Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

Comments (37) >>

mark said:

I appreciate the honesty of this post. I think ultimately though, you have to do what's right, even if that means losing a customer or two.

June 17, 2008

elizabeth said:

As a gay photographer, I find your post offensive. On some level I could almost understand it if you declined to shoot same sex ceremonies because YOU were religiously opposed to such unions. But to decline out of fear that someone ELSE wouldn't like it...I can't respect that. It's ok to let your clients dictate your morals and ethics? Would it be ok to decline to shoot a mixed marriage because the church you get many referrals from frowned on that? What if they thought blind people shouldn't marry? Where do you draw the line? Discrimination is discrimination. And as views on such things change...as they clearly have been and will continue to do so...will you simply follow the money if your conservative church sees the light? If so, I hope your reputation for discrimination precedes you and you find the same-sex wedding market closed to you. It's unethical and it's bad business no matter how you rationalize it Sean. Maybe you could try leading instead of following the crowd here. Being so wishy-washing is just...icky.

June 17, 2008

Nicole said:

Not sure how your other clients would even know which weddings you'd photographed unless you advertised it to them. Seems like a lame excuse for spreading your own bias. Nice.

June 17, 2008

Sean Cayton said:

Mark: Thanks for your comment. I can appreciate where you're coming from and I agree with you! Elizabeth: You're overreaching. Fear was not involved in my writing this piece or thinking these thoughts. In fact, it started as a discussion in our office. And no one is dictating anything to me or anyone else. I'm working in the bread basket of America. Home of the infamous Amendment 2 and while I love living here I'm not about ignore my own communities' sensitivities; right or wrong. Nicole: We advertise all of our weddings! It's part of what we do and to not advertise a same-sex wedding? Well, that would be discriminatory.

June 18, 2008 | url

Mike said:

Why didn't Elane photography just say "We cannot do you wedding as we are not available"? Explicitly telling that couple that they discriminate and thereby hurting that couple's feelings is just stupid and unthoughtful. So if you have issues with same-sex marriages, there are ways out without hurting someone's feelings. After a while, you will have a reputation of someone who only does "traditional" weddings, and you probably don't have to worry anymore. But please don't blame it on potential business loss, that's lame (besides discriminatory).

June 18, 2008 | url

jasonb said:

Do you have problems photographing Jewish or African American weddings too? You should sit with yourself in a quiet room for a while and think about what you just wrote. And do not worry, Gays will probably avoid you and your community if they are not welcomed, so you might never have to deal with this issue. For a company like Black Star who championed the civil rights movement with some of the greatest images available, this post is unacceptable. It should have been on FoxNews.

June 18, 2008

scottd said:

So basically it sounds like you are happy to photograph a same-sex ceremony but you have no conviction of your principals when it comes to how you run your business. You'll let others take the risks in California before you act on your principals. You're happy to take business from Conservative Christians, people whose views you may not agree with, but you can't stand up for your own beliefs or principals? Nice. You're a noble fellow. All choices of ethics and morality have consequences, it just sounds like you don't have any conviction except that of the dollar. And in reference to jasonb's comments, where would you have fallen as a business owner in the Civil Rights era?

June 18, 2008

scottb said:

To Jason: What's most valuable about Sean's post is that it has the power to inspire discussion and debate. If you would like to write a post offering an opposing viewpoint, we would love to publish it.

June 18, 2008 | url

ian campbell said:

On a ten hour wedding, all I really care about is whether or not I'm getting a lunchbreak, and if the bride and groom are willing to have some food set aside for me, or will give me the time to go off and get something somewhere else. I'm recording the event: no different from any other event, in the sense of who's in it. But I'll be "doing another job I'm afraid, that day," if I get the sense they want to buy champagne on a beer budget.

June 18, 2008

ian campbell said:

By the way, I speak from 25 years, off and on, of wedding photography, and 300 or so weddings in Britain, America, New Zealand and France.

June 18, 2008

jasonb said:

to ScottB : To have posting that reflects potential bigotry is an insult to those who have dedicated their lives to defeat same. It is an insult to photographers that have risk their lives to denounce this type of thinking. I understand the first amendment but it should not be used to promote social cowardism. Howard Chapnick would have NEVER allowed this.

June 19, 2008

steph said:

"I am apolitical when I meet with potential clients for the first time. We often work for couples who go to very conservative churches that oppose gay marriage. I hesitate to think what would happen to some of my most reliable sources of income if I photographed a same-sex wedding." That's NOT being apolitical. You have clearly chosen sides here, meaning you are willing to do business with anti-gay conservatives rather than photograph gay weddings or even be seen at one. What makes a same-sex wedding more political than a conservative one? Nothing. From one photographer to another, I have to say you just hurt our industry with this article. Also as a member of the LGBT community, I want to also remind you that a) we don't need you anyway, because there are plenty of great gay-friendly and gay photographers out there who will put their principles above money (or find a way to not have to prioritize one), and b) we are not financial windfalls or pitfalls. We are PEOPLE. I do hope you realize eventually that your decision will hurt you more as a person than you think a different decision will hurt you as a business owner. As for making this decision - you don't have to worry about it anymore. Our community doesn't hire folks who won't stand up for us, so no worries for you - you aren't going to be offered any same-sex weddings.

June 19, 2008

jasonb said:

Ben, do you even read your own blog ?

June 19, 2008

kristian said:

this seems like an odd article to me. i've photographed several same-sex weddings. i'm only happy to do it. not because i'm gay, but because i run a business and i do it to make money. i don't care if you're gay, straight, purple or orange... as long as your money is green and we're not doing anything illegal, its all good by me. :) so i guess my point is this... why are the only options A: Goldmine or B: Minefield? why does it have to be one or the other? i photograph same-sex weddings but i don't advertise that i do. so people wouldn't know either way if they looked at my website or called me on the phone. they wouldn't know until they asked me. and regardless of whether i do them or not, they also would not know my political and religious views. i'm a business, and that means that my business (even though its run by only me), does not have the same rights as an individual. it is illegal in my state for me as a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so i will always strive to be fair to all people. personally, i don't see what the big deal is to photographers just because california has legal same-sex weddings. i mean come on sean, you need to wake up and see whats going on. same-sex weddings have been occurring for years and years and they've been hiring photographers to photograph them for just as long. the fact they're not officially recognized by the state (when i photograph them) is beside the point as far as we, as photographers, are concerned. thats the real fact of the matter.

June 20, 2008

hmm said:

"we only serve straight people here! (hope you understand, some of our regulars might be offended if we let you in...you know how it is)"

June 20, 2008

jpd said:

Elizabeth isn't really overreaching. "I'm not about ignore my own communities' sensitivities; right or wrong." is a gutless cop-out, a decidedly un-christian moral failing. If you act as a proxy for those "community sensitivities" - a nice way of dressing up ignorance, intolerance, and hatred - then you *are* endorsing them, and you are discriminating yourself. Progressive? Really? No matter how you try to evade it, Sean, in 1935 your position would have amounted to turning away [black, jewish, gypsy, etc] people on precisely the same basis - appeasing "community sensitivities". How many blowhards do you really think will boycott you if you happen to do some gay wedding shoots? If your area is really so backwoods that they're going to go up in arms and organize an economic lynching on account of you doing some gay weddings, what's to love about living there exactly? Your work for other clients is none of their business. Nothing is worth living in the kind of environment where you can even be forced to ask the questions you are asking here.

June 20, 2008

Paul Bryson said:

First off, I'm a gay, and I'm a photographer. I don't shoot weddings. If I did, I would follow the money, even if it meant turning down certain groups of people...even my own! The reason is this: landlords & other bill collectors won't take "ethics" for payment. In this economy, you have to do whatever is needed to stay afloat.

June 20, 2008 | url

Jeremy said:

Those friends who aren't willing to walk along the road with you usually aren't your friend at all. Choosing to only photograph traditional weddings is your choice, but don't expect the GLBT community to be understanding and accept your choice not to negotiate that 'minefield.' No matter how you phrase it, you said no to them simply because they are gay. Even worse, you didn't say no out of your own principles, but because of some weak business excuse. Good luck straddling the fence, but in my view, you've already planted yourself firmly on the other side.

June 20, 2008

Bubba said:

I completely agree. My grandpa had to start serving women. My daddy had to start serving the niggers. And me, they're telling me I can't turn away the fags and the spics. What's this world coming to, when you can't run a nice, traditional, white-only, Christian-only, male-only business without raising all sorts of hackles? Fucking niggers and faggots are ruining everything, AM I RITE?

June 20, 2008

Jake said:

My first allegiance is to my family. I need to support them and I'll do whatever it takes. If that means being bullied and not working with certain groups, then so be it. If those groups are eventually able to provide most of my income then I'll change sides.

June 20, 2008

Matt Malinger said:

> If those groups are eventually able to provide most of my income then I'll change sides. With any luck, the law will eventually force you to "change sides", since you apparently don't have the intestinal fortitude to do it otherwise.

June 20, 2008

Jake said:

@ Matt Malinger Like I said. My first allegiance is to supporting my family. I don't care if people call me names, as long as I can provide for my family then I can take any sort of abuse or bullying.

June 20, 2008

Matt Malinger said:

> I don't care if people call me names, as long as I can provide for my family then I can take any sort of abuse or bullying. You're not taking it, you're contributing to it. Don't give yourself so much credit.

June 20, 2008

Jake said:

> You're not taking it, you're contributing to it. Don't give yourself so much credit. As long as I can provide for my family I'll sleep well at night. But thanks for your concern!

June 20, 2008

Matt Malinger said:

I don't particularly care about you, as much as I do about the people you're helping to abuse and bully by being such a doormat. But sleep well anyway,

June 20, 2008

Amy Alkon said:

I'm a huge supporter of gay rights, and disgusted by those who believe, without evidence, in god, and use that to justify their fear and hatred of gays. That said, I think businesses should be able to choose who they serve, no matter how bigoted their choices may be, and should be able to choose not to shoot gay weddings, white people's weddings or weddings of any other ilk. Just as I am free to not patronize businesses that discriminate against groups I support.

June 20, 2008 | url

kristian said:

so amy, what you're saying is a business is free to turn down service to anyone for any reason? so what you're basically saying is that if i ran a McDonalds, i should be able to refuse service to black people, simply because they're black. or i should be free to tell gays to get their quarter pounder with cheese somewhere else. is that about right? if thats what you're saying, then you're saying that businesses should be able to choose to whom they serve. thats a fine opinion, but i have a feeling the supreme court isn't going to side with you on that one.

June 20, 2008

Tom said:

I think this page is a disservice to photographers: if you're a professional wedding photographer in california and you refuse customers who want their wedding photographed because they're gay, you're violating the law and will likely be fined. End of discussion. If you want to give some good advice to them, try this: if you feel it will offend your conservative customers that you have photographed a gay couple's wedding, DON'T TELL THEM ABOUT IT. Personally, I'm an amateur, but after I photographed my gay best friends' wedding, my straight friends were so pleased with the pictures that several asked me to play wedding photographer for them. Maybe it would be a professionally good idea for photographers in california to associate themselves professionally with cool people instead of bigots.

June 20, 2008

Jake said:

@ Matt Malinger > I don't particularly care about you, as much as I do about the people you're helping to abuse and bully by being such a doormat. But sleep well anyway. So if I do stand up and then lose a large chunk my business will you step in and give me the money to support my family?

June 20, 2008

Matt Malinger said:

Sure, you big welfare queen.

June 20, 2008

ScreamingJ said:

Umm...deny civil rights all you like in the name of your faith, that's a given and not surprising, but... how is shooting a same sex wedding going to hurt your business? You don't have to post or advertise that you do so; you can keep it in the closet, as your clients most likely have for so long. Having said that, I'll make another observation: while having lots of disposable income, gays are not known to be large consumers of photography. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but it has been my experience.

June 21, 2008 | url

radmila said:

Surely there are plenty of photographers willing to do the shoot even if this studio didn't want to. While I don't agree with the studio, you can't force people to agree with you. Why would you want someone who doesn't like your lifestyle photographing your wedding anyway? I wouldn't want that vibe at my wedding anyway. Taking it to human rights is kind of interesting since the rights of the owners of the studio (their religious belief) were not respected. It's going to be a while before everyone gets on board with same sex weddings, and I don't believe that forcing people to agree is going to change anyone's attitude. Although, I do believe that had they actually taken the job, they may have learned something about themselves.

June 21, 2008 | url

kristian said:

@ radmila radmila said "...the rights of the owners of the studio (their religious belief) were not respected. " the studio is a business. unless that business is a church, they have no religious beliefs as a business. you need to understand the difference between personal rights and business rights. its a BIG difference. unless a business is a church, they don't have religious beliefs in the eyes of the law, therefore there are no religious beliefs to be respected in this case. this is a very important thing that needs to be understood. as a person they may not agree based on their own personal religious beliefs, but WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING A BUSINESS, you do not have this right AS A BUSINESS. this particular business owner was unaware of the difference and that is their own fault. not all business owners are smart business owners. it is what it is.

June 22, 2008

Thom said:

Kristian said: "as a person they may not agree based on their own personal religious beliefs, but WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING A BUSINESS, you do not have this right AS A BUSINESS." I'm not a photographer, but we have clients where I work where some people opt out of working on the client because they are morally or religiously opposed. I, for example, refuse to work on our lottery account. A designer we had didn't feel comfortable working for a business that catered to very progressive causes. If we didn't have such a diverse staff, we might've had to turn down those clients simply due to a lack of employees who would work on them. So... if I'm a studio owner, and someone comes to me to shoot a same-sex wedding, but none of my photographers are willing to do it, what would be my business' obligation under the law to serve them?

June 22, 2008

kristian said:

thom, the answer to that is quite simple. you contract another photographer to photograph the wedding for you. the wedding couple is still hiring your business (which doesn't guarantee them a particular photographer, but it usually guarantees a certain level of quality and similar style). you hire another photographer to photograph the event. you can even contract other companies to do the editing and all other post-production. its actually much easier than you think.

June 22, 2008

Scott Aitken said:

Would you refuse to shoot an interracial wedding? If you did shoot an interracial wedding, would you be afraid to put the photos in your portfolio? Or would you put them in a separate portfolio?

June 22, 2008

kristian said:

no, i would never refuse to shoot an interracial wedding. i have shot many. and no, i would never be afraid to put them in my portfolio. and if people were offended because of seeing them in my portfolio, then i would be just fine with that. i know it won't hurt my business or profit one bit.

June 22, 2008

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Comment

Add Comment