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.