Same Sex Marriage Wedding Opportunities

[Mark L]

I took umbrage at the original post because it had a whiff of pecuniary exploitation and
unwarranted social labelling. I still tend to at the term $

Don't understand that really. OP seemed pretty neutral.
But let's continue.
So you don't think it's valid that some businesses will be getting ready to make a few $$$'s from the marriage law changes?? Is that what you mean by pecuniary exploitation??

[ameerat42]

Too troo, Bits! The much-publicly-lamented addiction to body image has
derailed much of "society" (here used as a collective noun only) from any cogent thought on
basic human nature matters. "The media" treats all people as just-crud-that-wannabe-sophists.
The assault on sensibility is relentless. But dig deeper to see who is responsible for drives like these
and you turn up just faceless functionaries. They pervade all aspects of society (again a collective noun).

Good luck trying to make any sense out of it all - not just but also the question under discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't understand that really. OP seemed pretty neutral.
But let's continue.
So you don't think it's valid that some businesses will be getting ready to make a few $$$'s from the marriage law changes?? Is that what you mean by pecuniary exploitation??

Not the OP, the term.

[William W]

Returning to the original question – and its Business of Photography focus:

I think that “any members who shoot weddings” and who are savvy business operators would have had marketing and advertising in place and been covering Save-sex Commitment Services for a long time.

They would already have a network of contacts and happy Clients.

I think that those who left it until just recently to “gear up for the pink dollar” would be ‘behind the eight ball and playing big time catch-up’.

WW

[ivans75]

I wont refuse, money is money. Need to finance that new lens
Guess every wedding photographer needs to edit their name card:

"Accepting rainbow wedding now!"

[ricktas]

I wont refuse, money is money. Need to finance that new lens
Guess every wedding photographer needs to edit their name card:

"Accepting rainbow wedding now!"

or just.. weddings.. because there really is no difference between two people getting married..

[paulheath]

makes no difference what so ever... love is love...im happy to shoot same sex marriage, infact the dramas that go on in a "normal" wedding would put mardi gras to shame....

[bcys1961]

I guess if you don't want to do it you just say , "I'm already booked on that day". No need to explain of justify your position any further than that.

[Bear Dale]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

[MissionMan]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

Agree. I wonder how many people opposed to gay marriage would also refuse to shoot a non-Christian wedding? I think you would have a hard time using religion as a justification for not shooting a gay wedding if you're prepared to shoot a non-Christian wedding.

[bcys1961]

If you're not willing to shoot a SSM, you shouldn't call yourself a wedding photographer.

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)

[MissionMan]

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)

Actually, it is different. Investing your personal funds is like choosing between KFC and McDonalds. You have no obligation to invest in any industry you agree or disagree with.

When you are running a business however that changes.If you're in a service industry that requires you to service all customers, then that is unfortunately different. Could you imagine if Coles or Woolworths refused to sell food to gay people because the CEO felt he disagreed with gays? You can't discriminate hiring gays, what makes you think it's any better to discriminate on other levels and where do you draw the line?

You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to agree with gay people, but that doesn't change your obligation when you run a business. I think people miss the fact that these are mutually exclusive.

[bcys1961]

Actually, it is different. Investing your personal funds is like choosing between KFC and McDonalds. You have no obligation to invest in any industry you agree or disagree with.

When you are running a business however that changes.If you're in a service industry that requires you to service all customers, then that is unfortunately different. Could you imagine if Coles or Woolworths refused to sell food to gay people because the CEO felt he disagreed with gays? You can't discriminate hiring gays, what makes you think it's any better to discriminate on other levels and where do you draw the line?

You don't have to like gay people, you don't have to agree with gay people, but that doesn't change your obligation when you run a business. I think people miss the fact that these are mutually exclusive.

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

[MissionMan]

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

They can, but if they are caught discriminating because the customers in question are gay, they could find themselves in legal trouble, not to mention the bad publicity destroying their business. It's not a difficult scenario to pick up. Gay couple goes to photographer, he says he is too busy, a straight couple go to him, he accepts, gay couple finds out in conversation that straight couple were accepted after they were turned down, gets annoyed, approaches the press, etc.

I honestly don't think people can afford to be in the wedding photography business if they're homophobic. The industry has changed, like records to CD's to online music, and if they aren't prepared to change with it, they could find themselves going under.

[ameerat42]

or just.. weddings.. because there really is no difference between two people getting married..

(My highlights)

This aligns with my point about the term "pink dollar" in a post above.

[bcys1961]

They can, but if they are caught discriminating because the customers in question are gay, they could find themselves in legal trouble, not to mention the bad publicity destroying their business. It's not a difficult scenario to pick up. Gay couple goes to photographer, he says he is too busy, a straight couple go to him, he accepts, gay couple finds out in conversation that straight couple were accepted after they were turned down, gets annoyed, approaches the press, etc.

I honestly don't think people can afford to be in the wedding photography business if they're homophobic. The industry has changed, like records to CD's to online music, and if they aren't prepared to change with it, they could find themselves going under.

I don't disagree with you that if business people do not change with the market then they risk losing business. That's their choice and they may not be as successful as those who do change. I really don't think it will be a big issue . I'm sure gay people will go to the same people they have always gone to when they want thinks done - gay friendly businesses , businesses who don't care either way , or other gay people who run businesses . I don't think gay people are suddenly going to target those who they perceive to be non-gay friendly , just to prove a point or win some discrimination case . Current discrimination laws exist now making it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion , sexuality etc... so if they wanted to do that they could have done it already. The whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO , which is just what the A-team ( Abbott,Andrews and Abetz) want. Let's face it Cory Bernardi proposed that allowing Gay Marriage would lead to people eventually marrying their dogs!

[William W]

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want . I have chosen not to work for some customers , just because I don't like them or their approach to business. I don't have to give them a reason. I just say I'm too busy to take on more work. Photographers just need to say I'm booked that day. They can do that and still be "Wedding Photographers".

What "rights" are those, specifically?

The laws (Australia wide and also individual States) are quite specific: (legal) "Refusal of Service" falls into a very small number of very specific categories and as such it is certainly NOT a small business owners "right" to refuse service.

It is very poor advice to encourage any Photographer attempting to make money from Photography, that s/he needs to simply say "I'm booked that day".

Possibly this approach may work 99 times out of 100, and as mentioned it has worked for you: but woe betide the small business owner in the one case where the Potential Client actually knows the applicable CONSUMER RIGHTS, for this particular situation.

WW

[Bear Dale]

I choose not to invest any of my super into companies that promote gambling. Perhaps I should not refer to myself as an investor. And what about the chef who will not use non-ethically sourced ingredients- are they no longer chefs?

( I voted yes btw and would shoot a SSM if asked , which is unlikely as I am not a pro photographer. But don't think the above argument holds much water.)

Yep, if you are willing to discriminate against someone because of their sexuality in my book you shouldn't be advertising yourself as wedding photographer.

Small business owners will still exercise their rights to accept or reject whichever customers they want .

They have no such rights.

[ameerat42]

Given the repetitive legalistic themes in the sometime volleys in this thread, I thought to re-visit the OP's Q:

Given the result of the national survey on same sex marriage and the very likely legislation to allow same sex marriages,
I am interested to see if any members who shoot weddings are gearing up for the pink dollar?

It looks like the 2nd line contains the operant clause, it being "gearing up..."

Maybe the meaning of this can be further discussed. For instance, does it mean:
- buying gear
- advertising
- some other form of preparation?

And too, after having originally "thrown it out there" in a general sense, perhaps Hawthy can
now add some perspective of his own to the responses he's got.

[Hawthy]

And too, after having originally "thrown it out there" in a general sense, perhaps Hawthy can
now add some perspective of his own to the responses he's got.

Given that almost a month passed before anyone replied to my initial post, I haven't really been following this thread. (I know, I posted it in the wrong area originally). It all seems to have gotten a bit heated from what was really just a business related question. I genuinely just wondered if anyone was going to target that segment of the market. "Gearing up" just meant preparing to actively sell your skills into that market.

I certainly didn't mean anything derogatory by using the term "pink dollar". I am not going to lie and say that I have a heap of gay friends or anything but my wife and I are on good terms with the same sex couple next door. They invited us to their children's christenings and we exchange Christmas gifts and generally just help each other out when needed. I also have gay clients and gay work colleagues and I get on fine with all of them. I certainly have no ideological problem with gay marriage because I am not particularly religious. I voted yes. Did I think that it was the most important issue in Australia at the time? No, but I couldn't see any downside in giving gay couples the same legal recognition as straight couples. I understand that some people may feel differently.

Sorry if the original post has caused such a ruckus. My take on it was purely commercial interest. in my opinion, what happens in a loving relationship between two people, be it legally recognised or not, is their business not mine.

[ameerat42]

Nope! No need for any apologies. Ruckus? - No such thing.

I just wanted to check back with you on this post and now you have, with your explanation
of "Gearing up" just meant preparing to actively sell your skills into that market."