Same-Sex Couple Speaks Out After Wedding Videographers Pull Out, Citing 'Beliefs'

Same-Sex Couple Speaks Out After Wedding Videographers Pull Out, Citing 'Beliefs'

A same-sex couple have spoken out to their local news outlets after a pair of Charlottesville-based wedding videographers refused to work with them after learning their sexual orientation.

Paula Fries and Katie Brown spoke to CBS19 about their struggle to find a wedding videographer, saying they landed on Gardenia, a husband and wife wedding team operated by Brett and Alex Sandridge, after watching some of their videos and enjoying their work. Fries and Brown claim they were upfront with anyone who would potentially be working on their wedding about it being same-sex, saying it was “in every email correspondence with vendors.” So, it came as a surprise when, having already been sent a contract and an invoice for a down payment, the couple received a further emailing notifying them that there’d been a change of plans.

The email from Brett Sandridge cancelling Gardenia’s involvement in the wedding read in part:

We have decided that we would not be the best match to film your wedding. We are just really wanting to stay true to our beliefs.

Understandably upset, Brown added that one of the most frustrating parts had been that the couple ceased communication with all of the other potential wedding videographers they had been looking to book after the initial interest from Gardenia. Gardenia’s Facebook page has since been deactivated after a backlash that saw users leaving negative reviews.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused a pair of customers for being gay, citing his religious beliefs.

Jack Alexander's picture

A 28-year-old self-taught photographer, Jack Alexander specialises in intimate portraits with musicians, actors, and models.

Log in or register to post comments
Previous comments

Oh well.

On a side note, if you're a devout Christian, then should probably realize that refusing service to someone based on a moral objection against their lifestyle is a bit absurd since the entire premise of Christianity is that ALL are sinners, ALL have sinned, and ALL have fallen short of the glory of God and it is for this precise reason that Christ died on The Cross so that BY HIS GRACE, we are redeemed—not by the merits of our own "righteous" existence or lifestyle..

We do not cast judgment upon others because we ourselves are just as sinful as they and just as unworthy. In essence, anyone and everyone that you're taking photos of or for is probably doing more than a few things on a moral level that would be objectionable to God just as we are. Who, then, are we to cast judgment and determine that some are worse than others in this regard and ought to be treated any differently?

I really didn't want to do the religious thing and in my initial replies, it certainly wasn't my intend, but the more I think about these issues, the more horribly ironic they feel to me.

You are mixing things up. All are sinner, but some sinners come to Christ and leave their sins behind to live a righteous life. Other continue to live in sin, just like the gay couple that is getting married. You cannot serve other to support their sinful life. Same as you would not serve somebody who is about to kill a person or steel something.

So forget the fact that they are gay for a second. What if they were a straight atheist couple? You would refuse to take photos for them? If they were Muslim? Hindu? Jewish? What if you're Mormon? Are you going out of your way to do background checks on these people and make sure that they're Christian in the manner you define as being Christian and living a properly Christian lifestyle that agrees with your mental image of what a Christian lifestyle is before deciding to provide them with service? That's absurd.

I wouldn't serve someone who is about to kill a person or steal something because those things are illegal as per the laws of the United States of America. And no, refusing to take photos or do videography for a gay couple on their wedding day is most certainly NOT the same as refusing to serve someone that you know is planning to murder or steal.

Seriously... you just drew an equivalence between providing service to two people of the same sex getting married with a person that's planning to go out and MURDER someone. If you know that someone's planning to murder somebody, your moral obligation isn't an issue of whether or not to take photos for them. It's alerting the authorities to prevent a crime and safe a life.

Perspective... FFS. This is why I didn't want to go down this route. -_-


As far as people who "come to Christ and leave their sins behind to live a righteous life", name literally one person today that would be considered "righteous" in a biblical context due to the life that they actually live as opposed to being deemed "righteous" DESPITE the life that they live. Christians lie, steal, cheat, murder, commit adultery, etc. Name a sin and there are church-going Christians that are committing these acts everyday—Christians who likely would NOT have been refused service by this couple.

I am a Christian and, while we are commanded to not judge individuals, we ARE commanded to judge actions.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner", is it? Sure. I don't hate you. I just happen to hate all of these things that you do, which also happen to be the very things that define how I know you as a person since I have no actual way of knowing anything about you except those things that I know through the result of your actions—you know, the ones that I hate.

Yeah... Ok. Let's just agree to disagree because the last time I checked, I wasn't commanded to judge anything—individuals or actions—as judgment belongs to God alone. That's not to say that I don't judge things since I'm only human after all, but I would call that a character flaw on my part rather than me adhering to some biblical command.

Exercising judgment in the form of trying to make good choices in life? Yes. Casting judgment on others or their actions? Seems like a rather rash thing to do given our own personal flaws.

I'll always admit that I'm a pretty horrible Christian so by all means, practice as you see fit.

I don't think "hate" is the right word. And yes, you are a pretty horrible Christian. All Christians are. But we try. Reading the Bible helps. Well, sometimes. ;-)

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" - Pope Francis. If the Pope is humble enough to pass the judgement part to his Lord, I think most Christians should learn from him.

First, the Pope, any Pope, is human and no better than anyone else.
That being said, I have no idea his intentions. I do agree with the words, "seeks God" being the most important. What he doesn't say, and I have no idea which is the case, is if he means judge them or judge their actions. The correct answer should be, he shouldn't judge them.

"First, the Pope, any Pope, is human and no better than anyone else."
Not according to Catholics. That's very disrespectful to their beliefs. I recommend you read up on the concept of papal infallibility. But first, get some sleep!


I forgot to reply after getting some sleep.

My source for everything is, in this order: God and then the Bible. When someone, anyone, doesn't disagree with them, I'll consider their ideas, pass them by God and see what He says. And, in the words of Metallica, nothing else matters. :-)

Seeking God in this case would mean to obey His word and what we see is they go agaist His holy will and His model of a family.

The full quote is, "If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him? You should not discriminate against or marginalise these people."

Also, another quote, "Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like that and loves you like this and I don’t care. The Pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are." - Pope Francis

You do realize, I hope, there are more Christians who don't believe the Pope has any special status than do. Just sayin'.

According to the most recent statistics I could find, the global Christian population is 2.42 billion. Of those, the population of Catholics is 1.285 billion. The remainder equals 1.135 billion. So no, there are more Christians who do believe the pope has special status than don’t.

It seems this is an example of something you “believe” rather than “know”

Let me know what god thinks of this next time you have a magical conversation with him in your head.

Most Catholics I know don't believe the pope has special status. Worldwide, among all faiths, religious affiliation is down while spirituality is up. I don't really know that either; it's a statistic.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." ~Benjamin Disraeli

You can't brush off the usage of statistics when the evidence contradicts a statement you made- a statement that can actually be verified by reviewing evidence. You can, but then you'd be an obnoxious prick more interested in winning than being right.

Your anecdotal examples are irrelevant. Most people I know live in America. That doesn't mean most people live in America. And if your Catholic friends don't think the pope has special status, they aren't Catholic. If my vegetarian friends eat hamburgers, they aren't vegetarians.

You don't seem to know much about this, even though you make wide-ranging assertions. If you can't back up your statements like "more Christians don't believe the Pope has any special status that do" with any evidence of value, then don't say it. Because then you are either being stupid (not knowing the existing evidence) or lying (knowing the evidence exists but not acknowledging it).

But I imagine you will continue to "believe" whatever makes you feel good and fits into what makes you think you're right, even when it directly contradicts reality.

Interestingly, I just read an article citing PEW research that most Americans, I realize that doesn't mean all people, believe in God but church attendance is declining. Additionally, and I don't know this is your source, the Wikipedia article giving the same numbers as you, stated at the top, 'these are self-reported numbers and likely not accurate.' Having been born into a Catholic family, I'm quite certain they continue to include me in their numbers.

As interesting as our conversations have been, this has gone on entirely too long and is probably boring at best and more likely annoying to the site's owners and other readers. I'll let you have the last word, which I WILL read.

Until the next controversial article, keep on, keepin' on. :-)

The data was from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate's most current demographic report on Catholicism, which included regression calculation for former members.

And I called up god and he told me my numbers were right.

Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to be a commenter unable to admit when they are wrong (which makes conversations completely meaningless), and who holds opinions on such abhorrent concepts like slavery that I cannot reconcile with. So no, there won't be a next controversial article that I will engage with you on. A little smiley face at the end of a post doesn't negate all that.

You are talking to a Christian who is not a Catholics. I am not quoting the Pope as someone I follow, but I see him as a progressive and relevant Christian leader, especially when it comes to preaching about the inclusiveness of the faith. The sad part is, it is getting to a point where if Jesus has shown up at one of his churches, with an entourage of mixture of people that he hangs with when he did, the typical church will probably ask him and the people to leave.

He is progressive, that's for certain. In my opinion, that's not always a good thing.
Secondly, and this isn't meant as an insult, you're full of shit regarding your last statement. First, because most churches aren't like that and second, because those that are, aren't His churches.

The problem with the churches, any so call Christian churches. They don’t even know who the are following anymore.. if you don’t agree what I said is true, try to show up with a prostitute, an openly gay person, a known gang member to your Sunday service and time how quickly you will be asked to leave. Anyway, it is obvious that you and I going to disagree so bless your heart and I hope someday you will find the real Jesus in your life.

"... I hope someday you will find the real Jesus in your life." You're kinda like the churches you're talking about, aren't you!? ;-)

Seeking God means seeking God. You don't obey His word. I don't obey His word. NOBODY obeys His word. We can only try. Do that.

First, let me say that I appreciate your commentary on this. Offers a great chance for discussion. While we disagree, I really admire your looking out for other people. I think that's neat. I don't want to make any assumptions about your faith or lack thereof, but I think you have a great understanding of the Christian message with everyone being a sinner and being redeemed by God's grace. So props to you on that.

Because the author words it much better than me, I'm going to post a link to an article that articulates a Christian perspective on this issue well. It's written by a Christian from a Christian organization to a Christian photographer, so if you read it, go in expecting it to include references to Scripture. I'll paraphrase the important parts of the article for sake of length below.

There are a number of sinful marriages defined in Scripture. I'll use the example of an unbeliever marrying a believer for the sake of this summary (abbreviated as U/B), but it's not limited to that. A same-sex marriage falls into this category, but it differs slightly. While a U/B wedding is sinful and the Church doesn't have authority to marry those two, in the end, if it happens, it results in an actual marriage. The historical Christian view of marriage holds that without sexual complementarity, there is no marriage at all. So it's not that a same-sex marriage is some kind of unforgivable or even worse sin, it's just that, in the eyes of the Church, it's not a marriage at all.

It also differs in terms of visibility (for lack of a better word). This is why most photographers who won't photograph a same-sex wedding don't, myself included. If a U/B couple comes to me and asks me to photograph their wedding, unless they tell me one of them isn't a believer, I won't know the difference (if they did, I wouldn't shoot the wedding, just so we're clear). With a same-sex wedding, it's obvious to everyone that the couple is same-sex and living a sinful lifestyle. In that case, to keep those around me from being confused and my conscience clear of confusing them, I wouldn't photograph the wedding. In the words of the author of the article, "This is the difference between investigating a doughnut shop owner's buying habits before eating there and stopping in for doughnuts when the sign out front flashes: “Eat here and support our owner's cocaine and prostitutes habit.” "

All that said, I'm not going to be mean about it, and I don't think others should. Wish them the best and thank them for their interest, and then refer them to a photographer who can click away with a clear conscience.

Hope that answers some of your questions/objections, especially the one in a response earlier asking about where the line should be drawn. Like I said, I really appreciate and admire your willingness to stick up for people you see as being treated wrongly. Keep doing that. This comment also turned out to be a lot longer than I expected. I'm impressed if you've made it this far because I'd have given up after paragraph 1.

I've read the question and response in the link and while I still disagree with it, I have to say that this is one of the more well though-out views that I have read on the matter and I do thank you for giving me something else to mull over.

To some extent this comes down to a matter of perspective. As I read the reply in the link as well as your own post, I couldn't help but feel like we're on two separate pages entirely. I suppose that this is because marriage is a complicated issue due to the fact that it has both religious and civil functions. The response that you linked to primarily goes into an explanation of marriage as a ceremony and institution from the religious standpoint as the justification for why a photographer should refrain, but it ignores the fact that the word, "marriage" also has a civil role as defined by the government.

A gay marriage may not be seen to Christians as a "real marriage", but in the eyes of the government, which happens to be the body that issues the certificates of marriage in this case, they are very real in the sense that the issuing of that certificate affords all of the rights that are associated with that relationship between two people. Conversely, you could be "married" in a Christian sense, having a ceremony and the whole nine yards, but if you don't go through the civil process recognized by the government, it is similarly not considered a "real marriage"—only this time, by the other entity. Ignoring the fact that religion does not hold a monopoly on defining the institutional of marriage is, in my opinion, where this all seems to be breaking down.

We live in a secular society and for any secular society to operate, we must operate on a social contract to keep our religious beliefs out of the core functions of society as well as the common areas in which we all have interact and co-exist. Despite identifying as a Christian, this is why I am against churches getting involved in politics, religion being taught in public schools (outside of lessons in history, social studies, etc.), and religion playing a role in commerce, which is the case here. There are many laws on the books in the USA that are counter to Christian values, but despite being Christians, we are bound to honor them as citizens of the USA.

The decision of any service professional to provide a service to someone is an issue of commerce, which is a secular common area in our society. Yes, you can throw out an unruly patron, but you don't actually have the right to refuse service on any old belief, even if it's deeply and honestly held nor should you. The fact that a videographer can say flat out, "I'm not taking this job because this is a gay marriage and my religious beliefs tell me that this is not a real marriage." without legal consequence opens up some very ugly doors that I personally do not want to be open in a secular society.

We need to take a broader view that the causes that we fight for can have far reaching and unintended consequences. Yes, it's nice to get your way and it's nice for the world to accept your beliefs, but that's a really myopic way to look at it because if you have the right to impose your beliefs on common areas of society, why shouldn't other people have the right to impose their own? There is no shortage of truly appalling religion or philosophy out there and the government is not really in the position to make distinctions between them without picking winners and losers, which it shouldn't be doing in a secular society.

Frankly speaking, do I think it's the end of the world that photographers can refuse to shoot gay weddings (or bakers can refuse to create wedding cakes for gay couples)? Of course not. There's obviously the perpetuation of very real emotional pain caused by it, but in the greater scheme of things, this is a fairly minor case when you look at these types of "personal belief" exceptions. My concerns come from the doors now left open to people who honestly believe all manner of absurdity and demand that we respect their views just because we Christians felt that we were special and that an exception should be made for us.

Discrimination is a very real and dangerous thing and the basis of all discrimination is founded in "personal belief". So as a bad Christian, I'd rather be required to photograph every gay couple that asks me to do their wedding (thank God I'm such a horrible photographer that nobody in their right mind gay or straight would want this) than have even one person be able to say "I don't want to provide this service for this autistic child because I genuinely believe that autism is a hoax." or "I don't want to provide service to this illegal immigrant because I honestly believe that they should not be considered a person since they have no right to be here". If you think that's a bit extreme, know that I've actually had arguments with people who believe that it shouldn't be a crime to run over an illegal immigrant since, being undocumented, they don't technically exist and are therefore not real people. Perhaps if I didn't know for a fact that there were seriously people who believed nonsense like this, I would be more on board with "personal belief exceptions", but alas, there they are to my eternal frustration...

I think the best way around this would be for the photographer or videographer to sit down with the client and say, "Hey, I don't mind taking the job if you want me to, but here's the deal. _______ Explain your personal views that make this job objectionable to you ___________. If you still want me to go ahead with it, that's great, but given the importance of the event I do think that the best result would come from having someone there that's fully into it both professionally and emotionally as well. I have a few references of photographers that would probably love to take this job so maybe give them a call and see if it might be a better overall arrangement. Otherwise if you want to continue with me you have my word that I'll do the best work that I'm capable of either way.". You can have a frank discussion about the situation without just shutting the door outright and explaining things afterward. I think that the couple would appreciate the honesty, opportunity for dialogue, and respect the fact that you're still willing to be professional and do the job even despite the beliefs that you've stated. And if they choose to work together, consider it an opportunity for both of you to broaden your horizons and interact with people groups that you might not have otherwise had reason to interact with before.

As far as my personal faith, I identify exactly as what I said: a bad Christian. I read the Bible and I love Jesus's message, but then I look around at the reality of the Christian institution in America and there is a lot there that I simply cannot morally agree with. I was raised in church all my life, attended Sunday School every week, and given the clear identity that I have in my church upbringing along with my inability to reconcile how screwed up I see the Christian institution and most churches I've attended to be, I figured that title is about the best that I can do.

Anyway, it was an interesting read and I do wish you the best of luck in your business.

Same shit different book.

I must confess that I don't know enough about Islam to speak all that much about it aside from some basic facts. I certainly don't know the nuances of different interpretations or the variance in practices within the religion the way I do Christianity. Just a result of growing up Christian as opposed to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.

I've certainly done some reading, but it's different reading the work of an academic from the outside and being immersed in it.

In general, however, unless you're an advocate of theocracy (which on this earth is really just a dictatorship since religious institutions are run by people), I think we can probably agree that it's best overall for religion stay out of the common areas of public life as a general rule.

God is above any Government. It is ellegal to be Christian in China or Korea and thousands of christians are being killed in those the government. People do not obey their hovernment and obey God and pay the price. God created the family, not government. No government existed when God created the family and so I lusten to Him and not the government. Besides, I live in a country where gay marriages are not legal. Gods law is universal and eternal. The law of people is corrupt and temporary.

Hi , could you please do yourself and all of us nice immoral humans a big favor , Please lock yourself up in a bomb shelter . This planet dose not need more hate , you are just fanning the flames of dicord , and actually discrediting your faith . You are doing more harm to the Church by turning people away from it , and weakening the very foundation of it because of your mis informed and self proposed beliefs.

Please don't generalize. It is not illegal to be a Christian in Korea. It is illegal to be Christian in the DPRK. I can assure you that it's very legal to be a Christian in the RoK and if I remember correctly, they do more church planting and send out more Christian missionaries at this point than just about any country out there. That people practice their personal faith in places such as the DPRK is not a sign that religion ought to trump secular government. It is a sign that not all secular governments are constructed equally and that some of them are at odds with the rest of the global community in regard to beliefs about freedom and rights that we commonly hold.

I will not argue that God is not above the governments of the world. If you believe in God, then certainly, you will also believe this. However you must realize that we live in a world where many different people believe in many different notions of God. The fact that we live in relatively civilized societies is a benefit of the fact that we've largely agreed to create secular laws that represent a pretty good compromise for commonly held human beliefs about how people ought to live and be treated regardless of religion.

In regard to listening to God and not the government, and your comments about the illegitimacy of the authority of government here on Earth, I'm sure those are exactly the types of things that people are saying when they strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people or when they conquer lands and commit genocide on the indigenous people. If we started permitting everyone to act upon whatever personal beliefs that they might hold (religious or otherwise), it would be absolute chaos and I can guarantee you that the resulting world would not be one that you would actually want to live in.

Unless you have a universally verifiable method of proving which group's version of God is real and which isn't so that there's no confusion for anyone in the entire world and that the real God is, in fact benevolent, then I would say I very much prefer a world in which the secular governments of the world are held sovereign over any particular group's personal beliefs or delusions.

As you said, the law of people is temporary (as is this world). If you believe that God is eternal and you believe that He is benevolent, you should also believe that He knows your heart even in your compliance with the laws of the land you live in. You'll have an eternity to be free of those laws, after all. As for your comment about you living in a country where gay marriage is not legal, I'm pretty sure that it's not because you country's leaders believe that the wrath of God will come down upon them for legalizing it. I would wager that it's more likely because they just don't like homosexuals.

Well hot diggity, that's one well-thought out, rational, and compassionate worldview!

There's something about engaging in these discussions that starts to truly depress me at times... :(

Nah, you're fighting the good fight. There are plenty (myself included) that appreciate your detailed arguments-most of whom don't respond. Don't let the vocal and moronic knock you down.

South Africa has way advanced and Gay men and woman ( and the other 900 or so genders ) have EQUAL RIGHTS to Straight couples. Not more rights , or different rights , HUMAN rights ..Gay people are a part of your community . I always make a little joke , Gay folks should be on the endangered species list . They do not breed , and when they try they kill each other . Been Gay is not some deviant thing , its just one person who chooses to love another concerting person whoo happens to be of the same sex. LGTB people do not eat babies , they do not erode the foundation of the Church , Unless you give the buggers spades and a reason to shovel out your churches foundation.
What does any religious order have to do with what goes in our bedrooms. Do you know that many gay people are just like straight couples , they never have sex . So If i live with another man its an issue .. Because.. We are not breeding ? Goodness me , less people on this planet , less breeding ,. religious practices have attacked and had many of my fellow gay folk that we are unnatural and wrong , they have had us persecuted and shamed , You know what the word Faggot means ? Its a bundle of wood , its the very bundle of wood that was used to burn witches and gay men and woman at the stake in medieval times , iThe word is also derived from a type of peasant dish made with pork . So you need to understand why I fight so hard , because its my basic human rights , its my freedom to love who I choose and marry if i am stupid enough. And Pride ? We will not just slink under the rug and hide away because you feel that we have no rights or say in the world. We have pride to remind you that we are here and we are still fighting discrimination , we group together to give all the haters a big middle finger and to show the world that we are not ashamed of who we are. I was in China a while back , and if it was known i was a proud and open gay man , I could have been arrested. But i have to respect the laws and culture of other countries , and sometimes i dont agree with it , but there is a time to be combative , and to not back down and fight for my right to be just like you , not better , not special , but just to have the same opportunity and choices as most humans.
and get over it , the kids of today dont even bat an eyelid when they see two woman holding hands in public , but believe me when some shouting frothing spitting angry guy stands on a corner and passes judgement on everything not in their views of been pious and biblical , the kids take note , and they see and will probably post it on Instagram but one thing we gay folk know how to do and thats make fun of ourselfs , and to sometimes be the very parody that religious organisations have made us out to be.

i should not even have to fight for my rights , one day , i will surprise everyone and ignore the hate and go to church and listen and know i am not a monster ,

I do not like the fact they such things are made public. I mean the copy/paste of the message. It was not intended to go viral.

My personal opinion. I am a christian and I do believe in the Bible. Honosexuality is sin in the bible and sin should not be celebrated. I would not photograph a gay couple. But I respect them as I respect other people. I would just let them know...they live in sin before God. God created the family and on His design it is a union of a man and a woman.

The only thing that videographers should have done better was to not agree right away.

"I respect them as I respect other people"

Just not enough to do business with them.

Out of curiosity, is it the part that they are not Christian that bugs you or the part that they're gay? Would you have a problem photographing a straight couple who happened to be Scientologists? What about a gay couple that profess to be Christian and attend a Christian church every week (Christian churches that are accepting of homosexuality do, in fact, exist in this country). Also, could you quote me the verse in scripture that tells you to hermetically seal yourself off from engaging in ordinary business interactions with people who are not of your own religion? I might have missed that one...

Terribly how ironic how the religion of Jesus Christ, who broke bread with sinners and gentiles (who were not living what His contemporaries would have considered a "righteous" life) has become the religion that isolates ourselves from greater society for fear that we might be seen as tolerating their lifestyles. Ahem... I believe the word here is "intolerance".

I must have missed the Sunday School lesson that covered the portion of the bible that said that we are to engage the world through preaching from our hermetically sealed bubbles of Christian community with an attitude of moral superiority. Ahh crap... I guess that makes me a bad Christian. Oh well. I never pretended to be a good one. :/

You raise some good points. I can't speak for people but, since we all sin and should associate with others, at least, to the extent we can hopefully have a positive impact on them, certainly, we should love them (all of them) and be friendly and even be friends. You draw the line where they begin to draw you into their sin as it's difficult enough to deal with your own.

Sexuality is a different kind of sin. It is being celebrated. No other sin is celebrated. Celebrate pride. People do not celebrate murder or other things. When an atheist or muslim couple is getting married, man and woman, they commit to the Gods model of family. When gay couple is getting married they commit to the life of sin.

People don't celebrate murder? What do you think war is? What do you think is happening every time a movie comes out that glamorizes violence? People don't celebrate greed and gluttony? Perhaps you should visit Las Vegas or Dubai sometime... or plenty of other places in the world. People don't celebrate wrath or avarice? We have a beloved comic book character called BATMAN that we raise our kids watching or reading whose entire shtick is an insane pursuit of his own brand of vigilante justice to make up for his parents being murdered when he was a child. Don't get me wrong, I love Batman, but thank God that he's a fictional character.

Sins other than sexual ones aren't celebrated? You'd have to have never been on the internet or outside of your house to seriously think this. Name just about any sin and and you can probably see it being widely celebrated or glamorized on some level somewhere.

In my mind, LGBTQ rights are civil rights. This is no different than the civil rights that black people in the U.S. have been fighting for. It is not a choice to be black, hispanic or any other race, nor is it a choice to be born gay or to have a different gender identity. What these videographers did to this couple is the same thing that bigots did when they claimed to have religious freedoms that gave them the right to discriminate on grounds of miscegenation.

Here is what I read: "We are just really wanting to stay true to our beliefs." This is what I heard in my head: "We want our religion to allow us to discriminate against others because the god we believe in made them differently." Hypocrisy and hatred...what a useful purpose for religion.

Well, you would be wrong then. But that's okay, we all are at times.

The problem is that you don't need to give a reason why you don't want to work on "That day" why people have to give reasons to not want to work?

Honestly? I sort of feel for the videographers because CLEARLY they felt so horrible about this situation that they ABSOLUTELY couldn't stomach it.

Fine. If it's so horribly gut wrenching that you really can't do it, at least have the decency (and intelligence) to lie about why you can't do the wedding after having committed to it in the first place rather than slap them in the face with the honest reason after you've already screwed them by pulling out of your commitment. Then this would have just been a story about a pair of crappy videographers that double booked or something.

But instead, it was made a point to let the engaged couple know that THEY are the problem—not the videographers that couldn't handle the job that they agreed to take on.

You got all that out of their letter? I guess it's true, you find what you're looking for. Most of these comments bear that out.

I thought the sarcasm was a bit obvious, but I suppose not. The point is that they could have just cancelled and stated any number of reasons and it wouldn't have been a story. Instead, they made it a point to use the cancellation of services to make a statement, which was just unnecessary.

Okay. If you're right, I thought it was a pretty weak statement. As for making up a reason, while I can't speak for them, I have an odd inability to lie. I just can't.

What was weak? That I thought they should have just lied about it? It's probably got to suck being a photographer or videographer who takes images of people if you've got no ability to lie at least a little.

You seriously haven't been on a shoot and say something like, "That's beautiful!" or "That looks fantastic!" or "That's a great pose!" without knowing in your head that it actually sucks, but you need to build your model's confidence up to get to the shots that will actually be keepers?

No, no. I meant the letter they sent would have been a weak statement. I thought it sounded more like they were looking for understanding because they knew it was a shitty thing to do.

I just came back from doing corporate headshots in five cities across the western half of the U.S. I never said any of that. Now, I don't do fashion shoots so maybe that's a thing but I have never and would never do that. I never lie. I'm kinda like Superman that way. ;-)

More comments