his dish is for anyway. And nobody here is cooking homosexuals for that matter. I don't think this entire thread has a single applicable analogy. Everyone seems oddly stuck on the service perspective. ... Perhaps with good reason but I'm not seeing it.
Maybe a masseuse? I will rub you even if you're gay but I'm not going to rub you and your partner together. ? Yeah?
I think, and I may have this wrong, that because the photographer did not take the work AND stated why that the argument is that the photographer MUST take the work or be held to account for their apparent discrimination against gay people. I, personally, think that the photographer is not, in fact, discriminating against gay people but against gay people being, somewhat intimately, gay.
I think the argument, at the basest level, is that if one offers services, photography in this case, than one must offer any and all services to homosexual persons that would, normally, be offered to heterosexual persons. My first impression was "of course you have to offer the same services" until I realized that, wait, that means they'd have to observe and document what they're seeing and what they're seeing is not "a gay person" but "a gay person's life choices". I cannot quite see how they are one and the same and that there is, perhaps, a delicate line here between tolerance and acceptance.
I saw no clear distinction separating art from wedding photography, at all. All rocking chairs are not created equally.
The photog needs to insert himself, observe his subjects and facilitate the execution of his trade. He can not "unsee" gay intimacy.
In this case she will need to observe, intimately, exactly that thing that she finds objectionable. That is she'll not be simply observing gay people but gay people expressing their love for each other. That would apply to not only the couple but I would surmise that other gay couples would be in attendance as well. Something for everybody - Combat photography. The situation will by no means be under her control and she can not simply look away.
The essence of this case, for me, is that an individual stands the chance of being told what they can and cannot see as it pertains to their own human experience. There is no inherent opportunity for the individual to simply "pass by" the "crime scene" as they will have been forced to take part in it - Combat photography.
This is not, necessarily, discrimination of gay people so much as discrimination of gay "lifestyle". She would need to insert herself into a position that consists of observing other people's life choices, vis-a-vis intimacy.
This photographer's position is, given the circumstances, a rather respectable one in that she seems to be tolerant of the existence of gay people and will take their portraits willingly. The argument that consists of "She's a photographer therefore she must take pictures of gay weddings." seems, frankly, authoritarian. i.e. "Not only must you provide service to these people but you must provide service to these people in their intimate settings."
I hold that one can, indeed, discriminate against lifestyle while at the same time not discriminate against individuals. It seems a clear difference between tolerance and acceptance. The former can be legislated the latter will forever be a choice.
If the court ultimately decides to go your way I'll be pretty comfortable with the knowledge that they will not have chosen wisely and this solely due to the fact that the "goods" are produced through the eye of the observer. Photography is not a rocking chair and photography is not lunch.
Behold! Forthwith you shall see what I have seen! ... yeah, still no.
The photographer, to produce a photograph, must see the objects being pictured. What the photographer sees results in photographs so in this sense yes, seeing is saying.
Photography is the service. The photographs? Those say a thousand words. :O) No?
A photograph of marriage is the photographer speaking, yes. The expression of speech of the people being married is the marriage. The photographer, obviously, has no bearing on the speech of the marriage. The couple would like the photographer to speak so that they, the couple, may reminisce over the beginning of their marriage, with the photographer's photographs.
I am all religions and I am none. I am the dark and I am the light. I am the wrong and I am the right. What are you? You are your life. The decisions are your own. The decisions are mine.
God has never told me what to do nor how to do it. The best that he has come up with is "I am not a wizard." (which is pretty good if you ask me). Everything else has to be written off to mild psychosis or was lost in the cacophony of reality.
I'm confident that death will bring change. I'm also confident that causing death is deranged. Forcing this photographer to accept and photograph something that he or she doesn't want to photograph falls somewhere in the middle between death and religion.
Re: Freedom of religion is a constitutional right...
Wait. Wouldn't marriage, at the most rudimentary of levels, be a form of speech?
Is this speech vs religion? Well, being that religion is, in essence, a form of speech (and in some speech it is religious) wouldn't speech set the igher bar here?
Christians fight gay marriage because they are intolerant bigots and do not, in fact, live the tolerance that their lord would have them preach. Isn't there something like . .. something like "Judge not lest ye be judged."? I'm pretty sure that's an important aspect of life much less religion.
Serving lunch is not art. Although your point is not lost on me I think that I disagree with the interpretations of "service" and of "business" when an individual must "intimately observe" to produce their product.
So you're saying that there is a real or perceived risk that all available photographers could flip their shingles when gay folks come a knocking? That seems relevant. Hmmm.. I, for one, believe that risk to be mighty close to nonexistent/highly improbable today but I definitely concede the point. I still do not see how *one* individual can be "forced" to tolerate what is abhorrent to the individual. That seems a little like torture. Underground artist in the making.
There is no difference, really. How can there be? The photographer can choose whether they'd like to take pictures of anything they like. To force that photographer to take pictures of any race that they're not comfortable with is forcing speech from the individual AND attempting to legislate free will.
These are individuals, the picture snappers, there is no Oath of Photography, pictures are art, it is neither a racial nor a moral matter rather it seems an individual liberty matter.
That animator should be taken off the project and preferably without resorting to dismissal which would lean back around to the studio's ethics and responsibilities. The individual can walk, run, suck it up or sue and then find a gig that he doesn't object to.
Your example is one that is between an artist and his employing studio and not really between the artist and the customer.
I think that the correct tact here is that photography is an art (yes, even with your little camera phone rigs and even weddings) and all art is a form of speech. As such the medium, the "voice" of the artist, is of paramount concern to the artist before his customer's voice is ever heard much less considered. If you don't like the art you do not buy it, likewise, if the artist detests the medium he should not make it. Any in between would be at the behest of the artist.
I could think of little that would be less appealing than hiring a photographer to take pictures of something they'd rather not take pictures of and then paying money for the results.
It's almost as if because this is an equal rights issue and that the rights of one party supersedes the rights of the other because homosexuality is involved and the acceptance thereof.
I would think that you can not legislate acceptance that forces an artist to provide art for you. An apartment, insurance or the right to marry, sure, but acceptance? Something tells me that that's not right.
OK, wait, so, there's this couple who wants to marry and there's this photographer (a *person*) who would rather not photograph that event, because reasons, and the couple still wants that person to capitulate and take their pictures because other reasons?
Couple: Please take our pictures. Photog: I'm afraid I'm not comfortable with that. Couple: Why? Because we're gay? Photog: Pretty much. Couple: We're going to sue you if you don't. Photog: Oh, I didn't know you were *that* kind of gay couple. Yeah, still no.
The last time I looked at the yellow pages finding a photographer was not bereft of options.
Dealing with a single, solitary individual that photographs is extreme "a corporation is a person" thinking (not that the premise alone isn't extreme enough).
They need to get off their proverbial high horse and get back down to planet earth. That's what I think. As a matter regarding the rights of an individual the ACLU doesn't seem to have chosen wisely. i.e. I have the right to not be forced to dry heave while doing what I do for a living and I'm not about to quit, because reason.
Re: Re: Re: Lost web pages "tragic"? Oy, you got some wild notions, minion.
"When you copyright a piece you send a copy to the library of congress."
What? That's not right. That's not right at all.
A) Copyright is granted 'upon creation'. B) Last I checked the Library of Congress is somewhere else and has working hours and a door. C) It's the end of 2013, do we even need the Library of Congress like that? It's not like it's helping anything.
Enlighten me as to how engorging on the fountain of restrictions helps humanity even a little.