The Wedding Photographer

[Klaus]

@george-k said in The Wedding Photographer:

protected class

Well, that's the problem right there. The problem is not the selection of protected classes. The problem is the idea of protected classes itself. If there's one freedom that counts for something, it's freedom of association.

[Jolly]

Damn radical...

[Copper]

@klaus said in The Wedding Photographer:

freedom of association

I think the problem there is mostly public vs private.

As a private person, you can hate anyone you want for any reason you want. For example, I think most people in this country now privately, and publicly, hate white people.

Public accommodations are a different matter.

And protected classes are also, in my opinion, poorly defined. Basically anyone can join a protected class at will. That is senseless.

[Axtremus]

@klaus said in The Wedding Photographer:

@george-k said in The Wedding Photographer:

protected class

Well, that's the problem right there. The problem is not the selection of protected classes. The problem is the idea of protected classes itself. If there's one freedom that counts for something, it's freedom of association.

What is "protected class"?
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-protected-class-4583111

In Germany, do you have anti-discrimination laws that say a private business cannot refuse to serve a prospective customer for the sole reason that he is, say, a Jew? Would you consider a law that would, in effect, prohibits professional wedding photographers from refusing to photograph weddings of Jewish couples to be antithetical to "freedom of association"?

[Klaus]

@axtremus said in The Wedding Photographer:

In Germany, do you have anti-discrimination laws that say a private business cannot refuse to serve a prospective customer for the sole reason that he is, say, a Jew? Would you consider a law that would, in effect, prohibits professional wedding photographers from refusing to photograph weddings of Jewish couples to be antithetical to "freedom of association"?

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume it would be illegal.

And yes, even though I would consider that photographer to be an asshole, I consider the illegality to be antithetical to "freedom of association".

[Jolly]

I don't even consider the photographer to be an asshole. I wouldn't ask a Muslim or Jewish caterer to serve roast pig at a reception. So if I was gay/queer/lesbian/transgendered/marrying my german shepard, I wouldn't ask a Christian photographer to work the wedding.

[George K]

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

I wouldn't ask a Muslim or Jewish caterer to serve roast pig at a reception.

THere's more than one video of a guy asking a Muslim to make a gay wedding cake - and being denied.

It's odd how those "crimes" never get prosecuted isn't it?

[Axtremus]

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

I don't even consider the photographer to be an asshole. I wouldn't ask a Muslim or Jewish caterer to serve roast pig at a reception.

Difference there is that “pig” is not in a “protected class”, so a caterer refusing to roast a pig is not considered discriminatory. This is like a professional photographer who takes only black and white photographs refusing to take color photographs. “Color photography” is not in a “protected class” so a professional photographer can refuse to take color photographs without running afoul of anti-discrimination statutes.

[Copper]

Jerk is not a protected class either.

[Axtremus]

@george-k said in The Wedding Photographer:

THere's more than one video of a guy asking a Muslim to make a gay wedding cake - and being denied.

It's odd how those "crimes" never get prosecuted isn't it?

The original lawsuit against the New York photographer was brought on as a civil suit, no? You use “crime” in quotes but it was initially a civilian who initiated a civil lawsuit, not a state initiating a criminal prosecution. Whoever participated in and/or created a video showing a Muslim baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake could have brought a civil lawsuit against that baker, no? If the civilian is not serious enough to file a lawsuit, then there is no lawsuit.

[Jolly]

@axtremus said in The Wedding Photographer:

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

I don't even consider the photographer to be an asshole. I wouldn't ask a Muslim or Jewish caterer to serve roast pig at a reception.

Difference there is that “pig” is not in a “protected class”, so a caterer refusing to roast a pig is not considered discriminatory. This is like a professional photographer who takes only black and white photographs refusing to take color photographs. “Color photography” is not in a “protected class” so a professional photographer can refuse to take color photographs without running afoul of anti-discrimination statutes.

Uh, no. The caterer provides food for a wedding or other event. How can he refuse to provide the food requested?

[Axtremus]

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

The caterer provides food for a wedding or other event. How can he refuse to provide the food requested?

For example, there are no lack of “vegetarian only” catering businesses and it is legal and commonly accepted that they can refuse to provide meat. It’s actually not that different from a restaurant refusing to serve food outside of dishes listed in their menu. Caterers too can restrict what they serve to dishes listed in their published menus.

[Jolly]

@axtremus said in The Wedding Photographer:

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

The caterer provides food for a wedding or other event. How can he refuse to provide the food requested?

For example, there are no lack of “vegetarian only” catering businesses and it is legal and commonly accepted that they can refuse to provide meat. It’s actually not that different from a restaurant refusing to serve food outside of dishes listed in their menu. Caterers too can restrict what they serve to dishes listed in their published menus.

You mean they are refusing to cater to a customer's wants?

[Axtremus]

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

@axtremus said in The Wedding Photographer:

@jolly said in The Wedding Photographer:

The caterer provides food for a wedding or other event. How can he refuse to provide the food requested?

For example, there are no lack of “vegetarian only” catering businesses and it is legal and commonly accepted that they can refuse to provide meat. It’s actually not that different from a restaurant refusing to serve food outside of dishes listed in their menu. Caterers too can restrict what they serve to dishes listed in their published menus.

You mean they are refusing to cater to a customer's wants?

Just for fun, try going to a Pizza Hut and try to order a thin bagel with cream cheese, avocado, and smoked salmon, see how far you can get with that. If the Pizza Hut refuse to cater to your bagel order, try taking it to court and see how far you can get with that too. Post your experiences on Twitter or TikTok or whatever, you might just go viral.

[Jolly]

Gee, didn't know Pizza Hut had gotten into the general menu catering buz. I'll have to keep that in mind.

[89th]

This is pretty silly. Absolutely the photographer should be able to decide which weddings she will shoot. While I do hold the "any business should be able to decide who they serve" mentality, I feel like the argument that businesses must be open to the whole public REALLY only applies to places with public spaces. Not service/on-demand artistic services. I used to build websites, can you imagine if I was compelled to build a website for ANTIFA?

[Klaus]

@mik said in The Wedding Photographer:

Shoot the wedding, do a crappy job. Word will get around.

I don't think it is the intention of the customers/plaintiffs to get good wedding pictures. They want to make a different point and couldn't care less about the quality of the result.

[Axtremus]

@89th said in The Wedding Photographer:

I used to build websites, can you imagine if I was compelled to build a website for ANTIFA?

Under current law, political beliefs and ideologies are not protected classes, and you yourself enjoy First Amendment protection, so nothing in current law would compel you to build a website for ANTIFA anyway. The way I understand “protected classes,” you (as a business) can refuse to build websites with BLM content, but you cannot refuse to build websites on the sole basis that the persons asking you to build a website is black.

[89th]

@axtremus thanks, the idea of protected classes is silly to me, as is the idea of crimes being classified as a “hate crime”. Crime is crime, and classes of people (groups) are just that…adjectives.