Photographer's Refusal Of Gay Weddings: Ethical Or Legal?

The question of whether a photographer can refuse to work a same-sex wedding has been the subject of legal debate in recent years, with conflicting rulings on the matter. In 2024, a New York state law threatened photographer and blogger Emilee Carpenter with fines of up to $100,000, a revoked business license, and up to a year in jail for refusing to photograph same-sex weddings. Meanwhile, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Kentucky ruled in favor of a wedding photographer who claimed that serving LGBTQ+ clients violated her Christian beliefs and First Amendment rights. These conflicting rulings highlight the ongoing tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert, as a defence in legal proceedings, that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence in 2015 and has been met with criticism by organisations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Apple Inc., and the Disciples of Christ. Opponents of the law claim that it is targeted against LGBT+ people and other groups.

The RFRA is similar to Senate Bill 101, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer in Arizona in 2014. This bill would have expanded Arizona's existing RFRA to include corporations.

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., recognising a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief.

In 2022, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled in favour of a wedding photographer who claimed that serving LGBTQ+ clients violated her Christian beliefs and First Amendment rights. The photographer, Chelsey Nelson, was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group that has been flagged as a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The RFRA has been criticised for being used to justify discrimination against LGBT+ people. For example, in 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a Christian-owned photography business did not have the right to decline, on religious grounds, to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

The RFRA and similar bills in other states have been criticised for creating a "carve-out" for wedding vendors, singers, writers, and even custom jewellers, to openly discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and advertise their intent to do so. This sets a dangerous precedent for discrimination, according to Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation in Kentucky.

Despite criticism, some groups have expressed support for the RFRA and similar bills. These include the Michigan Catholic Conference, which argued that the ability to discriminate can come from deeply held moral viewpoints that should be respected.

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups

In response to recent rulings that allow photographers to refuse service to same-sex couples, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have argued that such rulings are blatantly discriminatory and violate anti-discrimination laws. Groups such as the National Black Justice Coalition, a civil rights organisation dedicated to empowering Black LGBTQ+ people, and the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, a federation of LGBTQ+ Asian American, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander organisations, work to advance equality and justice for the LGBTQ+ community.

Other groups, such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), focus on promoting and ensuring fair and inclusive representation of LGBTQ+ people in the media to eliminate homophobia and discrimination. The Human Rights Campaign, on the other hand, provides a national voice on gay and lesbian issues and works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression.

These advocacy groups play a crucial role in fighting for the rights and representation of the LGBTQ+ community, ensuring that their voices are heard and their experiences are recognised and valued.

First Amendment rights

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, among other rights. In the context of wedding photography and refusal of service to same-sex couples, the First Amendment has been invoked by photographers who argue that being compelled to provide their services for such weddings would violate their freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion.

In a 2013 case in New Mexico, a photographer was sued for refusing to provide services for a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing religious objections. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit businesses that offer services for a profit to choose whom to serve, and that refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony was no different from refusing to photograph a wedding between people of different races. The court's decision affirmed a lower court's ruling and held the photographer liable under the state's anti-discrimination laws.

In 2022, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled in favor of a wedding photographer who claimed that serving LGBTQ+ clients violated her Christian beliefs and First Amendment rights. The photographer, Chelsey Nelson, argued that she should be allowed to refuse her services to same-sex couples without facing legal or financial consequences. The judge issued an injunction against the city's non-discrimination ordinance, stating that it could not limit First Amendment freedoms.

In 2023, a federal lawsuit in Virginia involving a photographer who refused to take pictures of same-sex weddings was settled. The settlement cited a Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving a Colorado web design company, in which the Court ruled that the First Amendment allows some businesses to refuse to work for same-sex couples. The Virginia settlement stated that the state would not require the photographer to offer photography services for same-sex weddings or prevent him from expressing that position in promotional materials.

These cases highlight the ongoing debate and legal challenges surrounding the intersection of First Amendment rights and anti-discrimination laws when it comes to wedding photographers refusing to serve same-sex couples. While some courts have ruled in favor of photographers' First Amendment rights, others have upheld anti-discrimination laws and found photographers liable for discrimination.

Injunction against non-discrimination ordinance

An injunction is a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. In the case of Chelsey Nelson, a wedding photographer in Louisville, Kentucky, a U.S. District Judge, Benjamin Beaton, issued an injunction against the city's 1999 non-discrimination ordinance. This ordinance was challenged by Nelson, who claimed that serving LGBTQ+ clients violated her Christian beliefs and First Amendment rights. Beaton's ruling stated that the city could not use the law to compel Nelson to photograph same-sex weddings or express messages that went against her beliefs.

The injunction against the non-discrimination ordinance has been criticised by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, who argue that it is discriminatory and violates the city's anti-discrimination laws. Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer expressed his commitment to enforcing the ordinance and fighting against discrimination. The case has also drawn attention from legal advocacy groups, who plan to continue protecting LGBTQ+ civil liberties at the local level.

The injunction in this case is an example of a court order prohibiting someone from doing something, specifically, the city of Louisville from enforcing its non-discrimination ordinance against Nelson. This injunction is a "prohibitory injunction," as defined by legal scholar Allen D. Ferguson in his article "Injunctions and Related Remedies." It aims to prevent the city from taking legal action against Nelson for refusing to provide her services to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs.

In response to the injunction, LGBTQ+ advocates and allies have expressed concern and disappointment. They view the ruling as discriminatory and a setback for LGBTQ+ rights and protections. The case highlights the ongoing tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with some arguing that religious beliefs should not be used to justify discrimination.

Public backlash

The public backlash against the court rulings that allowed photographers to refuse gay weddings has been intense. The New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in 2013 that a Christian-owned photography business did not have the right to decline to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony on religious grounds sparked a strong reaction. Scholar Ryan T. Anderson, writing in the National Review Online, highlighted the growing concern about the potential conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty. He argued that redefinition of marriage would lead to the marginalization of traditional beliefs about marriage as "an irrational prejudice."

The decision by the New Mexico court was met with criticism from those who felt it infringed on religious freedom and conscience rights. Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the photographers, stated that artists and Americans should not be forced by the government to promote messages they disagree with. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 85% of Americans believed that a Christian wedding photographer with strong religious beliefs against same-sex marriage should have the right to decline such ceremonies.

In 2022, a similar case in Kentucky involving photographer Chelsey Nelson sparked public backlash and intense debate for three years. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups argued that the ruling in Nelson's favor was blatantly discriminatory and violated local and national anti-discrimination laws. Chris Hartman, executive director of the Kentucky LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Fairness Campaign, stated that the ruling set a dangerous precedent for discrimination by public businesses. Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer expressed his commitment to enforcing anti-discriminatory practices and fighting discrimination in any form.

The public backlash against these rulings highlights the deep divide in American society regarding the balance between religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. While some argue for the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs, others view these refusals as discriminatory and a violation of civil rights. The intense public backlash underscores the need for a resolution that respects both sides while ensuring equal rights and protections for all.

Frequently asked questions