By now you have probably all heard the uproar over the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" in Indiana. This law was put in place to protect religious people's beliefs in the workplace but has had tremendous backlash as an "anti gay" law. From the oppositions point of view, this law would give businesses the opportunity to refuse service to gay people. This outcry has started to produce new laws that make it illegal to refuse service based on race or sexual orientation.
As a professional wedding photographer who has yet to shoot a gay wedding, I have an interesting take on these new laws. I personally have no problem with gay marriage and I will probably shoot the first gay wedding that comes my way but I still would like to be able to refuse service to potential gay clients without being sued for a hate crime. I refuse to shoot weddings for people all the time and I am against laws that limit my power to make decisions for my own business.
I've shot weddings professionally for 10 years now. At the start of my career I took on every job I could simply because I needed the money to survive. As time went on, I started booking more weddings and I was able to raise my prices. Recently I've been able to get a bit more picky about what jobs I would take and which I would refuse.
In the past 5 years I've refused to work with clients because:
They seem high maintenance
They are indecisive
They call me too much
They ask too many questions
They try to change my style
They don't seem trust worthy
They aren't buying a big enough package
Their wedding is outside during the summer
Their wedding is in the winter when I may want to take a vacation
Their wedding takes place at a Venue I don't like
Their wedding location is too far away
Their wedding is too far in the future
Some of the reasons above may sound reasonable to you and some may sound totally ridiculous, and I understand that, but that is the beauty of owning your own business right?
Now you may say that the reasons above are understandable but it would be unacceptable to refuse service because of someones race or sexuality. I understand that argument but I would like to play devils advocate here. Let's start with race.
Yes, it sounds terrible to refuse to shoot someones wedding because of their race but there may be a bit more going on than skin tone. In many cases, different races have different cultures and different wedding traditions. I personally have never shot a traditional Indian wedding. For these weddings photographers are required to shoot up to 14 hours/day for 3 or 4 days in a row. I've been approached by a few Indian couples but once they hear that I haven't shot an "Indian wedding" before, they look elsewhere. At this point, I am not experienced with that type of wedding. I wouldn't do as good of a job as someone who worked exclusively with Indian weddings. If I decided to turn down an Indian wedding it doesn't make me a racist any more than the Indian couples who refused to hire me because of my lack of experience.
I've spoken frankly with a lot of wedding photographers about gay weddings. One of our biggest fears has to do with posing. Most of our clients are not professional models and it is up to us to put them in flattering poses for the portraits. All wedding photographers have a go-to list of poses that they use at every single wedding. There are very specific things that we do with our brides to make them look feminine and beautiful and very specific things we do with our grooms to make them look handsome. Posing a gay couple isn't so cut and dry. One of my close friends just booked his first gay wedding and he paid to fly to Las Vegas just to take a class on "photographing gay weddings." He thought that he was going to learn about posing but he told me that he learned how very different a gay wedding can be. When there are 2 brides, who is going to walk down the aisle? Sometimes both brides will wear a wedding dress, sometimes one will wear a suite. Should their attire determine the way that you photograph and pose them?
Obviously this is something that anyone would learn over time but being that I haven't shot a single gay couple before, it's something that I'm not going to be an expert with the first few times I try. This may not seem like it's a big enough issue to completely refuse to shoot a wedding but I would argue that it's far more serious of an issue than many of the excuses I've used to reject weddings in my list above. If I don't feel comfortable with a potential client or the event, I'm not going to accept the wedding, it's not any deeper than that.
All this being said, I don't want to live in a world where people aren't allowed inside a store or at a restaurant because of they way they look or who they love. So does this make me a hypocrite? Why does refusing someone service at a restaurant feel so offensive to me but refusing to shoot a wedding feel so normal? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
I agree with all of it. You have a large number of factors to consider before you choose to shoot a wedding. Those factors are technical and logistical that stems from the type of wedding, gay, race, etc, and NOT because you're against those types of weddings. I'm also not sure how well I'd shoot a gay wedding since I've never done one, but I'd have no problem attending or even being part of one.
I have booked two same sex weddings this year, one gay and one lesbian, and am looking forward to the new challenge and fun it's going to bring. I definitely find this topic to be a sensitive one and like Lee, am perfectly content with the idea of shooting gay weddings. Lee strikes at very professional reasons why it might be fine to refuse a wedding based on sexual orientation, but I feel like there's also still an elephant in the room for personal religious reasons too.
In several major world religions there is a very prevalent idea that the act of homosexuality (sex itself) is spiritually wrong. There are thousands of photographers that exist deeply entrenched in these religious and cultural contexts. If there is a law that exists to makes it impossible to refuse a gay wedding, wouldn't that put these people in very frustrating and awkward cultural and religious situations?
Photographing a wedding is one of the most intimate jobs at the wedding. You are trying to preserve the element of love between two people in small captured moments for them to keep for the rest of their lives. That intimacy comes along with all the great things of marriage, companionship, commitment, and sex as well.
For photographers who are involved in deeply cultural and religious contexts, it could be easily construed by their friends and family that the photographer is supporting that intimacy and thus supporting something that is spiritually wrong. Or maybe the photographers themselves find discomfort and feel like they are supporting something they don't believe in by capturing those moments (ie sex/ something that's against their religious beliefs).
I'm not condoning discrimination, but if someone is faced with the choice of refusing a wedding and possibly being sued or facing condemnation from their close friends, family, or themselves that's a very difficult spot to be put in.
I've heard the arguments from both sides, and it is very easy to scoff at this bill because in many situations it does sound like it causes prejudice, hate, and unfair treatment. However, in some cases I do feel like professionals should be able to choose their clients....and weddings are definitely one of them. To me it seems like an open business market should also allow for businesses to cater towards selective clients.
Before anyone gets too upset with me, I actually have shot Gay weddings in the past and recently just booked one for August. I think the root of this issue is whether your freedom of religion can be undermined by someone else's social and human freedoms. Basically what is worse, someone being denied a services because that service infringes on the service giver's personal beliefs OR someone's freedom being compromised because a service is being denied to them because of the buyer's personal beliefs? In other words, whose freedoms should be upheld first, the buyer or the seller?
I can honestly see it both ways, and a bill like this opens the door for very abusive things to happen. However, I believe marriage is a sacred event that holds a lot of religious significance to a lot of people (and historically so too). If someone's faith teaches that homosexuality is a sin, I personally think it is wrong to require them to offer services that cause them to compromise their beliefs. If not, each individual's freedom to practice their faith goes completely undermined because of a buyer of their services. Should a protestant minister also be forced to marry a gay couple when his doctrine condemns the act? If this were to be the case, I think it would be a great loss for people's personal freedom.
The reason I think this act isn't the worst thing in the world is because the market place in America is large and there are tons of alternatives if you look for them. There are plenty of photographers and ministers out there who are not bothered by homosexual ceremonies. Just because you are gay, IMO, does not mean you have the ability to book any photographer you want.
The irony of all of this to me is that people discriminate against their clients all the time already but do not openly tell them. I can't tell you how many times I've told a bride and groom that I have already been booked when I learned that they were extremely difficult clients to work with, or their demands were too high, or I didn't click with them for any number of reasons. Photographers already discriminate against their clients by setting their prices high. Should an expensive photographer be required to book a poor client simply so they can have the services more affluent clients have? This argument might be a stretch all admit, but where does this all end? I personally know doctors who refer their patients out to other specialized doctors once they know how difficult they are to treat. Landlords screen their tenants before allowing someone to rent out the properties they work hard to maintain and keep orderly. Some of these situations might make you upset and in some instances might already be illegal but in my mind they aren't the worst of crimes and we all do it to some degree. I think this bill just puts the type of discrimination up front and in the spotlight.
Patrick you sir are right on the money.
I think it's an interesting thing... I just shot a gay wedding for an "ex" professor of mine who I now work with. She's a practicing artist in LA, and we became good friends over the years... I shoot all of her photographic work, now. The wedding she had, in particular, was AMAZING in every way -- by far the best wedding I've been to. I mean, everything was done in the best taste. Nothing over the top, but still VERY, very nice. I shot over 10,000 photos for that wedding (including the two days prior and one day after)... That's insane, but I made the decision early on to do that because these were beautiful people at a beautiful wedding, and it would certainly pay off for my portfolio in the future.
That said, while I have no problem with shooting gay weddings and no problem with gay people getting married (all the power to ya!), I'm in an interesting spot, here. In short AND in long, my answer to the question of whether or not photographers should be able to turn down gay weddings is "No." But it's much more complicated than that, and the road to getting to that decision has many sharp turns. In short, the explanation is that my answer is "No" by default.
It comes down to the fact that businesses in general should not be able to turn down any pleasant, paying customer for any job or service because of their race, sexual orientation, religious views, etc... I don't think a business should be able to turn down a gay couple for a pizza (yup, that again) if they're hungry, cordial, and willing to pay.
To your point, Lee, turning down an Indian wedding is a great example. The culture is completely different -- the weddings are completely different... You really should know what you're doing (just as you should know all the rules for photographing bat/bar mitzvahs in temple, etc.). And if you don't have experience in those types of engagements, why should you be forced to shoot one?
Likewise, however, who would even WANT you to shoot one? I mean, now, you're "Lee Morris," sure. So you might have people that'd want you to, of course. But if you don't want to shoot my wedding, why on Earth would I WANT you to shoot mine? That's the real point... And as you said, people recognize that and NATURALLY look elsewhere without anyone else's input or forcing hand.
I don't think we need laws to force people to accept jobs that they don't want to do. But in certain cases (i.e. in being served food anywhere in any particular town across the country... I mean...you should be able to get a fucking meal or shelter, etc., SOMEWHERE no matter what), it is necessary to have the current laws that protect us from discrimination. And quite simply, if we start to give photographers the right to refuse service, we have to give everyone that right.
To that extent, I don't see why it's SUCH a big deal (apart from the aforementioned guarantee of shelter, food, etc., while on the road). I mean, why would ANYONE want to do business with someone that didn't want to do business with THEM unless out of necessity? Can't we simply vote with our dollars? If people wanted to, they could have shut down the pizza shop by simply not going there. No one needed to threaten the place...JESUS! And if enough supporters of extremely conservative opinions wanted to support the pizza shop and keep it open, then so be it -- that's their prerogative.
Don't get me wrong -- it sickens me, too, that some people are still such bigots. But at the same time, we have to be a bit bigger than that, don't we?
And at the end of all that, I still have to say, "No -- photographers shouldn't be able to refuse service to a gay couple getting married." But that's just because it's necessary for the world to be better and for everyone to be safe, have food, stay overnight somewhere, or receive medical attention no matter where or who they are...
But in the end, the world will sort itself out naturally. If a photographer doesn't want to shoot a gay wedding, he/she can just say he/she has never done one before and doesn't know much about "gay" ways of life and other offensive things like that... It may disgust or bug or annoy or disappoint the couple going to that photographer, but that's not a crime, and the message will be clear. And that's the most honest thing that could happen....because God forbid (seriously) that I get married and whoever ends up photographing my wedding somehow hates straight or white people or something (I mean, what's not to like :-)).... I want my photographer to be EXCITED to shoot and edit my wedding...not regretting it and hating it every second (or worse -- thinking it's Satan's work or some crap like that).
So there it is...
Very well said... I don't think there is any more I could add to that.
I feel pretty similarly to Adam. I'd vote "no" simply because the world needs to move on in a positive direction that accepts that homosexuality isn't a decision. No more than race or gender. In fact, you could certainly maintain an argument that people have much more control over the religion they practice? So who should we ask to change?
I'm a huge free speech fan. So, I say put your money where your mouth is. You should have to service all people if you're open to the public. So, if you think being gay is immoral, say so. If you are a junior KKK member, say so. You have a right to be hateful, fearful, shortsighted A-hole. If you make it public, you'll probably put-off 99% of the people you are trying to avoid anyway. If not, just suffer the indignity of occasionally having to serve pancakes to gay or black couple when they decide to walk into "Jim Bob's House of White Power Waffles".
The owner of Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC probably wasn't a big fan of young black students when he finally caved in 1960 to allow people of color seat at the lunch counter? He might have even had "religious" reasons to refuse service, but is any one here really hoping he can do so again?
I have shot a few GLBT weddings. They were the most fun and relaxed weddings I have shot. This was just after it became legalized in my state. The couples were happier than any I have seen. Maybe I was lucky in the clients were not high maintenance, or they were just happy they were finally seen as equal.
I've shot stressful "straight" weddings and very relaxed weddings. I have no reason to think that gay weddings would be any different. It all has to do with the couple getting married and the people planning the wedding.
I believe the real problem is not whether someone should or shouldn't be allowed to refuse service based on whether they are gay or not, but that we live in a culture that believes we must force people to associate professionally with other people based on a behavioral trait. Now, I consider myself to be a devout Christian, and I while I am thankful that most places I go I don't get discriminated against because of my deeply held religious belief, I strongly believe that it is WRONG for any authority to require any business owner to serve me because of my faith. I don't take issue with laws that prevent discrimination based on a physical characteristic that a person cannot (or cannot easily) change, such as race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. But to require me to accept or condone your behavioral trait, whether it's a sexual trait, creed, religious conviction, or whatever other behavioral aspect you can think of, is pushing me and the rest of society down a very slippery slope that will not end with the current categories for which discrimination is either discouraged or prohibited. I am also a Libertarian, which means I firmly believe the market would take care of itself in these circumstances; absolutely no need to get the government involved at all.
As an addendum, I believe there is a huge difference between refusing to serve someone because they exhibit a certain behavior, and choosing not to participate in an event that overtly promotes a behavior that the servicer finds inappropriate or uncomfortable with.
I think the theory that because you are providing a service as a vendor, you are condoning their life's choices is faulty. If I bake a cake for a wedding and it is later discovered the couple are criminals, will anyone hold me at fault? No. Same thing. (FYI - I do believe being criminals is MUCH worse situation than being LGBT or belonging to a minority segment of the population.)
If you don't think you are up to the task and won't be able to provide them with adequate posing (and they want those), the wedding's schedule conflicts with your standard amount of hours (as a traditional Indian wedding might) or other conflicts arise; fine. Those are valid concerns you should certainly make your client aware of beforehand. They can walk away.
So long as you refuse service on grounds other than sexual orientation, there isn't an issue.
Do not, under any circumstance, bring religion into it. That is where every business that has made the news has gone wrong. They've reached for that bible to thump & come unstuck. If you want to turn down a SSM for whatever reason, by all means do it, just dress up your decision to decline the gig in a legally acceptable reason eg already booked etc.
Now, if you want to expand your business potential & you've not shot a SSM ceremony. Make the couple aware, if they still want to hire you, do as you would with any straight couple, work your timelines & details etc, if you've got questions ask, they wont bite your head off.
Its a learning curve for both parties & you'll swiftly find that if you handle them well enough, they'll buy all around them & refer you more than most of your previous clients.
I probably should of prefaced this all with saying I've covered more SSM ceremonies than I have traditional marriages.
Great point
Its also a good chance to push an engagement shoot or sell that second Bridal Shoot to that lesbian couple who just hypothetically enquired about your services.
We all have the skill set to apply to covering a SSM, it just requires a little tweaking here & there, we also have the pre event products that will allow those tweaks to be made. After all, what is an engagement shoot other than to get more comfortable with the couple & them with you, but also to study their behaviours & find work arounds.
If the worst that happens is that photographers learn something new, that we have happy clients, & our bank balance is a little bit healthier at the end of the day, its a win:win scenarios.
Lee, I agree that we don't want discrimination in restaurants and stores. I always put it this way: "Walk-in off the street" types of businesses are different. Wal Mart, Home Depot, Burger king, restaurants, grocery stores, disneyland, etc have a set stock/menu/etc where you can basically walk in off the street and get the exact same product/food/experience/etc as everyone else. That definitely needs to be available to anyone.
on the other hand, you have very specialized professions, where each job requires time, expertise, and you don't just take anyone off the street, b/c each job is different. Jobs like photography, sculpture, painting, floral, architecture, catering. These jobs require more time, planning, and artistic freedom. Artists have their own style, and if their client doesn't fit their style for whatever reason, they should not be forced to to take the job. Should a Christian architect be forced to design mosques? Some may not have a problem with, others might, but that is their own choice to make. Should a Muslim painter be forced to commission a painting of Mohammed?
Floral and catering can get a little tricky though. A florist would most likely have a brick and mortar shop, and would need to serve people that come in off the street and say "I need a dozen red roses," but should be able to refuse special orders like weddings that are outside the scope of the brick and mortar store. Likewise, a caterer that runs a restaurant should serve anyone that comes into their restaurant, but shouldn't have to cater food to any off-site event that they do not want to.
well said
My best weddings have been of couples of the same sex so I'll leave it at that...
At first, I hesitated to comment, but I think there are some points that are being ignored here.
1. When discrimination is legally allowed in on area it become open to legal interpretation. The courts are not going to say that photography is so different then other services. Giving service providers an "out" to provide work because of their inexperience, bigotry, or some other reason will not simply apply to one industry. What happens when a bigot who owns a gas station and does not want to serve gas to a gay couple, or the restaurant owner does not want to serve food to a lesbian couple because their life style is against their beliefs.
2. The fact that we try to argue our artistic expertise is only to pose a man and a woman is personally I think a bunch of bullshit. Are you all telling me that you can't possibly think of some poses that put two men or two women together? Have we not posed fathers and sons, mothers and daughter, brothers, sisters ... yeah, I know it is not the exact same, but a little research and a little work you can do the same thing. What has happened when you have hit couples outside your "normal demographic" whether their skin color was different or extreme height differences or body features that did not work for the shots you normally do? Did you deny taking the couples then because you lacked the skill set of shooting beautiful, young, thin, correctly proportioned to each other couples? Now as the article said, the first time we MAY not be our best at the poses of the couple but I think the couple hires us for more then "just the two of them" images. They want the getting ready, the creative details, the walking down the isle, our ceremony and reception image style. I do think that we should be honest with them on the lack of experience and maybe we should strongly suggest a engagement session and verify everyone is good with how it is going. What I don't think is we should deny a couple our skills because we are either afraid to try or personal bigotry.