Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.
I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.
I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.
When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.
p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.