Hired to photograph a lesbian wedding

[PetraG]

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.

You would refuse to take sexual pictures of anyone, that is a reasonable boundary that most professional photographers have, and so there is no discrimination concern there.

I don’t see the day coming when photographers are required to take pictures of lewd acts not allowed at a grocery store. I think you’re safe on the porn concerns.

 

[angel12]

You forget who the real victim is in both cases…Jesus Christ.

That’s a grave downgrading.

Equating taking photos with deaths – THAT’S downgrading.

 

[Edward_H]

You need to learn more.

There are what a called formal acts, and public acts.

Formal acts leave a paper trail.

A wedding is a formal and public act.

Buying a condom is not a formal act and it’s barely barely a public one.

 

[Spyridon]

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

So would you refuse to drive a truck and make a delivery if condoms were among the good being delivered?

 

[Maximilian75]

Again, I never said anything about not engaging with those people.
Being friends with a gay couple and selling them condoms are two separate things. One of them is engaging with sinful people (like myself) in a realistic fashion. The other is enabling them to continue living in sin, something I feel I cannot morally do as a Catholic.

 

[Edward_H]

Huh? A nonseqitor that large hasn’t been uttered in CAF for months.

 

[Spyridon]

Formal acts leave a paper trail.

A wedding is a formal and public act.

Buying a condom is not a formal act and it’s barely barely a public one.

Okay so let’s say you are a waiter.

A gay couple comes in with a large retinue to celebrate their anniversary.

Should you refuse to serve them?

 

[Edward_H]

It’s not a formal or public act. They are also entitled to eat. they aren’t entitled to couple.

Clear up your thinking man. You’re all over the map. Calmer, deeper, clearer.

 

[PetraG]

You need to learn more.

There are what a called formal acts, and public acts.

Formal acts leave a paper trail.

A wedding is a formal and public act.

Buying a condom is not a formal act and it’s barely barely a public one.

Taking pictures at a wedding is not a formal act. The officiant, the couple and the witnesses are acting in a formal way at a wedding. The photographer is not.

Do not get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that vendors and artists should not care whether or not their clients are asking them to have anything whatsoever to do with things they think are immoral. I’m saying that an act that is legally compelled is by the fact of the compulsion NOT a public endorsement. In jurisdictions where it is illegal to refuse to provide goods or services, then there is no endorsement implied when someone complies with that law.

 

[Edward_H]

A wedding is a formal act…it leaves paperwork behind. It’s public and it’s formal.

And a photog is adding more “paper” to the trail of immorality.

 

[PetraG]

A wedding is a formal act…it leaves paperwork behind. It’s public and it’s formal.

There was no space for the photographer’s name on my wedding license.

There is no paper trail for a photographer that does not exist for any other vendor of goods or services.

Photographing an illicit act is not complicity unless the act was performed in order to attract the photography.

 

[Edward_H]

He’s providing proof of the so called wedding…He’s helping to formalize and memorialize it.

It’s an offense against God. Jesus is the victim.

 

[hoping4more]

who knows if obscenities are going to continued to be outlawed in the future? What real reason do we have in a liberal democracy for refusing to display naked humans? Hey, it is free speech!

As to the OP’s point I wouldn’t be too quick to think that is not on the horizon…or even that it hasn’t already happened

The Strangest Tradition of All: Witnessing a Marriage Consummation

My new historical, Luther and Katharina has released. Reviews are pouring in and invariably readers are commenting on the strangeness of one particular tradition in the book: the witnessing of the …

inspiredbylifeandfiction.com

 

[PetraG]

He’s providing proof of the so called wedding…He’s helping to formalize and memorialize it.

It’s an offense against God. Jesus is the victim.

Photographs are not proof a marriage has taken place. I see video evidence of weddings on the Hallmark Channel all of the time, and there was no actual wedding in a single one of them.

 

[Edward_H]

They are a trace of it…a form that it occurred.

Otherwise the photog wouldn’t be hired to memorialize them in the first place!!!

Jesus is the victim.

 

[PetraG]

who knows if obscenities are going to continued to be outlawed in the future? What real reason do we have in a liberal democracy for refusing to display naked humans? Hey, it is free speech!

As to the OP’s point I wouldn’t be too quick to think that is not on the horizon…or even that it hasn’t already happened

How about we cross that bridge when we come to it? This is the kind of worrying that ends in unnecessary and difficult-to-defend boundaries.

 

[PetraG]

They are a trace of it…a form that it occurred.

Otherwise the photog wouldn’t be hired to memorialize them in the first place!!!

Jesus is the victim.

You are making up moral law. That is not a legitimate hobby.

 

[Edward_H]

Divine law - for practicing Catholics - trumps civil law, even ecclesial law, EVERY TIME

Jesus taught this.

Jesus is the victim in a so called gay coupling.

This isn’t about rights…it’s about our duties to obey God and to not offend Him, despite unjust civil laws.

 

[Jestersage]

Please double check where you are. As a Canadian, I doubt this will apply to me. That being said, as a videographer, me and my boss know we are just the men operating the camera, and the less interference (ie don’t clap, don’t jerk the camera around) the better

 

[Lara]

If the photographer were to bump into some people he knew at the wedding, they would figure he is condoning the “union” because whenever you go to a wedding as any sort of participant, you personally feel like you’re part of the group wishing good things for the couple.

In fact, if he goes to shoot the “wedding”, but is thinking these people are sinning and are in no way truthful as to what constitutes marriage, that is a lie of sorts too. It’s duplicitous behaviour.

1Lord1Faith, he can’t say his true feelings to the woman. That’s just the problem because our conscience rights are being trampled on by the human rights commission.

I don’t think you owe the truth to people who don’t have your best interests at heart. And this couple could have imagined the photographer may not support them and could have indicated they’re lesbian from the get-go.