Wedding Photographer

I started a portrait business earlier this year, and I have a pretty good portfolio. Unfortunately, I haven’t had any requests to do portraits - but I’ve had to turn down FOUR weddings now!

Before I continue tanking my business, I want to make sure I’m on the right track. With the way the legal system is, if I turn down a gay wedding but not a straight one - I can be sued. I’m not asking for legal advice (although you can advise if you want to), but rather theological: should I be turning down gay weddings?

For comparison, I would happily build a computer for a gay couple. The difference I see is that I’m merely serving someone who is gay, but rather I’m advocating/displaying/promoting their sin, in the case of photography.

So, is my understanding correct - that I shouldn’t take weddings?

Thanks.

Discussion

Adding to:

The clearest and most challenging comparison I can think of is this: Would you photograph a wedding between a straight couple, if one claims to be Christian and the other does not?

In the case of unbelievers marrying who were probably living in fornication before, there’s no issue; I bring this up because many who debate the issue say that if you’d serve sinners of other kinds, you should serve gay sinners too. There’s a big difference: A sinning unmarried couple getting married puts their sin to end. It’s not an evil act. Previous acts may have been evil, but not this act.
In the case of one believer and one unbeliever, the wedding is sinful. They should not marry, regardless of past actions.

Thus, this is a very fair comparison; should we decline weddings between a believer and an unbeliever? If we shouldn’t decline, isn’t the same true for homosexual weddings?

Another example: We’re to treat women we’re dating as sisters in Christ. As I understand that, anything sexual you wouldn’t do with your sister - you don’t do with anyone else either, until you marry them. (and in the case of your sister, never) If you won’t kiss your sister on the mouth, don’t kiss your date on the mouth. So, should we decline to shoot couples who aren’t yet married, if they’re posed in such ways?

I tend to think all should be declined, but what say the scriptures and logic?

[Jim]

Wouldn’t be a landlord either

You’d deny housing?

In the case of one believer and one unbeliever, the wedding is sinful. They should not marry, regardless of past actions.

So let’s say a couple has been living together for ten years, have three kids together, and a home, insurance, bank accounts, etc. and one of them gets saved and the other doesn’t, but is willing to get married. What should they do?

[Larry]

In the case of one believer and one unbeliever, the wedding is sinful. They should not marry, regardless of past actions.

So let’s say a couple has been living together for ten years, have three kids together, and a home, insurance, bank accounts, etc. and one of them gets saved and the other doesn’t, but is willing to get married. What should they do?

First, that’s finding an exception to the argument. The main difficulty still exists: What if they have no children, will you shoot their wedding?

In any case, as I understand this is still sinful. 1Co 7 mentions no exceptions, although the OT has a relevant passage that I can’t remember. IIRC if a couple had sex, they should marry, but only if they were both jewish??? You could probably give me the verse.

[Jim]

J Johnson wrote:

Jim wrote:

Wouldn’t be a landlord either

You’d deny housing?

the law is pretty clear on this

(now no longer working - I chose to make $$ other ways)

What’s your reasoning?

[J Johnson] No, *why* would you deny housing to a homosexual pair?
  • I am selective with whom I transact business
  • I endeavor to obey the law
  • I am not a landlord
  • Not in a position to “deny housing to anybody”

To answer the OP, if I were in his position, I would not photograph a gay wedding for the same reasons provided. Neither would I photograph a wedding of an unequally yoked pair. Granted it’s much easier for me to say that when my livelihood is not dependent on doing so. Could you find another source of income and, for the time being, view wedding photography as a side business so that you could afford to be selective?

[josh p]

To answer the OP, if I were in his position, I would not photograph a gay wedding for the same reasons provided. Neither would I photograph a wedding of an unequally yoked pair. Granted it’s much easier for me to say that when my livelihood is not dependent on doing so. Could you find another source of income and, for the time being, view wedding photography as a side business so that you could afford to be selective?

Josh,

I’m completely fine with being selective, but that’s not how it works. If I selectively decline gay weddings, I can be sued; it’s all or nothing. All weddings or none. The ones I’ve turned down have been straight weddings.

Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?

J Johnson, sorry I missed that. If I was in your situation I would choose to avoid photographing weddings.

[Susan R]

Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?

I agree. For example, I told my previous pastor that I would have no problem (I used to do PC repair) building a PC for someone who told me they were going to use it to watch porn. I’m not their parent, I’m not here to monitor them; what I’m providing isn’t sinful, and if they use it in a sinful way, the judgement is on them.

The difficulty I see with photography is that I’m creating a product which can’t be used in a holy way. It’s a reminder, a celebration of evil.

Am I wrong to decline weddings, with this in mind - and why?

You need a business plan and you need to check state and local laws. [call the Secretary of State office]

I don’t think you can have 1 price for one set of people and another (higher) price for a class of people you don’t wish to serve. The “unequal weights” verses of the OT would apply

You also should form your business legally - help here https://www.legalzoom.com/

[J Johnson]

Susan R wrote:

Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?

I agree. For example, I told my previous pastor that I would have no problem (I used to do PC repair) building a PC for someone who told me they were going to use it to watch porn. I’m not their parent, I’m not here to monitor them; what I’m providing isn’t sinful, and if they use it in a sinful way, the judgement is on them.

The difficulty I see with photography is that I’m creating a product which can’t be used in a holy way. It’s a reminder, a celebration of evil.

Am I wrong to decline weddings, with this in mind - and why?

Here’s a difference in perception—a computer that is used to watch porn continues the victimization of the actors, destroys relationships, encourages violence against women, and results in many deaths by disease, violence, and suicide.

How does a picture of a gay wedding damage anyone? The wedding has already taken place. And how does one ‘use’ their wedding pictures? They sit in an album and occasionally are shown to family and friends. They might have one or two hanging on their wall, or posted on their social media page. So what power does viewing that wedding picture have on people and society as a whole? Compared to the societal damage of pornography, I’d say little to none.

In the case of offering services to someone whose lifestyle choices you find objectionable or downright immoral—I’d think this would be a good time to show an extra measure of compassion. How do we draw people to Christ by being dismissive, combative, and unprincipled? Don’t they need to be saved too? Is this not an opportunity to build a bridge of trust and communication so they can be reached with the Gospel? What’s up with thinking that this particular population deserves Hell more than we do, and so treating them like animals is somehow an act of holiness?

1Co 7 mentions no exceptions,

1 Cor 7 says that if the unbeliever is willing to stay, then they should stay together.

In the end, sins always makes things worse and complicates matters. We should be cautious when dealing with these things.

[Larry]

1Co 7 mentions no exceptions,

1 Cor 7 says that if the unbeliever is willing to stay, then they should stay together.

In the end, sins always makes things worse and complicates matters. We should be cautious when dealing with these things.

Yeah, stay … in the marriage.

[Susan R]

J Johnson wrote:

Susan R wrote:

Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?

I agree. For example, I told my previous pastor that I would have no problem (I used to do PC repair) building a PC for someone who told me they were going to use it to watch porn. I’m not their parent, I’m not here to monitor them; what I’m providing isn’t sinful, and if they use it in a sinful way, the judgement is on them.

The difficulty I see with photography is that I’m creating a product which can’t be used in a holy way. It’s a reminder, a celebration of evil.

Am I wrong to decline weddings, with this in mind - and why?

Here’s a difference in perception—a computer that is used to watch porn continues the victimization of the actors, destroys relationships, encourages violence against women, and results in many deaths by disease, violence, and suicide.

How does a picture of a gay wedding damage anyone? The wedding has already taken place. And how does one ‘use’ their wedding pictures? They sit in an album and occasionally are shown to family and friends. They might have one or two hanging on their wall, or posted on their social media page. So what power does viewing that wedding picture have on people and society as a whole? Compared to the societal damage of pornography, I’d say little to none.

In the case of offering services to someone whose lifestyle choices you find objectionable or downright immoral—I’d think this would be a good time to show an extra measure of compassion. How do we draw people to Christ by being dismissive, combative, and unprincipled? Don’t they need to be saved too? Is this not an opportunity to build a bridge of trust and communication so they can be reached with the Gospel? What’s up with thinking that this particular population deserves Hell more than we do, and so treating them like animals is somehow an act of holiness?

The comparison is unequal. You’re comparing porn to images of a wedding.

An equal comparison would be images of porn to images of a wedding.

Or, another equal comparsion (but irrelevant to this discussion) would be of porn to gay marriages — and in this case you can’t so easily (if at all) say the impact of porn is less.

Also, I thought my primary point was: a computer *can* be used in a righteous, holy way. Those wedding pictures always represent sin.

Are there any principles from scripture, for either side of the argument?

JJ- I was using your example of “I would have no problem (I used to do PC repair) building a PC for someone who told me they were going to use it to watch porn.” Watching porn is looking at images of sin. If they tell you what they are going to do with the computer, then you have knowledge that what you are building/repairing is going to be used in a sinful way, regardless of whether or not it can be used in a sinless way.

My point was that an image of a wedding that has already taken place has no power. It was the relationship itself (celebrated at a wedding) that’s an issue. So would it be OK then to simply take pictures with gays in the frame? Why is taking pictures of a wedding the focus here, but taking, for example, a family photograph where Uncle Bob and Cousin Louise are gay is acceptable?

I think we come back to this question: “Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?”

What we seem to be asking is if it is acceptable to do something for someone who is lost and therefore living in unrepentant sin because it makes you complicit in some way.

IMO the most compelling argument about separating from sinful lifestyles is about separating from wayward brethren, (1 Cor. 5) and false teachers (2 John 2) not the unregenerate.

1 Cor. 5 even goes so far as to say “Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortionists, or with idolaters; for then must you needs go out of the world.”

This seems to be a good place to start.

This discussion is primarily about deciding whether or not someone can do something in good conscience. I think we all agree that the state should not have the power to force someone to violate their conscience, or prosecute someone for acting on their conscience, as long as those actions did not deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property through force or fraud.

JJ said that he wouldn’t have a problem building a computer for someone who told him they would use it to view porn. If we are trying to calculate the rightness/wrongness of something based on its moral implications, I think providing a computer to someone who has stated they will use it to view porn is of a more serious consequence than taking pictures at a gay wedding. That’s how my conscience interprets those scenarios.

Technically, I attend gay weddings, because I work for a Chamber of Commerce, and our offices can be used for things like weddings by the mayor. Just a couple of months ago, two men got married in our office. If called upon to help in some way, it would be part of my job to assist, and I wouldn’t decline.

[Susan R]

This discussion is primarily about deciding whether or not someone can do something in good conscience. I think we all agree that the state should not have the power to force someone to violate their conscience, or prosecute someone for acting on their conscience, as long as those actions did not deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property through force or fraud.

JJ said that he wouldn’t have a problem building a computer for someone who told him they would use it to view porn. If we are trying to calculate the rightness/wrongness of something based on its moral implications, I think providing a computer to someone who has stated they will use it to view porn is of a more serious consequence than taking pictures at a gay wedding. That’s how my conscience interprets those scenarios.

I don’t think this is a legitimate argument, otherwise no Christian could work for a gunmaker based on how the gun could be used, etc.

The issue with the gay wedding, as Moore points out, is that as a photographer you are helping to legitimize, celebrate, and memorialize the wedding itself, in other words what supposedly unites two men in “marriage.” As a photographer, you’d have to be excited, pose the couple in romantic poses, make comments such as “So beautiful!” “Everyone look happy now!” “Let’s make this special!”, etc. So either you’d have to not do those things (and I can’t imagine how you would get away with that), or you would have to “fake” your excitement and joy—which doesn’t that bring up a moral problem?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

If someone said they were buying a gun to kill someone, and you sold it to them, then the analogy would be point-for-point. JJ specifically stated that he’d still build a computer for someone, even if they said they were going to use it to view porn because there is nothing wrong with building a computer, and he is not responsible for how it is going to be used.

I wouldn’t view photography as ‘legitimizing’ a wedding, and I’d say anyone who works with other human beings has to ‘fake’ friendliness and excitement at times. I understand the problem is that wedding photographers often feel as though they are ‘part’ of the ceremony, but unless you have a personal relationship with the couple, I guarantee they do not view the photographer as part of their wedding. You are providing a service and a product for a price.

So perhaps the biggest problem is with encouraging the couple to show physical affection for the photos, and in the course of taking pictures, giving one’s verbal ‘approval’ of the wedding, if you will.

Although it may not appear so, I’m not arguing that there aren’t any issues to consider here; just that where Scripture clearly calls us to separate has nothing to do with the lost world, and everything to do with brethren who are unrepentantly astray.

“if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat”. Seems to me that you couldn’t photograph a wedding of someone who fits any aspect of this description, especially if you stay for the reception.

Mr. Moore’s argument is essentially “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, so this makes you culpable only if someone’s sin is obvious or they make you aware of it. That’s fine, and makes sense. If we accept this premise, you couldn’t build a computer for someone who told you they would use it to view porn, because they’ve revealed to you that the meat was offered to idols.

[Susan R]

JJ- I was using your example of “I would have no problem (I used to do PC repair) building a PC for someone who told me they were going to use it to watch porn.” Watching porn is looking at images of sin. If they tell you what they are going to do with the computer, then you have knowledge that what you are building/repairing is going to be used in a sinful way, regardless of whether or not it can be used in a sinless way.

My point was that an image of a wedding that has already taken place has no power. It was the relationship itself (celebrated at a wedding) that’s an issue. So would it be OK then to simply take pictures with gays in the frame? Why is taking pictures of a wedding the focus here, but taking, for example, a family photograph where Uncle Bob and Cousin Louise are gay is acceptable?

I think we come back to this question: “Is there truly Scriptural support for denying services to ‘certain kinds of sinners’? Why would it be OK to feed them, sell them furniture or insurance, arrange for financing on a car or home, teach their children at school, work beside them or for them, but not take pictures of them at an event?”

What we seem to be asking is if it is acceptable to do something for someone who is lost and therefore living in unrepentant sin because it makes you complicit in some way.

IMO the most compelling argument about separating from sinful lifestyles is about separating from wayward brethren, (1 Cor. 5) and false teachers (2 John 2) not the unregenerate.

1 Cor. 5 even goes so far as to say “Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortionists, or with idolaters; for then must you needs go out of the world.”

This seems to be a good place to start.

Arguing against myself, I wouldn’t work at a bar even though a beer can be used without sinning. (Negating my comment about building a PC.)

This debate is very difficult for me…

What do you say about this? A Christian could never create porn and it not be sinful, I think we’ll agree there. Obviously, you don’t see the comparison to pictures of homosexual weddings functionally equal. What do you see the difference as?

I think one thing is clear: I can’t tell/suggest someone to sin, so coaxing into kissing etc. would be wrong; even if capturing and sharing would not.

Thanks!

As a professional photographer you don’t just passively “take pictures,” like you would as a spectator at a ballgame or something. You actively direct the photography session, pose the subjects, and encourage them to be as happy as possible in order to get a better celebratory shot. In other words, you have to encourage the couple to celebrate what is taking place, and you—by your words and actions—have to join in on that celebration.

I’m just curious if anyone read Moore’s articles, and what their response is to them?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Greg Long]

As a professional photographer you don’t just passively “take pictures,” like you would as a spectator at a ballgame or something. You actively direct the photography session, pose the subjects, and encourage them to be as happy as possible in order to get a better celebratory shot. In other words, you have to encourage the couple to celebrate what is taking place, and you—by your words and actions—have to join in on that celebration.

I’m just curious if anyone read Moore’s articles, and what their response is to them?

Yeah, maybe that’s what I’d have the hardest time with; as above, I couldn’t directly encourage sin (embrace each other this way and hold a kiss while I get this shot.)

[Greg Long] As a professional photographer you don’t just passively “take pictures,” like you would as a spectator at a ballgame or something. You actively direct the photography session, pose the subjects, and encourage them to be as happy as possible in order to get a better celebratory shot. In other words, you have to encourage the couple to celebrate what is taking place, and you—by your words and actions—have to join in on that celebration.

I’m just curious if anyone read Moore’s articles, and what their response is to them?

I read them, and I think he makes some great points. But taking in his position, I can’t see how a Christian could be a photographer—you’d need to create clear policies of who you would and would not provide services for, or be cagy and figure out ways to deny your services to anyone who is LGBTQQIAAP (yes, this acronym is actually a thing). Of course, denying services would get you in legal trouble, but I’ve already said that I don’t think the gov’t should have a say in how people do business (I’m basically a Libertarian). On that I heartily agree with Mr. Moore.

I think the issue here isn’t the wedding itself, but acknowledging gays in any context in which they are presenting themselves as a family because 1) you don’t recognize them as a legitimate family 2) you’d still have to pose people and act happy. There are vocations other than photographers and bakeries who are affected by this POV.

[Susan R]

Greg Long wrote:

As a professional photographer you don’t just passively “take pictures,” like you would as a spectator at a ballgame or something. You actively direct the photography session, pose the subjects, and encourage them to be as happy as possible in order to get a better celebratory shot. In other words, you have to encourage the couple to celebrate what is taking place, and you—by your words and actions—have to join in on that celebration.

I’m just curious if anyone read Moore’s articles, and what their response is to them?

I read them, and I think he makes some great points. But taking in his position, I can’t see how a Christian could be a photographer—you’d need to create clear policies of who you would and would not provide services for, or be cagy and figure out ways to deny your services to anyone who is LGBTQQIAAP (yes, this acronym is actually a thing). Of course, denying services would get you in legal trouble, but I’ve already said that I don’t think the gov’t should have a say in how people do business (I’m basically a Libertarian). On that I heartily agree with Mr. Moore.

I think the issue here isn’t the wedding itself, but acknowledging gays in any context in which they are presenting themselves as a family because 1) you don’t recognize them as a legitimate family 2) you’d still have to pose people and act happy. There are vocations other than photographers and bakeries who are affected by this POV.

Don’t forget there are 63 genders :p

https://apath.org/63-genders/