A legal settlement in Virginia will allow wedding photographer Bob Updegrove to refuse services for same-sex couples while publicizing that policy on his website. This comes after Updegrove filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state's 2020 anti-discrimination law.
The settlement stipulates that Virginia will not enforce the Virginia Values Act against Updegrove in a manner that compels him to photograph same-sex weddings or bars him from advertising his refusal to do so. The state cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, which found that a Colorado anti-discrimination law violated a Christian web designer's free speech rights by forcing her to create websites for same-sex marriages.
“Like any other artist, I want to create photography that I believe in. I believe that marriage is meant to be a unique and sacrificial relationship between one man and one woman that points people to Jesus Christ’s sacrificial covenant with the church," wrote Updegrove in a 2020 Washington Post op-ed.
Updegrove's suit was backed by the conservative legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom. They argued that requiring Updegrove to photograph same-sex weddings would violate his First Amendment rights and artistic freedom. As a wedding photographer, Updegrove claims his work qualifies as personal creative expression protected by the Constitution.
Advocates view the settlement as undercutting protections for LGBTQ people under Virginia's landmark Values Act. The law, enacted in 2020, made Virginia the first Southern state to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public spaces.
Critics contend Attorney General Jason Miyares essentially gutted the Values Act's nondiscrimination safeguards through the settlement. But Miyares asserts he is simply abiding by the 303 Creative precedent on free speech set by the Supreme Court.
Updegrove's case is part of a wave of preemptive lawsuits arguing that anti-discrimination laws infringe on religious liberty and free speech. The plaintiffs claim that without exemptions, these laws coercively compel creative professionals like photographers, bakers, and florists to participate in same-sex weddings against their beliefs.
Defenders characterize the suits as manufactured controversies to undermine civil rights laws, noting they are often filed before any actual denial of services occurs. But after 303 Creative, conservative legal challenges to state nondiscrimination policies may find receptive audiences in lower courts.
The Values Act not only bans anti-LGBTQ discrimination, but also discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and other protected classes. Violators can face fines up to $100,000.
This settlement represents another setback for LGBTQ protections in Virginia under Republican leadership. Last year, Governor Glenn Youngkin moved to roll back guidelines supporting transgender students in public schools. Critics accused him of violating the Values Act with these actions.
Updegrove has photographed weddings, as well as conservative political events. In his lawsuit, he said his faith compels him to believe marriage is between one man and one woman. The settlement permits Updegrove to continue operating his wedding photography business according to those beliefs.
98 Comments
I don't shoot for hire anymore but when I did, I'd do it for anyone as long as I was getting paid. Well, as long as what I was shooting was legal. :-) That said, I don't understand why anyone would want to hire someone that doesn't want to do the work for whatever reason. It's like forcing someone to cook or bake for you. Are you kidding? Certainly, the chef or baker isn't going to poison someone, but he or she could slip a fly wing or two into the mix and nobody would be the wiser.
As for photographing, would you expect a person forced to shoot for you to give 100%? I know how a good wedding photographer works; everything expected is in a contract. And I also know that most wedding photographers can be quite flexible when it comes to that contract. Do you really think that a photographer being forced to shoot a wedding is going to go that extra little bit to do something off script?
It's a perplexing problem with no easy solution.
Do you really think a bigot working at a lunch counter being forced to make a sandwich is going to go that extra little bit to make it delicious? And yet, in my lifetime, lunch counters, restaurants and other service businesses were forced to serve all customers, and the net effect was what we now call progress.
"It's a perplexing problem with no easy solution."
You can't change society all at once, but you can nudge it in the right direction over time.
A quick Google search reveals that even restaurants might refuse service to some customers.
Do tell...
I know a couple high end restaurants the require a 'suit' jacket be worn by males. No suit jacket, no service. ;-)
"Bigot"? Would you work for a pedophile? If not, are you a bigot? People like to tell others they can't decide what they think is right and wrong and, more importantly, act accordingly, but you've decided what the photographer thinks is bigotry and therefore wrong!? Do tell...
Pedophilic activity that harms minors is a CRIME. Being in a same-sex intimate relationship is not.
I was waiting for you to bring that up. There are two aspects to this situation: the moral beliefs of the photographer and his legal protections to act, or not, upon those beliefs. Nothing in this case has anything to do with the legality of same-sex marriage or the relevant practices of the participants.
The reason I cited pedophilia is to avoid dealing with what individuals find abhorant, assuming we can all agree that's bad. Furthermore, laws tend to be capricious, those regarding slavery being a good example.
It's not like the photographer was advertising, "hey, we don't do work for gay couples." Chances are this guy took their money and then he realized after that it was same sex.
Really? What chances? Do you have a number?
The solution is simple, but not easy.
Congrats to Mr. Updegrove. For Bible-believing Christians this is an important ruling. The PPA has gotten into the act of printing images of same sex marriages and it is rather disappointing. The real question? Do I abide by the Bible and do what is right in God's eyes or do I abide by a man-made court. For a Christian the answer is simple. For the members of the LGBTQ crowd, you have the right to live the lifestyle of your choice and I fully support that right. However, as a Christian photographer I have the right to choose who I photograph. Feel free to look elsewhere for your photographic needs.
You should probably advertise this before they hire you.
You're right. Given the times, the normal presumptions of what is right and wrong aren't applicable because 'in these days, each man does what is right in his own eyes.'
Are members of the LGBTQ crowd the only people you will refuse service to?
Actually, I don't do weddings - I do believe a small business is allowed to choose its customer base however - As for LGBTQ wanting to do commercial business with me, I'm ok with that - It's wedding-specific I have issues with - I personally have no issues with gay or LGBTQ - However, the Bible clearly states having same sex sex is clearly a sin, therefore I trust that God know's more than my personal opinion allows for, so I automatically run with God's opinion, not my own - And for those that will state hatred is being called for here, you have no idea how wrong you are - I would suggest reading the Bible and discovering this is not a hate statement, it is a statement discussing sinful acts - You have the right to believe or not believe, that is up to you - Hey, they hung Christ on a cross... what chance do I have that people will agree with me?
In many places a small business is not allowed to discriminate who they will sell to or allow into their lunch counter, restaurant, hotel, shop, bakery, gas station, Uber car, etc. In return for the city licenses/permits etc to do business , the business is supposed to be open to "all" customers, including those in "protected classes".
That is a true statement However, I don't feel the government has the right to tell me what to do in my business - Ultimately I don't care what they say, I do what is feel is moral and right.
Ah, so your standard for whether it's OK to discriminate in your public business against a class of people is a document cobbled together by a bunch of guys about 1500 years ago? Really? What's next, Sharia Law? I, for one, shudder at the thought of "Bible-believing Christians" having any control whatsoever over my sex life or whether I can get a sandwich at the corner deli.
They have mental hospitals for people like you that think you only have the correct view.
Ah, so that would be a "yes", then.
I can't decide if you're ignoring the intent of comments you disagree with or are incapable of understanding them.
Do you really think I should argue with Brian about whether I should be in a mental hospital?
Of course not. You could have chosen to not respond, not something I'm able to do, though. ;-)
Have no worry Mr Cornell - I have no desire to control your sex life or your choice of deli - Keep in mind there may be repercussions dependent on your beliefs at the time of your death - I also don't believe the government has the right to get involved in your sex life or deli, however, God does - You're welcome to think I'm a total fool if you wish...
Billy, do you abide by the bible in only wearing white, never cutting your hair or trimming your beard, never eating shellfish, never sitting anywhere that a menstruating woman has sat, never wearing garments of mixed fabrics, and all of the other things it says? Do you condemn left-handed people as sinners?
Why, do you think left-handed people are not sinners?
Ah, so that would be a "no" to the first question and a "yes" to the second.
Left-handed people must be far worse sinners than gay people, because the former is mentioned over two dozen times, and the latter... well, not really at all, unless you do an extremely poor job of translating one or two lines.
Have you read the Bible? How about the source material, since you claim it was poorly translated?
There are three kinds of laws in the Bible: laws that separate Israel from Gentiles, laws that apply to Israel's special relationship with God and laws that dictate morality. Only the third type applies to non-Jews and Christians aren't bound by any of them. Let me know if you need anything else explained. :-)
Okay, so please explain exactly why people who claim to be christians feel the need to discriminate against gay people and/or gay weddings.
Not all discrimination is bad. The Bible teaches that one shouldn't associate with unrepentant sinners, and for good reason: when I'm around people who use foul language, I slip into using foul language; when I'm around people who don't, I don't. People have a tendency to do as the Romans, when in Rome. Stay out of Rome.
All that depends, of course, on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. The Bible teaches that it is and a lot of Christians believe the Bible. Just out of curiosity, would you hang out with, or attend the wedding of, a Muslim who marries a child, forced into the union, in Iran where it's legal?
So you're saying that if you were around homosexuals or people who marry children, you'd up slipping into homosexuality or you'd marry a child?
Where does the bible teach that homosexuality is a sin? What does it teach about child marriage?
I'm saying that hanging out with people who do bad things can serve to normalize those actions, leading to their acceptance and possibly even doing them. God very specifically states you shouldn't call things that are good, bad; or things that are bad, good.
Regarding homosexuality: Jude 1:7, Romans 1:26-28 and less obviously, Mark 10:6-9. There are references in the Old Testament, but I didn't list them to keep things simple.
It doesn't directly say anything about child marriage, but the vast majority of human activity falls under general directions like 'loving your neighbor', etc. Children aren't mature enough to enter into a contract like that and marriage IS a civil contract, most societies setting the age at which someone can enter into them.
Anticipating your follow-up question (in an effort to wrap up this debate) neither the photographer in the case, or I, am saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, just that we shouldn't be forced to participate. I have a second cousin who is gay and will most likely end up marrying his current partner or some other man. We're close enough, and especially I'm very close to his mother (my cousin) that I might be invited to the wedding, even though they know how I feel about such things. I love him (I shot his senior photos) and his mother VERY much, but I won't attend. This is NOT something I come to easily. I tell you this because it seems people like you and Jacques think people like me hold these positions out of hatred. I assure you, it's quite the opposite and especially in my case.
So your interpretation of the bible is that it doesnt say anything directly but about child marriage, but you have made a personal moral decision that it's wrong. When it comes to your first cousin once removed, your interpretation of the bible is that it directly says his marriage to a man would be morally wrong, so that decision is out of your hands.
There is so much wrong with your analysis, I don't know where to start so I won't. Have a great day. :-)
Every rational person is seeing the exact same thing in what youve written that I am, John. You're a really good, loving, supportive, moral person, except when it comes to a specific member of your family who is gay, but that's not your fault - it's what god tells you to do. Lots of other things are open to interpretation and choice, but not that. It's not your fault at all - it's your cousin's fault.
Are you saying that you speak for every rational person or that agreeing with you is rational? Kind of arrogant.
I am NOT a good, loving, supportive or moral person. I try to be, but fail miserably. NO ONE is good. No one! But I have never treated that individual badly, ever. I've tried to never treat anyone badly. But you are asserting yourself to be morally superior to me; you don't know me. You know nothing about me. You know nothing about my relationships with God or my cousin. Since you persist in acting like a fool I'll not respond again or read any response you might choose to send. We both win: you can pretend you won some sort of game because I bowed out and I won't waste any more time on you.
You said you won't attend the wedding of someone you say you love very much, so I know that much about your relationship with them. You judge that person's love for another human being as morally wrong, and rather than accepting that judgement of them as something you're doing, you absolve yourself of personal responsibility for your judgement because you tell yourself it's all because of someone else's interpretation of a book.
Next, we'll be able to refuse service to anybody on the basis of any bias because it "violates" our religious or free-speech rights. At a lunch counter: "I'm not gonna make a grilled cheese sandwich for no (insert ethnic epithet here) because God tells me they're inferior."
Who says history always marches forward?
That's silly. The photographer doesn't want to participate in the wedding; I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he would be happy to photograph birthdays, graduations, etc... And the Bible doesn't say homosexuals are inferior; it says homosexuality is a sin. It also says we are all sinners.
You are right about one thing, however... history doesn't always march forward.
It seems you can't discuss same sex relationships without someone mentioning the Bible. It's worth remembering many people (a growing number in recent years) aren't religious so why should we all be bound by the words of a text plenty of us don't follow or believe in? I'm not disputing this photographer's right to refuse to photograph people based on his beliefs but homosexuality being a sin cannot be some sort of overriding view and is only relevant to religious people, no one else. Laws of the land aren't bound to follow religious views either.
For those of us who try to follow the Bible, why wouldn't we mention it!? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with government allowing same-sex relationships, marriage or anything else. I render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's.
'For those of us who try to follow the Bible, why wouldn't we mention it!?'
Because, as I've said, there are plenty of people who aren't religious and in the context of same sex relationships, calling that a sin simply because it's written in the Bible isn't a valid argument.
Did you read that back to yourself before clicking on "POST"? Sin is DEFINED by the Bible. Objective morality is defined by the devine or it doesn't exist; and if it doesn't exist, everyone should cite their source for it. For non-religious, and a lot of "religious" people, morality is what they think is right or wrong; for others, it's dictated by the devine. Do you imagine I think your opinion is a more valid argument than God's?
No, "sin" is defined by a dictionary. PEOPLE define what constitutes sin. The Bible is a moldy old tome cobbled together over centuries by a bunch of guys who probably couldn't even agree with each other, and it does not reflect the moral or spiritual leanings of the vast majority of humanity. It certainly does not have any legitimate power to grant businesses license to discriminate.
Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary. Morality is either objective, and necessarily comes from a source outside of humanity, or it's subjective, as you suggest, and therefore worthless.
If we were to discuss any other topic, I'm sure we could agree, or disagree, amicably; what is it about religion that causes some people, you in this case, to become unreasonable? Did a preacher shoot your dog? Did a nun smack your wrist in grade school for writing left-handed?
Subjective is worthless? Why are you interested in photography, then?
Subjective morality is worthless, as evidenced by our current discussion. My thoughts on the subjectivity of photography are irrelevant, but I definitely have an opinion on that as well.