A Photographer was sacked from a maternity shoot she had been booked for, and subsequently received a barrage of texts after the client discovered she was a lesbian.
Based in Mobile, Alabama, Faith Grace had been hired by a woman named McKenna. In researching her chosen photographer, McKenna noticed a rainbow flag – that of LGBT pride – on Grace’s personal Instagram account. This is when McKenna allegedly text Grace to say she no longer wished to work together.
McKenna wrote:
I went through your personal Instagram account to get to your photography business account and on your personal pad I saw that you had a pride flag. Are you gay or do you have family that’s gay?
The 21-year-old photographer replied by confirming that the reason the flag featured on her account was because she was, indeed, gay herself.
At this point, McKenna was incredibly blunt about how she felt, stating “I don’t want someone who’s gay to take my pictures.” She went on to explain that she feels it is “not right,” and ultimately that she didn’t want her other child, who is five years of age, to be influenced by someone of that sexual orientation. To add insult to injury, she signed off: “I’m sorry that you think that this lifestyle is OK and acceptable.”
Since sharing the screenshot on Twitter, it has since been shared 38,000 times before Grace made her profile private.
Lead photo credit: Leah Kelley.
[via The Independent]
The last time I checked, a customer can freely refuse to patronize a business for whatever reason they want to, whether it's morally agreeable or not. I'm not really sure what makes you think that you are in a position to speak with any authority as to what criteria other people should use to determine how they choose to spend their own money. :/
I doubt the photographer was trying to "advertise her sexual preferences". Instead, she was trying to advertise to other like-minded people; to gay people, for instance. A gay couple that is looking for a photographer to take photos of them as a couple is going to be more comfortable with someone who has stated upfront (with a rainbow flag, for instance) that they're cool with doing the photos. Rather than being put in the awkward position of having a photographer turn them down or simply not being comfortable with the situation.
My partner (both of us male) and I have been together for 22 years. And one thing I've discovered is that every time we interact as a couple with someone providing a service (kitchen remodelers, electricians, tux rental for our wedding, etc.) we have to go through that momentary "How are they going to react?" phase. Usually it's not an issue. Although a year ago we had to cancel our hardwood floor installation because it was clear the installation guy was not comfortable with us.
So, you mean that advertising your sexual preference upfront is the right way to make sure the service provider will be comfortable with working for you?
so in this case, it makes total sens that this photographer lost the assignment...
End of the story.
Sorry, don't makes sens to me, but appreciate your input.
I'm a cameraman, I will not disclose my sexual preference here or to anyone to get people comfortable or not working with me, cause this will not be seen during my job assignment. My sexual preference will not dict my way of working.
Nice try on twisting around my words :-)
No worries, always here to makes things easier.
Now, the main question: Should I put a little rainbow on my website...?
- Yes, it can make more comfortable people like you
- No, I will also lose potential stupid customers (still customers with money)
Best is to not state anything and broadcast only beautiful pictures on my website. Hoping I got attention for customers with a brain.
Let us go with that argument. Still irrelevant, since the photographer had no such image on her website, nor any site pertaining to her business.
I guess, for a photographer, a public Instagram account can be seen as the photographer promotional website?
Every little piece of message we are publishing on a public space can be linked to our digital life and can be uses against or for your business.
Right now, the link to the original photographer website in this article, I now down.
I guess the story she wanted to talk about escalated beyond her control, or all this is just BS click bait article
«I guess, for a photographer, a public Instagram account can be seen as the photographer promotional website?»
The photographer's public BUSINESS Instagram account can be seen as the photographer's promotional website. Her PERSONAL Instagram account, which DID NOT link to her business Instagram account nor photography website, cannot be seen as the photographer's promotional website.
Her photography website did link to her business Instagram account, and her business Instagram account did link to her photography website, but neither linked to her personal Instagram account.
They were separate, and therefore, not relevant to each other.
I call this BS,
Can you post the link on her personal and the one to her business?
Of course not.
As soon as you put your "personal life" to a "full public access", you should measure the consequences of any Google search.
My "personal" FB is not accessible to public. basic rule.
My work page is, of course.
If you like to show of your life to the entire planet; up to you, but don't be surprise if morons use it against you.
① Of course not. Maybe you noticed I was speaking in the past tense in my last post. Ⓐ The original article already stated that the client found the PERSONAL account when looking for the business account. Ⓑ The original article stated that since the incident and before the article was published, the personal IG and Twitter accounts were closed/made private. Ⓒ Since I posted, the business IG account and the business webpage have been deleted/made private.
② Don't have to. Unlike most, I actually research before posting. I even read the original article which this article sites. Yes, I did go to all her business pages and I did try to go to all her personal pages.
③ Let's talk about your personal and business pages. You just claimed to have both. So if you have both, and the personal page is not public facing, then clearly you do not use your personal FB page for business. Why then would you even suggest, «I guess, for a photographer, a public Instagram account can be seen as the photographer promotional website?»
She HAD a business WEBSITE (whose link was in both articles. She also had a business IG account, but that is now irrelevant. Why, because she was using her WEBSITE as a WEBSITE, not the IG account.
Since the original article was posted, it has been updated to remove all identifying references to the photographer, including her name, website, and social media links. Even the Twitter screenshots were taken down. (This article has not yet done so).
I call BS on your assumptions. I made no assumptions; I did research when the article first surfaced. I do not troll.
Yeah, because Religious people don't throw that in everyone's faces. I mean when is the last time you saw a cross anywhere, right! I know what you are saying, but I'm sure it comes from having to be hidden about who you are for so long, that the freedom of it all makes you want to do those things. Hell, sports fans do the same don't they... logos on profiles, flags on your house and stickers on the car.
Your r, your club support team,.. is something you can choose and be proud of. You can even change after you move to other place in the world.
Sexual orientation is not a personal choice.
It's not exactly the same.
I don't think you understood my comment, and I never said it's "exactly the same". My point was that people go crazy about sports teams that they have nothing to do with personally, so of course people should have the right to be visible/outspoken about who they are. (we're on the same side here)
No one has to provide or purchase services from anyone unless they have a signed contract in the first place.
Lol.
Click bait- this potential client exposed her views to a potential service provider bluntly- the only problem is the public shaming of a potential client and the 15 seconds of fame brought on by sharing what I would consider a personal message because it was offensive. How childish and irresponsible. It will not be the last time you are not hired... especially after this stunt. I call this article in poor taste.
It was not shared, «because it was offensive,» but, “…to show people that hatred & discrimination still exists & it NEEDS to stop.”
Yes, the PERSONAL message was shared on a PERSONAL SOCIAL media account, to highlight a SOCIAL issue in the world, to PERSONAL friends and followers, who re-tweeted this SOCIAL issue on their SOCIAL media accounts.
To be fair, both this article and the source article, suggests that Grace was hired, then fired, when that is yet unknown. At least The Independent does state that they have reached out to Grace for comment, but they may have mis-represented the situation in the meantime. They ain't exactly the WP or the NYT.
In the end, a client has a right to cancel a session or switch their photographer for any reason so long as any contractual obligations are met (potential forfeiture of retainer fees or whatever else was agreed upon regarding cancellation). Whether it's due to a personal or business disagreement, if a person feels uncomfortable being photographed by someone, it's going to be detrimental to the resulting images so it makes complete sense not to force yourself to work with someone that you don't want to in this field.
That having been said, none of the above changes the fact that this is still immensely uncool—particularly the bit where the client goes on to needlessly disparage the photographer.
I just laugh and this level of stupidity. She's taking your picture not raising your kids for crying out loud.
I agree, but given the nature of photography and the connection between the photographer and model that is required to get a good result, if a person can't be comfortable around their photographer, it makes more sense for them to just find a photographer that they can be comfortable around rather than spend their money trying to force the issue and having that inevitably reflect in their photos. We're not talking about a professional model who would be expected to be able to work in all sorts of circumstances with all sorts of people.
While, in this case, I might disagree with the reason why this particular client feels uncomfortable, that's really irrelevant. Even if it was just something like she feels uncomfortable around people with gigantic noses or something and the photographer happened to have a gigantic nose, if it's really something that the client can't get over (or doesn't want to get over), I am of the mindset that they should just get someone else to do it and I believe that in the long run, both parties will be better off for it as will the photos.
I'm Dutch and gay marriages have been permitted for a number of years. I don't see the point in opposing gays. Live and let live. Love is love, whatever the form.
I just rolled my eyes. You asked for pictures to be taken, no? Was there a list of qualifying morality faux pas outlined prior to hiring the photographer? This level of stupidity always amazes me!
Some people are able to get over things and some people are not. This is clearly not something that the client knew about when hiring the photographer, but also it's something that obviously bothers her now that she found out about it. Outside of meeting contractual requirements regarding cancellation of services, what obligation does any customer have to patronize any business?
Really, the only issue here is the unnecessary comments that the client added aside from requesting the cancellation of services.
Are you sure you're in the right place? Your comments are far too reasonable and balanced for this venue. :-)
I have a moment of clarity every now and then nestled somewhere in between my bouts of rage. >.<
You know I'm going to steal that, right? :-)
Please do. We need less rage and more rainbows and unicorns... Except I guess don't post them on your social media account?
Maybe unicorns are alright. Rainbows could cost you business. :-D
Who else only scrolled down here to see what Bob wrote?...
Did not come for that reason.
Did see.
Sorry I did.
While I don't agree with the logic used to fire the photographer, other than trying to fire up the Internet Rage Machine and feed the hunt for "McKenna" and the inevitable Internet social shaming, what exactly is the point in posting this story here???
A prominent story in the news for quite some time now, is a wedding provider refusing to do business with clients because the clients are gay, and now a story of a wedding client refusing to do business with a provider because the provider is gay.
It is quite relevant with regards to current affairs; a timely article.
Well, it is not at all relevant to those who do not keep up with current affairs, but then, we are here reading an article on the Internet, so… yes, relevant.
The issue in the national news is whether a provider has the right to deny services based on their religious beliefs and the clients sexual orientation. This article is about a clients right to fire a provider based on their religious belief and the provider's sexual orientation. The relevance is clear.
«The photographer is also silly for having the gay flag displayed.»
What is so silly about expressing one's PERSONAL support for a cause on one's PERSONAL social media site?
«…they are ironically the first ones to discriminate themselves.»
How did she “discriminate” herself? Note, the post did not even state that she was gay, it was just a post which included a rainbow flag. It was the CLIENT who requested that the photographer tell her if she was gay or not. It was the CLIENT who dug into the pov of the photographer. It was the CLIENT who withdrew the agreement due to something which was not advertised. It was the CLIENT who discriminated.
«…I keep up with current affairs and I don't see this kind of story….»
Okay, forget the current affairs story about the baker. So somehow, you missed that one. Fine. But just because 50%-75% of the population —pulling irrelevant numbers out of the air— the missed that story, does not make this story irrelevant, particularly on a photography related website, where our own personal social media posts may cause us to be discriminated against.
«It's silly for obvious business reasons. She lost a customer….»
I missed how obvious this is. It seems you are saying, having a picture which included a rainbow flag was silly because prejudices exist in the world, so we should avoid all things on our social media pages which may offend a bigot, who may be a potential client? In other words, the problem is not the bigot, but the victim, for having a personal life?
«By showing either that she was gay or supported gay people in some way.»
So, a picture on a personal IG account which includes a rainbow flag means that one is gay or supports gay people, and thus “discriminates” herself? I thought it meant she took a picture which contains a rainbow flag. …But that's just me. Because my friend took a picture of soldiers at war does not mean that he is a soldier at war nor that he supports wars, (nor that he supports troops, for that matter). It is merely a picture of an event, and outside its artistic or photojournalistic merits, does not reflect on the photographer.
Indeed, McKenna was not sure and drew no conclusions at first. She made what seemed like a normal curiosity inquiry, then, on having her suspicions confirmed, allowed her prejudices to show.
«I'm using the original [sic] definition of the word….»
So, in a contemporary conversation about one meaning of the word, ‘discriminate,’ you use another meaning of the word to prove that the first meaning of the word is the fault of the victim! Got it.
I guess when you used the word, ‘silly,’ above, you were also using the original meaning. In that case, I still disagree. It was not silly [original definition] of the photographer to take a picture which had the rainbow flag visible. Then again, maybe it was; I did not see the original image in question. Ha, hah! I am so silly [original definition].
« I feel the same way about celebrities expressing their politics.»
So, people who do business, and people who are celebrities, ought never express a socio-political view? Got it. Only nobodies can have an opinion, or, at least, be allowed to express it, even on a website which has no bearing to their business nor celebrity status. Understood.
«…since I only focus on its original, and still primary, meaning.»
Right. I got that. We were having a conversation concerning one contemporary meaning of the word, ‘discriminate,’ and you invalidated the conversation by only discussing the other meaning of the word. Understood.
«…a court should force the anti-gay lady to use that photographer?»
Strawman. Understood.
«…true freedom of speech.»
① There is no such thing, even in America. All freedoms are curtailed by the freedoms of others. Ergo, you cannot shout, ‘fire,’ in a crowded theatre, and you cannot say, ‘bomb,’ while walking through the airport, (even when using the original meaning of the word, ‘bomb,’ which has nothing to do with explosives.)
② The issue here is not freedom of speech, nor freedom of choice.
③ Having the right, does not make it right.
But McKenna did exercise her freedom of speech, she did exercise her freedom to choose her own photographer, and her choices were predicated on Grace being a lesbian. Understood.
I think I understand clearly, now.
Bye.
"I missed how obvious this is. It seems you are saying, having a picture which included a rainbow flag was silly because prejudices exist in the world, so we should avoid all things on our social media pages which may offend a bigot, who may be a potential client? In other words, the problem is not the bigot, but the victim, for having a personal life?"
Actually, because of this very reason it's common practice (and advice) to be mindful of the things that you post on your social media if you're in a business where there is potential for repercussions.
For instance, I work with many Jewish real estate agents who will not post religious messages or anything pro-Israel or related to Middle East politics on any publicly visible forum. They make the active effort to be publicly neutral because they have jobs that put them into contact with all manner of people who may have all manner of personal biases and they understand that posting things about Israel or Judaism can offend potential clients. When one agent posted something as benign as "10 Reasons I'm Proud To Be A Jew", their broker (also a Jew) immediately told them to take it down because of the potential to put off potential clients.
Social media has brought us wonderful things in the realm of communication, but it's also a double-edged sword in that regard. For professionals, it's another facet of their public image that they have to manage—one that many neglect to do. So yes, if the goal of the photographer is to make as much money as possible and get as many jobs as possible, then failing to properly curate her public image on social media to avoid potential controversy was a mistake.
You're certainly allowed to have a personal life, but when you post it for all to see, you have to realize that it's no longer personal. It's an extension of your public image and subject to scrutiny be it by potential clients or employers. There are, of course, people for whom the freedom to be themselves takes precedence above all else and in that case, more power to them. But I think anyone that is reasonable understands that doing so will lose them some amount of business due to disagreements with however you are or how you choose to live.
«Actually, because of this very reason it's common practice (and advice) to be mindful of the things that you post on your social media if you're in a business where there is potential for repercussions.»
It is because of this very reason, we separate our personal accounts from our business accounts. She had a separate personal page which had an image which included a rainbow flag, with nothing indicating a connection to her own sexuality, (hence, the client inquired). But, why? My business pages have one business email address, which points to all my business pages, (except my Facebook business account which refuses to allow me to use my business email, so I had to grab a “free email” account to open my Facebook page), and a private email address linked to all my personal social media accounts.
If someone says, “yes, but they can look you up by name,” I say that there are so many Karim Hosein's in this world, that if I was to lose business based on what Karim Hosein posted, there is nothing I can do about it, no matter what I did not post.
Having said that, this post is under my business name, but it is in a forum where I would hardly expect to see potential clients, but potential colleagues.
I would say that the photographer is certainly not silly for displaying a rainbow flag for precisely the reason that all this is happening. It’s not to stand on a pedestal and preach but to avoid any undue conflict. And obviously there are many out there who’s views conflict with those of the photographer and who would take offense to her lifestyle. Displaying a flag is a stop gap to avoid future conflict in her business. What’s wrong with that?
I agree that the photographer did not handle this well at all (see my post below). However, you’re talking about two different points in the relationship. One is preemptive. The other is reactionary.
[EDIT] Hans, I think I misunderstood your point. However, now that I think I got it, I will still leave this reply up, for those who, like me, may have misunderstood. I apologise. [/EDIT]
«…to avoid future conflict in her business.»
So, she should not have posted a picture which contains a rainbow flag on her BUSINESS page, (even if her client was the organizer of the Gay Rights Parade). Okay. Maybe. I disagree, but I will give you that.
Are you saying that people ought not take up social issues in PERSONAL lives since it may offend someone with whom they might do BUSINESS? That having a conscience about SOCIAL issues which may possibly offend a potential BUSINESS client is simply the cost of doing BUSINESS?
Is that not precisely the reason why we separate our BUSINESS accounts from our SOCIAL accounts?
That all being said, is it right to not do BUSINESS with someone based on their PERSONAL leanings regarding SOCIAL issues? Are not artists, craftsmen, and tradesmen to be judged on the quality of their work and not the colour of their eyes?
Sure, if my religion states categorically that I am not to eat “unclean” foods or food which has come in contact with “unclean” foods, that I have a religious obligation to not buy foods from certain vendors, but their is no religious requirements to only do business with persons who do not violate the precepts of Christianity. (See my post below).
The entire point of SOCIAL media is to SOCIALISE and take up SOCIAL causes. That is why LinkedIn specifies —do they still do that?!?— that they are NOT a SOCIAL media service, but a BUSINESS media service. What you are doing is victim blaming; “…because her skirt was too short, her neckline plunged too deep, she winked and accepted the drink, she is to blame!”
In this case, you are basically saying that because she had a picture which showed a rainbow flag on her PERSONAL social media page, that it is her fault that someone discriminated against her. This. despite the fact that nothing on her page said, “I am a lesbian!”
That is like someone saying, “I saw a picture which contained an ANC flag on your personal IG account. Are you Black or is it just someone you know? I just want to make sure before I decide to do business with you. I don't want my child thinking that I support Neg,… ah,… I mean, African Americans.” The concept is the same. One can argue that race is protected, and this is a matter of religion, but it is not. It is a matter of choosing to not do business because one is financially oppressing someone different from oneself.
The separation between business and personal is never so clean as perhaps you would like and I think that you actually understand that. You're arguing based on an ideal rather than reality.
In an ideal world, the things we do outside of our businesses should have no actual effect on it. In an ideal world, people should only judge our work based on the quality of work itself. We don't live in an ideal world, however.
In reality, your personal life will definitely affect your business. To what degree it affects your business is up to you. Social media, by nature, is your broadcasting things for the rest of the world to see. Whether it's duck-faced selfies, love poems, or hate speech, you're making things about yourself be known. It doesn't matter if you label it "personal" or "business". If information of any sort about you is available, a client or employer is going to take it into account when they consider doing business with you. To be honest, it's risky even to post things on a private account because someone you know might screenshot it or let it out somehow and you're left with the same issue.
The photographer might be a victim here, but she is also a victim of her own naivete if she really thought that associating herself with a potentially polarizing symbol even in private would never have an effect. I know that there are people in this world that will never do business with me because of my Asian heritage. I also know that there are people in the world that will never do business with me because I am a Christian. If I wanted to, I could hide one of these two things and probably open myself up to more clientele. I don't and I understand that there's an off chance that it will cost me business, but in this case, it's more important to me to be able to express certain things than it is to hang on to those fringe customers who will care enough to be turned off by it.
In the end, we all have to make our own decisions as to what is important to us and we also have to deal with how other people will choose to react to it. You will never be able to control how other people behave. You can only control what you put out in the world for them to react to and how you choose to react to others. Anything beyond that is just a crap shoot and you just have to deal with things as they come even if you find them to be unreasonable.
If I were the photographer here, I would certainly be upset, but I would also understand that clients like this are in the minority in modern society (granted, I'm not exactly sure about Mobile, Alabama) so it's really not that worth getting riled up about. That this photographer elected to respond to the situation in the manner that she did reflects more poorly on her as a business person than anything else here. Learning how to handle rejection and deal with conflict is also an important business skill and I wouldn't want to work with her at this point not because she's gay, but because she's shown a willingness to air business grievances in a public forum without at least redacting potential identifying information.
Victim blaming, again.
Let us take social media out of this. Let's just talk about Social. The thing which is being proposed is that people who do business ought never engage in anything else in their life but business. They can never marry, hang with friends, go to a concert, help out a community cause, because someone may find out and their business is ruined.
Whether it is on Fb, G+, IG, SC, or even the dated, MySpace, being vocal their is the same as being vocal at a block party. One can argue that at least it is not online, where people can search it out, but in today's world, everything is online, even if you did not put it there.
Cameras are everywhere, mobile devices are everywhere, and, even going back a few decades when the Internet was in its infancy, the things that people did socially was never really hidden, (just less blatant). To say that a business person can only blame themselves for having compassion for a cause which upsets a potential client is false.
The problem lies entirely with the potential client, not the business person. Again, this all stemmed from an image, hanging on the wall of a photographer's personal home, (figuratively), which contained a rainbow flag, which, in and of itself, meant absolutely nothing about the photographer. The client made an inquiry as to IF the flag had any personal significance to the photographer or a member of her circle. This was someone pushing their nose into someone else's personal affairs.
To say that business people must be about nothing but business all the time and dissociate from the socio-political issues around them or blame themselves for other people's prejudices, is a ridiculous notion. I can think of two terms off the top of my head for such people; sociopaths, and psychopaths. As I type those, other words are coming to mind.
We live in a world of people, not a world of money. We have to care about people. we have to interact with people. Even introverts do. They (introverts) are not cold, heartless, uncaring zombies. They have compassion, and they take action. We all must, and our business lives can be separated from the social life. It is not on us when someone else insists on digging into our social lives before deciding on doing or not doing business with us.
It is on them.
Let me ask you a few questions. If I was a PETA activist, would you find it odd that people in the livestock industry might elect not to do business with me? If I filled my bar with Yankee stuff, would you find it strange that a die hard Red Sox fan might choose to stay away? If I opened a business in an oil drilling town and people found out that I regularly support organizations that are dedicated to shutting down oil drilling in pursuit of clean alternatives, would you be particularly surprised if my revenue suddenly took a hit? If I regularly posted stuff about "BLACK LIVES MATTER" would you really be surprised that people working in law enforcement and their families might choose not to hire me? If I was photographed holding a sign at a white supremacy rally, would it shock you that a portion of my non-white clients would suddenly start to feel uncomfortable with me? How on earth is the situation at hand different from any one of these scenarios?
We either have the right to support the causes we want or we don't. We either have the right to decide which businesses we want to support or we don't. That's pretty much where this argument begins or ends. If your assertion is that we OUGHT to live in a world where we don't hold things against each other in our business dealings that have nothing to do with those specific dealings, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. If your assertion is that we OUGHT to live in a world where we all love each other and accept each other despite our differences and strive to co-exist peacefully, I wholeheartedly agree with you. The simple fact, however, is that we do not live in such a world.
You can disagree with it in principle all you want, but you can either choose to make your life decisions (and business decision) based on how you believe the world OUGHT to be or you can choose to make them taking into account how the world actually is or at very least, making calculations based on how you believe it to be. I don't think any of us honestly believes that bias doesn't exist nor do I believe that anyone honestly believes that people never take irrelevant facts into account when making decisions. This is the reason that we are constantly working to manage our own social images (not just in social media but just in the calculations we make on how our everyday behavior will reflect on us).
The people leveling criticism at the photographer are largely doing so from a BUSINESS standpoint, not a moral one. Regardless of our own personal opinions of how the world ought to be, one commonality is that businesses are run within the world as it is and we take those things into account in running our business. The major question at hand is what your goals and to what extent you care about doing business with people who have a problem with you. There's a pretty safe chance that if I'm hanging Yankee stuff all over my bar, I probably don't care whether a Red Sox fan wants to come in or not. If I'm demonstrating at a BLACK LIVES MATTER rally knowing full well that there could be photos of me, I am prioritizing my need to express myself over whatever chance might exist (fairly slim) that it will impact my business in a meaningful way. That the photographer chose to display a rainbow flag was personally fine, but a rather dumb business move IF she cared about preserving the business of people that are extremely against homosexuality. If she didn't, then we wouldn't be discussing this as there would be no problem just like there's I wouldn't cry if someone told me that they won't do business with me because they're racist against Asian people.
The thing is that you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. I'm fairly sure that the photographer herself curates the businesses that she chooses to patronize and I would wager to guess that if she found out that the owner of a particular grocery store was extremely anti-homosexual and there was another equally good grocery store where the owner wasn't, she would go to the second grocery store. Nobody can (or should try to) please everyone. You can be the most agreeable person in the world and there will always be someone who won't like you or won't do business with you for some stupid reason. If you really care that much about their business, the smart BUSINESS decision to make is to change yourself to conform to their demands (assuming that it's even a change that you can make) since that's the only aspect of that relationship that you have any control over. Obviously, there are some things that we can't control, there are some things you can't hide, and there are things that you might simply not want to hide. In the end, with the last thing, that's your own choice. The alternative to making changes that you're able to is hoping for the other person to change (something you have absolutely zero control over) while you bleed money. If you want to spend all of your emotional capital agonizing over that, realize that you're really spending your time agonizing over an issue of social change rather than any business issue because the core problem is not business, but the manner in which we relate to each other as human beings. Either way, resting your financial success on things that you have absolutely no control over (such as hoping that racists and bigots stop being racists and bigots) is just poor business.
You seem to really be fired up about this and I'm really not sure why. What's the alternative? Do you want to somehow create legislation that coerces people into patronizing certain businesses? Should we somehow make it illegal to use your personal bias to decide which businesses or people to hire? How would you even begin to enforce such a thing? Or is the extend of your contribution to propose that we should all magically start holding hands and singing kumbayah? I think many of us can agree that the client's reasoning for feeling uncomfortable the photographer was stupid and I think many of us can disagree with the firing in principle. The question is: SO WHAT? What can anyone do about it other than socially shame the client? Do we get to also shame the photographer if we find out that she chooses to not patronize businesses belonging to anti-gay people? Someone didn't like you. Boo hoo. Suck it up and move on to the next client. That's business.
I will not address every red herring and every straw-man argument you just used, neither will I address the statements of mine taken out of context.
Let me just re-iterate this one more time. The notion that a business person ought not have a social life, separate and apart from their business life is a false notion, as we, (homo sapiens), are social beings by nature.
That does not alter the fact that some homo sapiens are a bunch of xenophobes, who will persecute you for not being/thinking like them. However, that IS NOT the fault of the person being persecuted!
To claim that the businessman is the one to blame because they choose to act human, is ridiculous! It is ALWAYS the fault of the xenophobe or bigot!
I NEVER addressed the issue of the business man who uses his business resources to make clear his socio-political views. Why? Because that was NOT the case here. Just like me, and so many others I know, she kept separate business accounts and personal accounts.
To say that she ought not have had a social account due to the fact that one can find it, that is less ridiculous, but just as much the fault of the bigot/xenophobe. Why should one care whether the man fixing his toilet is a capitalist or socialist? What one ought to care about is whether they are good at plumbing.
As pointed out, if someone were to look up my very common name, one will find many accounts which are not mine. Now I must be blamed for what some other person with my name said on their personal page? NO! The xenophobe/bigot is still to blame. not me, and not any of the people who share my name.
Again, not addressing any of your straw-men or red herrings. Nothing that happened is the photographer's fault. That is all there is to it.
"I will not address every red herring and every straw-man argument you just used, neither will I address the statements of mine taken out of context."
Just a bit of unsolicited advice, if you're going to just completely ignore what the other person is saying and then go off making your own counter-arguments that don't correspond to anything that is being claimed in the post that you're responding to, then can just go ahead, save yourself a lot of time and not click the REPLY button and instead just start a different thread. Anyway, I'll respond to your post, but I think it's pretty clear that we are talking about completely different things so there's really no need to bother going further since you're far more concerned with your own beliefs with how things ought to be rather than addressing the way things actually are and posing practical solutions for that.
"Let me just re-iterate this one more time. The notion that a business person ought not have a social life, separate and apart from their business life is a false notion, as we, (homo sapiens), are social beings by nature."
I don't think that there is a single person that has suggested that a business person ought not to have a social life so I'm not even sure why you're bothering to re-iterate something that's not being disputed.
"That does not alter the fact that some homo sapiens are a bunch of xenophobes, who will persecute you for not being/thinking like them. However, that IS NOT the fault of the person being persecuted!"
Once again, nobody is saying that it is so I'm not sure why you're bothering pointing this out. Did anyone say that it's a black person's fault for a racist person being racist against black people? That's stupid.
"To claim that the businessman is the one to blame because they choose to act human, is ridiculous! It is ALWAYS the fault of the xenophobe or bigot!"
A businessman is responsible for making decisions that are beneficial to the business. Part of this process is taking into account the reality of the business environment that he is working in. To that extent, if something ends up being detrimental to the business that the businessman could have easily predicted and prevented, to the extent that it has detrimentally impacted the business, it is his fault even if the root cause of the problem (racism, sexism, etc.) is someone else's.
In this case, a photographer is gay. Everyone in the world knows that there are people who are ok with this and people who are not. As you have said, the existence of bigots is not exactly an unknown—it's a given. So the photographer has several choices she can make. She can choose to prioritize her personal life, prioritize her business, or try to find some balance between the two.
It's pretty clear to me that it's important to the photographer that she is accepted for who she is without having to lie (because she could have just as easily said that she had posted that flag in support of a gay friend) and I think that's actually a very great attitude to have from a personal standpoint, but business decisions are different from personal ones. Business decisions are good or bad in relation to only one thing: Your Business Goals. So in this case, a great personal decision can also be a bad business decision. Whether it was even a bad business decision is questionable because we don't know her business goals. The only reason I would even assume that it's bad from a business standpoint is because she's taking the time to whine about it on Twitter although that could just as easily be because of the personal hurt rather than a complaint about people making business decisions based on non-business things.
"I NEVER addressed the issue of the business man who uses his business resources to make clear his socio-political views. Why? Because that was NOT the case here. Just like me, and so many others I know, she kept separate business accounts and personal accounts."
In the real world, anything and everything is fair game. If you leave your personal social media account available to be viewed by the public, do you think that a potential employer is not going to look at it just because it's not strictly a business account? Seriously? Do you think that the only thing people look at is your resume. portfolio, and other strictly business-related things? Get real.
"To say that she ought not have had a social account due to the fact that one can find it, that is less ridiculous, but just as much the fault of the bigot/xenophobe. Why should one care whether the man fixing his toilet is a capitalist or socialist?"
Once again, why does it matter why a person "should care whether the man fixing his toilet is a capitalist or a socialist"? It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters from a business standpoint is the fact that we know that there are people who do. The only question is how YOU will choose to work with that reality.
"What one ought to care about is whether they are good at plumbing."
First of all, this is entirely your personal opinion and divorced from any absolute truth, but aside from that fact, there are many things that "ought to be", but are not. That, however, is an issue of social change (which is essentially the basis of your posts), not business-related decisions (which are essentially the basis of mine). It doesn't matter how things ought to be if they are not, in fact, that way. If you work for a non-profit organization, you can complain about the way things "ought to be" all day and night. If your goal is to turn a profit and pay your rent, however, you would do well to spend your efforts working within reality as it is rather than your fictitious construct of how it ought to be.
"As pointed out, if someone were to look up my very common name, one will find many accounts which are not mine. Now I must be blamed for what some other person with my name said on their personal page? NO! The xenophobe/bigot is still to blame. not me, and not any of the people who share my name."
You would think that a person that can point out a straw man in another person's post could at very least avoid it in his own. This is not what happened here. The customer didn't happen upon a social media account of another random person sharing the photographer's name. It was the photographer's own account.
That having been pointed out, of course you shouldn't be blamed for something some random person who happens to share your name said. But should you be blamed for things that you actually posted on your own account? Of course! You should also have an expectation that whatever you post to your account is liable to be held against you at some point in the future. That's how the internet works. We're inundated everyday with examples of peoples' social media activity being held against them? How many business people on the news do you see being affected by an errant tweet on their personal account? Do you seriously think that you're magically immune from it?
"Again, not addressing any of your straw-men or red herrings. Nothing that happened is the photographer's fault. That is all there is to it."
To say that "nothing that happened is the photographer's fault" is simply inaccurate. While the photographer certainly wasn't strictly at fault for the circumstances surrounding her firing, pretty much everything that came afterward WAS her fault.
To be specific, rather than just deal with the situation professionally like any other business, she decided to take her case to the court of social media (I guess because she didn't learn the lesson about things on social media the first time around).
So let me ask you, is posting screenshots of a private conversation between you and a client (at the time) on Twitter acceptable business behavior in your world?
---------------
In the end, it's not about blame because it really doesn't matter who's at fault for what. Clearly, there was a problem here. The question is whether there are any lessons that could be learned from it. If you want to use the opportunity to complain about the state of the world, that's your own business, but I don't see that as being productive at all because you're not going to change the world.
This is a problem for which there is no practical legislative solution (unlike the problem of businesses refusing consumers) and the only way to change it is going to be changing peoples' hearts, which is not likely to be happening any time soon. So you can blame the bigot for being a bigot all day and all night. You can call them out and you can demonize them all you want. It's not going to change anything nor will it put food on the table or more money in the bank.
You can't change others. You can only change things about yourself. This can be changing the way you think, the way you look, the way choose to react, the manner in which you allow yourself to be emotionally affected, etc. It doesn't matter how wrong the other person actually is. Depending on someone else to change for the sake of your own happiness is always going to be setting yourself up for failure. And this last bit is not only about business, but about your personal life as well. Bigots will be bigots, but you're the only person that can allow yourself to be hurt emotionally by them.
.
It's not relevant at all because businesses and customers are held to different standards. A person can freely choose not to patronize a restaurant because the owner is a Chinese person and I would not be legally wrong even if it might be morally abhorrent. A restaurant, however, cannot refuse to serve a person who wants to pay because they are Chinese.
We use our own personal biases to direct our own money to or away from certain businesses each day for all sorts of reasons and it's perfectly normal and expected behavior.
«…because businesses and customers are held to different standards.»
Which is precisely why it is relevant; it is the opposite side of the same ugly coin. The previous issue is heads, the current issue is tales, the relevance is the coin.
Ok, I guess. If you choose to view it that way... I don't agree that they are two sides of the same coin (unless you mean for "bias" to be the coin). To me, it's just a reflection of the natural order of things. Between businesses and consumers, the power is always in the hands of the consumer because businesses exist for consumers, not the other way around. It's not a balanced relationship nor is it meant to be.
.