The LGBT Issue: Every Photographer Must Decide

Important Note: Improve Photography is not a partisan political tool.  We're one of the largest photography communities on the web and represent photographers from all different political, religious, cultural, racial, and other backgrounds.  I, Jim Harmer, am the author of this content but I spent a significant amount of time carefully writing it in the most neutral way possible.  This article has zero intention of stirring up political debates or expressing my own.  The goal is merely to make photographers aware of the issue and how it impacts us as human beings and photographers.  I'll let you decide where you stand.

Nearly 20 U.S. States have laws on the books which claim to protect religious freedom by allowing service providers, such as photographers, to choose not to participate in events which violate their religious beliefs.  Recently, Indiana and Arkansas also proposed similar measures, which was met with both vehement opposition and staunch support.  Proponents of the law call it a protection of the freedom of religion, and opponents call it open-season for discrimination.

Whether you like politics or hate them, are religious, are irreligious, gay, straight… every photographer must decide where they stand on this issue.  Why?  Because failing to understand the law in your state, city, and country could bring massive penalties to you as a photographer.  On the other side of the coin, the issue impacts many LGBT Americans and their ability to hire service providers freely and to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In short, photographers must choose between two options, which I will frame in as neutral a way as I can:

  • Members of the LGBT community should be protected from discrimination from photographers who do not want to photograph their wedding on religious grounds
  • Photographers should have the right to refuse to photograph an LGBT wedding if the photographer feels that doing so would be a violation of his or her moral judgment on religious grounds

Can Photographers Legally Refuse to Photograph an LGBT Wedding If It Violates Their Religion?

This is a difficult question.  Very few states have fleshed this question out to give a clear answer to photographers.  As an all parties on both sides of this issue, I spent a significant amount of time researching laws in each of the 50 U.S. States and made a call on each state of whether or not religious freedom would be a valid defense to refuse an LGBT wedding.  Again, I am not writing in support of or opposition of either side, but merely to provide the information.

These are my personal opinions as to how the law would come down on the issue in each of the states.  Again, the laws are far from clear in all but a few states.

Further, remember that this is only state law.  Many cities are now enacting their own laws.  For example, Bozeman Montana has a city ordinance preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodation (which likely applies to photographers) but there is no similar state law.

This is probably the worst legal work I've ever done as a lawyer.  VERY few states have clear laws one way or the other and most would depend on the specific facts and the judge.  However, this is my best approximation as to the current situation across the United States.
Yes, I recognize that the map maker misspelled KanZas and ArkanZas, but it made me laugh so I kept it on there 🙂 This is probably the worst legal work I've ever done as a lawyer. VERY few states have clear laws one way or the other and most would depend on the specific facts and the judge. However, this is my best approximation as to the current situation across the United States.

Examples of Photographers and Other Service Providers Who Have Faced This Issue

  • Photographer Elane Huguenin was sued by an LGBT client in New Mexico when she refused to photograph their wedding.  The photographer felt that photographing the LGBT wedding would be a violation of her religious beliefs.  New Mexico's human rights commission fined the photographer $6,697.34 for her refusal.  The NM State Supreme Court affirmed the decision and SCOTUS denied cert.
  • Sweet Cakes by Melissa was sued by an LGBT client when she refused to bake a wedding cake for the same-sex union.  The issue is not fully resolved, but Oregon state law seems to favor the LGBT client.  The business faces penalties of up to $150,000.  This Youtube video has more information from the service provider's point of view.
  • Urloved Photography in northern California was forced to shut down their business after refusing service to an LGBT couple and referring the couple to another photographer.
  • A police officer in Salt Lake City was suspended when he refused to participate in a motorcycle brigade at a gay pride parade.  The duty would have required the officer to participate in choreographed maneuvers to add excitement to the event, which he felt was counter to his religious beliefs.
  • A Kentucky Tshirt printing business lost its battle arguing it should not have to print shirts for a gay pride parade, when the owners felt it would be a violation of their religious beliefs
  • There are dozens–or hundreds–of other examples that could be included here.

What Do Religious Freedom Laws Actually Say?

Each of the 20 states which have these religious freedom (RFRA) laws write them differently.  The first of its kind is a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The act “gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws (subject to strict scrutiny). Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.'” (Volokh)

What does that mean?  It basically means a photographer who has a religious objection to a law that prevents discrimination can be exempted from certain aspects of the law that would violate his or her religious freedom.  Importantly, the federal law was in response to federal action against individuals, such as in Employment Division v. Smith (Native Americans fired from job for peyote use in religious ritual were denied unemployment from the government).

Many states have since enacted their own versions of the RFRA.  Each differs in how it is applied, but few apply to conduct between private individuals.  Most are protections for religious belief defenses against government actions.

The Indiana law which is so hotly contested now is slightly more reaching.  It specifically states that religious objections can be used “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

States with Religious Freedom Laws in Place: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

Understanding the Issue from Both Sides

So now is the time for your thoughts, photography community… Should photographers be legally protected from photographing an LGBT wedding if doing so would violate his or her religious beliefs?


62 thoughts on “The LGBT Issue: Every Photographer Must Decide”

  1. I would like to thank the author for a well thought out and researched article.
    I think that these laws while good intentioned do more harm than good.
    I also feel that sueing a business who has a deep religious objection to providing a service to me is a bad idea in the long run. I have refused business from people who I felt I did not gel with, I saw a huge headache coming and avoided it.
    To those who consider homosexuality a “lifestyle choice” I pose the following question , when did you decide to live a heterosexual lifestyle? What exact moment in time did you make that decision?

  2. Would the answer be the same if the photographer refusing the job referred the customer to another photographer?

    Because if there is a photographer in my area who does not want the job I will be happy to do my best work for the client. For myself I would not want to hire a photographer that might not give me their best because of personal beliefs. I’d much rather like them to be honest and send me to someone who could do the job professionally.

  3. When someone walks into a store and buys a can of soup, or when someone walks into a restaurant and orders a burger off the menu, there’s not much room to say feelings matter in the service. But when you hire a photographer, a graphic designer, or some other creative professional, you are buying not so much the work as the feelings of that person that make the art they create special to you. You can’t expect a graphic designer who grew up in Michigan and hates the Ohio State Buckeyes to create a new logo to represent their team and expect it to be as good as the one they created for the Wolverines. You can’t expect a portrait painter who dislikes Bill Clinton to paint an endearing portrait. (This recently happened!)

    Having said that, I am interested in having a few questions answered:

    1. As a photographer, I like shooting families, and I do OK with kids…but I have little interest in shooting newborn babies, especially in the way that has become so popular over the last few years. Is this age discrimination on my part???
    2. Wedding photography the way I do it is a lot of work—each of my packages includes an album that I lay out myself, not to mention I have a lot of other work that goes into planning and of course shooting on the big day. When clients approach me to work on their wedding, I spend a great deal of time interviewing them to see if I’m interested in working with them. I have declined many prospects because they wanted more than I could offer for their price, or because they had impossibly high standards that I knew working with them would be bad for business. So if I had a same sex wedding client approach me and I thought that they would be bad for my business on grounds that had nothing to do with their sexual orientation, am I just inviting them to say I’m discriminating against their sexual orientation when in reality I’m discriminating against them for sounding like people who are impossible to satisfy?
    3. If I was approached by a Hindu, a Wiccan, or someone with a faith where their religious practices are condemned in my faith, then do I have the right to steer them to another photographer who either specializes in this type of wedding or who at least does not have a conflicting tedious belief?
    4. If I am approached by someone who wants me to photograph an event that I have religious disagreements with, and I am compelled to work on this event, then is it acceptable to assign the contract to a more willing photographer or to have an associate carry out the work instead of me?

  4. See, this is one of the reasons that I would probably never make a business out of portrait photography. I’m Catholic, and reside on the very unpopular side of this issue. It’s not that I hate gay people, far from it. If I were in business for it, I would definitely shoot portraits for anyone, gay or strait. My objection is that being in support of a union not recognized as a marriage by the Church (this includes many heterosexual unions as well as homosexual ones) is at best in a moral great area, at worst, a mortal sin that will prevent me from participating in the Sacramental life of my Church and put my soul in jeopardy.

    It’s tough because as a culture we’ve condoned drive-thru, the day, disposable “marriages”, and the gay community is rightfully upset that someone is saying their 20 year commitment to the same partner is more sinful than that. If I were only looking at it from that perspective then heck yes I’d support gay marriage, it’s completely reasonable to expect a photographer to not refuse to photograph the event. I get it. I also look at marriage through the worldview of my faith, which recognizes a specific purpose for marriage, one that is integral for the life of the Church.

    I’m glad I’d never shoot a wedding so I’ll never run into this. And I’ll probably get harassed for saying this, which is ironic. Many good and loving faithful people are being persecuted for a misunderstanding of their beliefs by people who want to be understood for their beliefs.

  5. Another thought: Someone here said “a wedding is a wedding”…but that’s not true anymore! Weddings were the exclusive domain of heterosexual people for thousands of years up until the last decade or so. Extending the right to wed to same-sex couples has changed the nature of the word “wedding” for people who hold religious objections to the practice of homosexuality. The words “queer” and “gay” have been changed in America from older meanings having little or nothing to do with homosexuality. I’m not interested in debating whether that is OK or not, but I am interested in pointing out that these words have changed in their very meaning due to changes in culture. I am also interested in pointing out that while many cultural changes besides just homosexuality have been accepted in many religious organizations, such as acceptance of the theory of evolution and the acceptance of sex outside marriage, there are religious organizations who have maintained their stances on such issues rather than changing to keep up with “the times”.

    What I find irreconcilable here is that the United States was founded on both the ideal that “all men are created equal” and the ideals of religious tolerance—so those who are LGBT are protected from discrimination, and religious people too are protected from religious discrimination. So which is more important when the religious photographer declines work on a same-sex wedding?

    Furthermore, I would like to point out that protected classes in the United States are not all created equal—some are based on a person’s physical attributes, like race, ethnicity, and sex—while others are arguably a way of life, like religion and sexual orientation. In other words, you can’t choose to be born male, female, white, black, or one day decide that you’re now Irish instead of Lebanese, but you can choose to change from living as a Muslim to living Amish, and you can choose to change from living as a heterosexual to living as a bisexual or homosexual and vice versa. For those who do not hold to a strict faith, this may be of no consequence, but for those who do, these are gigantic differences.

    Let’s explore a few examples… If a photographer holds religious beliefs condemning the celebration of Christmas and he provides portraits at a family reunion but declines to work the same family’s Christmas party, is this not discrimination against only the celebration of Christmas rather than discrimination against the family? If a photographer holds religious beliefs that condemn the practice of homosexuality, and is approached by a gay lawyer for business headshots and performs the assignment, but then declines to photograph the gay lawyer’s wedding, would not this photographer be discriminating only against the practice of homosexuality and not the lawyer himself?

    It seems to me that people are confusing bigotry, which is an intolerance of PEOPLE who are different, with the idea that ACTIVITIES are objectionable. People can tolerate homosexuals while still objecting to the practice of homosexuality just like they can tolerate carnivores while still objecting to the slaughter of animals for food. It amazes me that deeply felt religious convictions are now at odds with deeply held personal convictions as to sexuality. It seems that religious people are now being compelled to not just tolerate and respect, but approve of the practice of homosexuality, while LGBT rights activists are now unwilling to tolerate and respect religious people’s rights to reject the practice. If there is to be any true equality under law, then those living religiously and those living LGBT must both be able to do so without harassment or coercion.

  6. So we are bring forced into doing something that may be against our religious beliefs or get fined by the government or get sued by the LGBT couple for not doing a good job. What ever happened to having the right to just refuse service?

  7. First, I have issue with the term RELIGIOUS freedom act, why not Personal freedom act. I think this is a personal decision whether it is because of Religion or Morals or preferences or moods. I do not have issue with Mr. Harmer referring to it as Religious Freedom, that is what the legislation calls it. I think legislation shouldn’t call it Religious freedom.

    I think a personal individual can “discriminate’ against another for any reason. It would seem that individual or intrastate business can refuse service without cause or reason. I have read the comments referring to doctors, lawyer or even teachers but these are all licensed or certified professions. My understanding is Photographers are not licensed or certified. Anyone with a camera can call themselves a photographer. I could see the WPPA barring you from attendance but I would think you could still claim to be a wedding photographer.

    As far as discriminating because of the particular group, I see comments referring to them being a protected group or illegal to discriminate against. By the same comparison it would be illegal to discriminate based on age, gender, race or religion. Here are some scenarios:
    If I do senior photos, and I refuse to do photos for females below the age of 18 without parental presence at all photo shoots and meetings. I do not have the same rule for males (I am thinking maybe I should reconsider this in this litigious age). Am I discriminating based on age or gender? I do this because being a single guy in my 20’s, it is just asking for trouble to be alone with an underage girl. I have even refused when a girl offered to bring a friend so we were not alone. I said “Sorry. has to be a parent.”
    What if I will not shoot a couple because the guy is REALLY dark skinned, and I am intimidated to shoot them in low light. I think pulling out detail from his skin could be hard and I don’t have the skills to pull it off. Is that discriminating based on race? I know this is a weak argument and a straw man argument but it is the best scenario I could think of without coming across as a bigot.
    Or more retentive to the wedding issue: What if I do not want to shoot a Muslim wedding because I have lost two buddies to Muslim extremists and I think my presence at the event might set me off based on my personal experiences. Or if I did not want to do a Catholic weddings because I do not agree with the church or my suspicion in their cover up of criminal activities. Or if I found out the wedding was at Westburo Baptist Church or that members or the wedding party or their families were members. Would that be discrimination on religion.

    These are some of the reasons I could see myself refusing photography services. It does not have to be religious. It is just personal. If you are a private business I could understand you refusing me service because I am a jerk, or a hypocrite, or I am carrying a gun.

    There is more complications if the business is publicly traded or engages in interstate commerce. Most photographers, caterers, or florists don’t fall in that category though.

    1. Nathan, well said.

      I think this is where Photographers and other service providers have to be professional. If an 17 year old female comes to you and insists on wanting a privet consultation then a professional will explain the issue and if the woman does not understand then you refer her to a female photographer you know does good work. We all have limitations and some of them have to do with personal experience and beliefs. I think the key is being respectful and if you can’t do the job you do your best to provide other options.

      I will add that my position changes if you have already entered into any form of an agreement or contract. At that point it is too late and the professional has to live up to their commitments.

      1. Thank you Scott.

        Yes I would hope that we are all professionals and would turn a client away with respect and courtesy. Whether you can suggest another photography or just turn them away with an honest “I do not this I would be the right fit”. I feel that some how the LGBT issue seems to have been set apart and put on a pedestal from other reasons for refusal of service.
        This debate seems to take away the honest conversation of saying “Sorry, I am not comfortable doing a LGBT event”. I feel if that is the honest reason you should be no more at risk of litigation then saying, I don’t do babies, or kids, or pet. Or I don’t do Fantastic, or Princess weddings. Or in my real life case I don’t photograph female minors.

        Yes if there is a contract that also puts it into another issue. Contract law is more of this issue the Religious Freedom then. I would hope that any “Professional” photographer would investigate the shoot and know the clients before entering into a contract or waiting till the “last minute” to back out for almost any reason, especially a religious or moral cause. There might be a reason to back out of a contract or cancel at the last minute, perhaps illness or a family death, but I would go out of my way to find an improved replacement photographer if I had to back out.

    2. I think the legislators are calling it a religious freedom act because it allows individuals to use their constitutional “freedom of religion” as a defense to a law suit arguing discrimination against a protected class.

      Your suggestion to call it personal freedom is fine. Call it whatever you want. But I think religious freedom seems like a suitable name given the fact that it’s only targeting those with a religious objection.

      Again, I’m not giving an opinion one way or the other on this simply because I believe that Improve Photography should not become a partisan political tool, but I’m doing my best to explain BOTH sides of the issue.

  8. As a member of the LBGT community, the answer is very simple. Photographers just have to describe themselves as LBGT friendly. Problem solved, LGBT clients get the photographer they want and bigots are not offended.

    However, I live in OZ, and for seem reason these stupid types of lawsuits are a rarity.

    Seriously, there are more important issues to be dealt with.

  9. A photographer may not feel LBGT couples should marry but no one has explained how the act of taking pictures of the event will then violate someone’s religious beliefs. I strongly believe the government should not do a lot of the things it does, yet I am legally required to continue to fund those actions. Perhaps a lawyer like Jim understands the difference, but quite frankly I do not.

    1. First off, religious and personal beliefs aren’t something that are only entertained at certain times of the week. Beliefs lie at the very core of a person’s actions and perspectives. To many religious people, a wedding is far more than a mere “event.” A wedding isn’t Bob’s backyard barbeque. A wedding isn’t a company’s annual party. To a religious person, a wedding is a very special occasion often viewed as being a sacred institution. A religious wedding photographer, therefore, doesn’t view himself/herself as a bystander just snapping pictures indiscriminately. As a wedding photographer, you must become very involved in the wedding event, actively promoting and engaging the couple to achieve the best images possible. However, when that event is diametrically opposed to your personal beliefs, you will not be able to perform adequately.

      An analogy: Let’s say that you believe that “all dogs go to heaven,” the legitimacy of that belief (however good or bad) isn’t the question. The fact remains that you believe all dogs go to heaven. If you are then asked to actively participate in an event which promotes the contradiction of that belief, you will not be able to adequately perform. It “violates” your personal belief.

      Second analogy: As Jim noted in the original article, certain Native Americans had been fired from their job for their use of peyote during a religious ritual and were subsequently denied unemployment benefits from the government. Let’s say that you held a personal belief (strongly supported by your religious conviction) that drug usage, however benign, isn’t healthy and should not be promoted as “good.” Now, let’s say that you were asked to professionally photograph their ritual and ensure the images portrayed a “good, positive” image of peyote usage among other Native Americans. Whether or not the peyote use is good or bad isn’t the question. You are being asked to set aside your personal beliefs, leave them at the door, and actively promote something that you believe isn’t good. Promoting this ritual would cause you violate your religious beliefs.

      Third analogy: Let’s take Nathan’s suggestion a little further. Let’s say that you are asked to photograph a ceremony that actively promotes a particular radical Islamic group’s religious beliefs and portray them in a positive style. And let’s say that your personal beliefs (supported by your religious persuasion) are in direct opposition to this particular group’s perspective and ideology. To shoot such a ceremony would require you to actively violate your own beliefs in order to adequately perform the service.

      The issue with photographing same-sex weddings is very similar. The religious photographer is being asked to lay aside their religious beliefs and actively participate in the wedding, promote and encourage the couple, and ensure the photographs portray the event in a positive perspective.

      (To the earlier charge of “bigot,” anyone who would deny, disdain, or fail to tolerate any religious group’s stance on this issue is just as guilty of being a bigot. Just sayin’ … Ad hominem isn’t a good argument.) 😀

      1. Can you explain how these arguments are different from the ones made half a century ago over interracial weddings? And why this issue should have any different of an outcome?

        1. Eric, perhaps it would be better if you detailed the exact arguments “made half a century ago.” I wasn’t alive at that time, so I don’t have any first hand knowledge. We only hear/read the taglines by those picking and choosing the words to fit their own personal agendas. So it’s particularly difficult to say that everything presented today about historical arguments is perfectly accurate. Just as a half-truth doesn’t make a full-truth, a tagline doesn’t present an entire argument.

          More to the point, the argument above did not advocate a ban on same-sex marriage. Bringing up interracial marriage is a red-herring. Stick to the point. The argument above was promoting a ban on any legal action forcing a vendor to willfully violate their personal persuasions. The LGBT community has ample vendors from which to choose, but a few have chosen to aggressively target vendors who choose to not *promote* their lifestyle. Cakes for a gay’s birthday – fine. Portraits of a lesbian woman – fine. Their sexual preferences have nothing to do with cakes and portraits; it’s absurd to even bring up sex on those points. But as soon as we attach the “wedding” label, it becomes something specifically in reference *to* their sexual orientation. As such, freedom of religious expression (and this includes choices/decisions/practices/etc.) should still be given its due place.

          At least in the USA, the first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, but there is no provision given for sexual orientation. And freedom of religion is the first liberty listed of those mentioned in the first amendment (it’s the first of the first), so it would seem the founders considered it very important. Today, however, deference to that provision is no longer “tolerated” in the USA.

  10. I think your ignoring the issue of protected class. I believe that is why there are issues with Indiana. Indiana has passed RFRA, but it does not list sexual orientation as a protected class. This is why it is particularly an LGBT issue (otherwise, we would be back 60 years and we would be saying the same thing about discrimination over race).

    A lot of places are moving to make sexual orientation and gender identity a protected class just like religion, race, or sex.

    If Indiana made sexual orientation a protected class, there wouldn’t be as big of an issue with RFRA.

  11. Separation of church and state. The church can have it’s rules and belief’s right or wrong, good or bad. The country should not be governed based on religious doctrine. Here is a not too far fetched scenario – One of the fastest growing segments of the population are Muslims. If/When they have a majority, will you be ok with a predominant Muslim legislature writing laws the follow the Muslim faith? OR will you start crying separation of church and state.
    It is not ok (In my opinion) to write laws based on ANY religious belief.
    Today it is your religion that is dominant in government. Tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade it may not be the case and the precedence will be set to allow legislating “religious beliefs”.

  12. I can understand what states are trying to do with their religious freedom acts. I can also understand the fears that these acts will allow for discrimination of certain groups. What I don’t understand is why the religious beliefs of so many businesses only extend to gay individuals or gay couples. Isn’t the Bible full of many reasons to deny business based on religious beliefs. For instance, homosexuality isn’t the only sin against marriage, yet a baker, florist or photographer, etc., has yet to say “I can’t do business with you because you have committed a sexually immoral act (premarital sex, adultery, pornography, etc).” If a business truly has religious beliefs, I would think there would be many reasons for denying business, thus making it difficult to run a business, but to pick and choose who you will deny business to is nothing more than discrimination. It is like the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby, who felt it was against their religious beliefs to pay for certain types of birth control for their employees, but those same religious beliefs did not prevent them from investing in the very pharmaceutical companies that produce those birth control products they did not want to provide for their employees.

  13. I was very interested to hear how this would play out during the podcast. Jim takes that “high” ground saying he is only providing forum for the discussion. Jim is the leader of Improve Photography and all the off shoots he has created. I believe he has hired those individuals who have similar beliefs as Jim. The three panel members all stated that they would not feel comfortable shooting a LGBT wedding and would in fact refuse to do so. They stated that the did not want to be a part of the wedding as that would suggest they were okay with the event. One of the panel members played the old card, I have gay friends and family members and I love them. But, I would not want to be part of their wedding. So, don’t tell my you have love for those in your life and that you would not want to be a part of a very special moment in their lives. It reeks of bigotry, plain and simple. If you are a photographer and offer a service to the public, you should have to give that service to anyone who can afford your fee. The waiter that serves drinks, is not a part of the wedding, they are part of the staff. The baker who makes the cake is not part of the wedding, they are part of the service staff. If you can not serve all the public, then form a special club and only provide serviced to those in your club. Perhaps you can call it Knights of the Klan…. oops, that has already been done.

    I listen to many podcast on photography. I have enjoyed the Improve Photography podcast and the website. BUT, I can no longer support this family of podcast or any of the offshoots. I choose not to be associated with this group any longer. I did a quick search on iTunes for podcast that deal with photography, and found over 500. My time is valuable to me and I do not want to waste it listening to a group of people that believe it is okay to discriminate against me and my husband and other LGBT folks.

    Stewart S. Lewis-King,,,,,,

    1. Stewart, you’re flat wrong.

      You said that all three of the people on the show said they would feel uncomfortable shooting an LGBT wedding. That’s not true at all. Nick said he HAS shot an LGBT wedding and enjoyed it. Darin says he’d be glad to shoot an LGBT wedding. Only Brian said he’d be uncomfortable with it.

      So your statement that I’ve “hired people with similar beliefs to my own” is completely not true. The hosts of the podcasts make up 4 different religions, we include republicans, liberals, and those who don’t care about politics at all, we include Christians and non-Christians, and include both sides of the spectrum on this issue.

      1. Jim, I listened to the podcast again and yes you are right. I have felt the sting of discrimination based on my sexuality and also have felt the physical pain of being targeted because of my sexuality. Even with that in my background, I failed to act reasonably and I apologize. I hope that you will be able to look past my misjudgment and accept my apologize. I apologize to you, your staff, and your listeners. I made a rash judgement and do feel bad about that.
        Thank you for addressing this issue and thank you for all your work.


  14. Even though I am not gay, I don’t have a problem shooting a gay wedding. They have every right to have their pictures taken just as everyone else. Yes, I am a Christian, and I don’t believe in judging others, I would be more than happy to shoot a gay wedding, just because I am not gay does not mean that I have the right to refuse gay couples my services.

    1. But you have the right to shoot the gay wedding.

      That’s the point…(these crazy laws) remove someone’s right.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top