Wedding Couple Demands a Refund After Their Photographer Expresses Support for Black Lives Matter on Instagram

Wedding Couple Demands a Refund After Their Photographer Expresses Support for Black Lives Matter on Instagram

A wedding photographer has received a demand for a refund from a couple after she posted her support for the Black Lives Matter movement on social media. The couple claimed that they would be too embarrassed to have her photograph their big day.

According to Insider, Cincinnati-based photographer Shakira Rochelle had taken a deposit to shoot the wedding of a couple (who remain anonymous). After making a post to Instagram expressing her support of the Black Lives Matter movement, she received a message from the bride stating that they would be "embarrassed" to have her at the ceremonyĀ and now wanted a refund.

The text message explained that the couple could not ā€œsupport anyone who is outspoken on matters that simply do not concern them, as well as someone that does not believe that ALL lives matter.ā€

Rochelle replied explaining that she would not return the nonrefundable depositĀ and implied that the money would be donated to a Black Lives Matter organization. She told reporters that she later gave $160 to the NAACP.

In response, Rochelle was informed that the coupleā€™s attorney would be in touch, though given that there was a writtenĀ contract, it seems unlikely that legal proceedings will go ahead.

Log in or register to post comments


dean wilson's picture

Let me go out on the political limb and suggest the Wedding couple do not understand the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is not to the exclusion of all others (Blue, Pink, White, Suede, Green, Yellow...or any other color you feel like associating with), but that the lives of Blacks are no less important than any other color.

Of course I'm an old white dude that doesn't understand nuthing.

Matt Williams's picture

Yup! Everyone against the phrase seems to have inserted an invisible "only" in front of the words. Otherwise, there's no way you can think it excludes non-black people.

Bernie Bros's picture

It also falsely suggests black lives donā€™t matter, based largely on lies and false narratives.

Black Lives Matter was founded on the basis Michael Brown was shot in the back with his hands up. Most BLM supporters continue to believe and propagate that founding lie.

In 2019 9 ā€œunarmedā€ blacks were shot, in a nation of 300 million people. Most of those were clearly justified cases of self defense. The rest resulted in criminal charges.

This is the ā€œevidenceā€ behind the claims of white on black genocide. (Whites are murdered by blacks at exponentially higher rates than the inverse). Iā€™m sure someone will be triggered by the facts.

Matt Williams's picture

you could have just written "I'm racist and have no idea what I'm talking about" - would've saved some time

love how unarmed is in quotes as if they.... weren't? Your comment is so full of shit I don't even know where I'd start.

ignacy matuszewski's picture

Matt, how on earth you find bernies post racist? it's pure numbers and at that moment of history, black people are the most racist folks. After them are muslims. Sorry but it's definitely easier to find places where you can be killed / injured just because you came into wrong neighbourhood and your skin is white, rather than the opposite. Either in murica or the rest of the world.

Lawrence S's picture

Respond with numbers if you think they are incorrect. Don't just throw "racist" into a discussion. People like you are the reason "racist" has no true meaning anymore. It's completely hollowed out.

Matt Williams's picture

It's not my job to do research for you, especially when I know damn well it won't change anyone's mind.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Numbers then.
An unarmed person from the middle class walking in the street, is 3,5 times more likely to be injured killed by police in the usa, if he is black.
Enough said, I think.
Anyone not understanding that (even) black lives matter, is racist.

Lawrence S's picture

Yeah, numbers mean nothing without a source. I thought that was a given.

Well .... yes, someone claiming that the lives of one ethnicity are less worthy than others are indeed racist. Did you just found out about this today? Are you the last one to read this in a book or hear it in the news?

Someone asking for numbers and a source however, is not. That's just called debating.

Deleted Account's picture

I'm not disagreeing with you but the problem is, nobody owns the phrase and some individuals, on both "sides" of the issue treat it as "only" Black Lives Matter, as Matt suggests. I would totally embrace it, according to your explanation but how do I simultaneously distance myself from those who's actions indicate a disdain for the lives of police officers or the much larger number of black individuals, who died at the hands of non-policemen? To further complicate the matter, a segment of the Black Lives Matter organization gives the appearance of supporting the exclusivity of who's lives matter so, given their organization has the same name as the sentiment, how does one easily distinguish the two?

These are honest questions and similar to those I deal with all the time as a Christian, given the existence of reprehensible Christians and acts, supposedly done in the name of God.

I'm similarly handicapped by my age, race and gender. ;-)

Matt Williams's picture

I don't know anyone nor have I ever seen anyone on the "side" of BLM who believes that only black lives matter. If you ever go to a rally, they talk about people of all races and the crowd is full of diverse skin colors. I've been to a few and they're really just about equal rights and treatment and of course, police brutality.

Matt Williams's picture

um, that's about cops.

Police are not a race. They take their uniform off every night, no one knows they're cops without the uniform, and they can quit any time. There isn't even a comparison.

Somehow you think this is an example of people believing that only black lives matter?

Also, cops suck.

Deleted Account's picture

Lives are lives.
I do find it interesting, though, that you rightfully decry prejudice, in the form of racism, and yet demonstrate extreme prejudice against people who willfully put their lives in jeopardy, every day, to preserve your right to do so.
Again, please understand that I do believe that black lives matter; my niece, nephew, grandniece, grandnephew and daughter-in-law are all black and I love them very much.

Matt Williams's picture

lol except, as we are seeing, tons of police are NOT preserving anyone's constitutional rights, and are actually doing the opposite.

that's why they suck

and again, police are not a race. feel like that needs to be stressed, once again.

Deleted Account's picture

Tons? No. Well, maybe "literally" tons: at 180lbs/policeman, average, that would be eleven officers so, "tons" would be at least 22 officers. I can believe that. ;-)

Just so I understand, a young black man, seeing the problems of the world, including racism, deciding to do something about it, becomes a law enforcement officer. Does he "suck" too?

I haven't responded to your comment about police not being a race because it's irrelevant. Racism is a subset of prejudice and your insistence, no other prejudice matters, is ridiculous. Do you think prejudice against short people is less reprehensible than prejudice against people for being white, black, asian, hispanic, aboriginal, etc.? Do you think ugly people are subject to less prejudice than anyone for racism? How about LGBTQ people? Women? You seem to have a very myopic view of life. Maybe I just suck!? :-D

Matt Williams's picture

Again, every form of prejudice you mention are things that PEOPLE CANNOT CHANGE. A short person can't be tall when they get home at night. A gay person can't choose to be straight.

A cop is a cop by choice, and the only "prejudice" they receive is when they are wearing a uniform - otherwise no one knows they're a cop, unless they choose to tell them.

They have a CHOICE to be what they are.

That's fundamentally and categorically different than literally every other example you have given.

Deleted Account's picture

Ahh, I see. So it's okay to discriminate against people for their choices but not their physical attributes? I'm really having a difficult time understanding your criteria and, more importantly, their practical ramifications.

Matt Williams's picture

Depends on the choice.

If it's being a cop, then yeah, cuz they suck.

Deleted Account's picture

Okay. I think we've exhausted the potential of this discussion.

Cool Cat's picture

Mat Williams will never understand until he gets his head out of the sand.

Deleted Account's picture

When my kids were teenagers, people would lament their behavior; I always said, "They'll grow up and straighten out" and they did. Some people just take longer to do that.

Carel van Huyssteen's picture

And who do you call if there are no cops? Cops do much more good than the few individuals who cause harm

Matt Williams's picture

You realize that defunding the police doesn't mean getting rid of law enforcement entirely right? It means dismantling the current system and replacing it with, preferably, multiple departments - most of whom would not be armed. In many countries, there are cops solely dedicated to traffic enforcement, and they're unarmed.

It's not unlike having a specialized department for, let's say... fires. In Brazil, the police are also firefighters. That sounds crazy to us. Well, our system sounds crazy to people in the UK or in New Zealand or [insert dozens of other countries].

Carel van Huyssteen's picture

BLM is loudly calling for dismantling the police force, defunding literally means removing funds, meaning less police officers and equipment.

Lawrence S's picture

There have been protests (small ones, not like in the US, but including looting) in my country. They were posting "protest rules and guidelines". They literally said things like: when you are white, don't talk to the press, direct them to black people. This is not about you, this is about black people - not mixed race, Asian or any other color. This is about black people. Your only job as a white person, is to shield and use your body to protect black people from assaults from the police". Probably those rules came from someone outside BLM, but people were sharing this and attending the protest, like it was the greatest thing ever.

My personal opinion about this is, when BLM started to feel the subtle protest and misconception that people feel that ALL live matters, they should have embraced that idea, that all lives matter and that all people come into contact with injustice or prejudice - whether in contact with police or not. Instead, I only see people stressing that it's only about black people. Even in countries where black people are not the largest group of people with another ethnic background or without any history of slavery. What I meant to say is that they had the opportunity to bring people together - especially the large significant crowd of people who are undecided or still in doubt for any reason or based on personal (bad) experience - but this polarisation is doing the opposite and BLM are now using the (somewhat understandable) semi-counter movement to fuel the idea of them being the ONLY victim. Just imagine being white, hispanic or Asian and struggling in life, bad luck, low income, living in a high crime area and you only see signs telling "Black Lives Matter". You don't need a degree in Psychology to know that's not going to turn out well.

Matthias Kirk's picture


"If A, then B"

"not A
Therefore not B"

is an obvious logical fallacy.

Lawrence S's picture

Same can be said about this:

Now we have:

"A matters !"

-But B also matters

"You're a racist".


"A matters !"

-But B also matters

"Yes, you're right. Let's walk in the streets together and ask for change."


Which part will bring people together, strengthening the message and which part will divide people even more?

Karim Hosein's picture

Not the same thing becauseā€¦.

A = All lives matter
B= Black lives matter
C=Cops lives matter
D=[ Designated group ] lives matter

if A then B & C & D

if !B | !C | !D then !A

if B then A

if C then A

if D then A

B is FALSE, therefore A is FALSE.

That is to say, claiming ā€œAll lives matter,ā€ is to ignore, and spit on, the truth we live in today. All lives cannot matter until Black lives matter.

If one wants A to be true, then one needs to make B & C & D true.

Saying B is true does NOT make A false.

Simple secondary education logic.

More comments