Not all couples are fortunate enough to have that sort of leeway, Brad. I've heard of couples who take a very long time deciding between two photographers, and usually settle on the one that's cheaper. In fact, the big thing these days is "Hey, let's get Uncle Bob to bring his new Nikocanon 5D800 2000 megapixel camera, and he can send us a CD of the images, and we can take them to Walmart to have them printed out!". I once heard of a wedding where the couple gave out disposable cameras to all the attendees, then collected them afterwards. They don't want to spend the money on "Professional" photographers. And with the advent of high quality digital cameras, wedding photographers are finding it harder and harder to make a living. In fact, Smugmug (photographer's website) offered "How to shoot gay weddings" seminars on the day the SCOTUS overturned Prop 8 and DOMA. That could make the difference for a lot of photogs out there trying to pay the rent/mortgage.
A professional photographer is providing a service, Brad. A good professional photographer who enjoys their work can certainly be pleasant at your wedding--and remember, if your photographer is grumpy, your portraits are going to reflect that. It's professional to be upbeat, even when you discover that one of the kids poured punch in the Pelican case you left open, and ruined a $5000 camera body. I have no clue who your photographer was, nor if you knew them personally before hand: It's obvious you had a good one. I hope you paid them well, because obviously they made an impression on you. But no matter what you require of your photographer, in the end they are doing business. And if your photographer was gay, and surly because you got to marry the consenting adult of your choice, and he couldn't, then he should not be in the wedding photography business. Because if he'd said no because he doesn't do straight weddings, you know that he'd be brought up on discrimination faster than hell, and rightly so. As for the comments about various other types of photographers, it was meant to be humor. Wildlife/nature/landscape photographers get out there and get the images without regard for the fact that if religious standards were applied to nature, they'd have to stay inside. I suppose it is a bit convoluted, and rather inelegant. BTW, "tree orgies" is when the pines and cedars put out huge pollen clouds. It's reproductive, but at a distance. On Aug 23, 2013, at Fri, Aug 23, 12:42 AM, "Brad Pardee" <bp51...@windstream.net> wrote: > We may have to agree to disagree on the role of the wedding photographer. My > wife and I both considered the wedding photographs to be part and parcel of > the event and the photographer to be a member of the wedding party who was > most assuredly there to celebrate with us. We would not have chosen a > photographer who would not see their role that way. The same would be true > of the wedding planner, who is also providing a service for a fee. > > I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about with regards to the > nature landscape or wildlife photographers or how that ties in to the subject > at hand. > > Brad > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:28 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Wedding Photographer Who > Discriminated Against Gays > > > On Aug 22, 2013, at Thu, Aug 22, 9:06 PM, "Brad Pardee" > <bp51...@windstream.net> wrote: > > > This is not correct. The issue is neither the customers' identity or the > free market. It is about the merchant being required to participate in > events that they cannot participate in by virtue of the tenets of thier faith > in order to engage in commerce. > > Speaking as a photographer (although not a wedding photographer) you are not > "participating" in the wedding. You are providing a service for a fee. A > participant is a member of the wedding party. You are not there to > celebrate, you are there to do a job. A photographer isn't standing there > with a drink in one hand, and a piece of cake in the other. A photographer > has a light meter in one hand, and a cable release in the other. Eventually, > the photographer has their hand out for the check. > > Wedding photography is a business. If you are constrained by your religion > to refuse to do business based on sexual orientation, that is discrimination. > That's against the law. > > BTW, I know of no nature/landscape/wildlife photogs who refuse to do their > job because trees have orgies in the spring, mountains refuse to "multiply > and be fruitful", or swans are known to engage in lifelong same sex pairings. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
