Maybe. Actually I could see it working if, for instance, their Wedding Package only applied to legal weddings. That would exclude SS weddings, dog weddings, clown weddings and vow renewals. Now, if they normally agree to photograph generic parties, but with different photo packages, their only leverage is to refuse the Wedding Package to the SS wedding on the grounds that it isn’t a legal wedding. They would still have to offer the generic package, which may not include pre-wedding photos with the wedding party, etc.
If it was simply an arbitrary list of excluded occasions that they refuse to participate in, like dog weddings and SS weddings, but included other occasions like birthdays and generic parties and social events, then one would have to ask if the list is designed to provide cover for illegally excluding the protected class.
Yeah, but what photographer is going to say on their website, “Sorry; we don’t do dog weddings”? In a state where there’s only one kind of legal wedding, who would ever think that?
Can’t photographers have specialties? Can the gay weddings photographer refuse my hetero wedding request?
The staff has banned GEEPERS for repeated rules violations (mostly ignoring mod instructions). I’ll leave this thread open for now since people are still discussing some of the issues, but there’s no sense in directing questions to GEEPERS.
EDIT: Initially I said GEEPERS was suspended for a month; I’ve edited the post because the suspension was upgraded to a permanent ban.
In some cases it is. There are those who choose to participate in homosexual acts based on choice. There are those who are homosexual, based on genetics.
There’s a distinction to be drawn. If it is your job to issue a license to a person or persons who qualify under state law, you may not claim religious exemption. If you are one of a class of people who may solemnize the contracting of a duly licensed marriage, it does and should, so long as there is at least one person who will solemnize a marriage the state authorizes.
For example, in New York you may marry if you are eighteen years of age, not related within certain limits of consanguity, not presently in a marriage, are of sound mind, and are freely consenting to marry without hidden duplicity. If you live in Syracuse, you get your license from the Syracuse City Clerk – who is not free to refuse you a license if you qualify. But the Pastor of Immaculate Conception Cathedral certainly may refuse to marry non-Catholics, or divorced Catholics who have not gotten a church annulment, etc. Retired Judge Kirkland, a staunch Presbyterian opposed to SSM, may refuse a gay couyple. But the pastor of the local MCC, the rector of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, and the Surrogate Court Judge will happily marry a same-sec couple. No sweat.
No more than than Whites-Only Wedding Photography, Inc. can refuse to photograph a black person’s wedding.
It’s the cost of doing business in that state. You want to hang out your shingle, you agree to not discriminate over Race, Creed, Gender or Sexual Orientation. Why, because the State doesn’t want to deal with the fallout of allowing that type of discrimination, and society just works better this way.
Why is it a statement other than the statement of love and commitment in front of friends and family? Not political at all? That’s interpreting the intention of the couple that’s not the photographer’s place to do so. And if it is a statement, so what? As a professional it is not their place to make personal beliefs the basis for professional decisions in a legally defined discriminatory way. The issue is if the people (not the type of event) belong to a group that the law says can’t be discriminated against. If the photographer says “oh we never do anything but weddings, sorry” and you can find evidence that they do hetero commitment ceremonies, then they are guilty of discrimination based on the people, not the event.
In the questions of specialities- if a photographer specializes on head shots, then sure they can refuse to do weddings. But they can’t refuse to photograph a headshot of someone who is black or gay, for example. If they do weddings, but want to doggie weddings, well, dogs aren’t a protected group. It’s the price of doing public business- you don’t get to discriminate. Take the photographs, shake your head judgmentally in private, and move on.
It’s easy to try to find all sort of extreme examples- and the law is poor about anticipating every possibility- that’s what case law if for. The law anticipates the most egregious examples and the rest gets worked out in the courts. Most law is like that.
Yeah, I’ve been out for 20 years and have never met someone that chose to be gay. I’ve known bisexuals who go back and forth, but that doesn’t seem to jive with what you’re saying.
We are talking about orientation. Take, if you will, three friends, Tom, Dick, and Harry. All three boys drool over the copy of Playboy Dick liberated from his father’s study. Tom grows up to be a ladies man, always chasing tail. Dick marries Jane and means every word of his wedding vows. And Harry has a call to the Catholic priesthood, giving up all chance of a normal married life, looks down on the pedophile priests as disgracing his holy calling. The three friends and Jane meet annually at a seaside resort. An 18-year-old with an hourglass figure and boobs out to here walks by wearing a string bikini. All three men are heterosexual. All three men find her attractive. But only Tom chases after her; the other two honor the commitments they’ve made.
A boy or man who finds another boy or another man romantically and sexually attractive, and who is not interested in string bikini girl, is homosexual. Even if he chooses never to act on his sense of attraction.
And it is that orientation – whether you find Ms. Megaboobs or Mr. Hunglikeahorse to be attractive – that is unchosen. NOT whether you act on it.
Unfortunately, I have to beg to differ. Any situation in which results in a segregated single-sex population will see people whose normal orientation is heterosexual making use of what is available, so to speak. Consider a population of 100 at a single-sex boarding school or college, a penal institution, an old-style seagoing vessel. Perhaps four of the 100 will be of homosexual orientation, and actively enjoy fellating aother. But a large proportion of the remaining 96, who given a choice would seek out a willing girl, will gladly accept fellatio in preference to yet another round of masturbation. And there has for most of my life been an ongoing problem of runaway homeless boys in the bigger cities who will, uh, trade on their assets to get enough to survive.
I think you didn’t read Polycarp carefully. He wrote, “whom I consider boinkable is not [a choice].”
You responded by saying, “In some cases it is.” Are you suggesting that people can sometimes choose whom they consider boinkable–that is, they can choose whether they’ll be attracted to somebody?
For many, it is the potential partner’s choice that is the limiting factor.
Ignoring the more specific issue, when does someone’s right to be a bigot on any factor end. Is the defining line being a public entity like a business? Being a group recognized by the government (church with tax benefit)? If I am a government worker (I’m not) can I have a party and only invite the caucasians in the office?
It’s a lead in to the following concept “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
Being gay is fine, it’s an underlying aspect of who you are. Just don’t do the “having gay sex” thing.
The evidence says there are biological factors that help determine sexuality. It’s not clear that being gay or straight is genetic. This was mentioned very briefly earlier in the thread.
