This legal judgement against photographer makes you think twice about how to turn away business.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

All depends too on how they worded the rejection of business too.

Tamgerine wrote:

garyrhook wrote: Except that I, as a photographer, am not operating a public accommodation. I provide a service, but I don't fit into the above categories if I don't have an office or studio that the public could walk into. So I wonder if I'm subject to that requirement? I think not...

Actually, you are. If you offer a service to the public, it falls under those laws and regulations regardless of whether you own a studio or stand alone building. If you're in business, you operate somewhere, right? Unless you don't have a legal business license or pay your taxes, in which case you don't really count as you're part of the shadow economy at that point.

This would also include for example makeup artists or hairstylists who perform on location, or caterers who work out of their home kitchens. Or dog groomers, or nannies. Are you saying that because these legal businesses don't have a physical retail space they are not subject to the Civil Rights Act? Because they are.

Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-c...-accommodations.html

Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated. Federal, state and local governments own and operate facilities such as courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places. They also provide services, programs, or activities including transportation systems and welfare programs. Privately-owned businesses and facilities offer certain goods or services to the public.

civilrights.uslegal.com/discrimination-i...ublic-accommodation/

And of course the section itself: www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

You're certainly correct that there are ways to deny business, there always are. However, as a business if you choose to violate the laws and regulations you have to operate by, you leave yourself open to consequences. Anyone can sue anyone for anything they want, whether they win is a different matter. In this case the photographers did not win.

As mentioned before, state laws can vary and ultimately it is up to a judge to implement the law. There are times when the law can be less than black and white. They may appeal and get a reversal, who knows. But I doubt it.

Well as far as this case goes the court has to decide. But here is the real deal do you want someone who hates your lifestyle actually shooting your even, or providing services for your event. Oh! Also from a gay forum discussing this, it seems those who are reasonable agree with peoples right to refuse service. Found it on Google and it will surprise you at the Poll Result butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2966
It seems that most on that forums people argue their reasoning my like mine, they are against forcing people to go against their beliefs. While these are people I would never associate with, I do respect that they hold each individuals freedoms higher than unjust laws.
It seems this couple wishes to force themselves over anothers beliefs. This is where you get division and hatred BTW is in forcing, or quite hypocritically I might add, not allowing for others beliefs to dictate what they do. It seems that those crying for their rights demand the trampling of others rights.
Also let me put a strictly hypothetical out to you.
Lets say you have an older man/woman contract you for their Engagement session. They are in the 50+ range, and their soon to be mate is 15 years old, the parents approved of this, so that is not an issue. You shoot the session, and you are not yet contracted for the Wedding, will you shoot it?
Personally I would not and I would let them know why. But then I see that as much the same as I see the other. I would call off the Engagement session as well.
Also if I was forced to shoot something disagreeable to my morals or beliefs. Then the results would not be good at all. If they tried to sue me for not putting out my usual work, my defense would be that I was off that day due to the distractions of the event that were abhorrent, which would be a valid reason.
Also you will note that the term accommodations applies to services with in buildings. A photography business can be in a building, in which case this applies. But it can also not have a building or structure, then it does not apply.

Well as far as this case goes the court has to decide. But here is the real deal do you want someone who hates your lifestyle actually shooting your even, or providing services for your event. Oh! Also from a gay forum discussing this, it seems those who are reasonable agree with peoples right to refuse service. Found it on Google and it will surprise you at the Poll Result butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2966
It seems that most on that forums people argue their reasoning my like mine, they are against forcing people to go against their beliefs. While these are people I would never associate with, I do respect that they hold each individuals freedoms higher than unjust laws.

Whether or not other people agree with them isn’t really the case here. There are always going to be opposing viewpoints that don’t have much to do with the law. That is why court cases like this set precedence. A law exists, is challenged in court several to many times, and it either holds up or doesn’t, creates a precedence, and the law is eventually changed. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn’t. With gay marriage and civil rights I’d say we’re kind of in the middle of change right now. Whereas with things such a religion and race things are now very clear-cut, with gay marriage it just isn’t right now.

Also let me put a strictly hypothetical out to you.
Lets say you have an older man/woman contract you for their Engagement session. They are in the 50+ range, and their soon to be mate is 15 years old, the parents approved of this, so that is not an issue. You shoot the session, and you are not yet contracted for the Wedding, will you shoot it?

As to your hypothetical situation, there are a lot of legal questions that would need to be answered, not just if the parents were “okay with it.” If I was legitimately confronted with this situation right now, in America, I would say no because there is a total spectrum of legal questions that would need to be address (some laws very by state) and my time is not best spent on legal research in order to serve a client. But that isn’t discrimination against their ages; it’s my obligation as a business to conform to the law.

But if we assume everything was legal, and I was protected as a business, or if this was in another culture? I would shoot it. It is a service I offer, and when I registered as a legal business I promised my services to the general public in regards to the laws and regulations that govern me.

It seems this couple wishes to force themselves over anothers beliefs. This is where you get division and hatred BTW is in forcing, or quite hypocritically I might add, not allowing for others beliefs to dictate what they do. It seems that those crying for their rights demand the trampling of others rights.

Everyone has rights and restrictions. It’s a simple case of whose rights are more important than others. I have the right to freedom of speech, but other peoples right to safety is more important than my right to shout fire in a crowded building. As is their right to protection from hate speech or acts of violence. Not everyone gets all of their rights all of the time.

The law says that some civil rights are more important than someone else’s right to refuse service. These people clearly believe that their civil rights as homosexuals are more important than someone’s right to refuse them service. Some people agree and some do not. That is what they’re suing for. Me personally? I believe that their civil rights outweigh your rights to refuse them service based on your beliefs.

Also you will note that the term accommodations applies to services with in buildings. A photography business can be in a building, in which case this applies. But it can also not have a building or structure, then it does not apply.

My previous post already addresses this, and it does not just apply to businesses with buildings. It applies to any business (regardless of location or facility) that offers services to the general public. This was also highlighted in the portions of my response that you quoted. It was actually pretty much my whole post.

Are you telling me that because I, a registered business, do not have a studio I can legally refuse service to someone who is black? And that they should not be able to sue me (and win)?

This thread:

Well and my point is you of the PC crowd are only allowed to discriminate in one direction, or situation normal. It is okay for you to demand your rights but restrict the rights of others in opposing your views. Pretty much fascism in its purest sense. Personally I would not want to do business with those who are discriminatory to me, and guess what I have not, and have had to deal with that in several places in Arizona, and here in SC. When I get store clerks being rude to me because I am white, I leave and go where they treat me like a customer. That is how people need to learn to deal with life, but instead in this touchy feely BS world we live in it is sue them. Seems that far too many people are too thin skinned. Forcing people into doing what is PC causes vapid hatred in the society which is why it is in the state it is in, you and those who push it are fueling the fires that are going to eventually explode. Enjoy your creation when it comes.