Photographer Clashes with Weddings Unveiled Magazine Over Same-Sex Marriage Ad

At Fstoppers, we do our best to stay away from topics that are strictly political in nature. Generally speaking, it’s not our place. We are a blog for creative professionals, not any number of sites that poke at hot button issues for the sake of sensationalism. However, once in a while, a situation arises that directly affects photographers and their decisions. One such situation occurred when Weddings Unveiled Magazine rejected a photographer’s paid advertisement.

On February 16, wedding photographer Anne Almasy published an article on her personal blog regarding an issue she experienced that hit a serious nerve with her. After shooting weddings for 10 years, she finally decided to take out her first print advertisement in a magazine. Her choice was Weddings Unveiled, a popular magazine based in Georgia with its main distribution all throughout the southern United States. She finished the process of selecting her ad size and talking with the editors, and she was ready to send them her ad, pictured below:

weddings unveiled ad Photographer Clashes with Weddings Unveiled Magazine Over Same Sex Marriage Ad

Almasy said she chose the image because “to me, it says love. It says home. It says joy.”

After she submitted the image, the editors of Weddings Unveiled magazine sent her the following reply:

“Is there possibly another photograph you’d like to use in your ad? We just don’t feel comfortable publishing an ad featuring a same-sex couple. These aren’t our personal beliefs, of course, but, you know…”

Almasy, offended, replied “No, I don’t have another photograph I would like to use.”

The editor said she would have another conversation with her team and call Almasy back. The call back was not the response Almasy was looking for.

“We haven’t even run your credit card yet, so we can just move on without your ad. We’d still love to have you in the magazine, though, so let me know if you want to advertise in the future.”

Weddings Unveiled refused to run the ad, which is their right as a magazine. However as you can imagine, this greatly angered Almasy, who was “shaking” with fury and sadness. Almasy also makes an interesting point, stating that if she wanted to advertise with the gay community, there were other magazine options for her. But she chose Weddings Unveiled because she wanted to advertise “to couples who are getting married. This couple didn’t get ‘gay married. They didn’t have a ‘gay wedding.’ They got married. They had a wedding. They share their lives, their joys and sorrows, and all the mundane daily things that we all share with our partners. They are just people. In love. Committed to one another.”

Today, Weddings Unveiled published their public apology in response to Alamay, which you can also find here:

“We are Terri and Brooke, the publishers of Weddings Unveiled Magazine. We hope that you will allow us the opportunity to address an important issue that has angered and disappointed many people. We are incredibly sad that same sex marriage is still an issue in our society. When we were faced with the decision of whether or not to publish Anne Almasy’s advertisement, we acted in a manner that does not reflect our personal beliefs. We truly believe that all love is beautiful and that all people have the right to marry. You might ask that if we feel that way, then why did we make this decision? Honestly, we knew that everyone would not share our belief that all people have the right to marry. The issue is very sensitive and it is also very divided. We knew that it was possible that people would be offended if we published the ad and we knew that it was possible that people would be offended if we did not. We are so sorry that we acted out of fear and uncertainty. We had never been faced with such a decision and we should have acted with our hearts.

We are two women who operate a small business that we care deeply about. We love all weddings. We love all people and would never want to anger, offend or disappoint anyone. We are deeply moved by the outpouring of love and support for Anne. We are so sorry that we have disappointed you and we ask for your forgiveness. If Anne would still like to run her ad in Weddings Unveiled, then we would be proud to publish it.

Sincerely,
Terri and Brooke”

Now we of course want to hear your thoughts, but before you type them up here are a few things to keep in mind:

1) Magazines reserve the right not publish any ad at any time. Kind of like being refused service at a restaurant because you aren’t wearing pants.
2) Gay marriage is not legally recognized in Georgia, nor in any of the states where Weddings Unveiled has their primary distribution (the exception being New York) nor where Almasy shoots the majority of her weddings.
3) Just because gay marriage isn’t legalalized doesn’t mean couples don’t celebrate weddings. It may not be legally recognized, but many same-sex couples still have weddings and hire photographers.

So here are some questions to think about:

Was Weddings Unveiled in the wrong to deny the ad, knowing their prime demographics and distribution? Was Almasy trying to shine emphasis on the issue because she knew it was a hot-button topic, guaranteed to generate buzz? Does the apology from Weddings Unveiled resonate with you? If you were in Almasy’s shoes, would you still want to run the ad?

This is a very tough subject, but one that has ramifications for any photographer. If you ran into this issue with your personal business, how would it make you feel? Would you have done what Almasy did? Let us know in the comments below.

[Via AnneAlmasy.com]

Business

Editorial

News

Opinion

Other

« RED Taking Sony To Court Over Patent Infringement, Wants Cameras Destroyed

Huge Savings on Canon and Nikon Lenses! »

Melody DuVal
- I really wish this would allow me to delete my comment, I did not intend to run it with my full name –
I work at a magazine and it is a tough decision to not run an ad. We run a lot of ads that are for things we *don’t* believe in because we know they appeal to our primary audience. We’re very cautious in running things we do believe in that go against the grain of our primary audience.
That said, I think they handled it poorly in first refusing to the run the ad and then outing their readerships as the bad-guys who would have a problem with it. If you’re going to refuse to run an ad I think you should know that you’re ok with the fall-out and you should stand by it.
http://profile.yahoo.com/SPJC3VMZJ44KVUFJ5776XUENHU TerryP
If that magazine ran that ad, multiple other advertisers would have dropped out.
It’s a real clever ad, and one that is unique to get people looking past all the other predictable wedding photographer ads. But for the South and that reader demo, the magazine would satisfy a very small minority, at the cost of the majority of the readers and advertisers.
Weddings Unveiled could have been a pioneer in a movement, and like a real pioneer, arrows will be aimed at their back.
vinterchaos
So she’s exploiting her client’s photos to get a name for herself by calling out magazines who don’t wanna publish her ads?
http://twitter.com/RayannaMay Rayanna Tremblay
Both sides do have valid points, however it is the right of the magazine, as it is of most businesses to make that choice. There are some photographers out there who are not comfortable with shooting a same sex marriage. Would we bash them as well for this? I even know some who are not comfortable shooting certain religious weddings as it makes them uncomfortable. Or it is not how they want their brand to be represented. Every business has an image and type of client they cater to and need to think of how those clients would be affected. If it was a LGBT magazine, would they want an ad with hetero couple?
It is a tricky subject as the ad does have the right to be posted, however, if the law says the publisher can make the choice, then they ultimately have the choice regardless of the moral issue here.
http://profile.yahoo.com/SPJC3VMZJ44KVUFJ5776XUENHU TerryP
I too work for a magazine, but in the art department, not in sales. I am close to the sales team and support them whenever potential clients have questions about file prep and print production capabilities. Yes we have to turn away advertisers a lot, but we do it with tact. I’ve called back potential advertisers to tell them “no” just to see if I could ever handle being in sales, but it’s easy to say “no” to escort sites, marriage matchmakers, and 1-900 phone services because they hear it all the time.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-Patro-Lind-Lino/100000930487497 Patrick Patro Lind Lino
If you don’t agree with the ideas and views of a magazine….then simply take your business elsewhere. The magazine did not break any laws here and the magazine company has every right to deny service just as much as the photographer has a right to express her feelings. I never ever understood why people cannot understand such a simple concept.
jroby1
It appears the magazine printed their apology out of fear as well, since they only did so after the photographer made it a public issue. It is their right to choose not to run the photo, and they did not take her money. Since the photographer refused to provide another photograph, it cements my belief that the subject choice was purely for sensational reasons. If you recall, a certain television station refused to run a plus size underwear ad, but was eager to run the victoria secret ads? They were allowed to make that choice, even with public criticism. Why should this be any different? The magazine should not feel pressured to run an ad that is directed to a specific audience, if they feel it is not their main demographic. Would we run a diaper ad in a wedding magazine because some brides are pregnant? Weather out of fear or not, the publisher’s first instinct was “no”, and sometimes insincts are just good business sense.
vinterchaos
Discrimination how? The photographer wasn’t discriminated on, her advertisement was rejected. There is no law forcing any magazine to run anyone’s work in their pages. This is what is wrong with people today “boo hoo I’ll sue you”
Screw off!
vinterchaos
ahaha right!
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
That is your belief. It is not everyone’s belief. Marriage pre-dates the Christian religion by thousands of years, so please stop dictating your morals to the rest of us.
http://www.facebook.com/dallasjeff Jeff Henderson
Complicated issue. I am a gay man, a photographer and an MBA. My first thought is as a business man, every advertising dollar needs to be tied back to a revenue stream. If she is wanting to market to SS couples, then maybe that was not the best place to spend her money. And yes, love is love, so if she was just wanting to appeal to any couple in love, that image did not sing to me. The pose seems awkward, I just don’t find it to be a great image. So, I think the ad failed on that level as well. I’m not sure it showed what she would wanted whether targeting to a gay couple, a straight couple or any couple in love.
And if she is targeting the LGBT community, while some SS couples might pick up that magazine, my thought is if I was getting married, I would search first in media more targeted to my community. That doesn’t mean I would not branch out from there to find the best caterer, photographer, venue, etc… But for a starting point, would be in a more targeted media.
While the magazine may or might not be in their rights to reject the ad (depending upon the ordinances in their area), it was probably short sighted on their part. I am from the south and live in Texas now. Everyone is not so close mined on these issues as stereotypes would have one believe. I imagine that very few people would have been offended, but those would be the same people who might potentially be offended if the Bride and Groom were mixed race, mixed religion or some other issue. We can’t spend our lives worrying that someone will be offended by reality. So the magazine should get over their fear, and the photographer should make a better business decision in her ad placement.
http://twitter.com/duskrider Andre Goulet
Maybe she’s trying to break into the same-sex wedding business? Thus, the ad.
http://www.chrisburke.ca Chris Burke
I think they have the right to not publish the ad.. I also think they would have lost a lot of subscribers had they published it.. There seem to be a lot more ppl against same sex marriage than for it..especially being in the south.. And as a business whose goal is to make money, I think they made the right decision.. Had they published it, they would have lost money..
Now of course we have the issue of the photographer who has gone public with the fact that the magazine didn’t publish her ad.. I’m sure they didn’t see that coming, so that obviously has negative impact on them as a business too.. Was she right in going public with it? I don’t think so.. I think she was just looking for her 15 minutes of fame, and purposely used a hot button photo in her ad.. She’s been shooting for 10 years, no doubt reading that magazine for years to want to advertise in there.. And has never seen an ad like that in there.. So I think she KNEW she would get turned down. And planned on using it as a publicity stunt..
I guarantee her website traffic has gone through the roof in the last few days.. Great business move for her.. But I think it was a dirty trick ethically..
Please note that I’m talking about this from a business stance.. Not a personal stance.. This is a business issue..
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1527214223 Maureen Light
To me, it is strictly a marketing issue, not a personal belief issue. Frankly, I don’t give a whim if folks are gay or straight. However, if the target audience of the publication is 90% traditional, then the publisher has to pander to that market segment. Yes, the photographer was due the apology as well as the couple featured in the ad, but the publisher was fully within their rights to maintain their market share.
A K
well,
I feel genuinely sorry for photographer, who’s best picture after 10 years of experience is so pathetic. Not from a “same-sex” point of view. This photo is just plain screams – Amateur.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Yes, Weddings Unveiled was wrong. Not because they refused the ad, but because they let the opinions of others influence them in making a decision that went against their core beliefs. This is called cowardice. No matter what your beliefs are, stand up for them.
“1) Magazines reserve the right not publish any ad at any time. Kind of like being refused service at a restaurant because you aren’t wearing pants.”
No, it’s not like that at all. It’s like being refused service at a restaurant because you are Black or Jewish. Being gay isn’t something you DO, it’s something you ARE.
It’s simply stunning how some Christians like to selectively read the constitution (not to mention their own bible). Freedom of speech? How about separation of church and state?
sheldon noland
Did anyone suggest that they should be compelled by law to print the ad? Economic freedom gives them the right to do what they chose with their business. But freedom of expression gives the rest of the right to scrutinize those decisions. She didn’t sue them, she publicized their actions, which is her right. What you call “liberal pressure” is really just freedom of expression. They have the right to run their business as they see fit, but they have to accept the consequences. If you’re going to upset someone with either decision, then why not stand up for you principles?
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Standing up for human rights is not sensationalism. It is a moral duty.
mrgeoff
The photographer is an opportunist and a bully. Who cares if gay people want to marry? The fact remains that it was a gotcha game she played on the magazine. The photo is not a portfolio piece. The pose is terrible. The photographer can do better. She was not promoting her beautiful photography, she was trying to make controversial noise. She just wanted the attention that comes from stirring the pot. If you can’t stand out on your skills then do something unexpected to get attention. Passing gas at the dinner table is not unique and artistic, but it will get noticed. Rude bullies want attention, but they don’t want to compete for it on skill. I support gay people in committed lifelong relationships. I do not support cheap-shot ambush artists. I do support the magazine’s right to refuse to print anything that could be considered controversial and still not be making a moral judgement.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Enjoy it while it lasts, Nicole.
http://www.theangryfag.com/ TheAngryFag
The same was said about having to give service to “colored people” back in the 60s too. There is a world of difference between the views you can hold in private and the ones you have when you become a public business.
And if you had actually read the letter it was not a “demand” to print the ad. The photographer was ready to walk. It was the publishers who saw the ad and decided that the photographer’s argument was persuasive enough to make the call to run the ad.
But as a consolation prize for you, there is a church in Topeka, Kansas that would probably love to have someone like you as a member. You might have heard of them… Westboro Baptist Church?
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Please post a link to your portfolio so we can see how you compare.
http://www.chrisburke.ca Chris Burke
I totally agree and made the same comment!!
http://www.chrisburke.ca Chris Burke
My thoughts exactly
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
You’re really comparing taking a stand on a human rights issue to bullying and passing gas at a dinner table?
sy
Oh, the irony! Using a derogatory term to describe that which you hold so dear. Perverted minds don’t work too well, do they?
mrgeoff
Yup. Gay couples are not an issue I stand against. Playing gotcha to get undeserved attention by stirring up trouble in a forum where it does not belong is bullying. If the photographer wants to promote her photography, fine; if she wants to say she will also happily shoot gay weddings, fine. The magazine is not a prejudiced bad guy for not wanting to be dragged into a controversial issue. The photographer is a bully for dragging them in. Regardless of your views, if you claim the issue is not controversial, you are being disingenuous.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000408769595 Jared Skye
No, I think he was just alluding to the fact that the south is riddled with obese, uneducated troglodytes who think the Earth is 5,000 years old and that you can catch gay if a gay person sneezes near you.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Doug-Deane/100001214056833 Doug Deane
As a private business it certainly any owner’s right to conduct their business practices in any manner they wish. Just like the consumer has the right to voice their choice commercially. I am glad that they chose to make the “right” decision thinking whatever they might, then seeing the “right” way was inclusive.
I give the owners of both businesses credit for coming to their own decisions; one unwavering the other more fluid.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Do you not think maybe catering to a niche market might be a sound business decision for a photographer? That this ad might be one way to separate her from thousands of other wedding photographers in her area? I’m sure your ads don’t say “Chris Burke: same as everyone else and proud of it!”
Saying the ad will turn off anyone not LGBT is an admission that it’s turning you off, which is the real issue and makes you sound like a passive-aggressive liar when you say it’s not a personal stance.
Adam Cheskey
Not supporting Gay marriage is not “Homo-Phobic”. Phobia is defined as “An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something”, and I really don’t think that anybody is terrified of gays here. I for one think that gays should be able to enjoy the same freedom as anybody else, as America certainly is a free country, that’s what we pride ourselves on. However, not printing an ad is the magazines choice. They can do whatever the heck they want, its their magazine! If your so bent on equality then you can start your own magazine, then you can print whatever ads you want. Tolerance means tolerating ALL people, even people whose viewpoints are different from yours.
http://profiles.google.com/pixelwaster Michael Turcotte
If they it were hetero African-American couple in a White supremist magazine, would we say the photographer was standing up something or just a publicity stunt and exploiting her clients?
http://profiles.google.com/don.giannatti Don Giannatti
I am 100% in that I do not have any problem at all with same sex marriage.
I am 100% in that I do not have any problem with a private company making their own rules.
Freedom is simple to understand.
You have the right to make the rules for your own business.
You have the right to choose to marry anyone you want.
The two are not exclusive, but part of the great fabric of freedom we say we want.
http://www.chrisburke.ca Chris Burke
Umm how the hell did you read that.. I specifically stated that its obvious that more ppl are against gay marriage than for it.. If it wasn’t so, it wouldn’t be an issue and we wouldn’t be talking about it.
Personally I could care less, but thanks for trying to make it seem as though I’m an ass.. The only thing about the ad that turns me off is the hideous photo.. I could care less about gay couples doing their thing.. If they want to be together, go ahead. Though personally, (which we were asked not to make it, though since you are calling me out) I don’t think gay marriage and Christian marriage should be the same.. But I don’t think gay people want that either.. To be “married under the eyes of God” but I think gay people can go ahead and get unions.. I’m just not going to say that God blesses it..
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Or maybe she doesn’t specialize in it, but simply believes in it.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Um, I think it was sarcasm.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Or an Asian baby. Kidding.
jonliebold
Personally, I think both the magazine and the photographer were wrong.
The magazine has the right to make editorial decisions about what it publishes. No one disputes this. However those decisions are open to responses by consumers and by the general public. Weddings Unveiled could have run the photo right off the bat and lost subscribers as a result. They could have also refused to run the ad and gotten large amounts of press as we saw in Iowa after the cake maker refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. No one can please everyone.
I think the photographer was wrong because it looks like she did not tailor an ad for that publication. In her open letter she states “I don’t shoot gay weddings or straight weddings, Christian weddings or
Jewish weddings, good weddings or bad weddings. I photograph PEOPLE on
their wedding day.” The ad does not reflect this. No ad does because there is no publication that targets all people of all types. All criticism of the photograph itself aside, this ad looks like something that would be in a lesbian-targeted publication. A bit of research, or even just a call/e-mail to the magazine itself would have revealed the type of woman who reads Weddings Unveiled and she could have selected a photo (or multiple photos) that would appeal to that kind of woman. Because the in the end the photographer wants to get people to the site to see the portfolio and to contact her. If I see an ad that looks like it is targeting lesbian couples and I am not a lesbian, then I may pass the ad by.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Who cares.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
So what you’re saying is you do things you don’t believe in for money. There’s a word for that, you know.
http://www.facebook.com/gerdie.hutomo Gerdie Hutomo
The magazine publisher did not do anything wrong here from a business point of view they could lose readers, because their main distribution is Georgia and most of the state that hasn’t legalized gay marriage,so no fault there, if I was the one who has to make the decision, I’ll pick the same option.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
Brilliant Don. Perfectly articulated.
http://www.facebook.com/brian.bray.714 Brian Bray
I guess I have a completely different take on who’s being bullied.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=285900866 James Christopher Veale
If the couple were holding guns then it would stir up more publicity on the internet at least! ;-)
Matthew Everett
No offense, but civil unions aren’t illegal in this area. The state of Tennessee gladly granted my wife and I a civil union, the state just happens to refer to it as a marriage, while we were also married (i.e., Holy Matrimony) by a pastor at a church. The two things are completely separate. We could have chosen to get “married” without the civil union or had the civil union without involving a church or pastor.
Also, if you don’t mind my asking, do you object to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or Atheists being allowed to marry? I ask, because in a religious context the logic against same-sex marriage ought to have you railing against any non-Christian marriage being recognized.
http://www.facebook.com/jkuzmenko Julia Kuzmenko McKim
I have nothing against same sex-couples and marriages, but I totally see why the magazine editor said no and stuck with it. It’s their magazine, their business and they know better what they want or don’t want on their pages.
http://www.facebook.com/jkuzmenko Julia Kuzmenko McKim
I am 100% in that this is the best response to the situation :)
the_pro_amateur
It’s the south, this is to be expected. These people still believe gay people are evil and “god” hates them or something. But there’s more to this, and I wish people would knock off the bullshit. This photographer had to have known gay marriage wasn’t legal, (as fstoppers stated above) in the areas the magazine covered. She intentionally put that in there to ruffle feathers and get attention. Looking at her portfolio, she doesn’t shoot gay or straight weddings exclusively, so it could have gone either way. She chose the gay wedding. Is she saying she has no other decent photo? That’s the only one she’d use to advertise? No, of course not.
If a photo magazine wouldn’t print an ad featuring some stoners with a bong in areas where that wasn’t legal, would people be up in arms like this? No.
It’s really pathetic how this woman is using an issue that’s trendy to whine about now, to get publicity. Shame on fstoppers and everyone else for falling for it.
http://www.theangryfag.com/ TheAngryFag
Sounds like someone is caught in the grips of a reaction formation. Pretty soon you will be following in the foot steps of Ted Haggard and Larry Craig.
sy
Well, pretty soon you will be following in the foot steps of Gaetan Dugas and Deondre Scott.

Photographer Clashes with Weddings Unveiled Magazine Over Same-Sex Marriage Ad

Fstoppers Originals

Popular Articles

Recent Comments

Support Fstoppers

Photographer Clashes with Weddings Unveiled Magazine Over Same-Sex Marriage Ad

Connect with Fstoppers

Fstoppers Originals

Popular Articles

Recent Comments

Support Fstoppers