First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Anti gay client royally owned
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

Rujikin wrote:

He should be professional and return their money. The photographer is acting like a child.


Again with the "children"!

When the client cancels the contract, the money no longer belongs to the photographer, and no matter how "nice" the charity or how much he thinks the ciient "deserved what he got", it's still considered embezzling if you spend funds you received on personal non-business purposes other than what you receive them for.

And even if the fee was non-refundable...there's a little principle called "The customer is always right". Businesses are not in the practice of legislating any morality for their customers or telling them what to believe, let alone how to conduct it.
If he ran a diner, and a customer made a homophobic comment, would he be "noble" in saying "No soup for you!"?
13590 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


GrandMasterTime wrote:


anzn wrote:

Idiot Anti-Gay Client Gets Fking Owned


Wow man, you have a way with words. Ever thought about getting into professional writing? /s.


Dude, heads up... you don't want to get into an argument with Anzn. He holds onto borderline extremist views, no matter how much reason and logic you present.

You'll end up bashing your head against a wall and getting nowhere. Just can't reason with some people.

So, if/when he replies... my advice is to just ignore it. Of course, feel free to make your own choice, this is just what I would do.


Oh don't worry my good friend, I was just intrigued by his evident lack of adding anything meaningful to the discussion in his post I don't think I'd give anyone so emotionally charged the time of day.

Cheers.
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

Khaltazar wrote:

The company is going to get sued and lose. The reason is you cannot deny a service and deny a refund at the same time. You must provide either the service or the refund. If the company was willing to still do their contractual part then everything would be fine, but the employee obviously said they are not going to do it and therefore the company broke the contract, not the client. The client just asked for a refund. The company should have just pointed them out to the contract and said they would still provide the service. Since they didn't they broke the contract first and will lose.


They would only have a case against the photographer if they replied telling him they changed their minds and wanted them to do the job. The photographer would then either have to return the money or do the job. Him saying the company no longer wanted to work with them was just a part of him rubbing it all in their faces and actually meant nothing once they already ended the business relationship by telling him, in no uncertain terms, that they did not want him doing the job and wished for a refund. Ultimately, if they wanted to take this to court, the judge would have to view them as being the ones who refused the job and ended things.

At least that is the way I view it.


Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

He should be professional and return their money. The photographer is acting like a child.


It's also borderline illegal--
When the client cancels the contract, the money no longer belongs to the photographer, and no matter how "nice" the charity or how much he thinks the ciient "deserved what he got", it's still considered embezzling if you spend funds you received on personal non-business purposes other than what you receive them for.

Not to mention, his "high road" motivation for the misappropriated funds was "Nyah, nyah, that'll show you for being an intolerant bully!" which, in addition to not quite standing up in court, doesn't quite help smooth down the public "vindictive" image any.


It's his company. He can spend the money however he wants as long as there is nobody else he owes money to.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

He should be professional and return their money. The photographer is acting like a child.


It's also borderline illegal--
When the client cancels the contract, the money no longer belongs to the photographer, and no matter how "nice" the charity or how much he thinks the ciient "deserved what he got", it's still considered embezzling if you spend funds you received on personal non-business purposes other than what you receive them for.

Not to mention, his "high road" motivation for the misappropriated funds was "Nyah, nyah, that'll show you for being an intolerant bully!" which, in addition to not quite standing up in court, doesn't quite help smooth down the public "vindictive" image any.


You didn't read the other posts regarding the legality of a non refundable retainer did you?

41651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 7/1/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

Just because someone supports traditional marriage it doesn't mean they're anti-gay...


I think the content of their entire statement makes it very clear that they are anti-gay.



^^^^
THIS.
The word "traditional" is often used by bigots who are trying to justify their bigotry, anyway.
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / New Brunswick, Ca...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
I don't think being a professional has anything to do with this. They run their own business and they can choose to act however they want. I'd bet they actually get more business because of this whole thing. It's good publicity. So even from a business standpoint alone this was a great decision to make.
32137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Khaltazar wrote:
Florida law allows a company to accept payment and sign a contract and then don't offer the service nor the refund? Thanks, I know one state I don't want to visit.

Oy vey. Khaltazar, do yourself a favor and look up the legal defintion of 'retainer.' (You may also wish to review the definition of 'contract.')
28941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 7/1/15

Rujikin wrote:

He should be professional and return their money. The photographer is acting like a child.

Imagine if a photographer that supports traditional marriage agreed to do a wedding for a gay couple and then the gays learned that the photographer is against gay weddings. The gay couple no longer wanted to use that photographer and the photographer refused to give them a refund and donated it to a christian organization. You gays would be up in arms.


He isnt acting like a child hes treating bigots how they should be treated.
20077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
The Marriage Photographer is being an awesome jerk, I see the client point and view. Even though I disagree with them about marriage (marriage is between anyone who are in a loving relationship). If they find a problem with the company, they should be able to get there money back. But they should have done it in private and not on Facebook.
Yay! to the Marriage Photographer, but this still a jerk move. And I don't feel sorry for the cilents
85265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Louisville, KY
Online
Posted 6/29/15

Rangpur wrote:


Khaltazar wrote:
Florida law allows a company to accept payment and sign a contract and then don't offer the service nor the refund? Thanks, I know one state I don't want to visit.

Oy vey. Khaltazar, do yourself a favor and look up the legal defintion of 'retainer.' (You may also wish to review the definition of 'contract.')


I know what a retainer is. True that the contract the client is unable to get a refund, however, if they then wanted the service they would be contractually obligated to perform the service they were paid for or offer a full refund. If the client doesn't want the service anymore then I agree they won't get anywhere in court. I'm saying if they do want the service if the company truly won't take their business then it would be grounds for an easy win lawsuit in favor of the client.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Khaltazar wrote:


Rangpur wrote:


Khaltazar wrote:
Florida law allows a company to accept payment and sign a contract and then don't offer the service nor the refund? Thanks, I know one state I don't want to visit.

Oy vey. Khaltazar, do yourself a favor and look up the legal defintion of 'retainer.' (You may also wish to review the definition of 'contract.')


I know what a retainer is. True that the contract the client is unable to get a refund, however, if they then wanted the service they would be contractually obligated to perform the service they were paid for or offer a full refund. If the client doesn't want the service anymore then I agree they won't get anywhere in court. I'm saying if they do want the service if the company truly won't take their business then it would be grounds for an easy win lawsuit in favor of the client.


So, you're up in arms about a hypothetical, that didn't happen?

32137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
Okay? But they explicitly stated they don't want him to do their wedding photography. Seriously, did you actually read the article? I suppose they could change their mind, but if he agrees to do the work then... they still don't get their $1500 back because he held up his end of the deal. The only way this goes to court is if they change their minds and ask him to do the job he was hired for, AND THEN he turns them down.
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:


anzn wrote:

Idiot Anti-Gay Client Gets Fking Owned


Wow man, you have a way with words. Ever thought about getting into professional writing? /s.

It was a joke, chill.
Btw who are you
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

animegirl2222 wrote:
^^^^
THIS.
The word "traditional" is often used by bigots who are trying to justify their bigotry, anyway.



Not at all disagreeing that bigots exist. However, I think that a lot of times, the word "bigot" is used when the person honestly feels no hate or judgement, but is only following a certain set of religious teachings (which they have a right to do).

I'm split on the issue.

I do support traditional marriage, and disagree with homosexual marriage, from a religious standpoint. I'm a Christian, and the bible is fairly clear on the issue. I would not attend or officiate a homosexual marriage.

However, my religious beliefs should not (and thankfully no longer do) impose on the rights of homosexual couples to follow what they believe. Most Christians want to say that our nation should be a Christian nation. OKAY, so which version of Christianity do you want to follow? Catholic? Protestant? Which denomination? Not to mention, a government established by religion is not a democracy at all. They fail to see that by protecting the rights of everyone, they themselves are being protected.

That's not hate, though. Just ignorance.

So, in short, I FULLY support the rights of homosexual individuals to marry who they want, I just do not believe that the marriage is acknowledged by God. Of course, I don't believe in divorce, either. Because divorce does not exist in "traditional" marriage. At the end of the day, though, I also believe that only God can judge.

And if you disagree, that's cool. Just don't accuse me of having hate in my heart, because I don't.

We've foolishly come into to this belief that tolerance and love are the same thing as support and agreement. Not so. I love you and tolerate your beliefs. I do this by supporting your right to have those beliefs, make your choices, and not judging for it. On the same token, many Christians fall short of that mark because they think they must impose their beliefs on those they feel are "misguided." They do not understand that supporting someone's rights is not the same as supporting what they do with them. God granted mankind freewill, who are we to take it away, even in his name?
82334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

No they don't have to it is in the contract that they don't have to this is why when you sign a contract you really should read it first. The problem with your example is the photographer wouldn't even let them through the door if it was a gay couple so they wouldn't need to worry about the money in the first place they would just need to find someone willing.



Yes, that would make sense that they would be able to refuse service. Of course, as things currently stand, if they were to refuse service then they would get sued, harassed, and fined by the government, possibly loosing the ability to continue their line of work. So, I could see why some with less conviction might go ahead and agree even when they don't support gay marriage.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.