# What won't you take photos of? Even if you were paid to do so...



## runnah (Nov 15, 2012)

What will you never ever take a photo of? State your reasons.

For example, I know of a wedding photographer here in Maine who will NOT take photos of same sex couples. Seems silly to me but even if I objected (I do not) I would think the money would override my moral compass. Do others feel like that or am I just a whore?

p.s. obviously illegal stuff is off the table.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

very young children and vegetables if on the same set.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 15, 2012)

People on the street minding their own business.


----------



## runnah (Nov 15, 2012)

I forgot to add that I would never do a wedding.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 15, 2012)

I refuse all commission work.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 15, 2012)

I would not shoot nudes or boudoir. This is something that I personally decided when I got my dslr. The reason is because it does not portray the image that I want for me or my photography. I would suspect the same for your friend. Sure there are plenty of people out there that will shoot the shots and that is fine for them. Sure one could miss out on some money for not taking certain types of pictures but what the price for your person integrity,beliefs or values? To me it's just not worth it.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Nov 15, 2012)

Ribbon cuttings.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 15, 2012)

It is far too easy to adhere to ones moral or ethical standards in a hypothetical scenario on the internet. 
(I have High ethical standards, Low moral standards) 
I am a firm believer that everyone has their price where absolute extremes (such as killing someone) are not a factor. 
It is most often not a question of what someone will or will not do, but rather, how much it will take for them to do it, or what conditions will necessitate them doing it. Life has a funny way of putting us in situations that make us re-evaluate our moral and/or ethical boundaries. It is amazing what people are willing to do in order to provide for their family. 

as far as photography goes, Ive already crossed the "legal" boundary, but since that stipulation was already off the table, I cant really think of anything off hand that I wouldn't go and photograph for someone that was willing to pay for it, provided we could come up with an agreeable number.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 15, 2012)

Any violence towards children.


----------



## manicmike (Nov 15, 2012)

Pumpkins.


And nudes or violence.


----------



## gconnoyer (Nov 15, 2012)

Babies.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> very young children and vegetables if on the same set.




Uh Oh


----------



## bunny99123 (Nov 15, 2012)

Male nude, anything agreesive, large weddings and children birthday parties.  Male nude:  I am married. Agression towards anything unless it is used to be present in court. Worked in wedding business and worked with the photogapher...too stressful, and unorganized!  Still do small wedding planning and photography.  Less people = less stress.  Only do childrens parties for relatives...to wild for me.  Especially when opening presents...everyone has to see it and wait, and wait until another one is open.  I love children!


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 15, 2012)

Very young children and babies.

Those are really my only limits in terms of conventional photography.

I mean, I'll photograph them but don't be surprised when the photos suck. I dislike children with a passion.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

The same sex couples is a religious belief. I have no problem with it personally, my daughter has a very serious long term girl friend, so I probably better not have a problem with it! HOWEVER, I do believe that they should have the right to refuse ANYTHING based on religious beliefs. There is actually a photographer couple who is being sued for refusing to photograph a same sex marriage based on their religious beliefs. Christian Photographers Sued for Refusing to Take Pictures of Gay Wedding - San Francisco - News - The Snitch

When you think about the things you won't photograph and we say things like violence toward children, etc. Let's be realistic. I don't think ANYONE is going to say "let me pay you $12 million to photograph me beating these children." Quite obviously they don't want it to be recorded that they're abusing in any way. So, that's kind of a moot point. 
SO, those morally, ethically and just plain illegal activities are irrelevant. 
However, having worked with CPS in the past I HAVE photographed the fallout from abused children and I'd do it again in a heartbeat if it meant someone went to jail for inflicting those bruises, broken bones, scars, etc on a child. I'd do it free of charge if I could help a child. 
I'll do nudes and boudoir bordering on porn. I won't do hardcore porn or child porn, but then some of the photographs for CPS definitely border on child porn. I'll do STAGED violence-especially if it is for a crusade against violence and even more so if it is domestic violence. 
I'd shoot violence if I saw it happening and couldn't stop it.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Quite obviously they don't want it to be recorded that they're abusing in any way. So, that's kind of a moot point.



The world is much more ****ed up than you could possibly imagine.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

And the photographer who was sued lost: Elaine Huguenin, ADF, To Appeal Court's Decision Against Photographer Who Refused To Shoot Gay Wedding


----------



## Derrel (Nov 15, 2012)

Yogurt. Yoghurt. Spelled either way, I WILL NOT shoot pics of yogurt. Never. Ever. Never,ever,ever!


----------



## IByte (Nov 15, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> Yogurt. Yoghurt. Spelled either way, I WILL NOT shoot pics of yogurt. Never. Ever. Never,ever,ever!



What about Greek yogurt? oO


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

> "Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court," Lorence said.



First of all, documentation is not promotion and, second, everyone knows wedding photographers aren't artists!


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't shoot babies anymore because I don't like to. I would never shoot porn-ish type stuff just because it is just not my thing. I do shoot boudoir occasionally, but it is very clean and classy. Male nude? sure, I will take one for the team as long as he is hot and has seen the gym within the last year!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Yogurt. Yoghurt. Spelled either way, I WILL NOT shoot pics of yogurt. Never. Ever. Never,ever,ever!



imagine it derrel

millions of bacterium swimming around with your granola and fruit, festering and multiplying! you may as well be eating bovine stomach fluids!


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> And the photographer who was sued lost: Elaine Huguenin, ADF, To Appeal Court's Decision Against Photographer Who Refused To Shoot Gay Wedding



That is crazy! They should have a right to refuse to shoot a gay wedding if it against their beliefs.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 15, 2012)

I was at an accident scene in the late 70's, a group of kids were burned to death, filling a chain saw in the back of a van, someone lit a cigarette.I couldn't shoot it, for my own moral reasons, and to this day I can see every single detail and remember where everything and everyone was. The photo editor of the paper I was working for raked me over the coals, he thought it would have been great front page material.  I had some choice words for him that night, we came to an understanding after I asked how he would have felt having pictures of his own kids like that on the front page.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?



Yep.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?



I have to agree. It's like saying you won't shoot a wedding were the bride and groom are black because of your "beliefs."

Or not hiring someone because they are black/gay/female. I think it all falls into the same realm. 

Chik-Fil-A may not like gay people but they don't bar them from buying their product.

Why would you even disclose that? Just say that you're booked full or that you are simply unavailable. If you do not want to do business with a certain type of person then at least think of some other way to turn down their business than something so controversial.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> very young children and vegetables if on the same set.


Yes. 
Separation of church and state.
If being a business excludes you from religious beliefs and does not allow you to exclude service to ANYONE based on any reason, you must serve the ENTIRE public then how can Christian book stores operate? The first time someone demanded that they carry the Koran or... they'd be out of business. 
Credit unions are totally unethical and illegal because you have to know someone or be a member of a certain group in order to become a credit union member... We could go on for hours and hours here.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 15, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I have to agree. It's like saying you won't shoot a wedding were the bride and groom are black because of your "beliefs."
> 
> That would most definitely not fly in court.
> 
> Why would you even disclose that? Just say that you're booked full or that you are simply unavailable.



I agree, why you would disclose that. But isn't one of the benefits of being a photographer and owning your own business, being able to decide when you work and for whom you work? Shouldn't matter if you are my brother, the Pope, the President or anyone else, if I don't want to shoot your event I shouldn't be forced to do it.

Then there is the whole view from the other side. If you were int he couples shoes, why would you want someone to shoot your event if they didn't want to be there? If they didn't want to be there and were forced to do it, they aren't going to do the best job for you. Guess, common sense is a lost art.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

ronlane said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree. It's like saying you won't shoot a wedding were the bride and groom are black because of your "beliefs."
> ...



I've refused to shoot weddings for various reasons. Usually because I just plain don't want to. I simply tell them that I am not a good match for them and suggest a few others. Guess that would be grounds for a lawsuit based on what the NM courts decision said.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 15, 2012)

ronlane said:
			
		

> I agree, why you would disclose that. But isn't one of the benefits of being a photographer and owning your own business, being able to decide when you work and for whom you work? Shouldn't matter if you are my brother, the Pope, the President or anyone else, if I don't want to shoot your event I shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Then there is the whole view from the other side. If you were int he couples shoes, why would you want someone to shoot your event if they didn't want to be there? If they didn't want to be there and were forced to do it, they aren't going to do the best job for you. Guess, common sense is a lost art.



I still think it seems contradictory to what other businesses are practicing though. If a different kind of business said "sorry we don't do business with gay people" it would have been a big deal as well...

It's one of those "where do we draw the line" areas. Lol

I think it's the fact that they refused solely on the grounds that the couple was gay. Like Mleek described, there are other ways to turn down a client than to say something that will most likely offend said client and basically the rest of the country as well. Heh...

If an Indian couple asked me to photograph their wedding I wouldn't be like "sorry but I don't believe in your religion so, no thanks." 

I would hope that I would say that I'm not attuned to their customs an that I wouldn't be right for he job.

Now, what was the main topic again? Lol


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?
> ...



Ultimately, it is your business and your guidelines, but I would feel like I would have a moral obligation to be open and honest with my client if the subject comes up. That is just my opinion. I, personally, do not have a hateful or prejudice bone in my body, but I do have experience on the flipside of this and I am thankful that I had the right to choose or I am not sure I could have lived with myself.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 15, 2012)

Women's Clothing.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?



So you know my first wife.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



However, even with my daughter, if a photographer said that "I'm sorry, but I just cannot do your wedding because gay marriage is against my religious beliefs" I'd totally respect that. 1. she wouldn't do the best job for me because it's against her religious beliefs. 2. EVERYONE is entitled to their own religious beliefs-separation of church and state. 2 I'd have to respect and appreciate her for being totally honest with me instead of taking the wedding and doing a less than perfect job of it. Sure, you could sue for that too, but by then THE day is over and even re-creating for photos is NOT going to recapture that day. It's not like she gay bashed or was malicious. She wasn't and nowhere in there does the complainant say that she was disrespectful. 
I think that it is totally fine for that photographer to have said exactly as her reason.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> However, even with my daughter, if a photographer said that "I'm sorry, but I just cannot do your wedding because gay marriage is against my religious beliefs" I'd totally respect that. 1. she wouldn't do the best job for me because it's against her religious beliefs. 2. EVERYONE is entitled to their own religious beliefs-separation of church and state. 2 I'd have to respect and appreciate her for being totally honest with me instead of taking the wedding and doing a less than perfect job of it. Sure, you could sue for that too, but by then THE day is over and even re-creating for photos is NOT going to recapture that day.
> I think that it is totally fine for that photographer to have said exactly as her reason.



I just don't think it would work the same for other types of businesses though unless the service/product was created for a specific niche (IE: racial/religious dating websites).

I mean, would it not be a controversial deal of there was a restaurant who wouldn't allow anyone who had the appearance of being overweight inside.

Something just seems off about how the photographers went about it.


----------



## jlo24141 (Nov 15, 2012)

very young children and babies, weddings, cars and homeless people. there just seems to be nothing innovative or unique about any of these things. and obviously shooting a homeless person is exploitative.
also, i will not photograph a tree as my intended subject. sure, all of the twists and turns of the limbs are neat-o, but it's too easy and cliche.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 15, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> .........I mean, would it not be a controversial deal of there was a restaurant who wouldn't allow anyone who had the appearance of being overweight inside...........



Poor analogy.  Not many established religions promulgate that belief.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 15, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> Poor analogy.  Not many established religions promulgate that belief.



Doesn't matter. How many is "many"?

It's the same concept.

Not many religions say black people are evil but you still can't not do business with them without getting raised eyebrows.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 15, 2012)

Pregos and newborns. Just not interested in either as subject matter. I refer them to a friend who is great in that area.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh? I think you are taking this to the extreme here. We are talking religion and cultures. Not being fat or black. Most photographers operate on small scale and rely on their own judgement calls.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 15, 2012)

jlo24141 said:


> very young children and babies, weddings, cars and homeless people. there just seems to be nothing innovative or unique about any of these things. and obviously shooting a homeless person is exploitative.
> also, i will not photograph a tree as my intended subject. sure, all of the twists and turns of the limbs are neat-o, but it's too easy and cliche.



Well if you think of them as people, as opposed to homeless people, this problem would be alleviated quickly.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 15, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Doesn't matter.



Um, yes it does.



rexbobcat said:


> How many is "many"?



*That* really doesn't matter.  If you can find me a religion that preaches "Don't serve fat people food," I'm all for a link to their web site.



rexbobcat said:


> It's the same concept.



Far from it.  There's a *huge* chasm between arbitrarily refusing to provide your service to someone for some silly reason and basing a similar action on your religious beliefs.  If you can't see that, I truly feel sorry for your.



rexbobcat said:


> Not many religions say black people are evil but you still can't not do business with them without getting raised eyebrows.



Get real.  How many businesses refuse to do business with blacks due to their beliefs?  Seriously?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > very young children and vegetables if on the same set.
> ...



There is a difference between offering services and excluding customers. If a Muslim wanted to buy a product which a Christian book store offers, then they must be served. But nothing forces a Christian bookstore from carrying the Koran, the Vedas or any other book religious or not.

If the photographer refused on grounds of conflict of interest, this may have been avoidable.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

480sparky said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Not many religions say black people are evil but you still can't not do business with them without getting raised eyebrows.
> ...



This was once more commonplace than refusing to do business with homosexuals.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > So if I believed that Jews were the antichrist, I should have the right to not photograph a Jewish wedding?
> ...



So what about other services. Should serving Jews be at the option of the restaurant owner, what about grocery stores?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> This was once more commonplace than refusing to do business with homosexuals.



Yes it was. _ But was it a belief that was inculcated by an established religion_?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

480sparky said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > This was once more commonplace than refusing to do business with homosexuals.
> ...



That's hard to establish exactly. Certainly segregationists *used* religion to justify it, and one photograph in particular does come to mind, but I can't find it ATM. I don't much care for the government saying "this doctrine is genuine ... that doctrine is not". Certainly the first amendment can be interpreted to limit freedom of religion where it violates the protected rights of others.

It's hard to imagine how people used religion to justify segregation, but at the same time I am not in a position to determine how genuine these beliefs were, and I think any time the government steps in and say "this belief is genuine ... this belief isn't" it entangles the church and state. When you do this, you get into some pretty weird situations, take the peyote laws for example. What I think the government can say is that "this practice violates the rights of this group, and is not protected under the first amendment". You can still believe whatever you want, but you cannot act on those beliefs in such a way to limit the liberties of others.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



That wasn't the question you asked. I feel if a PHOTOGRAPHER, not myself, feels uncomfortable shooting an event or a wedding in which he or she can't come on board 100% because of certain beliefs or whatever the case may be, then they are not the right PHOTOGRAPHER for the job. I am just referring to this profession at the moment and I know this does not apply to every business or profession. Sometimes it is not the right fit for the photographer or the client.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

I see what you're saying, it's more of a conflict of interest, and I'll tend to agree. But that's not the same issue at stake. Instead this photographer admitted that he refused to provide services to a gay couple not because he felt he could not provide adequate services, but rather because they were gay in a state which recognizes homosexuals as a protected class.

In one case, the photographer wouldn't feel he could ethically charge money while in the other he acts in a discriminatory way. I have no idea if this would actually hold up in court, and I'm kind of on the fence if it should or not, but the two circumstances are different.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 16, 2012)

****ing religion it does my head in i will shoot anything any religion and sexuality, nudes are free


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 16, 2012)

Weapons. I find photos which seek to glamourise firearms particularly sickening.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 16, 2012)

*^^^^^^^^^*
what Fred said.

Lew


----------



## JSER (Nov 16, 2012)

If it was legal, anything


----------



## ClickAddict (Nov 16, 2012)

The issue of a photographer saying no to a gay couple vs a restaurant / retail is that in the case of a restaurant/retail the owner is simply providing a service they do to everyone else.  (Serve food, sell shoes...)  For a photographer you are not just selling prints.  You are forced to attend a religous ceremony which goes against your beliefs.  In my mind if a photographer who is clearly against gay marriage (Which i am not.  I fully support everyones rights), if they were to not sell some of their artwork to gays that would be wrong, but to refuse to attend a wedding would be justified.  Certainly in those states that allow gay weddings, they do not force the priests to perform them do they?  This of course would apply to any profession that would attend the wedding. (Musician's doing the ceremony, priests, photographers, videographers....)


----------



## gsgary (Nov 16, 2012)

ClickAddict said:
			
		

> The issue of a photographer saying no to a gay couple vs a restaurant / retail is that in the case of a restaurant/retail the owner is simply providing a service they do to everyone else.  (Serve food, sell shoes...)  For a photographer you are not just selling prints.  You are forced to attend a religous ceremony which goes against your beliefs.  In my mind if a photographer who is clearly against gay marriage (Which i am not.  I fully support everyones rights), if they were to not sell some of their artwork to gays that would be wrong, but to refuse to attend a wedding would be justified.  Certainly in those states that allow gay weddings, they do not force the priests to perform them do they?  This of course would apply to any profession that would attend the wedding. (Musician's doing the ceremony, priests, photographers, videographers....)



If you are doing a job it should not matter what religion they are or if they are gay you get the job done if not the photographer or what ever  they are not fit to practise, what ever religion you are or sexuality you should help each other


----------



## ClickAddict (Nov 16, 2012)

So would you say the same for the preist?  Should he be forced to marrys gays?  I find that crosses the line.  His religous views are taken away from him.  And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony.  If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong.  This of course is a personal belief.  If I was a professional and doing weddings, I'd love to do gay weddings.  Would be something different than most shots, wether it's 2 grooms or 2 brides, it would open up a lot of creative opportunites.  And to me doing other religionswould be fine as well (I'd certainly want to attend one beforehand to get a feel of various rites they may perform so as not to miss anything critical)  But to someone who is deeply into their religous beliefs and if those beliefs say gay marriage is wrong, they should not be forced to bear witness to the event, which is in effect also giving approval.  I certainly understant the person who says it's a job I do it, my beliefs aside.  All the power to them. I just don't think that mentality should be legeally imposed on everyone.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 16, 2012)

Baptism or immersion or somethings like that, for children.
Because they aren't able yet to choose to believe, or choose their religion.
It's always their parent/family who obligates the child without permission.
Can't agree... baptism at the age of +21 is ok for me.


----------



## ClickAddict (Nov 16, 2012)

Oh and as for myself, once I get to a point where I would be taking on on clients, there's nothing (legal of course) I wouldn't shoot _once_ I felt I was capable.  (I'd start with family portraits, and engagement shots sort of thing first, refusing weddings, until I felt confident enough to to them.)


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 16, 2012)

I said I wouldn't do wedddings, did that and somewhat enjoyed it. Said I wouldnt do babies and Ive done two now and enjoyed it. I don't think i'm going to limit myself by writing down a hard line of what I would or wouldn't do until i'm asked to do it.


----------



## Demers18 (Nov 16, 2012)

At this point I'm not quite sure other than saying doing nude photo shoots as I'm not sure my wife would like that very much. 
Although I must say that I'm not fan of shooting people to begin with so it's kind of a moot point. ( although that's people I can't yet, people are really hard to do)
I really don't care if you're black, white, purple blue, gay, lesbian or whatever  though if I was shooting weddings and or other things related, I would see it as an opportunity to be creative and essentially that's what photography is to me. A creative outlet.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 16, 2012)

I wonder, shouldn't the question really be "what would you never shoot as an artist?" vs "what could someone pay you to shoot?"  It seems to me that as an artist you should be willing to shoot anything.  That there should be no boundaries, just your vision of the world.  Even as a photojournalist, you should be willing to shoot anything that the world should know about including the most brutal warzones, genocide, and other unspeakables.  To do anything less would be a treason to the craft itself.  

Thing is, once someone says "I want to pay you to shoot [insert subject]" it really does change doesn't it?  Like there's something more taudry about being paid to do it up front.  I think everyone would have some limit in that frame, many of which have already been spelled out.  My limit would be porn.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Nov 16, 2012)

I would not shoot a photo of myself in the raw (Get it?  Get it?) because, let's be honest...nobody wants to see that.  :greenpbl:


----------



## mutewolf (Nov 16, 2012)

I think PlanetStarbucks makes a good point on the being paid versus artistic side of things. You could pay me to do a wedding, maternity shoots, portraits, etc, but I cannot promise the pictures will be good and I may or may not enjoy it like I would enjoy shooting horses. I'm not interested in people photography, for the most part, although I'd be willing to try nudes and erotic photography. I'd really have no interest in taking pictures of your house or your car or this really neat thing you built, but with a contract and low expectation, I'd take a shot for a paycheck. I'd *prefer *to get paid to take pictures of racehorses, farms, dogs, ferrets, zoo animals, because that's what I enjoy. But if someone is willing to take a risk on me (and I'm saying this because I am not a professional photographer), then fine.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 16, 2012)

ClickAddict said:
			
		

> So would you say the same for the preist?  Should he be forced to marrys gays?  I find that crosses the line.  His religous views are taken away from him.  And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony.  If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong.  This of course is a personal belief.  If I was a professional and doing weddings, I'd love to do gay weddings.  Would be something different than most shots, wether it's 2 grooms or 2 brides, it would open up a lot of creative opportunites.  And to me doing other religionswould be fine as well (I'd certainly want to attend one beforehand to get a feel of various rites they may perform so as not to miss anything critical)  But to someone who is deeply into their religous beliefs and if those beliefs say gay marriage is wrong, they should not be forced to bear witness to the event, which is in effect also giving approval.  I certainly understant the person who says it's a job I do it, my beliefs aside.  All the power to them. I just don't think that mentality should be legeally imposed on everyone.


 Religion has no place in my life so gay marriage is fine with me power to them,  but i bet there are plenty of gay preists that would marry same sex because religion has got to change we have just had an Indian lady died in Ireland because the doctor would not perform an abotion to save her life


----------



## BobSaget (Nov 16, 2012)

My reflection in a mirror, though I am quite beautiful.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2012)

ClickAddict said:


> So would you say the same for the preist?  Should he be forced to marrys gays?  I find that crosses the line.  His religous views are taken away from him.  And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony.  If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong.  This of course is a personal belief.



This is *the most* idiotic assertion I have ever read, it doesn't even deserve a reply.


----------



## skieur (Nov 16, 2012)

I have even shot a death scene of a young student for the coroner.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2012)

ClickAddict said:


> The issue of a photographer saying no to a gay couple vs a restaurant / retail is that in the case of a restaurant/retail the owner is simply providing a service they do to everyone else.  (Serve food, sell shoes...)  For a photographer you are not just selling prints.  You are forced to attend a religous ceremony which goes against your beliefs.



But you aren't being forced to attend in a participatory way.... IDK I hear what you're saying, it's a good argument. I just don't know if I agree.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 16, 2012)

I'll shoot anything but midget porn.  

And llamas.  

And especially midget llama porn.  Not again anyway.


----------



## ClickAddict (Nov 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> > So would you say the same for the preist? Should he be forced to marrys gays? I find that crosses the line. His religous views are taken away from him. And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony. If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong. This of course is a personal belief.
> ...



I agree it is absolutely ridiculous to force a priest to perform a gay wedding if he is against it.

The statement was in response to an assertion that if you serve the public you have to serve everyone no matter what.  I was pointing out that there are exceptions to this logic.  Most would agree that you cannot force a priest to perform a wedding against his views.  Most would agree that you cannot refuse to sell shoes to certain groups (gays).  My point was that photographing a gay wedding is closer to the priest than the shoes.  Where does one draw the line?  I don't think the laws have nailed it yet.  My opinion, if a gay couple asks you to do a family shoot, you have to do it.  (Barring other commitments etc..)  Asks you to attend the wedding, I can see how some would argue it goes against their beliefs.


----------



## terri (Nov 16, 2012)

Clowns.
Dead people.
Guns or acts of violence.

btw, some of the discussion is teetering close to political/religious views...just stay on topic, peoples.  No need for anyone to get upset just answering the OP's question.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I'll shoot anything but midget porn.



not only would I photograph in midget porn, I'd participate.


----------



## kamerageek (Nov 16, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> Yes it was.  But was it a belief that was inculcated by an established religion?



Yes, it was. Some "Christian" churches in the south actively supported segregation from the pulpit.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> > So would you say the same for the preist?  Should he be forced to marrys gays?  I find that crosses the line.  His religous views are taken away from him.  And in the same token anyone forced to ATTEND the ceremony.  If you sell flowers for them to use at the ceremony, yes you should not have the right to refuse, but to be forced to attend, I figure is wrong.  This of course is a personal belief.
> ...



So you're just donating a response?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 16, 2012)

unpopular said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



gays seem to be the last group that can be openly hated upon. It disgusts me personally.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2012)

I disagree. Society needs a scapegoat, and often the worst forms of discrimination are dressed up as something positive, even for the good of the victim; frequently people who hate overweight people become "health and fitness advocates".

Societal hate is sneaky and perverse.


----------



## TruckerDave (Nov 16, 2012)

Well, this thread has gone off the rails.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 16, 2012)

The thread has diverted but it all makes sense


----------



## usayit (Nov 17, 2012)

Aliens.... Seriously... Especially the ones that eat people.   Other than that, ill shoot anything for the right price.   

Over the years we've had people posting how to be a war photographer...  I sometimes imagine following closely to shoot them shoot others in a war zone... Literally.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 17, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> Aliens.... Seriously... Especially the ones that eat people.




So I guess being a paparazzo is out of the question?


----------



## sleist (Nov 17, 2012)

I wouldn't take a picture of a zombie.  Unless I was far away.  But those ones from "28 Days Later" scare me because they're fast so I would probably not shoot them.
I'd shoot them with a gun.  Like, a sniper rifle.  With incendiary ammo.  I might take a picture of their head exploding after I shot them.  Well after my friend shot them, cuz I'm not that fast.
But then I'd have to shoot her cuz she'd get zombie guts in her eye or something.

Zombies suck.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> The same sex couples is a religious belief. I have no problem with it personally, my daughter has a very serious long term girl friend, so I probably better not have a problem with it! HOWEVER, I do believe that they should have the right to refuse ANYTHING based on religious beliefs.


I do not. Religious beliefs are a personal matter, not a public matter. If your business is open to the public, you serve the public. 
People like to hold to the religious belief excuse, because it's easy. It's also easily torn apart when so much of the bible is simply thrown out, religions pick and choose what they  wish to enforce today. Or at least, what they can still get away with. Remember, the bible says women should not teach, they should keep their mouths shut. That one kinda fell by the wayside, didn't it?

Why is it ok to discriminate against gays, but not against blacks?
Why were interacial marriages sinful NOT very long ago?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 17, 2012)

There are three issues here: 1) whether people have the right to belief in something, no matter how stupid or ill conceived.
2) whether they have the right to refuse service in a 'public accommodation'  based on their beliefs. 
3) whether I would want to employ people to provide that service, knowing how they believed.

I think 1) yes, people have the right to think how they want - however stupid  that might be; 2) no, they ahouldn't have the right to refuse service and 3) no, I don't want to employ them and expect/hope their professionalism would overcome their bigotry and that they would do a goof job.


----------



## Tee (Nov 17, 2012)

Newborns, children, maternity, and my immediate family.  The latter stemming from quick impromptu snaps of my nieces homecoming, sending my sister the ten best images and her freaking out that she couldn't have every single one.  Never again.

Oh...and photographing gay and lesbian couples?  Bring it on.  While I don't take cash, I'm pretty sure I could manage a Pottery Barn gift card out of them.  :thumbup:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 17, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> There are three issues here: 1) whether people have the right to belief in something, no matter how stupid or ill conceived.
> 2) whether they have the right to refuse service in a 'public accommodation'  based on their beliefs.
> 3) whether I would want to employ people to provide that service, knowing how they believed.
> 
> I think 1) yes, people have the right to think how they want - however stupid  that might be; 2) no, they ahouldn't have the right to refuse service and 3) no, I don't want to employ them and expect/hope their professionalism would overcome their bigotry and that they would do a goof job.



1) having the right to believe something is not in question. Acting upon that belief is. 
2) why refuse services to just one thing based on your your beliefs?  If your wedding photography business wishes to deny service, shouldn't it deny service to all those who do not believe the same as you? Then we can have Jewish ONLY photographers, Baptist ONLY photographers. I mean, if you are going to keep it within your faith, then ONLY serve your faith, and advertise that.
3) businesses don't make their beliefs readily available to their customers. I believe they should though. Right on the door. Then consumers can make appropriate decisions based on THEIR beliefs. In fact, we should all wear signs, so we can make informed decisions on who we interact with on a daily basis. For the record, Christian bookstores DO NOT discriminate against atheists. Shouldn't they though, by the same metric of the straight only wedding photographer? I mean it's pretty much the same thing.

Why stop at wedding photography? Can an auto mechanic not serve a homo based on their religious beliefs? Can a restaurant?


----------



## EIngerson (Nov 17, 2012)

Blackmail photos. I wouldn't do it.

Child pornography, human exploitation photos (to include starving foreign children) Imagine that, I have standards all of the sudden.


----------



## JackPhotography1998 (May 9, 2013)

Gay couples. not that I have anything against it I just won't shoot it

Thanks. Jack M'crystal Photography


----------



## IByte (May 9, 2013)

Furry conventions, especially bunny ones..there I said it.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2013)

JackPhotography1998 said:


> Gay couples. not that I have anything against it I just won't shoot it
> 
> Thanks. Jack M'crystal Photography



wow, just wow

talk about cognitive dissonance.

to bring up a 6 month old thread just to say something that seems self-contradictory

wow again


----------



## jowensphoto (May 9, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> JackPhotography1998 said:
> 
> 
> > Gay couples. not that I have anything against it I just won't shoot it
> ...




As asinine as PP's post was, I won't lie... I'm curious as to his reasoning, which is probably completely asinine in itself, but my interest in piqued.


----------



## runnah (May 9, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> As asinine as PP's post was, I won't lie... I'm curious as to his reasoning, which is probably completely asinine in itself, but my interest in piqued.




Odd are it is being uncomfortable with ones own sexuality.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 9, 2013)

I'm still not shooting any ****ing llamas, bumped thread or not.


----------



## terri (May 9, 2013)

This thread was pushing the envelope 6 months ago, as Lew pointed out, so let's not try to entice anymore comments from those with opposing viewpoints, since that will only open the door to another brawl. 

  I think reading this stuff is enlightening enough about some of our members, in both positive and negative ways.   

No popcorn smilie, I beg you all!


----------



## Stacylouwho (May 9, 2013)

I thought hard about taking pictures of gays and lesbians. It was hard for me to decide what I would do because that is not something that I support. Though If those of us who claim to be Christian deny them, what does that say about us as Christians? Love others as you love yourself.. That is what is written! And the greatest of these is Love.. So I would take the pictures. It may be a bit uncomfortable for me, but I will let them know ahead of time my beliefs so they can decide upon themselves to hire me. I am glad that came up, because I actually never thought of that happening!


----------



## runnah (May 9, 2013)

terri said:


> This thread was pushing the envelope



I won't take photos of homosexual pugs with right leaning political views!


----------



## terri (May 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > This thread was pushing the envelope
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## Steve5D (May 9, 2013)

I won't shoot a wedding of any kind, gay or straight. I've shot one wedding in my life, and it went perfectly. I have a perfect record where that's concerned, and I have no desire to screw that up.

I have no problem with people who don't want to shoot gay weddings, for whatever reason. I may not understand the aversion, but my understanding of it doesn't matter. I have no problem with people who don't want to photograph weapons, for whatever reason. I don't understand it (after all, they're inanimtate objects), but my understanding doesn't matter in their decision.

Now, with all of that said, there's certainly a dollar amount which would get me to shoot a wedding. I don't know what that amount is, but I'll know it when I hear it.

Conversely, there's no amount of money, literally, which would compel me to shoot abuse on any level. I just would not do that. I can be as morally bankrupt as they get, but I do still have my standards...


----------



## Mike_E (May 9, 2013)

I wouldn't take photos of people shooting up, cutting or generally being self destructive.

It might be a dramatic shot but f-em, if they want attention let them go to a shrink or detox like everybody else.




Weddings on the other hand are like video games, bring them on!


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> I'm still not shooting any ****ing llamas, bumped thread or not.



How about if they're just friends?


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 9, 2013)

No bananas.


----------

