Same Sex Marriage Wedding Opportunities

[Hawthy]

Given the result of the national survey on same sex marriage and the very likely legislation to allow same sex marriages, I am interested to see if any members who shoot weddings are gearing up for the pink dollar?

[bitsnpieces]

I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol

But it looks like the photography business is back in business :p

[ricktas]

I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol

But it looks like the photography business is back in business :p

So if you had the equipment and someone approached you to shoot their wedding (Same sex couple) how are you going to explain to them that you are refusing to do it?

[gcflora]

So if you had the equipment and someone approached you to shoot their wedding (Same sex couple) how are you going to explain to them that you are refusing to do it?

I assume he will either say "I have no equipment" :lol: or just tell the truth? I mean... he's allowed to refuse isn't he?

Edit: Maybe it could be awkward; I'm not sure

[ricktas]

I assume he will either say "I have no equipment" :lol: or just tell the truth? I mean... he's allowed to refuse isn't he?

Edit: Maybe it could be awkward; I'm not sure

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

[gcflora]

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

Hmm. Might be tricky then. But I wonder if you have to give a reason for refusing a job at all... I guess if a person doesn't want to do it they'd have to say they're too busy or something :-/

[Steve Axford]

Hmm. Might be tricky then. But I wonder if you have to give a reason for refusing a job at all... I guess if a person doesn't want to do it they'd have to say they're too busy or something :-/

It will be the same as any discrimination - ie it's illegal to refuse based on religion, sex, race, etc (no change here). The exception is that registered religions can refuse to officiate or host weddings if they don't want to (no change here either). A commercial operator cannot refuse service based on any of those things - why would they want to?

[gcflora]

A commercial operator cannot refuse service based on any of those things - why would they want to?

For the reason stated (not by me) that started the conversation I guess:
quote: "I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol"

[ameerat42]

General observations:
Well, tell me the term "pink dullah" is not already discriminatory.
--Apart from that, the concept is styoopid - or schoopid (take your pick).

[gcflora]

Well, tell me the term "pink dullah" is not already discriminatory.


It is. "Pink toorizem" isn't though

[ameerat42]

-- But then populism isn't known for being discriminating, only discriminatory:rolleyes:
I suppose it's early days, and people will have to find their mental feet - everybody, that is.

[Steve Axford]

For the reason stated (not by me) that started the conversation I guess:
quote: "I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol"

Probably didn't think through what he was saying.

[Mark L]

Probably didn't think through what he was saying.

That's what "personal beliefs" can do.
Surely some businesses have found ways to refuse work they don't feel comfortable with without contravening anti-discrimination laws?
"I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Here's Bill The Phogos card. He does weddings really well. I'll do your wedding if you insist though."
:confused013

[richtbw]

This can become a sticky situation. Fortunately landscape/wildlife/nature photography do not present this dilemma.

[Steve Axford]

That's what "personal beliefs" can do.
Surely some businesses have found ways to refuse work they don't feel comfortable with without contravening anti-discrimination laws?
"I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Here's Bill The Phogos card. He does weddings really well. I'll do your wedding if you insist though."
:confused013

I imagine that it happens. Generally, who would care if some small, average quality photographer doesn't want to do particular weddings, as long as he never says that is the reason. I think there could be a problem if he says he is being discriminatory or if he gets to be bigger and better known and his actions are harder to hide, or he just gets unlucky in that a same sex couple really want his services (::confused013).

- - - Updated - - -


This can become a sticky situation. Fortunately landscape/wildlife/nature photography do not present this dilemma.

With fungi, I have to cope with the problem every day. After all, fungi have 36,000 different sexes, so "a man and a woman" doesn't often apply. :lol:

[bitsnpieces]

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

That's a good question and I didn't know that ultimately, religious beliefs are no longer supported in this matter - very unfortunately and exactly as I thought would happen.

If that is the case, and if I had the equipment at that time, I'll probably still explain that it is still just personal beliefs, whether it be religious or traditional/cultural. Maybe that I'm uncomfortable with the work, recommend someone else. But ultimately, if they want to cause fuss, they'll cause fuss. They ask questions why. So it'll eventually fall on my religious beliefs, but I'd try and help them understand that it's not about being discriminatory or a bigot because I respects gays in all ways, nothing against them. Just don't support their act. Even if I took religion out of the equation, it'd still be no because I personally believe that children should have both a father and mother anyways. So don't even have to mention religion really - but anyone looking me up for my services (one day) will probably know that I'm religious anyways, so no way of hiding that either way.

Just FYI, had a friend whom I would always help out where I could, invited him to activities, hung out with him, just like all my other friends, really liked introducing people to one another, building circles, etc, but like most of my friends, I always seemed to be the 'other guy - never get the invite to anything, usually it's only down the grapevine that I know about it. Heck, some 'good' friends didn't even invite me to their wedding, but can't blame them, they must have thought that I was still in Vietnam. Any who, being away for 4 years and coming back, only recently found out that he was gay and during this whole SSM thing, he turned around and said I abandoned him. Guess I'm not a good friend, guess that's why I'm always the 'other guy' :confused013

Anyways, we'll see. I don't have any equipment now, and don't think I will any time soon - pretty much broke and even when I do, don't know how far I'll get in the photography business again - 4 years away all my contacts are gone so no prospects anymore, nobody knows me anymore, not like before.

[Mark L]

^
I can see a couple of problems in what you say but I'd rather hope that as time goes by things improve for you David.
Maybe find a religious community you are comfortable with and establish new networks.

[ricktas]

I think you have thought this through well David. I am not going to start discussing religion with you because that leads no-where. We could discuss it till our death-beds.

My concern here is the belief that children need a mother and father. This was raised throughout the campaign as a beacon and some sort of assumption that having a mother and father present in their lives is only something heterosexual couples can offer. It was presented as a shining example of something wonderous and amazing (which it is), that only heterosexual couples do well (which they can't).

I found this odd, given the statistics (https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics).

I really do not think heterosexual couples do so well in the parenting department that they should even consider same sex couples are somehow not good for raising children. So I will call you to task on your belief that children need both a mother and a father. Because that is not working out so well for us (as a naton) at present. I think if you look at the statistics, this is something you need to think about and possibly reconsider your viewpoint on.

As part of my job we assist agencies that work with abused and abandoned children. We work to help them with their dental care, because the neglect often has issues around diet and thus dental matters. I have worked doing this for several years and we have helped a lot of children/youth (anyone under 16 years old). Lots of them come from families with drug/alcohol related issues with parents. I can say that not once has a child been with us that has advised us they came from a family involving same sex couples. I think it was completely wrong on the part of the No campaign to even raise the father and mother stance as part of their campaign. We as a society fail kids on that front so badly now, that using it as some sort of enlightened 'best practice' is so completely off target that it was laughable.

[ameerat42]

On the narrow path along this ridge, the danger is to fall off either side:
convincing one or the the other that they are wrong!
Both lead to the fate of drowning in a sea of self-righteousness.

If the original Q was whether you would or would not, and not whether there was a
right or wrong. So what's the use of pushing your point of view to no avail? - Or just
vaunt vapid advice?

I took umbrage at the original post because it had a whiff of pecuniary exploitation and
unwarranted social labelling. I still tend to :vomit1: at the term $

[bitsnpieces]

I am in no way implying that same sex couples can't be good parents, but just like any family, there are families that have done well, and families that haven't, both heterosexual and homosexual.

I think a lot of the marriages that fall are usually due to selfish reasons or consequences of immature actions. Not saying all are, but just as an example, I believe one reason so many people cheat on their spouse is simply because of sex. Sex is no longer considered something special between two people, but it's there, go do it. The media (music mostly) makes it out how sex = love, thus a lot of relationships are formed on sex (love) and not actual love, where really, I believe sex is a by-product of love. Many people are easily driven on sex, and so they also chase after it. That's just my opinion, and thus, you'll see many children from broken families because 1, a selfish action, and 2, it's not easy to forgive and work together on a more positive future after something like this (which is also another reason why so many marriages can fall apart, spouses not willing to work together for the perfect relationship, but looking for the so called "one", the supposed perfect relationship, soulmate, etc).
Of course, there's things like financial reasons, alcohol, drugs, etc.

And do these things only affect heterosexual relationships? I wouldn't think so. So it wouldn't be fair to say any relationship is better than another, thus I never intended to imply such.
Also, given that gay parents are probably only the 1% (i'm sure it's more), with so little children adopted into those families, even if there were problems, being that they weren't recognised or anything (except now they are), the children probably had nowhere else to go really and just stay. Or so little to count from, to encounter one is also very unlikely. Just my thought - could be wrong.

My personal belief is simply that for me, given that babies come from the result of a father and mother (naturally speaking), then I would want to grow up (given that the family does well) with a father and mother. Seeing two sides of the world, finding out who I am (in this case, a male, thus a future father), and seeing how I should be treating my wife, children, my responsibilities of work, in society, etc.

Again, that's just one side of the coin - there are families where the mother is the bread winner, or both work, nevertheless, I just believe a child should have the opportunity to see both sides of the world, forefront and directly.

And so what ameerat said, the original question was would or wouldn't, and there is no right or wrong whether someone would or wouldn't, because that's their choice, and to force a choice on someone, that'd be wrong. There's no point trying to push our opinion on it either, but I only explained mine since I was asked, and would do so if I was asked, as they say, "You asked for it"

So my choice was no, but if they were to force me to, then who's in the right and wrong now? Not every 'no' advocate is a bigot or discriminatory.
For example, I don't believe in smoking or drinking alcohol, so I wouldn't encourage another to do it. So just as I believe in a more traditional family, I would be inclined to support and work with those within my beliefs and values. What would then working with those against my beliefs and values say about me?

Anyways, long winded post over lol

[Mark L]

I took umbrage at the original post because it had a whiff of pecuniary exploitation and
unwarranted social labelling. I still tend to :vomit1: at the term $
Don't understand that really. OP seemed pretty neutral.
But let's continue.
So you don't think it's valid that some businesses will be getting ready to make a few $$$'s from the marriage law changes?? Is that what you mean by pecuniary exploitation??

[ameerat42]

Too troo, Bits! The much-publicly-lamented addiction to body image has
derailed much of "society" (here used as a collective noun only) from any cogent thought on
basic human nature matters. "The media" treats all people as just-crud-that-wannabe-sophists.
The assault on sensibility is relentless. But dig deeper to see who is responsible for drives like these
and you turn up just faceless functionaries. They pervade all aspects of society (again a collective noun).

Good luck trying to make any sense out of it all - not just but also the question under discussion.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't understand that really. OP seemed pretty neutral.
But let's continue.
So you don't think it's valid that some businesses will be getting ready to make a few $$$'s from the marriage law changes?? Is that what you mean by pecuniary exploitation??

Not the OP, the term.

[William W]

Returning to the original question – and its Business of Photography focus:

I think that “any members who shoot weddings” and who are savvy business operators would have had marketing and advertising in place and been covering Save-sex Commitment Services for a long time.

They would already have a network of contacts and happy Clients.

I think that those who left it until just recently to “gear up for the pink dollar” would be ‘behind the eight ball and playing big time catch-up’.

WW

[ivans75]

I wont refuse, money is money. Need to finance that new lens :)
Guess every wedding photographer needs to edit their name card:

"Accepting rainbow wedding now!"

[ricktas]

I wont refuse, money is money. Need to finance that new lens :)
Guess every wedding photographer needs to edit their name card:

"Accepting rainbow wedding now!"

or just.. weddings.. because there really is no difference between two people getting married..

[paulheath]

makes no difference what so ever... love is love...im happy to shoot same sex marriage, infact the dramas that go on in a "normal" wedding would put mardi gras to shame....

[bcys1961]

I guess if you don't want to do it you just say , "I'm already booked on that day". No need to explain of justify your position any further than that.

[Bear Dale]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

[MissionMan]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

Agree. I wonder how many people opposed to gay marriage would also refuse to shoot a non-Christian wedding? I think you would have a hard time using religion as a justification for not shooting a gay wedding if you're prepared to shoot a non-Christian wedding.

[bcys1961]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)

[MissionMan]

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)

Actually, it is different. Investing your personal funds is like choosing between KFC and McDonalds. You have no obligation to invest in any industry you agree or disagree with.

When you are running a business however that changes.If you're in a service industry that requires you to service all customers, then that is unfortunately different. Could you imagine if Coles or Woolworths refused to sell food to gay people because the CEO felt he disagreed with gays? You can't discriminate hiring gays, what makes you think it's any better to discriminate on other levels and where do you draw the line?

You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to agree with gay people, but that doesn't change your obligation when you run a business. I think people miss the fact that these are mutually exclusive.

[bcys1961]

Actually, it is different. Investing your personal funds is like choosing between KFC and McDonalds. You have no obligation to invest in any industry you agree or disagree with.

When you are running a business however that changes.If you're in a service industry that requires you to service all customers, then that is unfortunately different. Could you imagine if Coles or Woolworths refused to sell food to gay people because the CEO felt he disagreed with gays? You can't discriminate hiring gays, what makes you think it's any better to discriminate on other levels and where do you draw the line?

You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to agree with gay people, but that doesn't change your obligation when you run a business. I think people miss the fact that these are mutually exclusive.

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

[MissionMan]

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

They can, but if they are caught discriminating because the customers in question are gay, they could find themselves in legal trouble, not to mention the bad publicity destroying their business. It's not a difficult scenario to pick up. Gay couple goes to photographer, he says he is too busy, a straight couple go to him, he accepts, gay couple finds out in conversation that straight couple were accepted after they were turned down, gets annoyed, approaches the press, etc.

I honestly don't think people can afford to be in the wedding photography business if they're homophobic. The industry has changed, like records to CD's to online music, and if they aren't prepared to change with it, they could find themselves going under.

[ameerat42]

or just.. weddings.. because there really is no difference between two people getting married..

(My highlights)

This aligns with my point about the term "pink dollar" in a post above.

[bcys1961]

They can, but if they are caught discriminating because the customers in question are gay, they could find themselves in legal trouble, not to mention the bad publicity destroying their business. It's not a difficult scenario to pick up. Gay couple goes to photographer, he says he is too busy, a straight couple go to him, he accepts, gay couple finds out in conversation that straight couple were accepted after they were turned down, gets annoyed, approaches the press, etc.

I honestly don't think people can afford to be in the wedding photography business if they're homophobic. The industry has changed, like records to CD's to online music, and if they aren't prepared to change with it, they could find themselves going under.

I don't disagree with you that if business people do not change with the market then they risk losing business. That's their choice and they may not be as successful as those who do change. I really don't think it will be a big issue . I'm sure gay people will go to the same people they have always gone to when they want thinks done - gay friendly businesses , businesses who don't care either way , or other gay people who run businesses . I don't think gay people are suddenly going to target those who they perceive to be non-gay friendly , just to prove a point or win some discrimination case . Current discrimination laws exist now making it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion , sexuality etc... so if they wanted to do that they could have done it already. The whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO , which is just what the A-team ( Abbott,Andrews and Abetz) want. Let's face it Cory Bernardi proposed that allowing Gay Marriage would lead to people eventually marrying their dogs!

[William W]

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

What "rights" are those, specifically?

The laws (Australia wide and also individual States) are quite specific: (legal) "Refusal of Service" falls into a very small number of very specific categories and as such it is certainly NOT a small business owners "right" to refuse service.

It is very poor advice to encourage any Photographer attempting to make money from Photography, that s/he needs to simply say "I'm booked that day".

Possibly this approach may work 99 times out of 100, and as mentioned it has worked for you: but woe betide the small business owner in the one case where the Potential Client actually knows the applicable CONSUMER RIGHTS, for this particular situation.

WW

[Bear Dale]

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)


Yep, if you are willing to discriminate against someone because of their sexuality in my book you shouldn't be advertising yourself as wedding photographer.



Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want .

They have no such rights.

[ameerat42]

Given the repetitive legalistic themes in the sometime volleys in this thread, I thought to re-visit the OP's Q:

Given the result of the national survey on same sex marriage and the very likely legislation to allow same sex marriages,
I am interested to see if any members who shoot weddings are gearing up for the pink dollar?

It looks like the 2nd line contains the operant clause, it being "gearing up..."

Maybe the meaning of this can be further discussed. For instance, does it mean:
- buying gear
- advertising
- some other form of preparation?

And too, after having originally "thrown it out there" in a general sense, perhaps Hawthy can
now add some perspective of his own to the responses he's got.

[Hawthy]

And too, after having originally "thrown it out there" in a general sense, perhaps Hawthy can
now add some perspective of his own to the responses he's got.

Given that almost a month passed before anyone replied to my initial post, I haven't really been following this thread. (I know, I posted it in the wrong area originally). It all seems to have gotten a bit heated from what was really just a business related question. I genuinely just wondered if anyone was going to target that segment of the market. "Gearing up" just meant preparing to actively sell your skills into that market.

I certainly didn't mean anything derogatory by using the term "pink dollar". I am not going to lie and say that I have a heap of gay friends or anything but my wife and I are on good terms with the same sex couple next door. They invited us to their children's christenings and we exchange Christmas gifts and generally just help each other out when needed. I also have gay clients and gay work colleagues and I get on fine with all of them. I certainly have no ideological problem with gay marriage because I am not particularly religious. I voted yes. Did I think that it was the most important issue in Australia at the time? No, but I couldn't see any downside in giving gay couples the same legal recognition as straight couples. I understand that some people may feel differently.

Sorry if the original post has caused such a ruckus. My take on it was purely commercial interest. in my opinion, what happens in a loving relationship between two people, be it legally recognised or not, is their business not mine.

[ameerat42]

Nope! No need for any apologies. Ruckus? - No such thing.

I just wanted to check back with you on this post and now you have, with your explanation
of "Gearing up" just meant preparing to actively sell your skills into that market."

[William W]

. . . . It all seems to have gotten a bit heated from what was really just a business related question. I genuinely just wondered if anyone was going to target that segment of the market. "Gearing up" just meant preparing to actively sell your skills into that market. . . .

I think the conversation has not been heated: but it has gone off topic and within some of those off topic comments there are a few absolute misunderstandings/misinformation concerning small businesses' legal responsibilities.

FWIW I took "Gearing up" to mean exactly what you wrote - hence my reply #23 - basically if you've left it until now to "gear up" then you are way behind the business impetus.

WW

[bcys1961]

What "rights" are those, specifically?

The laws (Australia wide and also individual States) are quite specific: (legal) "Refusal of Service" falls into a very small number of very specific categories and as such it is certainly NOT a small business owners "right" to refuse service.

It is very poor advice to encourage any Photographer attempting to make money from Photography, that s/he needs to simply say "I'm booked that day".

Possibly this approach may work 99 times out of 100, and as mentioned it has worked for you: but woe betide the small business owner in the one case where the Potential Client actually knows the applicable CONSUMER RIGHTS, for this particular situation.

WW

"You can stop someone from entering your business, or refuse to serve someone, as long as you don’t breach any anti-discrimination laws.""

https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

I suppose it would be this right here. Point taken as long as you do not breach any anti-discrimination laws. So obviously , as a photographer , you don't give one of those as your reason , you make up another reason if you really don't want to do it .

I don't work as a photographer , but in the business I work in I can have good clients and bad clients . I exercise my right not to work for the ones I feel are bad clients . I exercise my right not to take on new clients if I feel I am already too busy , so I regularly refuse service. That's my right as I do not breach any anti-discrimination laws . I also rent out an investment unit . I exercise my right to rent it to the tenants that I think will be the best tenants and I refuse to rent it to those I think will be bad tenants. None of the reasons I use breach any anti-discrimination laws there either . I own the assets ( business or investment unit) so that's my right.

[William W]

"You can stop someone from entering your business, or refuse to serve someone, as long as you don’t breach any anti-discrimination laws.""

https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

I suppose it would be this right here. Point taken as long as you do not breach any anti-discrimination laws. So obviously , as a photographer , you don't give one of those as your reason , you make up another reason if you really don't want to do it .

I don't work as a photographer , but in the business I work in I can have good clients and bad clients . I exercise my right not to work for the ones I feel are bad clients . I exercise my right not to take on new clients if I feel I am already too busy , so I regularly refuse service. That's my right as I do not breach any anti-discrimination laws . I also rent out an investment unit . I exercise my right to rent it to the tenants that I think will be the best tenants and I refuse to rent it to those I think will be bad tenants. None of the reasons I use breach any anti-discrimination laws there either . I own the assets ( business or investment unit) so that's my right.

Thanks for replying.

I think that you are missing the main point which was being made.

I am certainly not being pedantic just for the sake of academic argument, but rather being exacting and advisory because this is an open Business Forum: that underlined section of your statement, as I have had explained to me the Anti-discrimination Laws, is indeed in breach of those laws.

Hence the point - that's very poor advice.

***

Additionally, (referring to your mention in a previous comment about the possibility or no of “gay people . . . going to target those who they perceive to be non-gay friendly, just to prove a point or win some discrimination case.”

I agree with your thoughts - that the main issue to a Small Business will likely NOT be a disgruntled Gay Customer ‘wanting to win a discrimination case’; but rather an onlooker who files a complaint.

Once filed, it will be investigated and must be defended.

Hence again, that it is poor advice to simply: “make up another excuse”.

WW

[bcys1961]

Thanks for replying.

I think that you are missing the main point which was being made.

I am certainly not being pedantic just for the sake of academic argument, but rather being exacting and advisory because this is an open Business Forum: that underlined section of your statement, as I have had explained to me the Anti-discrimination Laws, is indeed in breach of those laws.

Hence the point - that's very poor advice.

***

Additionally, (referring to your mention in a previous comment about the possibility or no of “gay people . . . going to target those who they perceive to be non-gay friendly, just to prove a point or win some discrimination case.”

I agree with your thoughts - that the main issue to a Small Business will likely NOT be a disgruntled Gay Customer ‘wanting to win a discrimination case’; but rather an onlooker who files a complaint.

Once filed, it will be investigated and must be defended.

Hence again, that it is poor advice to simply: “make up another excuse”.

WW

It would not be my advice to make up another excuse . As I said I voted Yes and would have no problem shooting a gay wedding if asked. I was simply pointing out what those who don't want to shoot one could do . They just need to make up an excuse that does not violate our current discrimination laws. I don't think those who want to do this need my advice . They will work it out for themselves.

However , they may not have to make up another excuse soon if our courts follow the precedent just set in the US where a cake maker was on trial for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

It will be interesting to see if our courts eventually follow this logic , and if the appeal in the US is successful.

''"A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis," wrote Superior Court Judge David Lampe in a decision this week. "It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centrepiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct," he said.As a result, a state anti-discrimination law, which applies to all kinds of other goods and services, does not apply to the baker of the cake in question, who happens to be in Bakersfield.''



http://www.smh.com.au/world/judge-rules-wedding-cake-for-gays-violates-baker-s-free-speech-rights-20180207-p4yzo6.html

[William W]

Your clarification is ... clear. Thank you.

It seems, like you, I have an interest in the outcome of that case before the USA courts.

On another note - I too returned a "YES" response in the recent Same Sex Marriage Postal Survey: not that I think that is very relevant to the thread, but I do see a small contextual relationship.

Thanks for the conversation.

WW

[bcys1961]

I don't disagree with you that if business people do not change with the market then they risk losing business. That's their choice and they may not be as successful as those who do change. I really don't think it will be a big issue . I'm sure gay people will go to the same people they have always gone to when they want thinks done - gay friendly businesses , businesses who don't care either way , or other gay people who run businesses . I don't think gay people are suddenly going to target those who they perceive to be non-gay friendly , just to prove a point or win some discrimination case . Current discrimination laws exist now making it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion , sexuality etc... so if they wanted to do that they could have done it already. The whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO , which is just what the A-team ( Abbott,Andrews and Abetz) want. Let's face it Cory Bernardi proposed that allowing Gay Marriage would lead to people eventually marrying their dogs!

The supreme Court in the US have made their ruling on a case upholding a cake makers right to not make a cake for a gay couple , based on his religious beliefs . Relates tothis post we had going a few months ago .

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake-20180605-p4zjg2.html

[ameerat42]

So he disagrees with Marie Antoinette! :eek::bcake: (Any cake.)

[CapnBloodbeard]

The supreme Court in the US have made their ruling on a case upholding a cake makers right to not make a cake for a gay couple , based on his religious beliefs . Relates tothis post we had going a few months ago .

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake-20180605-p4zjg2.html

Bear in mind the papers aren't the best source of information on legal rulings. This ruling seems to have more been about the process of the initial court case than the actual legality itself.

And of course, it's not relevant to Australian law anyway.

[bobt]

Interesting.

My take is that although I no longer run a business, I do feel that a small business owner should be entitled to accept or reject jobs as he/she sees fit. An easy way to avoid awkward reasons is simply to quote a ridiculous price. I don't think either the photographer nor client would be happy if there was not a good working relationship, so the gay issue is secondary to me. If I don't want to supply a service then I think that should be my prerogative just as customers are entitled to shop elsewhere. You don't get service providers trying to force people to buy from them, and the same should apply in reverse.

I might not choose to do a gay wedding because I don't really relate to gays, although I have nothing against them whatsoever and I gladly voted for gay marriage. I'm not entirely comfortable with demonstrative male gays (probably because I'm old) whereas female gays aren't a problem. That's just because I like women whatever their inclination but men getting it on publicly still makes me feel slightly awkward. :D

In terms of children and parenting I don't think it matters - heterosexuals haven't exactly got a clean track record and the sexuality of parents is a secondary consideration - parenting ability is more important.

I would think that anyone of either persuasion who tries to force a photographer into doing their wedding would have rocks in their head as that's not likely to generate the best photos!!