Christopher Maxwell Photography business-can he be sued?

[Divemaster01]

I just have an open bar for 6 hours at my wedding, a Sat night. The invitation was set after dinner time, we had a DJ and we serve what you may considered appetizers (actually, it was a lot of food!) and cake. We told them that this was an informal affair. It was what we could afford and we had a great time. People who really care abou us came and left happy. Some of them had to travel and get a hotel.

Our wedding was just like the above description too, lots of fun and everyone had a good time. They still talked about how good the chicken dinner was months later.

[YPestis]

One thing we barely touched on for the differences in wedding styles is the mobility of our society now. The punch and cake wedding was suited to a time when people didn't live far from one another. If most of the guests are within a short drive, and can go home at night, it really doesn't matter if you just served light food at the reception. If you saw these same people regularly, why bother with meals and an extravagant reception?

When I had my wedding, almost half the wedding guests were flying or driving from far away. Probably less than half actually lived in town with us.

Many of our guests had to take time off work and book a room for a couple of nights. We provided a rehearsal dinner and a sit down reception for our wedding guests. Aside from cultural considerations, I thought it bad form to have people take time off, pay for two days at a hotel, and not even get a sit down meal with us. Plus, many were relatives who had not seen each other for years and were probably eager to catch up. It would just not feel right for us to eat dinner while old friends and extended relatives were holed up in their hotel after flying in long distances to see us.

That said, I think there are a multitude of other reasons for the changing wedding landscape:

Culture - Some cultures expect meals and booze. My MIL was Italian and had an Italian wedding. However, my FIL was of Protestant stock and may come from the punch and cake culture. He went along with what his wife wanted (smart guy!).

Class - While people say it's not a class thing, I do believe that for the 1%, sit down meals were pretty common in weddings. I think as the rest of the populace acquired more discretionary income, they started to emulate that 'style'. Meals were more common because that's what the wealthy were seen doing in magazines.

TV - I've actually heard of people who say they want their "dream wedding" because that's what they see on TV. All those wedding reality series and the TV weddings popular during sweeps week....they just reinforce the idea that weddings are to "look" a certain way.

Money- People have more money to splurge on weddings because there are fewer children to marry off, plus couples tend to be older and more financially secure when getting hitched.

I think all these things contributed to the growth of the wedding industry. It's gotten to the point that those who opt out of the extravagant showing are seen as odd balls. I'm just glad I had mine, and won't need another one (for a a little while ;) :lol: )

[ShadowyOne]

Usually you can tell by the time if there will be a full meal provided. Our wedding was at 2pm so it wasn't at a regular meal time. We did a heavy hors d'oeuvres reception: fruit trays, cracker and cheese trays, little meatballs on toothpicks, little sandwiches, cake, and punch. The whole thing (ceremony plus reception) lasted about two and half hours.

I've never been to a wedding that didn't have a full meal, dancing, and booze, either. However, I've been to many that were in the very early afternoon 1-2:00ish), but there was a several-hour interval between ceremony and reception for the wedding party to go and shoot lots of pictures at different locations (and drink a bit on a party bus :) ). Therefore, the dinner reception would begin at a normal dinner time (and all times would be indicated in the invitations). I don't know if that's a regional trend near me, or what.

[clarinetpower]

Back to Christopher: looking at his galleries (and bullshit ones they are, too, you can't even enlarge a photo!), no self respecting gay person would want to hire him. He's a terrible photographer. "My work speaks for itself." Yes, buddy, it does.

And I love his Q&A page; he spends most of it telling people how to find a good wedding photographer, and offer his help on everything, because OBVS he is Teh Authorité. *eyeroll* Puh leaze.

I'd leave disposable cameras on the tables before hiring him.

[YPestis]

I admit to not having a good eye for photographs myself but.....I don't think Christopher is bad for a self-taught photographer who grew up in the straight laced Maxwell household. I think he lacks the imagination and creativity of most photographers because of his upbringing. If he was properly trained, perhaps exposed to different styles and techniques....I think he could produce some good works. Of course, the photographer we hired, who was the same age as Christopher, was waaaay better. :D

[AVENues]

My question is... why on earth would a couple try to hire a fundie-mental photographer knowing what their belief system is all about? Just to stir up a lawsuit case? Before their wedding?

When me and my ex husband were looking for a photographer - actually, I was the one looking, he couldn't find his arse while sitting on it - I bumped into a really talented but weird photographer. I told him we wanted simple, old fashioned photos. He told me he would not do it and that we will have to look for another photographer. We did and we got one. Simple as that. Should I have sued him? Should I sue everyone that refuses to serve me as a customer? As much as gays do have the right to marry, photographers and service providers do have the right to serve whomever they please.

You would not call a vegetarian restaurant to deliver you beefsteak tartar then sue them for discrimination. Each to their own.

Btw this let's sue everyone for everything is really 990s and late.

[Spider Burps]

All of this talk about tossing rice at weddings has left me so butthurt... Both of our families decided to leave before the reception was over because they didn't feel like dancing anymore. So, we didn't get to do the cutesy "escape" thing; we got to stay behind, still dressed in our wedding garb, and help the staff clean up. (I may or may not have cried while doing said cleaning because WTF you asses?) *grumbles*

[Guest Anonymous]

My question is... why on earth would a couple try to hire a fundie-mental photographer knowing what their belief system is all about? Just to stir up a lawsuit case? Before their wedding?

When me and my ex husband were looking for a photographer - actually, I was the one looking, he couldn't find his arse while sitting on it - I bumped into a really talented but weird photographer. I told him we wanted simple, old fashioned photos. He told me he would not do it and that we will have to look for another photographer. We did and we got one. Simple as that. Should I have sued him? Should I sue everyone that refuses to serve me as a customer? As much as gays do have the right to marry, photographers and service providers do have the right to serve whomever they please.

You would not call a vegetarian restaurant to deliver you beefsteak tartar then sue them for discrimination. Each to their own.

Btw this let's sue everyone for everything is really 990s and late.

In relation to this specific question, it's just a matter of the law in the area in which you reside. The state law of Kansas doesn't forbid Chris Maxwell, so he is free to discriminate. The law does forbid photographers in other states and so they risk lawsuits for the same.

As a matter of principle, if someone refused you service because of the colour of your skin, would that bother you? If it wasn't just in relation to your wedding photos, but in all sorts of areas of your life? If it wasn't because of something to do with the style of photos or type of service you wanted, but rather because of who you are, and something about yourself that you could not change, even if you wanted to? Because that's the kind of shit gay people face all the fucking time in some geographical areas, and I for one won't trivialise any concerns they may have, or assume I know exactly what their lives are like and why they should get over themselves, just because I had X experience in 19-dickety-doo.... :roll:

[B5SnowDog]

I've never been to a wedding that didn't have a full meal, dancing, and booze, either. However, I've been to many that were in the very early afternoon 1-2:00ish), but there was a several-hour interval between ceremony and reception for the wedding party to go and shoot lots of pictures at different locations (and drink a bit on a party bus :) ). Therefore, the dinner reception would begin at a normal dinner time (and all times would be indicated in the invitations). I don't know if that's a regional trend near me, or what.

I've been to a couple like that in larger cities. I haven't been to one like that in my town, so I think it may be big city vs podunk town.