[lithedreamer]

I'm wondering if this is how it feels to be mentally (or emotionally?) raped

No. Being raped feels far worse. This is more along the lines of being called to court as a witness, despite not wanting to do so.

[bar_foo]

The flat owner should decide to whom he will rent it.

Etc., etc.

It's illusory to think that by rolling up some regulations the world could become better place.

That's exactly what has happened in, for example, the United States in the 20th century. Landlords systematically refused to rent to certain ethnic minorities, so whole cities were inaccessible to certain groups and there were towns where no restaurant would serve an African American. That profoundly affected the life chances of the people affected: they couldn't live in certain areas, and thus they couldn't get jobs there, and their children couldn't attend schools there. It was difficult to travel, because they had no place to stay, to eat, even to buy gasoline. Not to mention discriminatory lending by banks.

You can argue that it's just a series of individual choices by business owners, but in aggregate it created a profoundly unjust society. It also reinforced discrimination even for people who were not racist. If I owned a trucking company, for example, even if I wanted to hire an African American driver I might be reticent to do so under those conditions because it would be more difficult for them to do their job, compared to a white driver.

The civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s forced changes that did, by almost any measure, make the world a better place. Regulations forbid discrimination on certain grounds in housing, finance, etc. (yes, they were imperfect and are still not fully enforced). It means that people had to provide services to people they didn't want to serve. Their discomfort is minor compared to the loss of life chances that millions of people suffered for generations.

[DougieD]

Just as no religion has a central principle of: "White people should not marry Black people," it seems to me that a sort of distortion of "religious beliefs" is taking place in the mind of the Toronto photographer. The central principles of Christianity are laid out (sometimes differing somewhat by various factions). "Gay marriage" is not found among them. No one is prevented from practicing their religion by providing a service to gay marriages. In fact, there are many strong arguments in the words of Christ for actually providing the services.

Well, I think there are plenty of Christians who would disagree with you, and I'm not going to start posting scripture-based arguments either for or against gay marriage (everybody just breathed a big sigh of relief!).

I don't know the photographer's religion. Whatever, he feels strongly enough about his beliefs to risk the crap storm he must have known was coming! I doubt that penalizing him is going to change his beliefs one iota. For all I know, he may have been a wedding photographer before there even were gay weddings in Canada.

[pathdoc]

How do you deal with it? You find another photographer and you quietly put it about to anyone who asks for recommendations that this one wouldn't service a same-sex wedding. The market will speak. But descending on their business with metaphorical pitchforks and torches is mob rule and is repugnant.

[RGlasel]

Lost in this discussion is that neither Premiere Productions or the photographer in Montreal have been charged with a crime, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public and private accommodations is banned in Canada, but not wedding photography. There are quasi-legal human right tribunals all over Canada and there are examples where those tribunals have tried to extend discrimination bans to other areas, but their real power lies in public shaming. When the persecuted party is willing to pay the legal bills to fight against human rights tribunals, they have been able to secure their right to trial in a real court. Canadian courts have shown that they will enforce the ban against discrimination on the basis sexual orientation in matters of employment and housing, but beyond that there is little precedence. Canada also has hate crime laws, but in the few cases where the perpetrator has been successfully prosecuted, the punishment is limited to a cease and desist of publicly demonstrating their hatred. For a country of 35 million people, we also have our share of NGO's (who are often funded by the public purse) eager to justify their existence by stating that “You cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, especially in the case of commercial business services available to the public,” even if such a statement is wrong.

As the prospective marriage partner who contacted Premiere Productions said “I have like 29 photographers to go through now, so it brought some good in it.” Thank God for some common sense.

[DougieD]

I shouldn't introduce hypothetical arguments into this discussion, but I will anyway: What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if a religious, married, gay proprietor was asked to rent photographic equipment to a church that strongly opposed gay marriage? Should he be compelled to do it?

Personally, I don't think so.

[Digitalis]

Business is Business, and a Gig is a Gig. The person in the linked article handled that situation poorly, without grace or tact, and richly deserved the repercussions that followed.

One of the rules of professionalism is not to let personal ideology get in the way taking on work.Though, another rule of professionalism is to be aware of your limits, and be prepared to bow out if you think you aren't able to produce work to the best of your abilities. In which case, professional etiquette demands that you recommend another photographer. I have done this myself, and I have received recommendations from my colleagues when they were faced with a task that was beyond their capabilities.

I do paid commercial photography that sometimes involves subject matter that isn't particularly appealing to me: I do it anyway and not just for the money, I do it for the challenge. I'm not a wedding photographer*, and SSM isn't legal here in Australia** and even though I have no intention of exercising that right, I support those who do.

You are contacted by a couple to shoot their wedding. They are 55 and 21 years old.

I have seen couples bridge bigger age gaps than that. I find it curious you omitted gender in that question. Large age gaps are also subject to more than a little prejudice: if a 55 year old man marries a 21 year old girl, is that any different than a 55 year old woman marrying a 21 year old man? My take on that is as long as both parties are consenting adults it's fine.

I just think the biggest question as a photographer is whether you can adequately take care of the couple's needs.

+1 you nailed it Rondec, professional conduct carries a duty of care for the clients needs and requirements.


*I've heard too many horror stories from my students about bridezilla and her ogre mother.
**which makes us one of the few English speaking countries not to do so.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 02-06-2017 at 05:25 PM.

[DeadJohn]

[snipped for brevity] ... It's illusory to think that by rolling up some regulations the world could become better place.

Regulations have helped make the world a better place. Photographers can't refuse service to someone based on the color of their skin because that was an actual problem. The law in effect in Montreal has extended similar protection to another group that was oppressed by society at large.

[cpk]

So, if I did get an inquiry to shoot one of these 4 day events....and I respectfully declined stating that I believe a cultural wedding such as this is outside of my comfort zone for skill and experience.... could that be turned around on me to mark me as an insensitive biggot? When in reality, it's just outside of my skill and comfort level at this time in my career?

I worked as an IT contractor for over 40 years of a 50+ year career in the industry. After Y2K and a bit I had a dry spell of 9.5 months without work. When I finally got an interview that had possibilities, after redefining my potential client's needs as part of the interview, I told her I was the wrong person to fill the position. She thanked me three times before the interview ended. I had another contract a few hours later as a result of a second interview which was good luck on my part; but I have always tried to be honest with my potential clients as to my strengths and weaknesses.

[vonBaloney]

I shouldn't introduce hypothetical arguments into this discussion, but I will anyway: What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if a religious, married, gay proprietor was asked to rent photographic equipment to a church that strongly opposed gay marriage? Should he be compelled to do it?

Personally, I don't think so.

This is what I always think of when they fights come up over weddings (bakeries and photographers usually). What if it was a white supremacy wedding -- what if the band was to play "hate rock" and the decorations were of lynchings? How about a Nazi-themed wedding and it was your job to make sure the swastikas looked good in the photos? These are fair questions. You really should be forced to participate in that against your will? If you have to take everybody, you have to take EVERYBODY right? I understand when someone has a storefront and they've got things already prepared for sale, they should sell them to anybody that walks in. But being personally physically forced to do future work just because? I think you should be able to refuse for any reason ("I'm sick of barn weddings, not doing any more of those, no thank you"), but certainly if you feel (in your own eyes) that you would be "doing evil" to participate. Has nothing to do with religion per se.

[Not a Number]

The news report says "the photographer allegedly responded in an e-mail to Cerantola."

So did or didn't the photographer say what is being claimed was said?

[DeadJohn]

...How about a Nazi-themed wedding and it was your job to make sure the swastikas looked good in the photos?...

If the Nazis can convince politicians that discrimination against Nazis is a problem that needs to be fixed with a law, then photographers might have to take the photos or close up shop.

[Blue]

Oh yeah, "in b4 the lock".

Good call!