Agnostic.com

16 26

LINK Christian wedding photographer who refused service to gay couples loses case

A federal court in New York dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Christian wedding photographer who refused to photograph same-sex weddings.

The woman, Emilee Carpenter, filed the federal lawsuit in April, arguing that New York's nondiscrimination laws forced her to choose between going against her faith by photographing same-sex weddings and paying fines of up to $100,000.

snytiger6 9 Dec 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

16 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

If god hated fags why did he make them so fucking fabulous?

2

I get and support the whole “fight discrimination” thing but honestly.. why choose a photographer or a cake maker who doesn’t want you as a client. Planning a wedding is stressful enough.. wait.. I know let’s bring a lawsuit into the mix. 🙄 Suing a homophobe isn’t a back door conversion therapy. Wouldn’t be my hill to die on for my “special” day.

If you let her win then you will have to allow discriminatory practices by other businesses. Fuck that ignorant cunt!

Because rights have to be fought for. I would never do it because I would like to have good wedding photos and something tells me hers would be atrocious.

Then put up a sign and say that you don't serve gay weddings.
And lose the business of all other non-haters as well.

@BufftonBeotch yup.. put your signage on parade and see how it works out

1

fwiw, my (extreme minority, apparently) opinion is that I think the ruling was not good, and ideally the law should read that she should be allowed to refuse to work on projects she doesn't want to work on. Yes, the photographer appears to be bigoted in a way that is personally objectionable to me, and apparently to a lot of us on this site, but this does not mean I think it's ok to compel her to work on something she doesn't want to work on, or be faced with such a fine. I do think this is a violation of her rights.

kmaz Level 7 Dec 19, 2021

So you were fine with the no service to Negroes laws?

Hi
@BufftonBeotch

What is a "no services to negroes law"? I cannot find any clarification on google web search or dudkduckgo web search.

I'm opposed to laws which force people (or try to force people) to do work they don't want to do.

@kmaz It is only a few steps away from not serving Negroes.

@kmaz The American Aparteid. Segregation.

@BufftonBeotch

This is in my view too vague, but let me see if I can focus this part of the discussion.

I wanted to know if you had a law in mind and I still don't see one at all from you, but let's see then if I can try to answer:

  • Would I support a law which prohibits serving Negroes? No.
  • Would I support a law, or legal ruling, which allows business owners to choose whether they will serve a customer they do not like based on this or that (whether it be Negroes, white folks, gays, straights, Jews, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, whatever). With some caveats, yes, I would support such a law. Would I support the opposite law, such as if it prohibited business owners from "discriiminating" against such folks? With some caveats, no, I would not support such a law.

Importantly, note that my reasoning would be the same as, or closely related to, the reasons that I oppose slavery itself: I do not agree with laws which force people to do work they do not want to do. As to those who disagree with me, in my view, proponents of anti-discrimination laws, however well-intended they may think they are, should address that their views are unfortunately consistent, in at least one basic way, with the views of those who supported slavery.

  • Can I make the opposite case? I think following the end of slavery in 1865, I can see an argument that correcting an epically bad wrong was difficult, and I think some exception-making might have been in order, or at least the argument could be made. I'm not sure about now, though I'll be the first to say that we still have grievously bad injustice in the US, and some of it falls clearly along racial group lines.

  • There is a difference between a law and a freely chosen consumer practice. I as a consumer would try to make a point of not doing business with companies or individuals which are known to engage in discrimination against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation.

I hope this clears some things up. If you are able to come up with an example of what you consider to be a "no service to Negroes law" then that might help reduce unproductive confusion in this conversation.

2

They get so bent out of shape over this stuff. I missed the passage in the bible where God said: "Thou shalt not photograph any queer weddings for it is naught in mine eyes."

3

She probably had no problem with previously divorced people.
Which her book does specifically mention.

4

She would be better off leaving her religious bs behind. It would save her a fortune in court costs, etc.

4

Typical of some groups these days arguing the US Constitution to suit their wants. Luckily. it's not up them what the constitution says.

4

That’s one thing I like about no longer be affiliated with religion. I don’t have to give a shit about what anyone else does and can focus on myself

4

I wonder where in the Bible it says that you can't take pictures of a gay couple?? Does she think taking pictures of a gay couple getting married is the same thing as having sex with a woman?

Evangelicals are dumb.

She forgets that Jesus (if he ever existed) hung out with 12 men.

3

Good.

4

The problem here is that Carpenter filed the lawsuit. It shows that her and those backing her want to make a big deal of this and bring religion into play. We see nor hear nothing about the same sex couple filing a lawsuit.

5

Good, prejudice is wrong

bobwjr Level 10 Dec 18, 2021
5

Emilee Carpenter is an arrogant ignoramus.

6

As a wedding officiant, many of my same sex couples ask me for advice on which photographers are comfortable with same sex weddings. Knowing that they will enjoy their photos more with an enthusiastic photographer, I steered them toward the photographers I knew embraced marriage equality.

I had heard of a few photographers who might not outright refuse those gigs, but instead would simply refer those couples to another photographer (and keep a referral fee.) I'd rather connect the couples directly to the open minded photographers.

Over the years, since marriage equality became more accepted, some of those photographers have come around and have become more accepting and open minded. I was surprised recently when a previously anti-gay photographer, who used to always refer away the same sex couples, was the photographer for a gay wedding with a coordinator. So, apparently he's come around. For some, perhaps it just takes a bit of time to get used to the idea that the money is green no matter the couple's sexual preferences.

Hopefully it's not just the threat of a lawsuit or fines that are nudging previously anti-gay photographers and other vendors to come around. Way back in 2012, we did have one marriage license agent simply retire rather than have to issue same sex marriage licenses. That was his choice. Adapt or move on, I guess.

I would never give my precious coins to someone I knew hated me.

10

I'm a retired photographer. Actually, wedding photography was my "retirement business" for about five years. (I shot about 75 weddings.) But being the good atheist I am, I'll gladly shoot a wedding for any two creatures who love each other enough to want to marry.

mischl Level 8 Dec 18, 2021
9

I guess bigotry can be expensive, in some places. Good...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:640007
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.