This, I am so confused. Someone comes up to you and says "do my wedding", and they could say "I'm busy that weekend". Boggles the mind.
Christian photographer told she can’t refuse gay weddings as lawsuit crashes and burns
- Thread starter Lightning Count
- Start date
This, I am so confused. Someone comes up to you and says "do my wedding", and they could say "I'm busy that weekend". Boggles the mind.
If she continues to be busy mainly for weddings involving gay couples, this would be a pattern to easily point to as being illegal.
She declined to respond 7 times.
However you can't say no if you KNOW it's a gay wedding and refuse to do it on religious grounds. That's discrimination.
But obviously she made a bigger deal out of it by suing, rather than just dropping it.
Possibly, but it's far more likely that those couples just find another photographer and nobody is ever the wiser. It's not like she's a store front like a bakery and actively turning them away. She really did this to herself in ALL ways.
OP
OP
She bought into the persecution complex so much she brought this lawsuit and now she is paying the price.
What price is she paying, really? She filed a lawsuit funded by a right wing christian advocacy group in a gambit to get the courts to legalize discrimination for "religious" reasons and it got dismissed. Her name is out there as a bigot, but she's overtly a christian wedding photographer and her professional website is full of praise for god, jesus, etc. Is she even going to lose business or is the publicity just going to attract more business from the demographic she's interested in?
OP
OP
I imagine she is getting review bombed pretty hard. Plus she is getting put on blast.
But I suppose she could also use those to drum up more business from the types of likely to be sympathetic towards her.
Though to me this whole thing screams "appeal bait" and I think they might try to run this up to the Supreme Court.
Oh of course not, but it's one of the fields where she literally could EASILY be a racist or sexist or anti lgbt+ prick and totally get away with it, so frankly fuck her and her hubris.
The same sex couple have every right to a good photographer, no matter their bigoted beliefs. The couple has to approve of the photos to eventually put on a photo album and if the photographer is doing bad work, then they'll have to do better if there's a contract. The couple checks the photos at every stage, after every event. Why would the couple pay the photographer then at the end of the day? The photographer is leaving with no money. That's how ours was. We approved of the specific filmmaking choices too, soundtrack, editing, pacing, film length, etc. Photographers don't get away with shoddy work unless if there's no checks and balances, and usually people at weddings are extra stringent with work like this. And then you can sue them for damages if they do try to get away. Either you leave your bigotry at the door or face legal consequences.
That's what she tried. But she fucked around and found out by doing the lawsuit lol
The case said Carpenter received "at least seven requests" to photograph same-sex weddings in a year, but "declined these requests by not responding to them".
Yep. Lol.
Self own she will not forget for a long time. And even if she tries to play it up to her advantage as some kind of martyr, she still needs to live with the fallout.
Hope it was worth it...
Her lawsuit sounds totally absurd.
But...
surely you should be able to choose your clients (whatever the reason)?
You don't want someone at your wedding who doesn't "approve", especially someone who is working for you. In a sense potential clients need to be warned about people like her.
But...
surely you should be able to choose your clients (whatever the reason)?
You don't want someone at your wedding who doesn't "approve", especially someone who is working for you. In a sense potential clients need to be warned about people like her.
A lot of libertarian "let the free market decide" folks up ITT. 🤦♀️
For those sympathizing with this bigot because of her "artistry", if her vision based on images "upholding the sanctity of marriage" or some such bs means so much to her, she should turn to exhibiting her work as a fine artist or else not try to commercialize her product at all. In both scenarios, she'd be allowed much more leeway under the law on choice of subject.
Do you not understand how that thinking paves the way for businesses to discriminate against minority groups on the basis of not just sexuality, but also gender identity, skin color, non-Christian religion, etc.? There's a reason anti-discrimination laws were introduced and protected classes defined in the first place. I don't really need to explain why, do I?
For those sympathizing with this bigot because of her "artistry", if her vision based on images "upholding the sanctity of marriage" or some such bs means so much to her, she should turn to exhibiting her work as a fine artist or else not try to commercialize her product at all. In both scenarios, she'd be allowed much more leeway under the law on choice of subject.
You can choose your clients if you aren't denying them service based on protected status. You can't say I don't like gay people so I will not serve them at my restaurant. You know how fucking stupid that sounds? This is the exact same thing.
Whether clients find out she is a shitty bigot and avoid is a different issue entirely.
to some extent, this is true in some cases - it is still legal, for example, for country clubs to be men-only if they want (augusta, I think, was this until very recently). if you're a private organization, you're pretty broadly allowed to do whatever you like within reason
the problem comes when you're providing a good to the public. imagine that this isn't a photographer but rather a restaurant. should the restaurant be allowed to hang a sign on their door that says "no gays"? there's an expectation that, when you are providing a good or service to the public, it is open to the public. equal access requires equal access in all facets - if photographers are allowed to say "no gays", gay weddings can still get photographers, but their access to the market is inherently lesser and unequal. this is discriminatory on its face. running a business isn't a "get out of civil rights violations free" card.
If the photographer is doing bad work, you're going to re-do the wedding?
No. Why would you even think this would be or should be acceptable? You realize how many businesses in America would immediately start denying service to black/brown/gay/ect... people overnight if this were the case? If these protections didn't exist?
OP
OP
Exactly this.
So many would bring back segregation and blanket refusal of service to non-whites and gays.
I hope she gets charged now after outing herself.
I doubt her non response would have brought attention. I think couples would have just moved on to someone else. She could easily have done this for the rest of her career and no get found out.
I doubt her non response would have brought attention. I think couples would have just moved on to someone else. She could easily have done this for the rest of her career and no get found out.
Do these bigoted pieces of shit never look in a mirror and even slightly question how their religious belief seems to be turning them into a bigot? Do they not question why they want to discriminate against gay people? Do they not have any thoughts in their head? They're bigots, I suppose I answered that question myself, but the courts really should be grilling these cunts like this in public. Maybe then some of that fundamental bigotry might start to be squeezed out of people by making them question their idiotic beliefs and what part their own personal prejudice plays in them. They don't deserve to be coddled for this shit, make examples of them. Especially when they do it to themselves, like this idiot seems to have done.
Discrimination of this kind shouldn't be shielded by religion. If enough Christians claim it should be, then perhaps the church's tax exempt status needs to be looked at, as hate groups shouldn't be allowed to operate at all, never mind with exemption.
Discrimination of this kind shouldn't be shielded by religion. If enough Christians claim it should be, then perhaps the church's tax exempt status needs to be looked at, as hate groups shouldn't be allowed to operate at all, never mind with exemption.
To give people context, this is an example of impact litigation as it is being funded by an anti- LGBTQ group in hopes of pushing the issue to the Supreme Court to follow up on the wedding cake case from several years ago. That's the "how" & "why" of why this case exists despite there being no originating conflict. Of course, the case's dismissal doesn't bode well for its chances to succeed on appeal. It'll probably never reach the Supreme Court as there are countless court cases pushing various social interests and this is one of the weaker ones (hence the dismissal)
Christian wedding photographer who refused service to gay couples loses case
Emilee Carpenter, who argued that nondiscrimination laws violated her rights, lost a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.www.nbcnews.com
Ah, this makes a lot of sense now. Still a bigot though.
They're not going to get their money. Probably will be kicked out after the first event and get a better one.
That woman is deplorable and her sad shitty views shouldn't be accepted anywhere, screw bigots that uses religion to discriminate with.
What seems strange to me is that she could just have said no to the gig without giving a reason, tell them she's already booked for other events or something came up that required her attention, like she didn't need to make this an issue to begin with.
What seems strange to me is that she could just have said no to the gig without giving a reason, tell them she's already booked for other events or something came up that required her attention, like she didn't need to make this an issue to begin with.
This post should be thread marked. This is much bigger than "lol self own"To give people context, this is an example of impact litigation as it is being funded by an anti- LGBTQ group in hopes of pushing the issue to the Supreme Court to follow up on the wedding cake case from several years ago. That's the "how" & "why" of why this case exists despite there being no originating conflict. Of course, the case's dismissal doesn't bode well for its chances to succeed on appeal. It'll probably never reach the Supreme Court as there are countless court cases pushing various social interests and this is one of the weaker ones (hence the dismissal)
Christian wedding photographer who refused service to gay couples loses case
Emilee Carpenter, who argued that nondiscrimination laws violated her rights, lost a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Its not that strange, bigots love to proudly proclaim how bigoted they are and try to act like they are morally superior
Seriously. All she had to say was,"Sorry all booked up for that time period." and move on with her life.
OP
OP
To give people context, this is an example of impact litigation as it is being funded by an anti- LGBTQ group in hopes of pushing the issue to the Supreme Court to follow up on the wedding cake case from several years ago. That's the "how" & "why" of why this case exists despite there being no originating conflict. Of course, the case's dismissal doesn't bode well for its chances to succeed on appeal. It'll probably never reach the Supreme Court as there are countless court cases pushing various social interests and this is one of the weaker ones (hence the dismissal)
Christian wedding photographer who refused service to gay couples loses case
Emilee Carpenter, who argued that nondiscrimination laws violated her rights, lost a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Yeah this case is appeal bait, and even though it's chances of getting as far as the supreme court are low that won't stop them trying.
OP
OP
The better question is, do they realize that shielding themselves behind religion and perverting the text they proclaim to believe in makes them antithetical to the religious teachings they try and use as a cudgel?
Stupidest person I can think of at the moment. You have your religious beliefs? Ok, sure, keep ignoring request by gay couples or say you are busy or whatever. Don't be that stupid of a person.
I would prefer if she would be even smarter and take any job and do it amazingly so she can get even more job, but hey, not everyone is that smart. I mean, it's not like she was working for terrorist, narcos or shit like that.
Anyway, stupid people do stupid things.
Sounds like a shit photographer. If your business was wedding photography, wouldn't you want to be booking all the venues you can work?
No. She apparently takes the job knowing full well its a same-sex couple. Then sues them after the fact. She was looking to make a big stink about this.
No. She apparently takes the job knowing full well its a same-sex couple. Then sues them after the fact. She was looking to make a big stink about this.
OP
OP
But how else do you let the world know what a piece of shit you are by refusing to do your job and refusing on the basis of bigotry and hatred? Then falling flat on your face in a failed lawsuit brought by your own self.
Last edited:
Maybe it was just a huge stunt to get Ben Shapiro to look at her portfolio and hire her.
Yes obviously because she tried the more sly "It wouldn't be fair to the gay couple" argument to try and get around being that direct about it.