Same Sex Marriage Wedding Opportunities

[Hawthy]

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?

[bitsnpieces]

I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol

But it looks like the photography business is back in business

[ricktas]

I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol

But it looks like the photography business is back in business

So if you had the equipment and someone approached you to shoot their wedding (Same sex couple) how are you going to explain to them that you are refusing to do it?

[gcflora]

So if you had the equipment and someone approached you to shoot their wedding (Same sex couple) how are you going to explain to them that you are refusing to do it?

I assume he will either say "I have no equipment" or just tell the truth? I mean... he's allowed to refuse isn't he?

Edit: Maybe it could be awkward; I'm not sure

[ricktas]

I assume he will either say "I have no equipment" or just tell the truth? I mean... he's allowed to refuse isn't he?

Edit: Maybe it could be awkward; I'm not sure

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

[gcflora]

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

Hmm. Might be tricky then. But I wonder if you have to give a reason for refusing a job at all... I guess if a person doesn't want to do it they'd have to say they're too busy or something :-/

[Steve Axford]

Hmm. Might be tricky then. But I wonder if you have to give a reason for refusing a job at all... I guess if a person doesn't want to do it they'd have to say they're too busy or something :-/

It will be the same as any discrimination - ie it's illegal to refuse based on religion, sex, race, etc (no change here). The exception is that registered religions can refuse to officiate or host weddings if they don't want to (no change here either). A commercial operator cannot refuse service based on any of those things - why would they want to?

[gcflora]

A commercial operator cannot refuse service based on any of those things - why would they want to?

For the reason stated (not by me) that started the conversation I guess:
quote: "I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol"

[ameerat42]

General observations:
Well, tell me the term "pink dullah" is not already discriminatory.
--Apart from that, the concept is styoopid - or schoopid (take your pick).

[gcflora]

Well, tell me the term "pink dullah" is not already discriminatory.

It is. "Pink toorizem" isn't though

[ameerat42]

-- But then populism isn't known for being discriminating, only discriminatory
I suppose it's early days, and people will have to find their mental feet - everybody, that is.

[Steve Axford]

For the reason stated (not by me) that started the conversation I guess:
quote: "I won't be, for personal beliefs and also because I currently have no equipment lol"

Probably didn't think through what he was saying.

[Mark L]

Probably didn't think through what he was saying.

That's what "personal beliefs" can do.
Surely some businesses have found ways to refuse work they don't feel comfortable with without contravening anti-discrimination laws?
"I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Here's Bill The Phogos card. He does weddings really well. I'll do your wedding if you insist though."

[richtbw]

This can become a sticky situation. Fortunately landscape/wildlife/nature photography do not present this dilemma.

[Steve Axford]

That's what "personal beliefs" can do.
Surely some businesses have found ways to refuse work they don't feel comfortable with without contravening anti-discrimination laws?
"I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Here's Bill The Phogos card. He does weddings really well. I'll do your wedding if you insist though."

I imagine that it happens. Generally, who would care if some small, average quality photographer doesn't want to do particular weddings, as long as he never says that is the reason. I think there could be a problem if he says he is being discriminatory or if he gets to be bigger and better known and his actions are harder to hide, or he just gets unlucky in that a same sex couple really want his services (:).

- - - Updated - - -

This can become a sticky situation. Fortunately landscape/wildlife/nature photography do not present this dilemma.

With fungi, I have to cope with the problem every day. After all, fungi have 36,000 different sexes, so "a man and a woman" doesn't often apply.

[bitsnpieces]

My understanding of how the legislation went yesterday was that all the amendments put forward to allow religions etc to refuse to undertake SSM ceremonies etc were knocked back. So any refusal could be deemed discriminatory. So I just was curious how people will now refuse to accept work in this instance. I don't know the answer, so am not going to assume. I just wondered how these refusals will work, given that the legislation (from what I read and saw) does not allow discrimination.

That's a good question and I didn't know that ultimately, religious beliefs are no longer supported in this matter - very unfortunately and exactly as I thought would happen.

If that is the case, and if I had the equipment at that time, I'll probably still explain that it is still just personal beliefs, whether it be religious or traditional/cultural. Maybe that I'm uncomfortable with the work, recommend someone else. But ultimately, if they want to cause fuss, they'll cause fuss. They ask questions why. So it'll eventually fall on my religious beliefs, but I'd try and help them understand that it's not about being discriminatory or a bigot because I respects gays in all ways, nothing against them. Just don't support their act. Even if I took religion out of the equation, it'd still be no because I personally believe that children should have both a father and mother anyways. So don't even have to mention religion really - but anyone looking me up for my services (one day) will probably know that I'm religious anyways, so no way of hiding that either way.

Just FYI, had a friend whom I would always help out where I could, invited him to activities, hung out with him, just like all my other friends, really liked introducing people to one another, building circles, etc, but like most of my friends, I always seemed to be the 'other guy - never get the invite to anything, usually it's only down the grapevine that I know about it. Heck, some 'good' friends didn't even invite me to their wedding, but can't blame them, they must have thought that I was still in Vietnam. Any who, being away for 4 years and coming back, only recently found out that he was gay and during this whole SSM thing, he turned around and said I abandoned him. Guess I'm not a good friend, guess that's why I'm always the 'other guy'

Anyways, we'll see. I don't have any equipment now, and don't think I will any time soon - pretty much broke and even when I do, don't know how far I'll get in the photography business again - 4 years away all my contacts are gone so no prospects anymore, nobody knows me anymore, not like before.

[Mark L]

^
I can see a couple of problems in what you say but I'd rather hope that as time goes by things improve for you David.
Maybe find a religious community you are comfortable with and establish new networks.

[ricktas]

I think you have thought this through well David. I am not going to start discussing religion with you because that leads no-where. We could discuss it till our death-beds.

My concern here is the belief that children need a mother and father. This was raised throughout the campaign as a beacon and some sort of assumption that having a mother and father present in their lives is only something heterosexual couples can offer. It was presented as a shining example of something wonderous and amazing (which it is), that only heterosexual couples do well (which they can't).

I found this odd, given the statistics.

I really do not think heterosexual couples do so well in the parenting department that they should even consider same sex couples are somehow not good for raising children. So I will call you to task on your belief that children need both a mother and a father. Because that is not working out so well for us (as a naton) at present. I think if you look at the statistics, this is something you need to think about and possibly reconsider your viewpoint on.

As part of my job we assist agencies that work with abused and abandoned children. We work to help them with their dental care, because the neglect often has issues around diet and thus dental matters. I have worked doing this for several years and we have helped a lot of children/youth (anyone under 16 years old). Lots of them come from families with drug/alcohol related issues with parents. I can say that not once has a child been with us that has advised us they came from a family involving same sex couples. I think it was completely wrong on the part of the No campaign to even raise the father and mother stance as part of their campaign. We as a society fail kids on that front so badly now, that using it as some sort of enlightened 'best practice' is so completely off target that it was laughable.

[ameerat42]

On the narrow path along this ridge, the danger is to fall off either side:
convincing one or the the other that they are wrong!
Both lead to the fate of drowning in a sea of self-righteousness.

If the original Q was whether you would or would not, and not whether there was a
right or wrong. So what's the use of pushing your point of view to no avail? - Or just
vaunt vapid advice?

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 $

[bitsnpieces]

I am in no way implying that same sex couples can't be good parents, but just like any family, there are families that have done well, and families that haven't, both heterosexual and homosexual.

I think a lot of the marriages that fall are usually due to selfish reasons or consequences of immature actions. Not saying all are, but just as an example, I believe one reason so many people cheat on their spouse is simply because of sex. Sex is no longer considered something special between two people, but it's there, go do it. The media (music mostly) makes it out how sex = love, thus a lot of relationships are formed on sex (love) and not actual love, where really, I believe sex is a by-product of love. Many people are easily driven on sex, and so they also chase after it. That's just my opinion, and thus, you'll see many children from broken families because 1, a selfish action, and 2, it's not easy to forgive and work together on a more positive future after something like this (which is also another reason why so many marriages can fall apart, spouses not willing to work together for the perfect relationship, but looking for the so called "one", the supposed perfect relationship, soulmate, etc).
Of course, there's things like financial reasons, alcohol, drugs, etc.

And do these things only affect heterosexual relationships? I wouldn't think so. So it wouldn't be fair to say any relationship is better than another, thus I never intended to imply such.
Also, given that gay parents are probably only the 1% (i'm sure it's more), with so little children adopted into those families, even if there were problems, being that they weren't recognised or anything (except now they are), the children probably had nowhere else to go really and just stay. Or so little to count from, to encounter one is also very unlikely. Just my thought - could be wrong.

My personal belief is simply that for me, given that babies come from the result of a father and mother (naturally speaking), then I would want to grow up (given that the family does well) with a father and mother. Seeing two sides of the world, finding out who I am (in this case, a male, thus a future father), and seeing how I should be treating my wife, children, my responsibilities of work, in society, etc.

Again, that's just one side of the coin - there are families where the mother is the bread winner, or both work, nevertheless, I just believe a child should have the opportunity to see both sides of the world, forefront and directly.

And so what ameerat said, the original question was would or wouldn't, and there is no right or wrong whether someone would or wouldn't, because that's their choice, and to force a choice on someone, that'd be wrong. There's no point trying to push our opinion on it either, but I only explained mine since I was asked, and would do so if I was asked, as they say, "You asked for it"

So my choice was no, but if they were to force me to, then who's in the right and wrong now? Not every 'no' advocate is a bigot or discriminatory.
For example, I don't believe in smoking or drinking alcohol, so I wouldn't encourage another to do it. So just as I believe in a more traditional family, I would be inclined to support and work with those within my beliefs and values. What would then working with those against my beliefs and values say about me?

Anyways, long winded post over lol