Kentucky Photographer Sues for Her Religious Right to Discriminate Against the LGBTQ Community and Game of Thrones Fans

What started as a quiet local story in Louisville, Kentucky is quickly becoming national news. Early Saturday morning, USA Today published an opinion piece written by wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson in which she proclaimed herself a victim of Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance. 

In her article, Nelson introduces herself and her case through positive messages of what marriage means to her, repeatedly using words like “love,” “joy,” “awe,” and “passion.” She speaks of the importance of a strong relationship with the couples she photographs as any other photographer would:

On their wedding day, they probably spend more time with me than anyone else. I even do my initial consultations in my home. At my kitchen table over cookies, I get to hear about them and their dreams for the future as we plan how to capture their big day. Then, we schedule an engagement session to make sure they’re comfortable in front of my camera. (Most of us aren’t used to a photographer following us around all day, right?)

Chelsey Nelson's opinion article was published on USA Today on November 23, 2019

She goes on to admit that her strong values about marriage prevent her from photographing just any wedding ceremony:

Because marriage is so important to me, I’m careful to photograph and blog about each of these solemn ceremonies in a way that reflects my views of marriage... to show others that marriage really is worth pursuing… For example, I can’t celebrate a wedding that devalues how seriously I take marriage — like a heavily themed Halloween or zombie-themed wedding.

It seems fair enough. It’s likely that many photographers would avoid a gimmicky zombie-themed wedding, though gimmicks are obviously not her only worry when it comes to photographing what she perceives as non-traditional weddings. In the opinion piece, Nelson repeatedly dances around her true concern, but to anyone with half a brain cell and an awareness of recent current events, it’s all too clear. For Nelson, LGBTQ weddings are public enemy number one and in a media environment that's increasingly focused on spin, Nelson portrays herself as a victim:

[A] Louisville, Kentucky law threatens me with damages if I stay true to my beliefs about marriage. Actually, the law won’t even let me explain some of my religious beliefs about marriage, whether on my studio’s website, social media, or directly to couples who may want to work with me. I also can’t explain how some of my religious beliefs affect which weddings I celebrate through my photography.

Here's some background information on the Louisville law to which Nelson is referring. Passed in 1999, the Louisville Fairness Ordinance was a major victory for historically marginalized communities, establishing protections for the LGBTQ community (among others) from discrimination:

It is the policy of the Metro Government to safeguard all individuals within Jefferson County from discrimination in certain contexts because of race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, age, disability, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Certain practices must be prohibited within the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation, resort or amusement as necessary to protect individual’s personal dignity and insure freedom from humiliation; to make available to Jefferson County all full productive capacities; to secure Jefferson County against strife and unrest which would menace its democratic institutions; and to preserve the public safety, health and general welfare. (Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Chapter 92)

The ordinance goes on to define discrimination as “any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person or persons, or the aiding, abetting, inciting, coercing, or compelling thereof made unlawful under this chapter.” Clear enough.

Because Chelsey Nelson Photography provides goods and services to the general public, her business is categorized as a Place of Public Accommodation, Resort, or Amusement. In refusing her services to anyone because of their sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation, Nelson would certainly be breaking the law. What’s more, the ordinance prohibits businesses from advertising in any way (website, social media or otherwise) that they plan to deny service to anyone in the future because of discriminatory practices or beliefs. 

So yes, if Nelson can’t tell the world that she doesn’t want to service the LGBTQ community and she can’t legally turn the LGBTQ community away if they attempt to contract her for weddings, then she’s a bigot up a creek without a paddle. 

While her manifesto in USA Today provides a seemingly heartfelt and non-confrontational explanation of her beliefs regarding marriage, a lawsuit filed against the city of Louisville on November 19th makes her self-justified bigotry crystal clear. With the assistance of legal representation provided by Alliance Defending Freedom (a conservative Christian faith non-profit), Nelson submitted fifty-three pages to argue that by enforcing the Fairness Ordinance, Louisville is actually violating her religious freedoms. 

Here are some of the highlights of the suit:

  • Nelson believes that by forbidding her from proclaiming her discriminatory practices against LGBTQ weddings, she is being forced to violate the biblical command to love her neighbor through honesty. (Section 79)
  • Nelson believes that some people have a calling from God to create art and that she is one of those people. (Sections 83 and 84)
  • Nelson wants to turn down any requests for services that require her to use her God-given talents to promote immorality, dishonor to God, or anything contrary to her religious beliefs. (Section 187) These requests are further characterized as same-sex, polygamous, open marriages, or “services that demean others, devalue God’s creation, condone racism, sexually objectify someone, celebrate pornography or obscenity, praise vulgarity, or contradict biblical principles.” (Sections 190-192)
  • It’s not just LGBTQ weddings that pose a problem. Nelson is fighting for her right to turn down zombie or Game of Thrones-themed weddings as well. (Section 206)
A screenshot of Alliance Defending Freedom's blog about Chelsey Nelson

There’s a lot to unpack there, and I’ll let you explore it in its mind-numbing depth on your own, but any members of the LGBTQ community hoping to hire Chelsea Nelson for their wedding photography anyway shouldn’t despair. Nelson asserts she is happy to work with anyone regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation provided that a few specific criteria are met:

...Chelsey will happily work with and provide her wedding celebration services for a wedding between a homosexual man and a woman so long as the marriage is the exclusive union of that one man and one woman. Likewise, Chelsey will happily work with and provide her wedding celebration services for a wedding between a bisexual woman and a man so long as the marriage is the exclusive union of that one woman and one man. (Sections 200-202) 

So, there you go. She's only opposed to homosexuality if it's unrepressed.

What are Nelson's overall goals? In both her opinion piece and her lawsuit, Nelson expresses that her ultimate desire is to either be allowed to turn away LGBTQ marriages with which she doesn’t agree or be allowed to proclaim her beliefs clearly on her website and social media to keep any would-be LGBTQ clients from attempting to hire her. As things currently stand, Nelson feels she is being forced to choose between her religion and her livelihood.

While no LGBTQ couples have approached her requiring she break the law yet (we know this because the suit is characterized as a “pre-enforcement challenge”), her suit claims the situation is inevitable. The suit specifically references Louisville as having “the 11th highest rate of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender among the fifty largest metropolitan areas in the United States.” (Section 243) 

Chelsey Nelson doesn’t like those odds:

Chelsey faces a credible threat and substantial risk that she will receive requests to provide wedding celebration and boutique editing services for same-sex weddings, likely leading to prosecution under Louisville’s law. (Section 242)

After widely proclaiming her feelings toward same-sex marriage or anything else she deems “non-traditional,” I wouldn’t be so sure that the threat is all that “credible.” Everyone everywhere will now know exactly what she believes and any clients hoping to avoid discrimination will likely give her a wide berth.

I spoke with Rebecca and Charlotte (last names withheld, because even though Louisville is progressive, Kentucky was the setting for the Kim Davis debacle), an engaged couple living in Louisville, to get their perspective on the situation. They believe Chelsey Nelson is unlikely to receive LGBTQ wedding requests in the first place. Rebecca told me about their vendor search:

A lot of photographers on Instagram would have something on their bio saying 'Jesus is king,' which seemed like code for 'I won’t shoot your gay wedding.' Then, you look and see no photos of same-sex couples. I don’t know why she thinks a same-sex couple will even want to hire her. As queer people, we’re so used to being very careful. If you’re a queer couple, you’re going to find a vendor who shows publicly that they’re queer-friendly. You don't want a negative interaction as a stain on your wedding-planning experience.

Charlotte added:

If I'm going to hire you, I want to see you’ve been doing this for at least five years and that you’ve shot queer people and people of color before. I want you to know what you're doing, how to pose us as a couple (without relying on straight-gendered posing), and what to expect. I wanna see the receipts!

Based on the experience they've had living in Louisville, neither Rebecca nor Charlotte think this lawsuit is going to have any major ramifications within their city's LGBTQ community. The couple believes the article and lawsuit are a publicity stunt that will likely succeed in bringing in more business from people who have the same beliefs as Chelsey Nelson. For a business with roughly 400 Instagram followers and fewer than 150 Facebook followers, the lawsuit serves as a big opportunity to garner plenty of national attention. Adding to the publicity stunt argument is the fact that Nelson has been in business for three years and didn't choose to fight for her religious freedom to discriminate until now, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of Louisville's Fairness Ordinance.

Through her widely circulated opinion piece and her now high-profile lawsuit, Chelsey Nelson seems to have found the ultimate loophole for Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance: while it is illegal to discriminate on your website and social media, it’s not illegal to tell the world that you aim to discriminate if you do it under the auspices of filing a lawsuit. 

Perhaps that’s what she was after all along.

For a directory of LGBTQ friendly businesses in Louisville, Kentucky, visit https://www.fairness.org/resources/

Lead image provided by Laura Rhian Photography under Creative Commons.

Log in or register to post comments

213 Comments

Previous comments
michaeljinphoto's picture

A business is not a person. A business holds no religious beliefs. The owners or workers of a business may hold religious beliefs which explains why lots of businesses close on Sunday, but that's different from claiming that a business itself (a non-human legal entity) holds religious beliefs.

Lawrence Jones's picture

If it is a sole proprietorship the business is literally the person.

michaeljinphoto's picture

If this person is personally photographing weddings as a sole proprietor DBA rather than setting up an LLC to shield herself, then she's got an entirely separate set of issues that she should probably sort out.

Lawrence Jones's picture

Business-wise that is true. I was dealing with the comment that "a business is not a person" which may actually not be true depending on the organizational structure.

David Schloss's picture

"No, I doubt the nail salon and candy store close for the same reason. Yes, they're allowed to close when they want, for whatever reason. But in B&H's cases, that reason is due to religion, which contradicts what the OP said. B&H does, in fact, hold certain religious beliefs."

B&H, unlike the woman in this article, does not use their schedule of hours to tell people why they're wrong for not being jewish. They do not tell customers they are adhering to the old testament, and as such they're closed for business. They just close.

They don't have a gentile customer come into the store and tell them they can't be served, and why their religion prevents them from doing business with the customer, nor why they think that customer is a sinner.

They do not post on their website that their religion prohibits them from selling to gentiles, in order to keep those customers from visiting the store.

They're closed on Saturdays.

This woman wants to tell her potential customers in advance that their sexual orientation violates her religion, and she wants to be able to tell them in person that they will not be served because of that orientation.

Again, not the same as being closed on Saturdays.

Simon Patterson's picture

Businesses all have ethics and cultures, which are set by the owners and lead operators. This is unavoidable, whether the owners are religious or not.

When the owners/leaders of a business are genuine Christians, the culture of the business will follow suit. And so, the business can reasonably be classed as a "religious" business, even though I doubt those running it would be likely to class it as such.

Mark Houston's picture

She could move her business outside Jefferson County.

Simon Patterson's picture

If she decided to become a bricklayer instead of a photographer, she could stay in Jefferson County.

Erpillar Bendy's picture

I'm pretty sure Russia would welcome her.

Mr. T's picture

I am very much against discrimination for any reason — but sometimes I find the over-zealous need to abide by a principle for the sake of the principle to be, well, over-zealous.

I will probably attract some flak for this comment, but I cannot see what we gain from forcing a small operator of a non-essential business to operate against that person’s beliefs as long as the refusal is done in a polite and considerate manner, just as I cannot see what somebody would expect to gain by engaging a reluctant person for something so important to them. To take the non-discrimination principle to an extreme, it would also mean that a prostitute could be (should be?) forced to enter into a same-sex transaction if the customer wanted it. That might be controversial, even in countries/counties where prostitution is legal.

Personally I found my first civil partnership photo session (some time before same-sex marriages were allowed in the UK) amazingly business-as-usual with the only difference from any previous wedding I had photographed being that I was taking pictures of two brides instead of a bride and a groom. It was a lot of people, a lot of happiness and a lot of work — and a fun day on top of that.

Wilbur Nelson's picture

This is a bigoted article -- if someone believes they are straying morally by participating, your best bet is to leave them alone; they're not going to put in their best effort. And the notion of a "conscientious objector" is nothing new. If I don't want to shoot a death-metal themed wedding, don't ask for my best edit.

VINICIUS YUZO ZUCARELI's picture

Let people choose what they do with their lives and business.

Even straight people will start avoiding this place when word gets out. They will be out of business very quickly, no need to involve the government.

Once they are under it is less competition for the rest of us.

Deleted Account's picture

Next up, the religious freedom to shoot people.

'Murika.

ri sw's picture

Why is that all the evangelical Christians I actually know are wonderful people but their ministers and thought leaders are always demons straight out of Hell? What was the thinking of the evangelical committee that chose this woman to be the public face of Jesus Christ?

Benoit Pigeon's picture

She is using the ordinance to promote her business within her religious affinity. This stuff may work, but she better be good at it.

ri sw's picture

Oh yeah, and what is "straight-gendered posing"? Photographers are trained to ignore the trimmings and trappings and look at people as shapes; an assemblage of spheres, ellipses, cones, and rods, just as we look at everything else.
So if we're shooting a pair of sphere-column-cone shapes (head-torso-dress) or two sphere-column-rod-rod shapes (head-torso-trouser legs) or a mix, we're going to be doing the same thing: finding pleasing ways to get the two shapes to intertwine.
Or am I missing something?

Timothy Roper's picture

She could just give an excuse if the unthinkable happened, and a gay couple wanted to book her for their wedding (already booked, etc). Or if she's still worried, could put some biblical quotes on her website about homosexuality being a sin. But no, she's an activist who happens to be a photographer, and this story has no relationship to the real world of wedding photography.

Dennis Johnson's picture

as a business owner i can say no to whoever i dont want to serve. its my right.

David Schloss's picture

"as a business owner i can say no to whoever i dont want to serve. its my right" No, actually, it's not.

Dennis Johnson's picture

it is in my country mate, i am not from the US. but please clarify why i am not the boss in my own business and the government can force me to serve a customer.

David Schloss's picture

Sorry, just saw this. The answer is that we have laws that prohibit discrimination here by business owners based on a number of factors.

Since I see you've posted about your business profits in Euro, I'm assuming you're in the EU or do business there. In which case, you can NOT just do whatever you want. And if you're in the EU and you're discriminating in your business you are, in fact, breaking the law.

Here is the EU stance

"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights...

Here's a summary of the EU's workplace discrimination laws.
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1437&langId=en

"EU law bans workplace discrimination on the grounds of age, sex, disability, ethnic or racial origin, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. Equal treatment legislation at EU level sets out minimum levels of protection for everyone working in the EU.

You are entitled to equal treatment in recruitment, working conditions, promotion, pay, access to vocational training, occupational pensions and dismissal.

EU laws mean employers should not discriminate at work, and employees have the right not to be discriminated against."

Dennis Johnson's picture

its not that black and white. you can discriminate if your business case allows for it. a muslim can be denied a job in a jewish school for example. and i can refuse to do business with you, its my right. however when i give a reason (which is stupid) of religion or sexual orientation that would be discrimination and that would be against the law.

jobs. pointing to female quota, diversity politics which are all discrimination in the workplace. it's focused on outcome which is fundamentally bad. giving a job to a woman or a black man instead of a white male because of diversity is discrimination and is not only against the law but against European law and the human rights act. however, it is seen as positive discrimination therefor allowed, which is negative towards the white male. but but but,,......

funny to see that each sentence is legally correct and is contradicting the other sentence.
discrimination is legal, you just need to put the right sticker on it.

would you mind to comment on that ?

michaeljinphoto's picture

My 2 cents. I don't think that you should be allowed to refuse services because the client is gay. I do think that should be allowed to refuse to do a zombie or "Game of Thrones" themed event if you have a problem with them just like you should be allowed to refuse to do a Nazi themed event if that situation came up. One is a protected class and the other isn't.

All this having been said, this seems more like a cry for attention than anything else. I'm not sure how many gay couples would want to hire a photographer that has that much of a problem with gay people in the first place.

I'm genuinely curious, though. For all of the people who want this kind of discrimination to be legal, I wonder how they would feel if the situation was reversed and every liberal company was permitted to refuse to do business with religious conservatives based on their own deeply held beliefs. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Simon Patterson's picture

The rationale here is not that the clients are gay. The rationale is that they are seeking assistance to support something that is against what the photographer believes is sacred, which is the marriage (and perhaps the wedding) itself.

I bet the photographer wouldn't photograph a satanic mass either. It's not that they won't do business with satanists per se, it's the black mass that is the issue, not the satanists themselves.

michaeljinphoto's picture

You could use that type of rationale to justify all sorts of discrimination so where do we draw the line?

Ideally this sort of thing would just resolve itself through communication and common sense without the need for legislation, but here we are... 😒

Simon Patterson's picture

We disciminate throughout our lives, which is usually entirely appropriate. The discussion about where the line should be is worthwhile having in specific cases, including this one. But best not to muddy such conversations with inaccuracies such as claiming someone simply refuses a service because the client is gay.

Dennis Johnson's picture

there is nothing wrong with discrimination (discrimination is making choices) but discriminating against someone based on their skin, religion or otherwise is morally and legally wrong. religion states that gay men should be stoned to death. says both in the christian bible as it does in the quran. so i can see why she doesn't want to service these people based on her religion. its freedom of religion right ? however, i do think its morally wrong to use an argument. just say no and for personal reasons you dont want their business. wouldn't be good images anyway i guess. would you want to do business with someone who hates who you are ?

Simon Patterson's picture

See my initial comment in response to Michael Jin. The discrimination is not that she doesn't want to provide a service to these people because they are gay.

So many people are confused about this, which says to me it is probably important that religious people like this woman *should* give their reasons for declining to shoot particular kinds of events.

Erpillar Bendy's picture

You're the one who is confused. Her problem is totally and completely that the hypothetical clients are gay. It is only gay people's weddings that she is refusing to photograph. Would she photograph a heterosexual couple's civil non-religious wedding? Of course she would.

Simon Patterson's picture

If we take out your attempted mind reading from your comment, you haven't actually said anything at all.

Peter Kay's picture

so a fellow decided to see what would happen if he asked a Muslim baker to make a wedding cake for a SS marriage. the Muslim refused because it went against his religious beliefs but there was no outrage from those on the left

Dave F's picture

If that were true (which it probably isn't because it reads too perfectly for making a stupid point), that doesn't suddenly become a defense of letting other people do it. It just means they should have been called out on it as well. If they weren't, not great, but it's not suddenly vindication for a person or group that HAS been called out for it.

This is a tired argument that's meant as a distraction from the fact that someone is being accused of something that's indefensible. Its primary practitioners are children and politicians.

The Photographer's picture

Im curious how this affected her business. As much as all the noise seems like it will bring her down, im going to guess heterosexuals and christians will support her.

Just curious

Ive shot a lesbian wedding. Not gay though. The one bride, I could tell did not feel comfortable in her skin

Rob Mynard's picture

This sounds like she's just trying to get some advertising to other bigots, and it'll probably work. If she was really just concerned about having to shoot a gay wedding then she could have just answered the enquiries with "I think what you're doing is a sin but if you pay me enough I'll see what I can do" and that should ensure they booked someone else. but then no free advertising.

Abe Halpert's picture

I sympathize with people who genuinely don't want to participate artistically in an event or ceremony. But I sympathize MORE with marginalized communities who face widespread discrimination. If they live in a predominantly-Christian community, then they might be turned down by every photographer around and that would be massively unfair. I also don't understand or believe the biblical basis for anti-LGBTQ discrimination. And I don't think Jesus would look kindly on this bigotry.

tyler h's picture

I don't understand why anyone would want to hire someone who doesn't want to do the job. You know you are not going to get there best work.

Simon Patterson's picture

What happens is that a gay activist couple go to such a business with the intention of being rejected, which enables them to make a complaint. Her legal manouvering is to protect herself from the work of the hard core activists, not the genuine gay couples who simply want wedding photos.

tyler h's picture

I know that. I just hate we even have think about these things. Just another reason I will never photograph weddings, of any kind.

Simon Patterson's picture

I am in exactly the same boat!

Steve Broadwater's picture

This photographer illustrates the problem with today’s “Christians”. Christianity is a religion of love, acceptance, and empathy, Jesus never said to ostracize those different from you, and he never said there was anything wrong with homosexuality. So there are two problems with the photographer’s argument: first, her beliefs are not Christian beliefs; and second, even if they were, in the United States it is illegal to discriminate against others on the basis of religion,or religious beliefs. Obviously, any idiot can proclaim himself to be a Christian; there’s no entity charged with determining who is or who isn’t (sadly). Practically speaking, then, the only rational thing we can do is enforce our prohibitions about discriminating on the basis of religion. This photographer demands the right to do so; if that’s what she really wants, she needs to go live in a country that permits that. We don’t.

Andrew Johnson's picture

lol um the illegality of discrimination based on religion is related to employment, not the offerings of a service from a private entity. Try again?

Deleted Account's picture

Going to use my right of not believing in sky fairies to simply say. FFS.

Timothy Turner's picture

OK so go find an lgbtq photographer instead of trying to make your stupid point, these people don't want equal rights, they want "special" rights

Simon Patterson's picture

Often with these issues, it is not people from the particular minority group who are making the most noise, it is activists who like making noise on "behalf" of minority groups. Plenty of people are quite content to use minority groups to push their own agenda.

Giulio Roman's picture

This reminds me of something we have in my country called "conscientious objection" in health care. In Italy, if you get pregnant (also after sexual violence) and don't want a baby, you can often encounter serious issues to find a public hospital that will allow you to exercise your right to abort the pregnancy.

Joshua Sharf's picture

This is an issue that gets hashed out in many different forums, in newspapers and on websites and on social media and on television. Most of those places are devoted to politics.

I don't come to f-stoppers for politics. I come for discussions about art, gear, and technique. I know this is an important issue to many, but we are going to regret politicizing every last square inch of our lives, if indeed we're not regretting it already.

Dan Grayum's picture

Yea, I kinda regret even getting involved in this one. Just the other day I thoight the same thing. Why does Fstoppers even post these kind of articles?

user 65983's picture

.

Deleted Account's picture

Then leave.

user 65983's picture

.

More comments