Hired to photograph a lesbian wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardAubyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jktobin said:
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
Click to expand...
Don’t lie. It is better to be slandered by the sinful and to suffer from their unjust scorn than to offend Heaven with an actual sin.

It is morally allowable to photograph this attempt at a wedding, too. Attempting to marry persons of the same sex is worse than a clearly invalid attempt at a heterosexual wedding, but in neither case is a photographer morally prohibited from working at the event.

I wonder how many people who think the photographer cannot morally accept this job would not also require the photographer to turn down jobs when the bride and groom must be presumed by the faithful to be already validly married. I’ve never heard anyone suggest screening for that. I’ve never heard people say that photographers can’t take family pictures of people living in sin, lest they be hardened in their sin.
 
Last edited:
jktobin said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s a lie. Don’t lie.

You asked if you were sinning. The answer is no. I think you should honor the agreement you already made with them.

You should certainly seek guidance from your pastor after reading about cooperation with evil and the principles of Catholic moral teaching on this. The Church doesn’t require that you refrain from providing such services. Cake bakers, photographers, florists, dress makers… these businesses provide a service open to all. They are not integral to the commission of the act. It might be uncomfortable for you, but it isn’t a SIN.
 
Edward_H said:
He’s adding pleasure to an immoral event. He’s pleasing a client who is engaging in an act against God’s will.
Click to expand...
Using that logic instead of feeding and housing homeless drug addicts we should let them starve and sleep in the rain.

Or if we come across an injured person who just killed his family, we should just let him die instead of trying to save his life.
 
The OP would likely be performing his artistic function at the wedding ceremony, after when pictures are often posed for, then perhaps even later at the reception which is actually twice or three times the work I would do and probably far more than a baker as well who should have equal say in deciding where their artistic creations should and should not be utilized. There is also no rite that includes two females “marrying” which is the very reason this is an awful idea.

What you suggest as “discrimination” is nonsense. Discrimination goes both ways and I would feel very discriminated against if I felt like I had no choice but to perform a function at such an event so fundamentally against my core beliefs that I wouldn’t otherwise agree to do so and one for which I would have to confess after doing, as the OP has stated. It’s called conscientious objection. This is what we need to deal with in our post-modern mess where the beliefs of Western society are at odds with the laws of its now corrupt nations. If the OP were in the United States the Supreme Court is on his side. Anywhere else in the west, perhaps not. It doesn’t change the fact that he should have no involvement in this.
 
Spyridon said:
Why is a same sex wedding any different than those situations?
Click to expand...
Those are good points, but they are often a symptom of receptions and many celebrations that involve alcohol. But as for the ceremony itself, this seems very, very wrong, since marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ.
 
1ke said:
Cake bakers, photographers, florists, dress maker
Click to expand...
You forgot grocery baggers and restaurant waiters.

If you are a waiter and see a homosexual couple celebrating an anniversary, should you refuse to wait on them?

If you work at the market and a homosexual couple comes to your lane with KY Jelly, wine, and chocolates, should you refuse to bag their groceries?
 
1ke said:
You asked if you were sinning. The answer is no. I think you should honor the agreement you already made with them.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that the issue of it being a sin is even an issue here anymore. The OP seems to be looking for a way out of this commitment.

Maybe he can clarify the issue.

I do think he should go ahead with the shoot. But if he is so nervous that he feels he cannot, then he owes it to the couple to say something soon. I haven’t heard any alternative offered that wouldn’t amount to an unjustified lie.
 
Last edited:
jktobin said:
But as for the ceremony itself, this seems very, very wrong, since marr
Click to expand...
It is wrong - but your photographing it does not imply your approving of it.

If you serve as a waiter in a restaurant and a homosexual couple is celebrating an anniversary, would waiting on them mean you approve of their sin?
 
OP, you are living in a barbaric pagan culture(probably all of us here are living in it too) and you will either have to be a martyr, join them, or leave.
 
If you work as a cashier at 7-11 and a young unmarried couple want to buy condoms, should you refuse to sell them condoms?

For that matter, should you just refuse to sell condoms to anybody no matter what?
 
Last edited:
No. Food and shelter are necessities.
Wedding pictures are absolutely non-essential
 
DignumEtJustum said:
The OP would likely be performing his artistic function at the wedding ceremony, after when pictures are often posed for, then perhaps even later at the reception which is actually twice or three times the work I would do and probably far more than a baker as well who should have equal say in deciding where their artistic creations should and should not be utilized. There is also no rite that includes two females “marrying” which is the very reason this is an awful idea.

What you suggest as “discrimination” is nonsense. Discrimination goes both ways and I would feel very discriminated against if I felt like I had no choice but to perform a function at such an event so fundamentally against my core beliefs that I wouldn’t otherwise agree to do so and one for which I would have to confess after doing, as the OP has stated. It’s called conscientious objection. This is what we need to deal with in our post-modern mess where the beliefs of Western society are at odds with the laws of its now corrupt nations. If the OP were in the United States the Supreme Court is on his side. Anywhere else in the west, perhaps not. It doesn’t change the fact that he should have no involvement in this.
Click to expand...
I live in a jurisdiction where a baker has to bake the same cake for anyone walking through the door regardless of what use the client has in mind for the cake. They can order a cake for a cat marrying a dog, and the baker has to make the cake. It is not immoral to make a cake for a client under those circumstances. In places where a baker cannot discriminate between one client and another, obviously there is no endorsement of the client implied because the baker makes them a cake. The mere fact of legal compulsion removes all implication of endorsement.

The word “discimination” does not imply wrong-doing. There is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. It is legal to discriminate against clients who want to come into a restaurant in flip-flops. It is illegal to discriminate against clients based on race. Where civil law forbids certain kinds of discrimation based on moral reasoning the law does not recognize, a Christian ought to abide by civil law to the extent that divine law allows it.

I would agree that the photographer would be wise to get it in writing that the clients understand it is up to them to pose for pictures they want that the photographer has not suggested. That done, the photographer has the latitude to pose pictures that imply friendship and avoid suggesting those that imply an immoral sexual relationship. That would at least allow the photographer the artistic freedom to avoid reaching in and suggesting poses that are morally troubling on their face.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I believe that I would think of that before accepting a job and not accept it due to that, unless in a very extreme case
 
1Lord1Faith said:
I’m not sure that the issue of it being a sin is even an issue here anymore. The OP seems to be looking for a way out of this commitment.

Maybe he can clarify the issue.

I do think he should go ahead with the shoot. But if he is so nervous that he feels he cannot, then he owes it to the couple to say something soon. I haven’t heard any alternative offered that wouldn’t amount to an unjustified lie.
Click to expand...
If the law allows refusing to photograph a wedding for whatever reason the photographer wants to refuse, the photographer can say, “I’ve decided not to do your wedding. I am returning your deposit. I’m sorry if I caused you any inconvenience. I am not inclined to give my reasons, sorry. They are personal.” Repeat, repeat, repeat. If the photographer does not want to be maligned for making this choice based on her faith, the best that can be done is to avoid giving a reason. What she MAY NOT morally do is to give a false reason. That is lying. It is not only immoral but will also reflect badly on her faith when the truth comes out…which it will, eventually.

This won’t be the last time this happens. The photographer needs a policy, not a course of action. It had better be a policy based on the truth, not on turning down work based on some false pretense and taking vacations during her busiest season. If not, she shouldn’t kid herself about making choices based on her faith. Telling the truth is in the 10 Commandments, too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, it’s scenarios like this that help me along with my conscious that’s in a tug of war. You’re right, if I were a waiter I wouldn’t refuse them service. But this could be a slippery slope. What’s next, I’m hired to take photographs of a couple at their house, and then it turns out to be pornography. I would be involved in the making of pornography. And with the way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if refusing this will soon be considered discrimination and grounds to sue. I pray to God that won’t happen.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Personally, I believe that I would think of that before accepting a job and not accept it due to that, unless in a very extreme case
Click to expand...
@Maximilian75 are you familiar with the following Scripture verses?

1 Corinthians 5:9-10, 12a

“When I wrote in my letter to you not to associate with people living immoral lives, I was not meaning to include all the people in the world who are sexually immoral, any more than I meant to include all usurers and swindlers or idol-worshippers. To do that, you would have to withdraw from the world altogether. It is not my business to pass judgment on those outside.”
 
Last edited:
How am I passing judgment by refusing to sell something I find morally reprehensible?
 
I didn’t say validity…the presence and work of the photog is adding to the experience of an unnatural coupling.

If it wasn’t key…it would be less commonly done.

The wedding is an offense against Jesus Christ. He is the victim…and we need to avoid doing our own version of “give us Barrabas”.
 
You seem to be missing the point of that passage.

It is unrealistic to refuse to engage with people involved in sin while living in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top