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! »

http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Cherry/508381765 Alex Cherry
That’s the right definition of tolerance, actually. Too bad the conservatives aren’t doing it right (hint: it is not tolerant to legislate your point of view into law and make someone else’s illegal; that is the definition of oppression by the majority).
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Cherry/508381765 Alex Cherry
That’s okay, we’re sick and tired of your bigotry. Thankfully, you, like your religions, are a dying breed, and humanity will be better off without you in the long run.
If your god really is real, I pity you for the hell you’re getting sent to. After all, didn’t his son say something about not judging and loving your fellow man? Ooops… That’s what I love about Christians; how absolutely unlike your Christ you are.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Cherry/508381765 Alex Cherry
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the magazine was not within its rights. We’re discussing the moral and ethical consequences of said actions. I often have need to remind people that you may have freedom of speech (which the magazine exercised here by choosing to NOT say something), but you do not have freedom from consequence.
They are absolutely free to reject the ad – and we are absolutely free to highlight the bigotry (worst case) or shameful moral prostitution (best case) that occurred.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Cherry/508381765 Alex Cherry
Not a prejudiced bad guy, perhaps, but a group moral cowards who deserve the ridicule for placing profit over morality.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Cherry/508381765 Alex Cherry
True, but I have the right to ridicule their moral cowardice! :)
http://twitter.com/XNcreative XNcreative
You do realize there is no “separation of church and state” in the U.S. constitution, right? And what part of the Bible are Christians picking and choosing concerning homosexuality? - Would love some concrete examples.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
replace ‘same sex’ with ‘black’ to see how ridiculous some of the comments are. ‘This ad is only going to appeal to the LGBT (black) community.. Anyone else (white) will be turned off by the ad’.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
Why should she have to choose another photo? I don’t think that is the point.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
The photographer is a bully? are the same sex couple in the photo also bullies? You are delusional, and someone who comes across as completely unempathetic coming from a privileged background, where you have never been really bullied. And who cares if she was ‘stirring the pot’ or making a publicity stunt, kudos to her, the same was probably said of Rosa Parks. If it exposes peoples deep rooted prejudicies then bravo.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
‘Gay couples are not an issue I stand against’, you should be saying ‘Gay couples are an issue I stand FOR’. subtlety in you working shows that you are some what judgmental and therefore everything you have written after the first sentence holds no weight in objectivity.
https://www.facebook.com/FlexibleVision Roman
As long as someone is not offending other person or group he should be allowed to refuse to serve or interact with that person. The same way you have the right to refuse to anyone to enter your home without giving any explanation.
By “protecting” certain group we actually prioritize it. I believe everyone should have the same and equal rights.
I believe also that people should have a right to free speech. Unfortunately the speech is categorized and we can’t say whatever we want.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
Would you of said the same thing in the 50s if a shop refused to sell a television to an African American because it was their business prerogative?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=728440918 Dania Shihab
I personally am SICK AND TIRED of being told i MUST accept homosexuality. I personally am SICK AND TIRED of being told i MUST accept African Americans.
I personally am SICK AND TIRED of being told i MUST accept (insert appropriate minority).
Also, you do not have to really do ‘anything’ to accept homosexuality, no one is forcing you into a homosexual relationship.
mrgeoff
Dania, you are an angry idiot. My own sister and two of my dearest friends are gay. You are clueless as to where my empathies lie. The fact remains that the photographer cornered the magazine into a no-win situation so she could get some undeserved attention. The couple in the photos are not the issue, but if I dare disagree, you want to call me a bigot who hates them. Try arguing something on facts and merit instead of slinging your judgmental insults. Your misplaced aggression is what holds no weight in objectivity. Opportunistic bully? Absolutely. You have said nothing that counters that.
Paul S
No, you are wrong. Business ethics do not allow to refuse service to anyone because of their religion, race or sexual orientation. That’s a different thing than a private home.
Following your logic it would be okay for any business to refuse to serve African Americans, Jews, disabled people…
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FOYJRFA76OAZFQQOS7B77FDTHY Tom
This was bad design on the part of the photographer. To me, the ad screams “I only shoot gay weddings” or “I have an agenda” which is guaranteed to turn off many of her potential hetro clients. I have looked thru many of the popular weddings magazines over the years, and I have never come across an ad with only a same-sex couple featured. Even if the photographer him/herself is gay, but photographs hetro and gay weddings, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by submitting an ad like the one above. A better choice would have been to include a few more shots from her portfolio to appeal to both audiences, making it less of an issue on both sides.
The magazine will most likely feel the repercussion if they print the ad is. Like was said a few times above, many advertisers will drop their ads. And be warned of the advertiser that get placed below or next to the ad. Like it or not, that is the society we live in. Some get it, others don’t and never will.
https://www.facebook.com/FlexibleVision Roman
I believe so. I also believe in free market and I am sure business who would exercise this right will quickly go out of business! But yes, they should have that right.
AlfredPinkwater
So what exactly are you saying? Just how old is the Earth?
AlfredPinkwater
That depends. Indian like chapati or Indian like maize?
http://www.facebook.com/tracy.nanthavongsa Tracy Nanthavongsa
PREACH, Brian, preach!
http://www.facebook.com/tracy.nanthavongsa Tracy Nanthavongsa
She got thousands of dollars worth of FREE advertising and mentions than should would had in her paid $500 advert… So no matter how many haters and bigots we have on this forum, she still won the marketing game.
http://www.facebook.com/tracy.nanthavongsa Tracy Nanthavongsa
You mean make the ad more generic like everyone else’s?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000408769595 Jared Skye
It’s so nice that people have to allow their lives be dictated by your primitive, archaic and ignorant ideologies. Pardon me, I’m off to throw a hissy fit like a baby and drown the entire world except for a magical old man and his boat.
http://www.facebook.com/dylan.fox.7902 Dylan Fox
To me it is just sad the publishers didn’t follow their beliefs. Stand for something, or fall for everything!
JP030
roflol
http://www.facebook.com/stefan.parol Stefan Parol
What she says was that there might be a difference between your own and your companies point of view. As you are fairly paid by your company and act on its behalf, you put the companies benefit in first place. Its called loyalty, and its about to know where to draw the line.
Mind, she was not specifically talking about any kind of considered minority, she was talking about things one does or does not belive in, any kind of things, its not necesserely about freedom, opression or bigottery. It also can be about screaming perversity, being retarded or simply off-key.
You dont refuse a Coke-Ad just because you think its unhealthy to people.
Frankly, its not about never doing anything you dont belive in just for the money, its about keeping balance and speak your mind when its necessary. If my neighbour is a hatin`old bastard I dont give a crap, but If a local politician is, I do.
http://www.facebook.com/stefan.parol Stefan Parol
I am far more concerned about people dealing with controversial subjects as a tool, instead of for the sake of that subjects, say homosexuality, or whatever. These people are the worst, as they only act to benefit themselfs. Frankly, I prever the old “never-to-know-better”-Redneck to the businessman, allthough I´m far from sharing his belives, and I like the bigott christian better than the Photographer who just made an PR-Stunt. That does not keep me from thinking that fighting gay-marriage still sounds retarded.
fahfah
I don’t agree with you so I’m a bigot and going to hell?!?!?! Are you serious? Talk about judgmental.
And for the record, Christ himself says “love the sinner, hate the sin”
I thank God I don’t have to live up to whatever YOUR twisted version of
being a Christian is. You just pick and choose the parts you like, and discard the rest.
pablohill
It’s the south people. How many sponsors do you think would pull their ads from the magazine after seeing this ad published. I suport gay marrige, as a photographer I would be honred to have the oportunity to shoot one. But as a business man, I would not risk my magazine or my employees income source, for one ad. And lets be honest, the image is not that good at all.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FOYJRFA76OAZFQQOS7B77FDTHY Tom
Absolutely not.
If she is a photographer worth her salt, she should be able to position herself uniquely thru her marketing without having to resort to measures that compromise herself as a photographer or the media she is trying to use, both of which she did here, intentionally or not. Using a gay wedding in her ad certainly made her unique in the magazine she was planning to advertise, but it was the wrong market. Not to say that gay couples would not pick up this magazine, but I think it is pretty obvious that gay couples is not who this magazine’s main target was.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FOYJRFA76OAZFQQOS7B77FDTHY Tom
Why are you celebrating this? Her getting free advertising from this does not look good toward her reputation as a business person. If everyone “marketed” this way, no one would make any money. And the majority of the comments on here are not “hating”. They are simply calling her out on what appears to be an intentional exploitation of a gay couple to get her name “out there”.
pablohill
Its the SOUTH people. First off, I suport 100% people getting married to whomever they love, and as a photographer would love the oportunity to shoot a gay wedding. That said, as a businesman I have a responsability with my employees, and would never risk the wellbeing of the magazine for a photographer just trying to make controversy. Can you imagine how many sponsors would pull their ads the month after printing this. Probably enough to go out of business. Some people are ignorant and stupid, but printing this ad is not going to solve that issue.
On the other hand, I think the photographer knew the ad was going to get rejected, and knew exactly what to do to make it viral and get all this free attention at the magazine’s cost. Which in my opinion (if true) is even less ethic than the hole ad issue.
Robert Frank
When you create a publication based on subscriptions you do so with the reader in mind. Sadly this is such a hot button issue in our country that they could potentially lose a lot of readership and subscriptions.
I know all of you are going to jump on me at once and say good for them for standing up for yourself, but the truth is these two people are running a small business. The purpose of a business it to make money and love what you do.
I also know alot of you will say those two lines are reversed, and you should “love what you do” first. That’s all fine and great but it doesn’t pay the bills, and not paying the bills results in you “not loving what you do”
By publishing this advert they run the risk of losing subscriptions and potentially other advertisers because of the firestorm that surrounds this subject. I really doubt that Weddings Unveiled wants to be a martyr for a cause they clearly have no stake with in the first place.
Weddings Unveiled made the right decision with the future of their business in mind. Is it fair? No, it’s not. Was it a difficult conclusion to come to? Probably.
Finally as a word of advice for Weddings Unveiled, such a topic should have discussed over the phone. Email can be cold and words can be misunderstood. There should have been a better explanation to the photographer as to the position. I’m willing to bet if the above would have been discussed the outcome of this incident would have been different.
Who knows? Maybe after a phone conversation Weddings Unveiled would have changed their position on the issue.
http://www.facebook.com/Dougrb Douglas Bain
Neither was a woman’s right to vote not too long ago. Wonder why that changed, eh?
vinterchaos
You give people too much credit!
the_pro_amateur
Exactly… I didn’t say that was the point. I said she chose that picture for a reason and it’s depicting something ILLEGAL in the areas she wants to show it. Are you saying you should be able to advertise for murder, drug use, segregation, etc?
tyrohne
sexual orientation is now a racial class? Confused on your “supressing minorities” comment. Gay people have the exact same “rights” as non gay people (they can speak, bear arms, worship or not, have a speedy trial, not self incriminate, etc..) Marriage doesn’t happen to be a ‘right’ in any of our judicial or foundational codes so I think you need to start there…
It’s a false equivalence and one that seems to be all to common lately; equating a right with a state given privilege. There’s a lot of good arguments to be made for giving gays the privilege to bond for life but, unfortunately, you aren’t making one…. For the record, I am pro-gay union (I do think marriage should be a realm for the religious and the state should vacate the entire marriage business).
tyrohne
Bully!!
http://www.facebook.com/julien.poitout Julien Poitout
Hey buddy, here are a couple acts you might want to look up, and that might change your mind on the legality of racism. Check your sources before promoting idiocies.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967[6]
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990[7]
California Fair Employment and Housing Act[8]
Civil Rights Act of 1871[9]
Civil Rights Act of 1964[10]
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Executive Order 11478[11]
Executive Order 13166 – “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”
Fair Employment Act of 1941
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - enables qualified employees to take prolonged unpaid leave for family and health-related reasons without fear of losing their jobs. For private employers with 15 or more employers
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
Lloyd – La Follette Act (1912)
No-FEAR Act
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Alaska’s Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945
https://www.facebook.com/FlexibleVision Roman
Hey! Just to get this straight because some may not read whole thing or simply don’t understand the argument. I am for equal rights and equal treatment for all human beings. Whether you straight or gay, reach or poor, jewish or muslim or christian, white, black or whatever your skin color may be. That is why no one should get any special treatment. And one group shouldn’t be prioritized over other.
About the marriage, I don’t see it as a big deal and I really don’t understand why gay marriage is not legal…
And I live by the simplest rule ever: “treat others as you want to be treated”.
tyrohne
We’re on the exact same page, my friend. I meant “bully” in the way Teddy Roosevelt would say it when someone suggested he charge San Juan Hill on horseback. Not as a pejorative.
sy
Julien, racism is an idea and cannot possibly be made illegal. Racial discrimination, however, is illegal. I suggest you check your sources and re-examine your logic. Talk about idiocy.. Congrats on your copy and paste ability though.
http://twitter.com/johnlyonsphoto John Lyons
I really don’t think that they should be compelled to run the ad if it indeed against their beliefs.
However, I find the disconnect between what they say they believe and their actions:
“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.”

So they think they can have it both ways I guess. If they really believe that all love is beautiful then why did they not stick to their beliefs and just run the ad instead of worrying about what other people think.
sy
You have no clue what morality is!
http://www.facebook.com/christian.blencke Christian Blencke
“to me, it says love. It says home. It says joy.” (quoting Anne Almasy).To me the ad says “Anne Almasy – Photographer”
So if I was looking for a photographer, I would judge their talent by their photos, and this ad would not make me want to hire her, because, as many have said, its not a picture of quality.
dallas756
I read about this on another site yesterday and this whole thing seems so ridiculously silly. This ad is such a non-issue all around.
I live in Texas. Say some photographer bought a full page ad in the front of Martha Stewart Weddings with two girls kissing. Now take the most conservative, newly-engaged girl in Texas and I guarantee she still buys the Martha Stewart Weddings magazine. Why? Because when you’re about to become a bride you’re thinking about yourself and your wedding. Brides are looking at bridal magazines for their perfect dress and the bouquet they want to copy. They’re not worried about the tablescape designer being gay/straight or who the groomsman model kisses at night or who the editor voted for. They are trapped in their own bubble of selfishness about their fairy-tale day that they get to plan. The only message this ad sends is that Anne is a mediocre photographer who photographed a lesbian wedding. Big deal – so have a lot of other photographers. But she paid the money and in terms of quality alone I’ve seen FAR WORSE ‘professional’ photographer ads in major bridal publications. In the end the only impact is on her - No bride is going to think “well, I really don’t like the quality of her photography but since she supports gay/lesbian marriage I will hire her for my wedding. It’s ok if my photos suck.”
JLI
Clearly, she had an end goal which I think was achieved. When asked if she had any other image she would like to advertise with, she said no. A professional photographer with, undoubtedly, a large portfolio to select from, and she didn’t have ONE other picture she felt worthy to advertise? She just took the scenic route to getting herself recognized by ‘stirring the pot’, rather than submitting a more widely acceptable & traditional wedding photo. Although after looking through her portfolio, I can perhaps understand her predicament. I don’t find her images to be anything spectacular. And I’m not saying this for any reason other than I just don’t find her images to be anything spectacular. So if she had to choose being “traditional mediocre” and “unconventional mediocre”, I suppose she made the better decision because here we all are talking about it.
http://www.facebook.com/shannon.wimberly1 Shannon Wimberly
Anne will have to accept the fact that same-sex marriage is still not accepted as she feels it is or should be. The magazine wants to maintain a certain reputation, and frankly many would be offended by the image. If Anne is being disingenuous and really just wanted to make a political statement, then who really gives a flying rats ass…. i am sick and tired of in your face, force down your throat, ram-rod it in the brain political socially engineering frap that fills our culture….. i don’t give a sh*t what you do, don’t force me to accept it on your level……. too much of this kind of crap all around us…… go do your thing over there, leave me alone…. again, i don’t care what you do with it…….
http://profile.yahoo.com/BDCGZ4D7YKNAWROI4GA4F2Z3NY Michael
sorry bud, marriage is recognized as providing distinct legal rights (e.g., inheritance, hospital visitation, and asset protection….see, tenancy by the entirety (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenancy+by+the+Entirety).
http://twitter.com/kyleewhitney Kyle Whitney
The photographer owes the magazine an apology. This is a publicity stunt. Plain and simple.

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