By your standards racists and the like aren't bad people because they've been convinced that they are right. Which is incorrect.

As for them not treating people differently I guess you're right. They have a "you're not ruining my lenses with your gayness" policy even for straight people who want to employ them to photograph gay people.

And yeah, I'm an asshole a lot of the time especially late at night when I don't bother to filter myself. I should not have said that they were jerks for doing this. They're not necessarily. However, whatever sense of morality or right and wrong that tells your cousin-in-law that gay people are somehow not worthy of his services is pretty dumb. Yes, morals can be dumb and they can be wrong.

The late at night thing is a nice little excuse too. Add that to the jerk-o-meter.

"Jon and Elaine believe that God loves gay people." Not enough to take pictures of.

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:Here's what I know of the situation.

Elaine and Jon are wedding photographers. They get paid to take pictures of peoples weddings.

They decided to not take pictures of a particular wedding because that wedding was between two people of the same sex.

Am I incorrect on that?

Yes.

So you admit you don't know why they refused then, other than the fact that they don't provide that service? (which was communicated in Elaine's first email, which is a matter of court record)

If this same couple was asking about a birthday party, graduation, etc., Elaine would have taken the job, for what it's worth.

Shit I'm a retard dude. I had thought I was still in the composting stage.

Had I known I had actually posted that I wouldn't have edited it out like a weasel.

If you will be so kind as to ignore the stupid draft that I originally posted (and you quoted) and proceed to read the finalized, yet likely still stupid, draft I'd be really appreciative.

I think I see more clearly what is the situation now. They object less to the gayness (though probably still privately object to it but that's just a hunch) but more to the gayness in a marriage. Which is less offensive to me but still pretty stupid in my view. Though it isn't the stupid that makes me seeth as much as what I initially (incorrectly) thought was going on.

Was this marriage to be had in a church that's the same religion as Elaine/Jon? I only ask this because, assuming Elaine and Jon are Christian, what if the gay couple in question were Muslim or Jewish or something and were getting married?

I guess I just find it odd that people so passionately object to certain groups of people being issued a piece of paper. I guess the same argument could apply for why certain groups want a piece of paper but I think the burden of proof should lie with the people discriminating (society via denial of marriage, not talking about your cousin here). If someone believes that god doesn't approve of gay marriages why not simply let god sort it out and let the people have the paper?

I'm probably going to sleep now. I'll leave up my posts where I was a jerk and assumed things incorrectly because I said them.

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:By your standards racists and the like aren't bad people because they've been convinced that they are right. Which is incorrect.

Inaccurate comparison. Racists, by definition, consider one race superior to another. There exists no superiority thought here. One person disagrees with the actions of another.

If I have a father who is a habitual binge drinker, I may disapprove of what he does when he does that, but that doesn't mean I think less of him as a person. I just disagree with one aspect of his life.

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:As for them not treating people differently I guess you're right. They have a "you're not ruining my lenses with your gayness" policy even for straight people who want to employ them to photograph gay people.

Again, it has nothing to do with the filming of someone who is gay. Like I said in an earlier post if it was a party of exclusively gay people celebrating a gay friend's graduation, they would shoot it.

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:And yeah, I'm an asshole a lot of the time especially late at night when I don't bother to filter myself. I should not have said that they were jerks for doing this. They're not necessarily. However, whatever sense of morality or right and wrong that tells your cousin-in-law that gay people are somehow not worthy of his services is pretty dumb. Yes, morals can be dumb and they can be wrong.

The gay people are as worthy as anyone else. They don't get special exception for a special service that Jon and Elaine don't otherwise provide, though.

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:The late at night thing is a nice little excuse too. Add that to the jerk-o-meter.

Don't worry. I did the same. Reading my post breaking down yours, I came across pretty harshly. I try to disagree without emotion, but when I'm sick (got a cold), tired, and it's family, it's hard not to get prickly.

No harm done, and I know that I've enjoyed your posting in the past, so I feel bad. Would you forgive me the harsh words?

I Wear Pants;648825 wrote:"Jon and Elaine believe that God loves gay people." Not enough to take pictures of.

Sure. They'll take pictures of any gay person willing to pay for a service they provide.

I Wear Pants;648827 wrote:Shit I'm a retard dude. I had thought I was still in the composting stage.

Had I known I had actually posted that I wouldn't have edited it out like a weasel.

If you will be so kind as to ignore the stupid draft that I originally posted (and you quoted) and proceed to read the finalized, yet likely still stupid, draft I'd be really appreciative.

I think I see more clearly what is the situation now. They object less to the gayness (though probably still privately object to it but that's just a hunch) but more to the gayness in a marriage. Which is less offensive to me but still pretty dumb.

Was this marriage to be had in a church that's the same religion as Elaine/Jon?

Elaine and Jon are non-denominational. And trust me, I (and most of the family) have spoken with both of them at good length on the topic. They don't resent or object to someone being gay. They think that engaging in gay relationship is wrong, but to them, it's no different than someone who is a habitual liar (I say "habitual" because both would indicate more long-term lifestyle choices).

By the way, I hope you understand that I agree with your opinion on the matter as to the legality of the situation. I think the system "done fucked up" on this one despite the disagreements I have with Elaine and Jon (yes, there are still some ones I have based on the actual circumstances and not my assumptions from skimming the OP initially).

Even ignoring my objections to their objections to the marriage of gay people I still think it's really dumb of them to pass up potential work.

As for your "harshness" you were in no sense of the word harsh especially considering my inaccurate accusations of your family members.

And by the time I was writting my post previous to this one I had already realized that some of what I had said was based on faulty logic or incorrect assumptions. I don't like editing out my stupidity though because it feels wrong. I cannot edit things I say in conversation so I try not to do it even on the internet in the hopes that it will make me contemplate more before posting (obviously worked like a charm in this thread).

I Wear Pants;648827 wrote:I guess I just find it odd that people so passionately object to certain groups of people being issued a piece of paper. I guess the same argument could apply for why certain groups want a piece of paper but I think the burden of proof should lie with the people discriminating (society via denial of marriage, not talking about your cousin here). If someone believes that god doesn't approve of gay marriages why not simply let god sort it out and let the people have the paper?

From a legislative standpoint, they actually are pro-gay marriage in terms of legality. They had simply set up their business in such a way because while they are okay with two people legally getting that piece of paper, they aren't desiring to engage in it being carried out.

I Wear Pants;648830 wrote:By the way, I hope you understand that I agree with your opinion on the matter as to the legality of the situation. I think the system "done fucked up" on this one despite the disagreements I have with Elaine and Jon (yes, there are still some ones I have based on the actual circumstances and not my assumptions from skimming the OP initially).

Even ignoring my objections to their objections to the marriage of gay people I still think it's really dumb of them to pass up potential work.

As for your "harshness" you were in no sense of the word harsh especially considering my inaccurate accusations of your family members.

Feeling that it was dumb for them to pass up work ... okay, I can see that. I've actually seen that before as well.

I still think it was good that they were honest about why they were not doing the ceremony. Dishonesty is often a sign of something to hide.

Even if you don't feel I was harsh, I called you ignorant, when in reality, we all jump to conclusions from time to time, so I do apologize for that at least.

Alright, I'm sick, so I'm going to bed.

I think that's not very smart just from a business standpoint. But also because it's not like them taking or not taking pictures is going to make the people get or not get married.

Edit: You keep answering or rebutting my questions while I'm typing them. See your above post and then what I wrote in this initially.

Another thing, get ye healthy.

Manhattan Buckeye;648237 wrote:I think there's a difference. A restaurant shouldn't care who eats their food, it doesn't affect the way they prepare it. Wedding photographers, particularly the real high ends ones, typically have their own skill set and tend to run the show at weddings with respect to their practice.

I really don't see how a restaurant shouldn't care who eats their food is any different than a photographer not caring who he/she is taking pictures of.

O-Trap;648831 wrote:From a legislative standpoint, they actually are pro-gay marriage in terms of legality. They had simply set up their business in such a way because while they are okay with two people legally getting that piece of paper, they aren't desiring to engage in it being carried out.

What if this were a mixed race marriage and they weren't necessarily opposed to those people getting married, but they didn't want to engage in it being carried out. Would that be ok?

The difference with the restaurant comparison is the art designation. For almost all restaurants/chefs we don't consider them artists but chefs. Photographers are generally considered artists.

I Wear Pants;648827 wrote:...
I guess I just find it odd that people so passionately object to certain groups of people being issued a piece of paper...

It's odd to me that anyone is required to have a piece of paper from the State in order to be married. There's no reason for State sanctioned marriage at all.

I Wear Pants;648836 wrote:The difference with the restaurant comparison is the art designation. For almost all restaurants/chefs we don't consider them artists but chefs. Photographers are generally considered artists.

I don't really have anything to add to this topic, but this made me chuckle. Not at you, but at the general misconception.

If you ask any chef worth his/her salt, they will proudly and loudly tell you that they are indeed "artists". LOL!

Con_Alma;648841 wrote:It's odd to me that anyone is required to have a piece of paper from the State in order to be married. There's no reason for State sanctioned marriage at all.

I agree. It's all about the $$$

I Wear Pants;648836 wrote:The difference with the restaurant comparison is the art designation. For almost all restaurants/chefs we don't consider them artists but chefs. Photographers are generally considered artists.

Not just that, but it is a goods/services difference. A producer shouldn't consider who uses their goods, once they make the sale it is off their hands. A service is a proverbial two way street. Photographers interview potential customers as much as customers interview them.

I know that when we got married our consultation with the photographer was about an hour, the first part he showed us his resume and works, the other part was us telling him about our wedding and what our expectations were. That was it. He took care of it. If I married another dude I imagine the amount of work he'd have to put in would be more extensive to provide for our non-traditional requests. It is outside of his normal work.

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws, but on the other hand I'm worldly enough to know that some things aren't the "same." And two guys getting married and a guy and a woman getting married ain't the "same."

CenterBHSFan;648883 wrote:If you ask any chef worth his/her salt, they will proudly and loudly tell you that they are indeed "artists".

Agreed. Anyone who considers themselves a chef, would definitely consider themselves an artist.

Manhattan Buckeye;648895 wrote:I know that when we got married our consultation with the photographer was about an hour, the first part he showed us his resume and works, the other part was us telling him about our wedding and what our expectations were. That was it. He took care of it. If I married another dude I imagine the amount of work he'd have to put in would be more extensive to provide for our non-traditional requests. It is outside of his normal work.

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws, but on the other hand I'm worldly enough to know that some things aren't the "same." And two guys getting married and a guy and a woman getting married ain't the "same."

Can you please explain to me what the difference is between a man and woman getting married and two guys getting married? I just don't see it. IMHO this is no different than if the caterer told them he didn't think he would be able to make their food because they are gay. I mean, I guess if they asked for something to eat that he didn't normally prepare, but as far as taking pictures there are two people standing up there. Just take the picture.

Otrap, I'm curious, was there something they wanted to do at this wedding that they wouldn't have been asked to do at a wedding between a man and a woman?

I can certainly please you. Hell I have anecdotal experience. I have our wedding pictures, and an album from my father in law from their wedding with his partner. Aside from being photography, there is NOTHING else in common (this is a thread in itself - these guys really have issues with women). People pay a LOT of money for wedding photographers and they expect someone comfortable and competent in providing the service.

We had a traditional wedding...our photographer consulted with us briefly and they took over. They knew the wedding schedule, they knew the location, the type of ceremony and assumed leadership when the time came for photographs. If they couldn't handle this it would be a favor for us if they declined providing the service. When the day arrived they instructed my wife when it was her time for photos with her bridesmaids/family, they instructed me and my family/groomsmen when it was our time, they told us what poses to present, yadda yadda yadda. They've done this hundreds of times. They know how men are supposed to pose and how women are supposed to pose and they know how traditional wedding photography matches up with their expertise. If I married another guy there would be a lot more consultation about what photos we want. As it was we had a brief consultation, we let the experts take care of their expertise and paid them - didn't ask for anything more or anything less.

I really don't know why you don't get this. There are plenty of photographers that focus on infant photography, should that photographer accept a client that wants photography of a marathon race? Of course not. It doesn't match their skillset.

Manhattan Buckeye;648930 wrote:I can certainly please you.

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I was sincere when I said please because I just don't understand.

Manhattan Buckeye;648930 wrote:When the day arrived they instructed my wife when it was her time for photos with her bridesmaids/family, they instructed me and my family/groomsmen when it was our time, they told us what poses to present, yadda yadda yadda. They've done this hundreds of times. They know how men are supposed to pose and how women are supposed to pose and they know how traditional wedding photography matches up with their expertise.

I don't see how any of that changes because they are the same sex.

Manhattan Buckeye;648930 wrote:If I married another guy there would be a lot more consultation about what photos we want. As it was we had a brief consultation, we let the experts take care of their expertise and paid them - didn't ask for anything more or anything less.

I will admit there could be more consultation. But I assume every couple is different. My wife and I were living together when we got married and slept in the same bed the night before our wedding. But once she went to the ceremony site she did not want me to see her again until the ceremony. I thought it was stupid because we woke up next to each other and ran some errands together that morning. Our photographer did have to coordinate the pics so we didn't see each other before the wedding. I would think other people might be more or less specific with that if they are the same sex or not.

Manhattan Buckeye;648930 wrote:I really don't know why you don't get this. There are plenty of photographers that focus on infant photography, should that photographer accept a client that wants photography of a marathon race? Of course not. It doesn't match their skillset.

If we want to go with an analogy, this seems more to me like someone who photographs the 100m refusing to do the mile because that's outside of their skillset. They're still running, just not the same distance.

FatHobbit;648915 wrote:Otrap, I'm curious, was there something they wanted to do at this wedding that they wouldn't have been asked to do at a wedding between a man and a woman?

I confess, I don't know the answer to that question.

FatHobbit;648944 wrote:If we want to go with an analogy, this seems more to me like someone who photographs the 100m refusing to do the mile because that's outside of their skillset. They're still running, just not the same distance.

That seems apt. Elaine does traditional weddings, because she knows what kind of events take place, and in what order. It's like having a system down.

When she said she does "traditional" weddings, she literally meant weddings that are, in virtually all respects, of a traditional vein. She actually didn't do parts of her brother's ceremony because she didn't feel equipped to do them, as they were atypical.

^^^

Of course it is an apt comparison, wedding photographers routinely charge $5G-$10G for their services, and their clients should be satisfied with the results. if I want a professional photographing an athletic event there is a HUGH difference in the skillset to shoot a 100 meter and a mile run. Different shutter speed, different knowledge of the target that they are shooting, different set of skills at that level.

Likewise, I don't see why it is that difficult to understand that a photographer used to shooting a traditional wedding ceremony would have to adjust or inquire heavily as to what types of photos are expected. If they can do it, great for all involved. If they can't, I don't see why it is necessarily a civil rights issue. There is a big difference in shooting a man/woman couple and a same sex couple for someone used to performing the former.

Now that I think about it... If I were to get married, the last thing I want is a nervous and unprepared photographer, caterer, or whover is out of their element.

Perhaps a nervous bartender who overpours alcohol would be alright

CenterBHSFan;648883 wrote:I don't really have anything to add to this topic, but this made me chuckle. Not at you, but at the general misconception.

If you ask any chef worth his/her salt, they will proudly and loudly tell you that they are indeed "artists". LOL!

Read it more carefully. I said almost all because almost all restaurants are not the type of places that employ chefs that do or can consider their work art.

Yes, good restaurants and chefs can consider their work art but to be honest most places that serve food aren't very good.