That’s bullshit! Business should have the right to choose who their clients are. Business are private organizations, not public services.

Total B.S. I don’t agree necessarily with her choice, but it is her right to choose who her clients are. Why is it retail establishments can reserve the right to refuse service and she can’t? I don’t get this at all.

So we shouldn’t turn down gay weddings because we can go to court?
How about because its wrong to discriminate against a couple that are in love, and want to spend the rest of their lives together? would you guys turn down a client because other reasons? maybe interracial couples?.

Photographers should not cast their personal opinions on gay marriage, specially since its a group that going to get bigger and use your services.

Wow I thought this was a non-issue

The client was totally setting up the photog. No justice.

Client’s hire me because they like my work/style. One reason I’m able to capture the emotion and feeling that I can is because I’m passionate about my subject matter. Not only do I want to be able to turn down a same-sex ceremony, I don’t think I’d do a very good job because I don’t see that the same way I see a traditional marriage.

Just like I would turn down someone that wanted to hire me for product photography. That’s not what I do or have an eye for. I don’t want to do it and they could find someone better. But I won’t get sued if I turn down product work…

Andrew: you cant compare “product photography” with this…
Its still a wedding, you’ve done dozens and dozens its the same “gig”.

There’s got to be a few cases that you had “straight” couples were one person in the couple was more of a pain and you “didn’t feel it” but still photographed the event and the couple loved your product, even if you weren’t 100% with it.

Its a couple in love, don’t segregate

No way Al. It’s a completely different subject matter. I don’t know how to pose those groupings. I don’t know what looks or feels awkward/comfortable. I wouldn’t be able to recognize the “right” moment to take a shot. I can’t see it.

I’ve haven’t been asked yet. If I ever am asked, I will try to explain that I don’t think I would do a good job for them and they would be happier with a different photographer. That way I’m not saying, “no”, I’m saying “if you’re my client and you want the best pictures you can get, its in your best interest to not be my client.”

Regardless, it’s a stupid game that I shouldn’t have to play. I position myself not as a photographer that produces pictures, but as an artist that produces commissioned works of art. I should have the right to choose my own subject matter and to turn down a commission for any reason I choose.

On the larger question of “segregation.” I completely disagree that sexual preference on the same level as race, religion or disability. But even so, I think we would be better off letting business owners establish whatever personal prejudices and rules they want and then allow the market to dictate whether or not they stay in business.

My 2 cents: Dittos to the [individual's rights first] comments. Under the premises of this case you might as well say that because someone wanted to use your services as a photographer, they were ‘entitled’ to it, no matter your objections. They could be in some joining ceremony with a dog or tree or anything they felt like, and you’d be obligated to work for them.

By saying no to any prospective client, you’re telling them you don’t want to that work, or you’ve got other work you’d prefer to do. Maybe if the plaintiffs in this case had offered to pay more, they would have overcome the defendant’s sensibility.

Just because someone has a want or need doesn’t obligate you to fill just because they’re touchy about what they view as one of their defining characteristics (or for any other reason, for that matter).

I’d reject this idea for the same reasons Andrew does, but its complete IRRATIONALITY it’s primary fatal flaw.

I’d have to agree with Andrew on this one as well. I like doing portrait work, but if someone asked me to do their nude shots, I would decline. It doesn’t matter how much they think it’s okay or if it is permissible by law, because if I don’t agree with shooting nude models, I won’t. If I haven’t taken any money from them or signed a contract, I have no obligation to them. I’m going to be told I’m discriminating? My issue is not the client, but that I choose the type of business I want to be in. I could be friends with the client and still reject their request. Why would it be any different with same sex weddings? Me denying their request to shoot their wedding does not mean I am discriminating against them or do not get along with same sex couples, it’s just that I choose not to do that type of business.

“Photographers should not cast their personal opinions on gay marriage, specially since its a group that going to get bigger and use your services.” -Al

Could the opposite also be true? Couples in a same sex relationship should not cast their personal opinions on photographers, especially when there is no shortage of photographers these days.

As a wedding photog myself, I would like to have the right to choose who I shoot weddings for. If I didn’t really feel a connection with the couple during the meeting, I would choose not to shoot their wedding and maybe recommend someone else.

I think the justice system really let down this photographer and every photographer out there. This photographer never once told the couple they couldn’t get married or denied them a marriage license. She just declined to take their wedding pictures. All they had to do is go online or pick up the phone to contact the next photographer. Unless they are in the North Pole, they should be able to find 100 alternative photographers, because the market is completely over saturated these days.

I wonder what outcome this couple was hoping for? By suing this photographer are they hoping to force her into providing a service or is it just monetary? I just see this poor photographer’s record being tarnished! If she is a member of certain groups/societies, she can now be booted from them due to a lawsuit. I’m sure by now this couple has had their wedding day and found a great photographer to capture their day like they wanted. It’s too bad their hot heads had to get into the mix.

I don’t know what the photographer said to explain her refusal to book with that couple, but I hope she respectfully declined them.
I do agree with much of what most of you are saying.
We’re often discouraged to compromise on our rates if a client is wanting to get a deal. If we refuse clients because they can’t afford us, it doesn’t make us “class-ist”. Being paid accordingly to your work is fair.
In the end, the goal is to provide your best work to a client.
So, if a client approaches you for a gig you know is not necessarily your forte and you know you wouldn’t be able to put in your best, the right thing to do it seems is to recommend someone else who you know would do a much better job (assuming we’re all in this helping each other, too.) It’s only fair to both the client and yourself.

As I understand the ruling, the issue was not that the photographer didn’t want to shoot the wedding, it’s that the BUSINESS refused service. The photographer could have said “You can book my studio to shoot your wedding, but I will have to bring in an associate to shoot it, because I personally have moral objections and cannot attend. We will be happy to provide you with a suitable alternative.”

It was a bonehead move on the photographer’s part to say that she wouldn’t shoot same-sex weddings. She should have just said she was unavailable and left it at that.

If you have an issue with the ruling in this case, then you need to understand that what you REALLY have an issue with is making “sexual orientation” a protected class along with race, gender, religion, etc. We all agree that it should be illegal for someone to say “I won’t let you come in my restaurant because you’re black” right? Well, that’s the same law that this woman broke. If this judge were to rule that what this woman did was legal or acceptable, that would have set a precedent that denying someone service based on other protected classes such as skin color, gender, religion, and nationality would also be okay. I think we can all agree that’s a bad thing.

Sam, while I wholeheartedly agree that a restaurant refusing service to a black person is morally wrong, refusing service to a morally wrong (IMHO) same sex ceremony is not. I strongly disagree with the assumption (it’s not been proven) that homosexuals are born that way. I believe it’s a choice.

A protected class is a protected class, whether you agree with it or not. Religion is a choice and similarly controversial. If I were to refuse to document the ceremony of a Jewish, Christian or Muslim couple because I’m opposed to their religious beliefs, I would be breaking the law. This is no different.

It’s always a good day when bigoted people are proven wrong and get smacked where it hurts – the wallet.

This is an issue close to my heart. The comment by Walt R is very offensive. I do have a gay brother and to say that it is a choice he (gays) have made is incredibly narrow minded. Do you really think you would choose to become gay to be subject to the bigotry Walt has just displayed? If this is how Elaine Huguenin behaved then I can see why she was fined.

The funny thing is that I whole heartedly agree that as a photographer we should have a choice of who we wish to photograph.

Andrew (comments 5 & 7 above) explained it best IMHO… but come on Walt… choose your words so as not to offend.

First I will add that, when it comes down to it, no one on this forum will be convinced to switch their moral stance on homosexuality because of our discussion, so this should be a business conversation as far as I see it.

I agree Elaine could have made it easier for herself finding a more subtle way to turn these clients down, yet it seems wrong that the court should force Elaine or any photographer into a genre of business if it conflicts with his or her religious beliefs. While Elaine’s reputation with the gay community is now tarnished, I doubt that is important to her and I also doubt her business will suffer tremendously.

I have personally dealt with this dilemma as I am a Bible-believing Christian who was booked for a same-sex ceremony. In the end, I did photograph the wedding because it was the professional thing to do. I had to think through it this way – as a Christian, I don’t see eye to eye with someone practicing Hinduism, but I wouldn’t be opposed to photographing their wedding (It would be different if I were asked to be the minister for the service.) In an effort to treat the couple the same way I treat any couple, I swallowed my discomfort and I created some great images that the couple loved. People are hiring me because of my ability to capture moments and to make artistic photos of them. I simply choose NOT to use those photos in all my promotional pieces and promote myself as the “same-sex wedding photographer.” Wouldn’t you think same-sex couples would look for photographers who show great examples and experience with same-sex ceremonies?

What Walt believes is his choice. He can believe what he wants to believe, whether it is right or wrong (although a little off topic).

I see how you may be offended, Adam, but Walt’s stated opinions about life are not a direct attack on you. Likewise, your belief about sexual orientation is not an attack on conservative members of this forum.

It seems we’re all agreeing on the same thing though. We should have the right to choose the clients that we think we can serve best.

Many people just do not get the point of what this couple did by suing this photographer. For gay people, each small step towards the one big step of being accepted by society is necessary as a precedent for the future. It is a steep uphill climb for same sex couples and it is a sad fact that this country is still so closed minded about what defines love, marriage and how people live their lives. Whether being gay is chosen or not should not matter. We live in a modern world with all types of couples. A sophisticated photographer would be only interested in how they can serve their client and not judge them on who they choose to marry. Shooting a gay wedding is the same as a straight one. It is two people in love and all you need to do is document the natural love between them. If you could get past the fact that it is people of the same sex, you would be surprised at the level of TRUE love between them. In many cases it can be more real than some of the straight couples out there. Kudos to the legal system for taking the side of human rights! No one should discriminate their service to another human, especially when you are in the business of LOVE!!! For those of you out there that disagree, it would be a good idea to just say you are booked that day. There are many other quality photographers out there that would love the business. Pass it on!

Wow – I love same sex Weddings/ Commitment ceremonies
Why because they usual have Great tastes – and Huge Budgets.
They can also be the most compassionate people you could ever meet.
I just shot a same sex commitment ceremony – they had been together for 10 years and I can honestly say that I have never met a couple that have been together that long, that have the same amount of enthuisiasm, respect and love for each other, that those 2 showed and yes I shed a tear – and I have been shooting weddings for 30 years. We had such and awesome day and soo much fun – think outside the square it is 2010 after all.

The problem is relativism. We’ve tried to train our society to believe that it’s okay for you to believe one thing and for me to believe in another thing, as long as we can get along. But what we’re finding is that spheres of belief are beginning to clash with one another. As our society heads more toward individualism and relativism, we leave behind the idea of absolute truth. If we as a society cannot agree on what is right or wrong, then there will always be conflicts.

Might I dare say that until absolute truth is established and accepted in this world, there will never be true peace.

I find it interesting that if a person does not want to accept a job for moral reasons they should lie to get out of it LOL!

Oh yea, also how we should be open minded, unless you disagree with me. Then I have the right to call you names LOL!

Last thing, I don’t even have to make a case for this as Verent is laying down some knowledge for everyone. Well played Verent.

My new disclaimer in wedding contract…

Due to my Christian values on Marriage being that it should only be between a Man and a Woman, I do not feel that my performance would be adequate to properly cover a same sex marriage. My expression of photography of such event may not live up to my standard of performance and by entering this contract as a same sex marriage will not be held liable for performance. Due to discrimination laws I am required not to discriminate in this arena. Therefore there is an expectation of reduced performance due to religious expression.

Thank God I am in a State that does not recognize same sex marriages!

While I agree with the court, I don’t see this case as being a victory for gay clients, because now photographers who might not do a good job because they are squeamish (or even violently opposed to) gay marriage will not confess their reluctance to shoppers, and the gay clients might end up hiring someone whose heart just isn’t into doing a good job.

EVERY couple deserves a photographer who is chomping at the bit to shoot their wedding, not someone who is faking interest because otherwise they might get sued. There are plenty of folks out there would love to shoot a gay wedding, and the gay’s couple is best served when they can talk candidly when shopping photographers.

Most gay coulpes are sensitive enough to ask if I am comfortable with there request for services before we get very far in the conversation.

If you don’t want to shoot gay events or portraits, you need to have a sensitive, non-threatining reply prepared that you can use that will not cause any ruffelled feathers. If you are and ass about it, you deserve the heat it may bring. Discrimination is a serious problem and deserves to be punished.

Walt, I understand that you feel that way. However, my point is that what you really have an issue with is the fact that sexual orientation is a “protected class” in some areas. THAT is what you should be upset about, not this ruling. This ruling was absolutely necessary to prevent similar types of prejudice against race, religion, gender, and so on. In the eyes of New Mexico law, if they were to allow this, that would set a legal precedent for businesses to refuse to serve interracial couple because they thought it was immoral or against their beliefs (remember the Justice of the Peace who did that a few months ago?). If you feel that someone deserves to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, then you should campaign to have them removed as a protected class. Personally I think that is a despicable thing to do, but based on your beliefs, it seems that that is what you believe in.

I really don’t understand why Christians get so up in arms about gay marriage. Sure, the Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it also says a Christian should never marry a non-believer (2 Cor. 6:14 and onwards). To you “Christian” photographers who refuse to photograph gay marriages, do you also refuse to photograph marriages between a Christian and a non-Christian? If not, you are the epitome of hypocrisy. If you’re going to live your dogma, then live it completely. Don’t pick and choose which types of people you are going to discriminate against based on what’s popular to protest.

Some of the earlier comments said the photographer was setup, yeah and good for them, it’s like trying to get an apartment and getting turned down [i.e. it's not available] for race, religion, color, sex, ect, and then someone else inquires and it’s available. For all we know this might not have been the first photographer to turn the client down, could have been the straw that broke the camels back so to say. I don’t this is a case of photographers cannot turn down clients that they don’t want to shoot, I just think it’s more about using the clients sexual orientation as a reason to turn them down. Willock only sued for court cost so it’s not like she’s trying to put the business out of business. It’s a principle thing. You are offering a service, wedding photography, to the public,

I think Hannah said it best, if you can shoot a Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Greek Orthodox or any other religions ceremony wedding, how is a same-sex any different? One person gets dressed in one location the other maybe in another, they exchange vows, Smiles, hugs, kisses, the family is happy, and you do what you do…shoot it! I agree with the ruling in the sense that the photographers conveyed message is not that I shoot heterosexual weddings, “rather, its message is fine photography of special moments.” Just don’t put the images on the website or promote the event in any way.

Sorry last line of first paragraph wasn’t complete – I meant to erase that.

The New Mexico defendant made the mistake of answering an e-mail request with the statement, “I don’t do gay weddings.”

A better answer would have been, “I don’t have any experience photographing gay weddings.”. It sets up doubt.

The best possible reply would be a cross referrral. Win-win.

BTW, you don’t HAVE TO shoot gay weddings, you have to not discriminate.

This post is specifically for all of the Christian photographers who have posted above. But feel free to read it if you aren’t a Christian too. I won’t refuse you service

As a professional photographer as well as a professing Christian I
personally don’t believe that a photographers beliefs need to be kept separate from their business.

That being said I think it is absolutely ridiculous for a “Christian” photographer to turn down a wedding based upon conflicting world views/ moral discrimination. And here is the definitive reason why I believe that;

If you truly are a Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ with the Bible as your guide, you would know that Jesus accepted everyone as they are with love. Yes it is clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is sinful, But the Bible also states that God loves everyone EXACTLY THE SAME, every single person on earth is equal in the eyes of God. Love the sinner not the sin. As a Christian you are called to treat and love EVERYONE the same, no matter their sexual preference, race, faith, etc. If you are a Christian and know your Bible, you would also know that in absolutely no way are we to judge anyone but ourselves. Leave the judging up to God please. That is what He commands in His Bible.

In no way am I saying that you are to support something that you do not believe is right. My website clearly states my religious beliefs as well as my openness to photographing same sex weddings. If a client asked me what I thought about photographing their same sex wedding I would tell them that I would treat them and their wedding with the exact same care and professionalism that I treat every client and wedding with. Just because you photograph someone does dot mean that you support their beliefs.

As a Christian, if you for any reason feel the need to segregate or even offer less (which sickens me) than your best service to any client or prospective client because you believe that their life choices/sexual orientation/whatever are sinful, I ask that you look at your own life and examine whether or not you are perfect. Did Jesus Christ refuse you service when you made the decision to become a Christian?

Nate B – All I can say is this part right here “If you truly are a Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ with the Bible as your guide, you would know that Jesus accepted everyone as they are with love.” is DEFINITELY going to keep this debate alive!

Love it man, forget about chapter & verse, you just roll with that!

#1 I am not upset
#2 As a primarily architectural and interior photographer I have many very talented gay clients. I have traveled with a few of them and have had dinner with one in particular at a gay restaurant in Santa Fe.
I openly discus my point of view and listen to theirs. I think they are wrong they think I am wrong, we go about our business, no problem.
#3 What I am against is an attempt to change centuries old established family structure to satisfy the political activists.
#4 I just want to discus photography here, not politics or religion.
#5 I am not a bigot

We are such a sue happy society it just makes me sick. If an establishment does not have what we want then just sue. Why is it that we cannot just go somewhere else to get it? People are so bent on making others miserable because we can’t get our way. So let’s just destroy someone’s business or name because we can’t have what we want. I am sure there are plenty of other places that would have and could have done a better job, but no you are going to pay. Ok so you don’t have what I want or can’t offer me the service that I need. Then go find someone that can.

Nate B-
I’m talking as a Photographer and a Pastor. Yes Jesus accepted and loved everyone regardless of what their sin is/was. However, Jesus never accepted their sin. Jesus would never take part in sin, because taking part in sin is just like sinning. Jesus never accepted sin (We all know that Jesus never sinned), instead he sacrificed himself on the cross, so that who ever believed in him with all their heart mind and strength would be able to go to heaven. By believing in Jesus that way means you would also obey his word (the Holy Bible), therefore accepting sin would be disobeying his word. By Photographing a homosexual wedding would be like I’m taking part in their sin. Jesus never accepted sin. He drove out the money changers and sellers from the temple for what they were doing, he told the woman at the well to go and sin no more after committing adultery.

Now as a Pastor and photographer, if i were to photograph a homosexual wedding 1. i would become a hypocrite in the eyes of the people that I minister to by accepting homosexuality, and 2. i would be striped of my Pastoral credentials by the organization I’m licensed with, and 3. I would loose my position as a pastor.

I will never shoot a homosexual wedding because of both my beliefs/morals, and because of my association with my religious organization.

However. The photographer who was sued in the article, was absolutely stupid. There were better ways of going around telling the homosexual couple that she was unable to shoot their wedding. Wade‘s post is great for how to handle this situation. Even though you don’t shoot homosexual weddings, at least state why and refer them to someone else who does not have the same dilemma with it as you do.

So Adam, do you only photograph Christian weddings? How do you prequalify your Christian brides and grooms to make sure you are not participating in their sin? Do you make sure they don’t live together before you photograph their wedding? Do you make sure they are both virgins? Just because you photograph a gay wedding doesn’t mean you are participating in their sin. Maybe you should only be a Pastor and not also a wedding photographer if you want to be so selective in your wedding photography clients.

Whoa, Dan. It sounds like you’re making attacks on AdamRW, which will not help this discussion any. I don’t recall AdamRW trying to offend anyone. Choose your words carefully as this is a professional forum.

Dan, if you have a friend that is going to rob a bank and you know decide to help him by driving the getaway car, are you not an accomplice? You didn’t actually rob the bank, but you still are charged the same penalty when caught. It’s no different from a Christian view. Sin is like a crime.

And it would be ridiculous for the friend to say, “I don’t believe what you’re doing is right, but cut me a piece of the pie and I’ll drive the car.” Would it not? He’d be a hypocrite for pushing aside his beliefs for the sake of earning some extra cash.

Ridiculous, but definitely not uncommon.

Travel back 40 years and replace gay marriage with interracial marriage and we would be having this same argument- and it would be just as offensive.

@ AdamRW – as a Pastor’s wife and professional photographer of 10+ years, I see your point, but I do see Dan’s point as well. There are many marriages that I have photographed where I don’t agree with how the couple has lived their lives. People get drunk at weddings, or have lived together before marriage, or have been divorced and this is their second (or third or fourth) marriage, and I still capture their day and their relationships and love for one another. Just because we, as professionals, can capture moments and relationships, doesn’t mean we agree that every couple is a good match. We don’t have to agree with that.

I think it is easy to be strongly opinionated about homosexuality until it really becomes personal. In my heart I don’t believe that it is God’s plan or God’s best for people. I believe that He designed marriage to be between one man and one woman forever…but my husband’s brother and his partner are two of the most kind and wonderful people I have ever met. I love them. They bring out the best in each other. It’s definitely a conflict in my life. But, Jesus has demonstrated love.

It looks like people have come up with a few different ways to choose not to take on gay ceremonies without saying “I don’t do gay marriage”. That is not a Christ-like way, in my opinion, to live or run a business. We are called to live out our faith in love. This doesn’t mean we have to take any weddings, it does mean we have to act lovingly in how we run our businesses.

The photographer was legally (and morally) in the wrong.

PS- It’s not sue-happy when someone sues only for legal fees. Obviously, the potential client was interesting in calling out the photographer on breaking the law. Well done — a law against discrimination is only as good as the court system that upholds it.

To those that say it is wrong to turn down a same sex marriage b/c we discriminate. I sayy this. There are laws we have to abide that are set by man for man, and then there are laws set by GOD homosexuality is a sin and a man marrying a man is not how god designed us , to the person who said would we also discrimnate against inter racial marriage, there is nothing wrong with a white guy marrying a black woman or vice versa, we should not be forced to abandon our morals just becuase gay people say we have to there are pleanty of people who are willing to take the job, but I dont feel someone who turns it down b/c it conflicts with their religious beliefs shold be sued for doing so. If the person said “F” off qeear or somthing hatefule thats a diffent story but simply abiding by your moral and religious belifes should not get you sued. Just my opinion.

The photographers were neither morally nor legally wrong.

Photography is an art form. Photographers should not be forced to make an artistic expression that violates what they want their art to stand for. Should Mapplethorpe be forced to take pictures at a Southern Baptist wedding? Not if he doesn’t want to, because that probably doesn’t comport with his artistic vision. Wait, wouldn’t that be religious discrimination? Yep, but that should be ok under rights of conscience. We are not talking about government actors here. These are private citizens, and they have a right to conduct their business and use their artistic vision to express their speech.

This is really heinous government control of speech, the other side of the coin of censorship. Really outrageous!

Amy wrote – The photographer was legally (and morally) in the wrong.
===================
Not legally wrong. Judges make mistakes all the time, trying to dictate their own morals all the time, hence, why there are appeals and many appeals victories. Judges shouldnt legislate from the bench, its defend the law. Businesses have the right to refuse anyone service, and sexual orientation is not a Constitutionally protected right, its a choice. And who’s morals are you trying to force down our throats when you say its morally wrong?? Whats morally wrong are 2 people of the same sex having sex or getting married. Unless you are all for pedophilia and polygamy, you are just a biased hypocrite.

All she had to say was that she was booked..end of story.