Hired to photograph a lesbian wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardAubyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You forget who the real victim is in both cases…Jesus Christ.

That’s a grave downgrading.
 
Yes, that is your duty to the professionalism of your job. It is not an contribution that leads to the commission of an immoral act. I think @1ke stated this very well.
 
Even there, it comes down to something rather arbitrary- how subjectively aesthetically pleasing can a photograph be before it is a sin to photograph a subject that doesn’t adhere to perfect Catholic ideal of morality? Does it matter who finds it beautiful or not, and does it matter who sees it, and does it matter if it was posed? People have argued about this kind of stuff for ages. I tend outside of producing things like snuff films and outright pornography, creating art and documenting events in human history is overall a good thing.
 
Do you normally take pictures of the bride and (groom) kissing? What happens when they tell you they about to pose for that pic?

I would imagine even if you can morally contort yourself into doing this, you would still do a sub par job of it since (if you are being honest with us and yourself) you do not agree with it.
 
I agree with you. It’s just an event you’re taking professional pictures of. There is no endorsement implied in doing so.
 
Last edited:
The atrophy of a conscience.

It’s an offense against God. Jesus Christ is the victim…and you’re calling it just an event…“no endorsement”.
 
Sounds like ‘Proximate’

maybe if OP or someone in their shoes, say, shows up the day of and it is “By the way this is a lesbian wedding…” and they continue on with it then maybe it would be ‘Remote’.

Now is the time to act. Are you making your decision because of the law or because of God?

I could make more money selling drugs, because you know we live in a free market and I am just making a living. No I bear responsibility for my actions, even if they cost me my livelihood.
 
So, photographing the so-called wedding leads to the wedding. No offense; trying to understand your determination.
 
Did you read the chart?

Somewhere under cooperator; not a formal

under material; does not seem immediate

under mediate; between proximate and remote proximate seems like the logical answer.
 
In such cases, it’s helpful to realize with great clarity: “who is the victim?”

The victim is Jesus Christ. Jesus’s own words are being offended by the wedding and participation/support of it.

His Word, and He is His Word is being offended.

Jesus is the victim.
 
He photographing it, not validating it. Photography does not make a wedding valid or invalid.
 
Last edited:
He’s adding pleasure to an immoral event. He’s pleasing a client who is engaging in an act against God’s will.

The true victim is Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
I think this gives you the opportunity to rethink your screening process. Instead of just saying “yes” or “no” to a date, you could have a consult that starts with “tell me a little more about your event” because there are many variables. Some events will allow you to do 2 in a day, such as a morning and evening event, while others would preclude that based on location, time, length, etc. So you can start with having a form where you take down basic information first. This is reasonable. You can then make a decision whether you can take on “another event” or not. You need not give any reasons beyond that you cannot take on that event…
Click to expand...
Businesses with screening processes are wise to ensure that their protocols are lawful in their civil jurisdiction. A Catholic parish or school, for instance, typically does not have to host the same spectrum of events as a hotel would be required to accept. A hotel that asks questions that might be able to be shown as de facto screening for illegal discrimination, however, could get into a lot of trouble for asking what are meant as innocent questions. There are parties out there who are out looking for patterns of discrimination, so no one ought to assume they can “fly under the radar” of civil law.

In this case, if the client had been concerned that the photographer be comfortable with the situation, she would not have waited until the reservation was secure before mentioning it or would have offered to book a different photographer if the photographer wasn’t 100% comfortable with the situation. As a professional, I would take that as a signal that the client does not care what does or does not bother me and perhaps even that the client will be looking for signs that I might be discriminating against her.

In such a case, I would not express my personal feelings about doing the event. If asked, I would say that I do not have the luxury of deciding whether or not I personally like my clients or approve of their decisions. On the other hand, if the bride asked me if I thought her dress was wonderful and I thought it was hideous, I am the kind who would say, “The only thing that matters is how it makes you feel.” In other words: there are times when keeping your own opinions to yourself is the wisest course. In the case where there is even a remote likelihood that admonishment would turn someone from an immoral course, there is a duty to speak up. When that is not a realistic likelihood, though, there is no duty to take the hazard of throwing pearls before swine.
 
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.”
 
jktobin said:
These are good points, but it wouldn’t simply be a photojournalisic style of photography, and just capturing the events as they naturally unfold. I would also be asked to pose and literally show them in flattering light. Diffused lighting, dramatic, Rembrandt lighting. I would be using art to make this “celebration” look good.
Click to expand...
If you view this as an artist, one option would be to ask the parties if they would find another photographer, and if not, then you would do the job, but in conscience, you could not make it artistic, separating the mechanics, which might be protected, from the artistic, which is not. If the priest advises you not to do this, you might as a lawyer the best way to proceed.
 
hoping4more said:
Do you normally take pictures of the bride and (groom) kissing? What happens when they tell you they about to pose for that pic?
Click to expand...
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.
 
His presence has nothing to do with validity. He validated nothing. Jesus is the victim of all sin, including this wedding. I do not understand the over dramatic point, unless you are saying it is the OP who is sinning and offending Christ. In that case, I have to back up to his need to talk to a priest, which I am going to assume you are not.
 
DignumEtJustum said:
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.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Asking ,me? Yes, many times as well as the supporting articles. It’s related to the HHS mandate. This is remote cooperation, and may or may not be sinful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top