# Is a refusal to photograph a brit milah actionable as discrimination against Jews? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711 "2014-04-09T13:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/41 "2014-04-10T14:43:38Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m challenging the position that this is discrimination. Conscientious objection? Sure. Discrimination? Not so much. But the counter-argument is the one I echo in the OP: the same-sex wedding is covered by anti-discrimination laws, because “…when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation.” Therefore, it seems that we should be able to conclude that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to religion. Which circumcision is, for Jews. Is the wedding photographer’s refusal “Conscientious objection?” ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/42 "2014-04-10T14:46:37Z")
Can a photographer refuse to shoot the next wedding at Westboro Baptist church? Can a business refuse to work with a particular sect? ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/43 "2014-04-10T14:47:25Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean should have been caught in discovery, but in the case this is an analogy to, the reasons for turning it down did arise, and almost immediately. The couple emailed the photographer and the photographer said it would not provide its services to that kind of ceremony. Discovery is the process that follows the initial contact(phone call, email, chance meeting, etc.) A meeting is arranged and the prospective client lays out what he or she wants and it goes from there. I have never done it, nor have I seen it advertised on other photography sites as a service, but technically it’s just a shoot that may require special considerations. So it may fall under the ask about … So I would need to know When, is this done right after delivery (Being snipped myself, but I don’t know when the actual deed is done ) or is there a special ceremonial time frame? Or to put it another way , am I required to be on call, or dedicate a block of time based on delivery of the baby, be it natural or c service. Equipment wise, flash permitted or not , as well as do I need to sterilize the camera. Lastly, what exactly is going to be shot. Position, close up? Proud parents and junior? Anyone else. Now think of the above, based on billable hours for what sound like a five minute/ 20-50 shots. So discovery is the point at which you decide if a particular job is going to be more hassle than it’s worth, or the clients are wishy washy or high maintenance. Once the contract is signed and the tog pulls out, I am more on the side of the client for breach of contract, than the tog for not doing due diligence , if it’s a personal moral issue. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/44 "2014-04-10T14:53:04Z")
What I’m saying is that at a very early stage of those discussions, it was “caught.” And they refused because of it. Not stating it outright would have helped them get away with it, but it wouldn’t change what actually occurred. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/45 "2014-04-10T15:01:23Z")
There’s a fair amount of discussion above about how the photographer could withdraw without making his reasons plain. Got it. The question I’m asking is a legal hypothetical. I understand that a photographer who didn’t want to shoot the same-sex wedding could simply claim a full schedule or an inconveniently-timed kidney stone. But could that photographer forthrightly decline the client and avoid legal liability? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/46 "2014-04-10T15:05:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the counter-argument is the one I echo in the OP: the same-sex wedding is covered by anti-discrimination laws, because “…when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation.” > > Therefore, it seems that we should be able to conclude that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to religion. > > Which circumcision is, for Jews. > > Is the wedding photographer’s refusal “Conscientious objection?” Circumcision, ceremonial or otherwise, is not strictly limited to Jews. Does the photographer refuse to participate in all circumcisions or only the Jewish ones? If the latter, there may be discrimination at play. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/47 "2014-04-10T15:07:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the counter-argument is the one I echo in the OP: the same-sex wedding is covered by anti-discrimination laws, because “…when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation.” > > Therefore, it seems that we should be able to conclude that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to religion. > > Which circumcision is, for Jews. > > Is the wedding photographer’s refusal “Conscientious objection?” But, circumcision isn’t inextricably tied to religion. Christians, Muslims, and atheists often (always, for Muslims) get their sons circumcised. Only gay couples really have SSM. So, to repeat myself, I could see a conscientious objection to photographing any circumcision – the photographer would never go to photograph an Islamic circumcision or an atheist circumcision either. However, if the photographer is willing to photograph weddings, but not gay weddings, that seems more discriminatory. Imagine a photographer who decides that, since his parent’s marriage was terrible, he will never photograph weddings. I think marriage is one of the Catholic sacraments, right? Does that make it inextricably tied to religion? If the photographer refuses to do weddings, is he discriminating against religion? I think the analogy is not very apt. I’m still happy to be convinced otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/48 "2014-04-10T15:16:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s a fair amount of discussion above about how the photographer could withdraw without making his reasons plain. > > Got it. > > The question I’m asking is a legal hypothetical. I understand that a photographer who didn’t want to shoot the same-sex wedding could simply claim a full schedule or an inconveniently-timed kidney stone. > > But could that photographer forthrightly decline the client and avoid legal liability? As to your last question , I don’t know. Photography law is fluid at the the moment and not standard in all jurisdictions, but if the chance of being sued reaches a certain point, then the market will probably react by fire walling and amending its advertising , based on what legal advises. Strictly speaking though, I don’t see a lot of togs turning down paying jobs for moral reasons, the industry is going through the bear side of the bull/bear cycle. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/49 "2014-04-10T15:18:15Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > So, to repeat myself, I could see a conscientious objection to photographing any circumcision – the photographer would never go to photograph an Islamic circumcision or an atheist circumcision either. However, if the photographer is willing to photograph weddings, but not gay weddings, that seems more discriminatory. Agreed. And that’s what the New Mexico court said, too: > [@](#): > > We are not persuaded by Elane Photography’s argument that it does not violate the NMHRA because it will photograph a gay person (for example, in single-person portraits) so long as the photographs do not reflect the client’s sexual preferences. […] Similarly, it does not help Elane Photography to argue that it would have turned away heterosexual polygamous weddings or heterosexual persons pretending to have a same-sex wedding. Those situations are not at issue here, and, if anything, these arguments support a finding that Elane Photography intended to discriminate against Willock based on her same-sex sexual orientation. In the wedding case, discrimination against same sex ceremonies is discrimination against gay people because a same sex marriage is an expression necessarily of being gay. Circumcision is not necessarily an expression of Judaism. Discrimination against circumcision ceremonies isn’t discrimination against Jews unless it’s only discrimination against Jewish circumcisions, which the hypothetical case specifically was not, because that makes it too on the nose and defeats what I assume was the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/50 "2014-04-10T15:41:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True – but those circumcisions don’t have a party. It’s virtually unheard of to engage a photographer to photograph a non-Jewish circumcision. I’m not at all sure that that engaging a photographer for a circumscision party is an inextricable part of being Jewish. A festive gathering celebrating the circumscision might be an inextricable part of being Jewish. But as far as I can tell , engaging a professional photographer for that party is about as common as engaging a professional photographer for a christening party. Which is to say some people do it, but not nearly everyone. It may indeed one of those things where mileage varies- it could be that the reason I’ve never been to a circumcision party with a professional photographer/seen professional photos of a circumcision party is due to the difficulty of trying to find an available photographer in NYC with perhaps a week’s notice and no flexibility or that hiring a professional photographer is common in some social groups but not others . But in either case, it’s hardly inextricable. ``` It really is just like the wedding in a different way- the photographer who objects to marriage as an institution /taking wedding photos across the board doesn't have to take wedding photos whether it's a same sex wedding or an opposite sex wedding. It doesn't matter if the people getting married believe that having a big wedding with professional photos is a religious or cultural requirement. It's not the photos or even the party that are inextricably linked to sexual orientation-it's the gender of the people involved. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/51 "2014-04-10T16:46:02Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I’m not at all sure that that engaging a photographer for a circumscision party is an inextricable part of being Jewish. Getting married to a same sex partner is an inextricable part of being gay, yes? Is wanting a photographer for that wedding also inextricable? Hosting a _brit milah_ for your son’s circumcision is an inextricable part of being Jewish, yes? Is wanting a photographer for that event also inextricable? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/52 "2014-04-10T16:57:33Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Circumcision, ceremonial or otherwise, is not strictly limited to Jews. Does the photographer refuse to participate in all circumcisions or only the Jewish ones? If the latter, there may be discrimination at play. Non-ceremonial circumcisions don’t involve a photographer. I have to confess to ignorance here, though: is there an Islamic equivalent of the _brit milah_ celebration? In Jewish custom, the ceremony is a _seudat mitzvah_, a festive meal that has the character of an obligation. One who is invited must attend. See, e.g., Ramah 265:12. (Interestingly, this leads to a general announcement of the _bris_, as opposed to formal invitation, lest your invitation place someone in an obligation that they cannot easily fulfill). I would be interested to learn if there is any similar Islamic traditon. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/53 "2014-04-10T17:14:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Getting married to a same sex partner is an inextricable part of being gay, yes? No. Being gay is an inextricable part of entering into a same-sex marriage, but marrying someone isn’t an inextricable part of being gay any more than it’s an inextricable part of being straight. It might be interesting to see how marriage rates compare among the two groups, but it would be odd to call it inextricable when it wasn’t even a thing until 10 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/54 "2014-04-10T17:33:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Getting married to a same sex partner is an inextricable part of being gay, yes? > [@Marley23](#): > > No. Being gay is an inextricable part of entering into a same-sex marriage, but marrying someone isn’t an inextricable part of being gay any more than it’s an inextricable part of being straight. It might be interesting to see how marriage rates compare among the two groups, but it would be odd to call it inextricable when it wasn’t even a thing until 10 years ago. OK. But for that proposition, I am quoting the New Mexico Supreme Court. In finding that the wedding photography was protected under New Mexico’s law, they said: > [@](#): > > We agree that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. So they’re the ones saying that the conduct (a wedding) is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. And it’s that very conclusion that this thought experiment challenges. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/55 "2014-04-10T17:34:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Getting married to a same sex partner is an inextricable part of being gay, yes? > > Is wanting a photographer for that wedding also inextricable? > > Hosting a _brit milah_ for your son’s circumcision is an inextricable part of being Jewish, yes? > > Is wanting a photographer for that event also inextricable? If the photographer denied performing the services because circumcision is a Jewish thing, then yes, in this context the conduct and the class are inextricable. If not, then no. The hypothetical specifically sets out that the opposition to the circumcision is not on the grounds of its connection to the protected class. So no. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/56 "2014-04-10T17:42:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So they’re the ones saying that the conduct (a wedding) is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. They’re not the only ones. You seem to be trying very, very hard to make it seem like the New Mexico Supreme Court was out there making some huge leap in jurisprudence when they’re simply following precedent and the usual method of handling anti-discrimination laws. If your hypothetical photographer refused to photographer prayers to Mecca, or people in yarmulkes, or people in churches, then I’m betting it would easily be a case of discrimination on the basis of religion. The action or item being used to discriminate in those cases are all “inextricably tied” to a religious practice, and therefore are likely going to be interpreted as discrimination against a religion. The only thing I see your “thought experiment” actually touching on is the difficulty in determining the intent of the person discriminating. Which is like pretty much every other anti-discrimination case out there, whether it is based on religion, sexual preference, gender, or race. This isn’t anything new, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/57 "2014-04-10T17:46:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So they’re the ones saying that the conduct (a wedding) is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. The fact that the couple is same-sex is an inextricable part of the same-sex wedding ceremony. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/58 "2014-04-10T17:57:53Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Not in my 47 years of experience being Jewish. > > In my experience, Jews for Jesus are not really Jewish, and are misrepresenting themselves. I think the photographer has the right to insist that his work not be used in pamphlets that are blatant misrepresentations. I don’t know what kind of clause he needs to put in the contract that says the photos won’t be eprinted in some form not for private use, but I imagine that is possible. I agree with the not-really-Jewish bit, but that’s kind of the point of the question. If a photographer specializes in Jewish bris/briot and refuses to photograph one held by a JfJ couple, does he run afoul of the law as interpreted by the courts? A non-comercial use sale of the services (i.e. they can’t print flyers) doesn’t stop them from bringing a photo album to a house and saying 'see, we are real Jews with a bris and everything." It seems to me that this is much like why I’ve been somewhat uneasy with these rulings. My intuition is to say ‘no, you can’t force an orthodox Jew to photograph a Jews for Jesus event because it cuts to the heart of his religion and deep-rooted religious objection’. Sure, it’s a somewhat simple case, but I don’t want courts invovleved in making that determination (or want them as little involved as possible). ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/59 "2014-04-10T18:15:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Getting married to a same sex partner is an inextricable part of being gay, yes? Nope. Lots of gay people have no interest in marriage, just like lots of straight people have no interest.Same sex marriage is inextricably linked to being gay only because (at this point in time) the genders involved in a same sex marriage reflect the parties sexuality nearly perfectly. Two straight men or women don’t marry each other often, if at all. So > [@](#): > > Is wanting a photographer for that wedding also inextricable? Nope. People get married with no party or with a small party and rely on family and friends for photos all the time. > [@](#): > > Hosting a _brit milah_ for your son’s circumcision is an inextricable part of being Jewish, yes? I’ll take your word for it. > [@](#): > > Is wanting a photographer for that event also inextricable? Doesn’t seem so to me. Is there a religious requirement that profesional photographs be taken and photos taken by family and friends don’t suffice? Being Jewish is absolutely inextricably linked to having a Jewish circumcision ceremony. But the hypothetical photographer who will not photograph any circumcisions is like the photographer who won’t photograph any weddings. The photographer who will photograph the Muslim circumcision/party mentioned earlier or a party thrown by not-very- observant Jews to celebrate a hospital circumcision performed immediately after birth but not a traditional _brit milah_ is the one acting most like the wedding photographer who refuses same sex weddings. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711/60 "2014-04-13T06:58:31Z")
\*Refuse any circumcision: Courts would almost certainly allow it \*Photograph a Muslim’s circumcision but not a Jew’s: courts would almost certainly hold it to be discrimination. I don’t understand why this is so complicated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-refusal-to-photograph-a-brit-milah-actionable-as-discrimination-against-jews/685711.md?page=4)