Refusing to photograph same sex wedding

troopers

I'm not refusing...in fact, I'm photographing a same sex wedding in about a month.

I found this article in today's Huffington Post very interesting, particularly since the photog is local to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/urloved-photography-gay-couple-weddings_n_6195068.html?utm_hp_ref=san-francisco



And of course, this reminded me of this thread here not too long ago:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=221676

ian408

I like that the focus is on what those who don't will miss out on.

Glort

ian408 wrote: »

I like that the focus is on what those who don't will miss out on.

Articles like that are called " Click Bait" .
They are written usualy about sensationalist subjects and have headlines designed to create a traffic flow through the site. Have a look at the bottom of the page, there is a bunch more of the same meaningless drivel masked as " News".

ian408

Glort wrote: »

Articles like that are called " Click Bait" .
They are written usualy about sensationalist subjects and have headlines designed to create a traffic flow through the site. Have a look at the bottom of the page, there is a bunch more of the same meaningless drivel masked as " News".

I didn't read it as news but it is an important topic.

But thanks for telling me what I already knew.

Matthew Saville

I didn't find the post click-bait-y at all, in fact it was a very great collection of quotes from other photographers who have had a great experience opening their business to same-sex couples, in the face of our recent local headlines in which another company literally went out of business (closed their doors on purpose) because of their religious beliefs.

I work in the "content" business now half the time, and I usually hate sensationalist headlines and ridiculous content that is pawned off as news. But this was a good read, thanks for sharing it, Troopers!

The clash between religion and politics will never go away. This is just the current issue. And compared to the past (and present?) times where horrific wars were waged in the name of various gods, and where various governments brutally persecuted the religious, ...I'd say we have this one pretty easy. ;-)

=Matt=

Foques

I'm not against (matter of fact, I am looking for a same sex couple to shoot), but I do feel that government and society has no right to tell a business who the said business should cater to.
If I am running a my own gig, I pay taxes, and pay bills without help, I should be the only one making the decision as to whom I am going to serve or if my schedule is too busy to accommodate a request.

After all, this is exactly how the business bit works - if you don't do something, there is someone else who does.

Richard

Foques wrote: »

I'm not against (matter of fact, I am looking for a same sex couple to shoot), but I do feel that government and society has no right to tell a business who the said business should cater to.

So lunch counters can refuse to serve blacks and golf clubs can exclude women, right? We've seen how well that worked out, which is why we have anti-discrimination laws. We've moved on a bit since then, but it's the same principle.

Matthew Saville

Foques wrote: »

I'm not against (matter of fact, I am looking for a same sex couple to shoot), but I do feel that government and society has no right to tell a business who the said business should cater to.
If I am running a my own gig, I pay taxes, and pay bills without help, I should be the only one making the decision as to whom I am going to serve or if my schedule is too busy to accommodate a request.

After all, this is exactly how the business bit works - if you don't do something, there is someone else who does.

There is a difference between "cater to" and "discriminate against" and that is what needs to be understood here. Nobody is saying you're not allowed to "not cater to" gay weddings. I don't, personally. I cater to ANY couple who loves the outdoors and is looking to have a small, intimate wedding. I "refuse" weddings for various weddings, but those reasons DO involve anything that would legally qualify as discrimination.

Folks are welcome to try and walk the fine line of "we don't cater to gay couples, let us refer you to another photographer who can do a great job!" ...but it will be a bumpy road, that's all I'm saying.


=Matt=

jonh68

Matthew Saville wrote: »

There is a difference between "cater to" and "discriminate against" and that is what needs to be understood here. Nobody is saying you're not allowed to "not cater to" gay weddings. I don't, personally. I cater to ANY couple who loves the outdoors and is looking to have a small, intimate wedding. I "refuse" weddings for various weddings, but those reasons DO involve anything that would legally qualify as discrimination.

Folks are welcome to try and walk the fine line of "we don't cater to gay couples, let us refer you to another photographer who can do a great job!" ...but it will be a bumpy road, that's all I'm saying.


=Matt=

It's a bumpy road, but if someone doesn't want to do my wedding for whatever reason, I don't see the need to force them to do it just because it might fall into anti-discrimination. I would rather get someone who does want to do it.

troopers

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I work in the "content" business now half the time, and I usually hate sensationalist headlines and ridiculous content that is pawned off as news. But this was a good read, thanks for sharing it, Troopers!

You're welcome!

troopers

jonh68 wrote: »

It's a bumpy road, but if someone doesn't want to do my wedding for whatever reason, I don't see the need to force them to do it just because it might fall into anti-discrimination. I would rather get someone who does want to do it.

But what if that reason, whatever it may be, was the basis of other forms of constant discrimination? I think that's the larger issue same sex couples face(d).

troopers

richard wrote: »

so lunch counters can refuse to serve blacks and golf clubs can exclude women, right? We've seen how well that worked out, which is why we have anti-discrimination laws. We've moved on a bit since then, but it's the same principle.

+1

Foques

troopers wrote: »

But what if that reason, whatever it may be, was the basis of other forms of constant discrimination? I think that's the larger issue same sex couples face(d).

there are certain areas, businesses and people that I will not work or shoot for.
If I completely disagree with their methods, views and goals, why should I be forced to do the work for them?

Besides, do you really want to FORCE who doesn't "get" you to do the work for you? I don't think so.

troopers

Foques wrote: »

there are certain areas, businesses and people that I will not work or shoot for.
If I completely disagree with their methods, views and goals, why should I be forced to do the work for them?

Besides, do you really want to FORCE who doesn't "get" you to do the work for you? I don't think so.

It's about protecting the public...this has been discussed at length here so no need to rehash.

If I were you, I wouldn't discriminate against a protected class...if you do, do it tactfully and discretely.

Foques

troopers wrote: »

It's about protecting the public...this has been discussed at length here so no need to rehash.

If I were you, I wouldn't discriminate against a protected class...if you do, do it tactfully and discretely.

i'm not saying that we should jump out and scream it.
I also think that refusing business for most of the reasons is plain dumb. My exceptions come from way different reasons.

Glort

troopers wrote: »

It's about protecting the public...this has been discussed at length here so no need to rehash.

If I were you, I wouldn't discriminate against a protected class...if you do, do it tactfully and discretely.

Translation:

Lie your arse off to avoid having to suffer the hassel of upsetting anyone that can use political corectness ( which is usually the opposite of logic) to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Glort

Foques wrote: »

there are certain areas, businesses and people that I will not work or shoot for.
If I completely disagree with their methods, views and goals, why should I be forced to do the work for them?

Besides, do you really want to FORCE who doesn't "get" you to do the work for you? I don't think so.

It's not about forcing you to do the job, it's about making a big deal and grandstanding to get some media coverage for their cause.

"Regular" non protected classes will walk away and may think you are a jerk for not wanting their business and that will be it. They will do as anyone else would whom didn't like your work or you said you didn't want to do the job and find someone else.
Others will make a huge issue out of it and blow it out of all proportion and that will be compounded by the mainstream and social rabble media.

If you knocked back a job shooting some distasteful sexual acts at an orgy, that would be OK. The weirdos wouldn't make an issue of it. Other groups, and there are getting more of them, with self interested causes are just looking for an excuse to carry on about and draw attention to their particular cause whatever that may be.

Obviously they can do like anyone else and go else where, but as that often dosen't fit the agenda, they will milk it for all it's worth.

If I had a gay couple come to me to cover their wedding, I'd knock it back and tell them straight out that I don't do gay weddings.

Its not legal here.

TonyCooper

An interesting discussion, but I wonder if the photographers who would not photograph
a gay wedding would think about a photographer being turned down to photograph a
wedding because the photographer or the photographer's assistant was gay?

jonh68

TonyCooper wrote: »

An interesting discussion, but I wonder if the photographers who would not photograph
a gay wedding would think about a photographer being turned down to photograph a
wedding because the photographer or the photographer's assistant was gay?

I wouldn't want to photograph an event to begin with if they felt that strongly about the situation.

Matthew Saville

Glort wrote: »

It's not about forcing you to do the job, it's about making a big deal and grandstanding to get some media coverage for their cause.

"Regular" non protected classes will walk away and may think you are a jerk for not wanting their business and that will be it. They will do as anyone else would whom didn't like your work or you said you didn't want to do the job and find someone else.
Others will make a huge issue out of it and blow it out of all proportion and that will be compounded by the mainstream and social rabble media.

If you knocked back a job shooting some distasteful sexual acts at an orgy, that would be OK. The weirdos wouldn't make an issue of it. Other groups, and there are getting more of them, with self interested causes are just looking for an excuse to carry on about and draw attention to their particular cause whatever that may be.

Obviously they can do like anyone else and go else where, but as that often dosen't fit the agenda, they will milk it for all it's worth.

If I had a gay couple come to me to cover their wedding, I'd knock it back and tell them straight out that I don't do gay weddings.

Its not legal here.

I do agree with the sentiment that many people these days, gay or straight, are sue-happy and jumping on any "bandwagon" they can to get their face on TV, or win a huge settlement. It's sick, and I dislike anyone who thinks they can pull that kind of BS.

However, that is only one aspect of the real civil rights issue. Discrimination is still discrimination. Refusing to photograph a gay wedding for no reason other than it's a gay wedding is, or will soon be, (depending on where you live) ...just as illegal as refusing to photograph a black person simply because they're black.

I'm not saying you should lie through your teeth to avoid a lawsuit, because lying could also be against your beliefs. I'm actually a firm believer that if you're open and honest with potential clients, about your own personal beliefs, they'll understand. You don't have to say "I don't photograph gay weddings because I believe homosexuality is a sin" That would be stupid. In fact IMO you deserve to get sued if you're dumb enough to say that to someone's face! ...Instead, just say "My religious beliefs would cause me to feel very awkward in that working environment, so I think you would get better results by hiring someone else"

=Matt=

Glort

In a statement on its website, the husband-and-wife team wrote, in part: “It is not photographing a couple who have different personal beliefs that we have difficulty with. We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day. We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve.”

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Instead, just say "My religious beliefs would cause me to feel very awkward in that working environment, so I think you would get better results by hiring someone else"

=Matt=

You'd get Hung out to Dry.

If the business the professional whingers got all pissy about because the owners said what they did, best you do lie through your teeth because the troublemakers would take your honest explaination and use it as a noose round your neck. :uhoh

Matthew Saville

Glort wrote: »

You'd get Hung out to Dry.

If the business the professional whingers got all pissy about because the owners said what they did, best you do lie through your teeth because the troublemakers would take your honest explaination and use it as a noose round your neck. :uhoh

At what point did I refuse the job though, Glort? I only said I was being honest about how my faith would cause me to feel awkward. I didn't say I'd refuse the job outright. It's easy to gauge who is going to be a potential sue-happy nutjob, and who is going to be a real human being who understands where you're coming from.

It's a matter of reading people, and knowing what to say when you want to control a situation. If you're getting a bad vibe from someone, decline the job for no reason other than you think that the style they're looking for is not yours.

In other words, if you don't have the people skills to avoid saying something that gets a noose around your neck, then it's time to exit this industry...

=Matt=

Foques

Matthew Saville wrote: »

At what point did I refuse the job though, Glort? I only said I was being honest about how my faith would cause me to feel awkward. I didn't say I'd refuse the job outright. It's easy to gauge who is going to be a potential sue-happy nutjob, and who is going to be a real human being who understands where you're coming from.

It's a matter of reading people, and knowing what to say when you want to control a situation. If you're getting a bad vibe from someone, decline the job for no reason other than you think that the style they're looking for is not yours.

In other words, if you don't have the people skills to avoid saying something that gets a noose around your neck, then it's time to exit this industry...

=Matt=

Considering that I was called racist for "I am very sorry that I will not be able to be a part of your day as I have prior commitments on the date question".. There are too many of those nutjobs these days.

jmphotocraft

Muslim barber refuses to cut lesbian's hair. Resolution of this scenario is top secret, but it does not sound like he was forced to.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved/#__federated=1

Wachel

Food for thought...

If I am selling a product (shoes, food, clothes, cars, etc) every single client will get the exact same treatment and the same product. This is your traditional business that shouldn't be allowed to say no to a client/customer as long as they can pay. BUT...

When you are selling "collaborative art" it is a different story. Painters, photographers and other artists have their own unique style, ideas and methods. The final product is going to be different for every single client. As a matter of fact, the final product is a close collaboration between the artist and the client. So the client and the artist have to work well together and have a good rapport. If either one is not comfortable or not "feeling" the session then the final product will suffer. Also, why in the world would a client want to work with someone that doesn't want to work with them?

Matthew Saville

Wachel wrote: »

....Also, why in the world would a client want to work with someone that doesn't want to work with them?

This is, unfortunately, a foreign concept to folks these days. it's part of the reason I've always maintained that society itself is doomed. While I'm all in favor of equality, I'm also in favor of leaving people alone, even if they're old-fashioned or closed-minded, as long as they don't harm others in an outright way.

To be honest, I don't think it's a good idea to force this on certain people. You're right, it'd be a bad final product anyways, photographically speaking. There are plenty of types of people in this world who I can't relate to, and whose wedding photography I would probably botch. Fortunately I'm allowed to turn them away using any number of reasons.

I'm kinda conservative myself, however I have nothing against being gay, in fact some of my best clients were/are. Still, I'd like to be able to turn away a couple if certain aspects of their sexuality made me feel awkward. I'd rather not photograph a wedding for a bunch of nudists, or any other type of crazy / kinky lifestyle ppl. Again, thankfully, I can probably find a legal reason to refuse those jobs. But avoiding watching two dudes kiss? I could get sued...

Just some food for thought...

=Matt=

Sam

This whole subject just irks me to no end!

You (please define you anyway you like)...want and demand the same rights I have.

I agree with you. , I support you. I do!

Now you want more rights than I have.............. GO POUND SAND!

If a baker refuses to bake a cake I want, I have to go and find one that will. I can't and don't want to sue him / her out of business.

If a photographer refuses to photograph my wedding I have no recourse, why should you?

For every baker and photographer who refuse service for a same sex wedding, or any other reason there are 50 or more very happy to serve you.

Your feelings have been hurt.....AW gee wiz, never happened to me.

While freedom does have a cost, lack of freedom costs much more. Ask the residents of North Korea, China, or the middle East.

Sam

Glort

Sam wrote: »

This whole subject just irks me to no end!

You (please define you anyway you like)...want and demand the same rights I have.

I agree with you. , I support you. I do!

Now you want more rights than I have.............. GO POUND SAND!

If a baker refuses to bake a cake I want, I have to go and find one that will. I can't and don't want to sue him / her out of business.

If a photographer refuses to photograph my wedding I have no recourse, why should you?

For every baker and photographer who refuse service for a same sex wedding, or any other reason there are 50 or more very happy to serve you.

Your feelings have been hurt.....AW gee wiz, never happened to me.

While freedom does have a cost, lack of freedom costs much more. Ask the residents of North Korea, China, or the middle East.

Sam

You make an excellent and very valid Point Sam.
These people have gone from wanting equal rights to now having more rights and using them to get their own way and hold a gun to peoples heads.

If someone came to me to photograph a same sex wedding I'd turn them down and tell them straight to their face that I didn't do gay weddings.
Let them try and sue me and see how far they get.

johng

Non photographers do not look at it as art. They look at it as a good/service. In general, I can understand Sam's point. However, I think it's very easy for people that have never had to live their life surrounded by prejudice to not understand. To a gay person, this is similar to a restaurant telling an African American couple it would be better if they ate at a restaurant down the street - that, because they didn't like "black people" they don't think the quality of their food or service would be good.

As a white male, it's easy to say "well I would just go to a different restaurant" because I really don't live with prejudice - the restaurant in this scenario isn't the 1,000 time I was treated the way I was because of the color of my skin.

To the gay couple, this situation isn't much different than the restaurant situation I mentioned above.

Foques

johng wrote: »

Non photographers do not look at it as art. They look at it as a good/service. In general, I can understand Sam's point. However, I think it's very easy for people that have never had to live their life surrounded by prejudice to not understand. To a gay person, this is similar to a restaurant telling an African American couple it would be better if they ate at a restaurant down the street - that, because they didn't like "black people" they don't think the quality of their food or service would be good.

As a white male, it's easy to say "well I would just go to a different restaurant" because I really don't live with prejudice - the restaurant in this scenario isn't the 1,000 time I was treated the way I was because of the color of my skin.

To the gay couple, this situation isn't much different than the restaurant situation I mentioned above.

what?

that's not even remotely "the same thing".
not that any of your examples are valid, anyway. Sam is spot on, "as a white, non-religious, male", I have way less rights than any of the blacks, or hispanics, or muslims, and I can keep going.
I see this nonsense pushed around every day.

You can be any color you want to say, any religion, any orientation, if I don't like you as a human being, I will not want to work with you. And this is just the way the world works - when the PC idiocy is out of the way - some people just happen to dislike other people; not everyone is going to like you or me, or Sam, or Glort. There are always going to be people who will dislike us no matter who or what we are. this is the point here. This is how the "equal rights" work. not what we're seeing today.

/rant.

johng

Arseny - you absolutely have the right to say you will not provide services for a person because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Just don't expect them to like it. Again, when you or a loved one has been the victim of discrimination you might feel differently. People in the US used to believe it was OK to refuse to serve people because they were Black. This really is the same thing. This isn't about artistic differences - it's not about the wedding couple saying they want everyone in animal costumes. Hey, I'm not saying they should be granted a large award in a civil suit here. Just, to me, this particular situation is no different than a restaurant, or photographer saying they wouldn't provide service for a black couple.

I guess for the purposes of this discussion I would ask - do you think a service provider should be within their rights to refuse a good or service to a person based upon the color of their skin or the fact they are a woman?