Hired to photograph a lesbian wedding

[DignumEtJustum]

DignumEtJustum:

Short and simple; DON’T do it and CANCEL now. Who cares what they say. You have the Supreme Court on your side and don’t need to give a reason other than being unavailable. July is a long way away. Plan a vacation for that time and take your family away and cancel the “wedding.”

July is not “a long way away” when it comes to finding a good photographer for a Saturday wedding. If it is legal to discriminate between one client and another for this reason, the photographer ought to do it up front, before the reservation is made. As it is, there is no sin in accepting the job.

Whatever the OP does, it should not include lying. If the OP actually is available and would schedule a valid wedding on that date, then the OP should not lie to the first client about it. As for taking the weekend off for a vacation, that isn’t necessarily something that someone making a living as a photographer can afford to do.

Besides, what if the photographer calls and claims unavailability and the client says she will move her wedding date (which is a long ways away) in order to have THAT photographer? Then what? Then the OP has shown she is too moral to take pictures of an illegitimate attempt at marriage but not too moral to lie to clients instead of telling the truth.

That is your opinion and not one seemingly in line with Church teaching and as someone who performs a liturgical function which could be utilized at a wedding I completely disagree. The OP should cancel now and be done with it. He doesn’t need to give a reason other than not being available nor does he need to put himself in the position of potentially being sued or thrown in jail for simply not wanting to be involved in someone else’s mistake.

 

[PetraG]

Those are standard images that I always capture. That’s what’s important here; this isn’t a photojournalist assignment, this is using art to literally capture them in a flattering light.

You aren’t required to ask them to do anything you think is immoral. It is hard for an artist to say something is a “flattering” image if it turns your stomach to set it up and take that picture. You are free to have clients sign something telling them to ask you as the day goes along if there are any poses they want that you haven’t suggested. After that, you can choose to set up the images that imply a deep friendship rather than a sexual relationship. If they want a kissing photograph, they can set up the pose and you can take the picture they ask for. They will not have room to complain later that you discriminated and didn’t take the pictures they wanted.

 

[PetraG]

That is your opinion and not one seemingly in line with Church teaching and as someone who performs a liturgical function which could be utilized at a wedding I completely disagree. The OP should cancel now and be done with it. He doesn’t need to give a reason other than not being available nor does he need to put himself in the position of potentially being sued or thrown in jail for simply not wanting to be involved in someone else’s mistake.

Taking pictures is not a liturgical function. There is no rite that includes the services of a photographer.

There is no moral defense for lying to the client. The photographer cannot morally pose as someone who does not use religious beliefs to legally discriminate between clients when that is in fact what the photographer does if it takes a lie to cover up the truth. If, as you implied, the law is on the photographer’s side (which I can’t know because I do not know the law or the photographer’s jurisdiction), the photographer won’t be cited. In that case, the photographer ought to call the client as soon as possible, explain that he/she found that there is no legal reason forcing a photographer to photograph any wedding that is incompatible with his/her religious beliefs, and as an artist the photographer has elected to decline the job while the client still has time to find a replacement.

In any event, I have never heard of anyone being thrown into jail for discrimination. Where it is illegal, it is a violation of civil rights, not a felony, and I don’t know of a single exception to that. The photographer would be liable to substantial fines, not jail time.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Those are standard images that I always capture. That’s what’s important here; this isn’t a photojournalist assignment, this is using art to literally capture them in a flattering light

Have you talked to these women about this concern of yours? Talking to them about this would be the professional thing to do. They may change their mind if they know that you are going to be nervous the whole time that you’re shooting their ceremony and celebration. Don’t you owe a paying client this kind of information?

 

[GerardAubyn]

Have you talked to these women about this concern of yours? Talking to them about this would be the professional thing to do. They may change their mind if they know that you are going to be nervous the whole time that you’re shooting their ceremony and celebration. Don’t you owe a paying client this kind of information?

I’m afraid that if I did my name would be dragged through the mud, so to speak. Again, I’m in Canada and we are at the point now where the government will only give federal summer grants to those who support abortion. Our prime minister even changed “in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command”

 

[1ke]

Not proximate. Remote. The presence or absence of a photographer in no way facilitates the act. The photographer is not proximate. The officiant would be proximate.

 

[PetraG]

Have you talked to these women about this concern of yours? Talking to them about this would be the professional thing to do. They may change their mind if they know that you are going to be nervous the whole time that you’re shooting their ceremony and celebration. Don’t you owe a paying client this kind of information?

If they have any evidence to do so, they might also sue if they don’t like the pictures, claiming discrimination, if the discrimination is illegal in their jurisdiction. Under no circumstances should a wise person tempt a bridal couple to sue them if the day isn’t perfect. The day won’t be perfect, the pictures won’t be perfect, but try to tell that to someone who has bought into the entitlement that whole “your day ought to be perfect” inflicts on the world.

 

[hoping4more]

No, the officiant would be a formal cooperator.

The lesbian couple will have a photographer no matter what. The fact that we are discussing this and it is causing this much a problem should be a key to your thought that this is a problem.

 

[1ke]

Businesses with screening processes are wise to ensure that their protocols are lawful in their civil jurisdiction.

Of course. Screening processes need to be above board. That’s what lawyers are for, to review business processes.

Frankly, I find it unusual that someone would book over the phone based solely on the date being available. When i booked my photographer I met with her, looked at a portfolio, screen about 5 photographers and then made a selection. the first step was finding out if that person had availability on my date, but I also wanted to see her work, i had questions about whether she’d photographed a Catholic cermony before, talked about shots she did, how many photographers would be there on the day, whether she would be the principle photographer or if it would be an assistant, time allotted, etc.

the time between the initial inquiry and booking her took several weeks and she could have filled up by then. So… this situation sounds a little unusual.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m afraid that if I did my name would be dragged through the mud, so to speak.

I think that this is an unfounded fear. All you would be doing is telling them that you’re uncomfortable with the arrangement. You’re not telling them you aren’t shooting because of it, just that you’re uncomfortable, and maybe they would be better off with someone who isn’t bothered by this sort of thing.

If it was any other issue that made you feel uncomfortable, wouldn’t you let the client know after you found out what you would really be doing? Why have this irrational fear that this circumstance is somehow different from any other circumstance that would make you uncomfortable?

 

[1ke]

That’s pretty unprofessional.

And, yes, i am sure his reviews on various wedding websites and review sites would suffer.

Let’s not call him to do something the Church doesn’t call him to do-- sabotage his business or refuse work he’s already booked or refuse future work that is remote cooperation at best.

 

[hoping4more]

Would you photograph a black sabbath wedding? I doubt it.

Your reservation about possibly still performing this is due to the recent public shaming and lawsuits people have gone through.

Follow your conscience.

 

[1ke]

No, the officiant would be a formal cooperator

Not if they didn’t intend the act to occur.

The lesbian couple will have a photographer no matter what. The fact that we are discussing this and it is causing this much a problem should be a key to your thought that this is a problem.

The presence or absence of a photographer does not impact the ability to commit the act.

The fact that it’s generated so much discussion shows a lack of understanding of Catholic moral teaching on cooperation with evil. A lot of what is on this thread is personal opinion without any substantiation.

 

[PetraG]

No, the officiant would be a formal cooperator.

The lesbian couple will have a photographer no matter what. The fact that we are discussing this and it is causing this much a problem should be a key to your thought that this is a problem.

In July? How are you so sure about that? (And why does that even matter, if photographing the wedding is sinful? Why would the organizers of an illegitmate attempt at marriage be entitled to expect a photographer? Why be concerned about whether they can get a photographer or not?)

I don’t see that this is “causing this much problem.” There are civil laws in place that are binding on Christians. There is not a moral law prohibiting taking pictures at an illegitimate attempt at marriage. If the photographer wants to become an object case in order to establish a right to refuse to even be present at such an event, that is the photographer’s choice. It could be argued it could be a praiseworthy choice that might be a positive contribution to all photographers working in that jurisdiction. That doesn’t mean the photographer is morally required to do that.

 

[buffalo]

It implies tacit endorsement against the photographer’s inner conscience.

 

[buffalo]

Be careful that he is not being set up.

 

[Spyridon]

mistakenly forgot about other obligations that will conflict with their wedding date and then send them their retainer fee back. I

Why commit a sin so as to not do something which is not a sin?

Again, it is not a sin to photograph a civil marriage ceremony of two women.

 

[PetraG]

The presence or absence of a photographer does not impact the ability to commit the act.

The fact that it’s generated so much discussion shows a lack of understanding of Catholic moral teaching on cooperation with evil. A lot of what is on this thread is personal opinion without any substantiation.

In spite of popular opinion to the contrary, marriage does not require a photographer, flowers, or an elegant venue.

I think you’d agree it would be a stretch even to say that making wedding gowns tempts people to enter into illegitimate attempts at marriage. If something has a legitimate use, it is OK to make it, even if that means that someone will occasionally furnish that same thing to someone clearly intending to make illegitimate use of it. If civil law does not allow vendors to discriminate between buyers based on the use the buyer intends to make of their goods or services, the vendors are not morally required to stay out of that business or go looking for ways to be punished for violating civil law.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m considering contacting them and telling them I mistakenly forgot about other obligations that will conflict with their wedding date and then send them their retainer fee back. I understand this would be a lie, but if I tell them the truth I could be sued or even face the real possibility that I could be slandered in the media as a hateful bigot.

I would suppose that “hateful bigot” comes in more than one flavour, not the least despicable of which would be the hateful bigotry that would slander someone in the media merely for disagreeing with them on what legitimately constitutes a marriage.

Keep in mind that much of the advice in the thread comes from individuals who are nowhere near having to deal with your situation, some of whom might be ideologically possessed and possibly, even likely, would not follow their own advice if they ever were in your position.

Your initial plan sounds reasonable to me. Pray about it in all honesty and do your best to follow what you sincerely believe to be what you are called to do. Perhaps speaking candidly with your priest or someone close to you whom you respect might be helpful. I wouldn’t act out of haste or fear, but from a sincere desire to do what is right. Learn something about yourself in the process and try to make of yourself a better person when you do.

May the Holy Spirit guide you through this.

 

[Spyridon]

Think of most weddings:

Can I photograph people getting drunk? Can I photograph people that have premarital sex? Can I photograph people of a different religion? Can I photograph men and women who are trying to entice each other?

EXACTLY.

Why is a same sex wedding any different than those situations?