DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Court rules against Christian photographer
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 286, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/08/2012 10:37:38 PM · #1
If this thread is drying up, I hesitate to add this bit of information...
but still,

In Nice, France, along the drive (Promenade des Anglais) near the water's edge, there's a pretty beach.
Between the road and the beach, the ladies go topless. The other side of the drive? They cover up.
06/08/2012 09:03:27 PM · #2
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by kirbic:

I'm surprised at the state of "topless law." I guess I hadn't kept abreast of the situation!


You are such a boob....

If you're going to keep milking this thread for humorous references, I guess I have to say that my first thought was of the old Bob Hope song "Thanks For The Mammaries" ... :-(
06/08/2012 08:43:12 PM · #3
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. ...


YOu really ought to visit this part of the world Doc... perfectly legal for women to walk about without a shirt here.

Mind you, since they won that case in court, I haven't seen one avail herself of that right.

Ray


Yes, I thought it was quite ridiculous when different groups (funny enough, many of them religious) were crying out how this change in the laws would have women everywhere flaunting themselves. Oh, the children, how can we let this happen to them...etc, etc.

I remember looking at my wife and saying, "yeah, because it's only that pesky law that makes women keep their shirts on". I thought it was a such a stupid thing for anyone to think that most, or even any significant number of women would simply overcome years of cultural conditioning simply because a judge said it was OK.
06/06/2012 10:29:49 PM · #4
Originally posted by kirbic:

I'm surprised at the state of "topless law." I guess I hadn't kept abreast of the situation!


You are such a boob....
06/06/2012 10:23:05 PM · #5
I'm surprised at the state of "topless law." I guess I hadn't kept abreast of the situation!
06/06/2012 10:17:24 PM · #6
Originally posted by scalvert:


"In New York City, it's completely legal for women to bare their breasts in public thanks to a 1992 court decision to reverse laws punishing female toplessness because they violated New York's equal protection clauses."


Actually all of New York , the protest occurred in my hometown.
//rocwiki.org/Rochester_Topfree_Seven
06/06/2012 09:56:08 PM · #7
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think the court has previously said there are times when the genders are treated differently and it is within the state's interests to do so. Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. I think most people here would actually say there isn't much compelling reason for the state to regulate public nudity, but yet they specifically ruled on this in the 90s.

"In New York City, it's completely legal for women to bare their breasts in public thanks to a 1992 court decision to reverse laws punishing female toplessness because they violated New York's equal protection clauses."


Interesting. I came across it in the 1991 SCOTUS decision concerning a topless club in Indiana. Like most things in this country it appears to be a patchwork of conflicting and contradictory rulings.
06/06/2012 08:32:47 PM · #8
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think the court has previously said there are times when the genders are treated differently and it is within the state's interests to do so. Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. I think most people here would actually say there isn't much compelling reason for the state to regulate public nudity, but yet they specifically ruled on this in the 90s.

"In New York City, it's completely legal for women to bare their breasts in public thanks to a 1992 court decision to reverse laws punishing female toplessness because they violated New York's equal protection clauses."
06/06/2012 07:08:53 PM · #9
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. ...


YOu really ought to visit this part of the world Doc... perfectly legal for women to walk about without a shirt here.

Mind you, since they won that case in court, I haven't seen one avail herself of that right.

Ray

i saw one on parlement hill on canada day, the year that passed. thats all... :(
06/06/2012 06:45:29 PM · #10
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. ...


YOu really ought to visit this part of the world Doc... perfectly legal for women to walk about without a shirt here.

Mind you, since they won that case in court, I haven't seen one avail herself of that right.

Ray


Didn't you read it's legal in my little neck of the woods as well? But, as one of my nurses said, there's an "inverse nudity law". The less likely you would want to see them naked, the more likely they will be.
06/06/2012 06:28:29 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. ...


YOu really ought to visit this part of the world Doc... perfectly legal for women to walk about without a shirt here.

Mind you, since they won that case in court, I haven't seen one avail herself of that right.

Ray
06/06/2012 06:24:48 PM · #12
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


[x] Unrelated to co-applicant


Given that the only reason to not allow intra-family marriage is the risks of genetic deformity, why limit who non breeding couples can marry? If two brothers want to marry, why stop them?


LOL. That was definitely covered in the 30,000 post thread. It caused an uproar and bad feelings and poison. Let's not go there again. ;)

Paul seems to have a future as a federal lawyer. :) I actually think his argument makes some sense. OTOH, I think the court has previously said there are times when the genders are treated differently and it is within the state's interests to do so. Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. I think most people here would actually say there isn't much compelling reason for the state to regulate public nudity, but yet they specifically ruled on this in the 90s. Anyway, I guess it would be an example where applying Paul's "gender rule" wouldn't actually give you the same answer the courts do. Sure, nobody can walk around naked, but only women can't walk around with their chest exposed. (actually here in egalitarian Eugene it's legal, but I've only come across it once. Almost caused a fender bender.)

But this is getting way down a rabbit hole...

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 18:27:21.
06/06/2012 06:02:25 PM · #13
Originally posted by chazoe:

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

I don't understand what about homosexuality is so reprehensible.

Why are people intolerant towards homosexuals?
Why do members of society want to stop homosexuals from marrying?
How would allowing homosexuals to marry affect any facet of your life?

Remember it wasn't long ago homosexuals could have been replaced with African Americans in your country. I see this as being no different.

CS

You say "your country" as if racism never existed outside of the US. Please tell us how that is.


You might want to read that again, take into consideration that he is from Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for many years and then, you might understand where he is coming from.

His primary point is the issue of that of same sex marriage and his comparison is what prevailed regarding African Americans in the USA.

Not quite the same spin is it?

Ray
06/06/2012 05:58:44 PM · #14
Originally posted by GeneralE:


[x] Unrelated to co-applicant


Given that the only reason to not allow intra-family marriage is the risks of genetic deformity, why limit who non breeding couples can marry? If two brothers want to marry, why stop them?
06/06/2012 05:52:21 PM · #15
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Am I missing something?

IMO the lawyers who have argued these cases have missed something ... ;-)

Opera companies and orchestras hold their auditions with the applicant behind a screen, so that identity or appearance play no role in the judges' evaluation. Applicants for legal (not "sanctified") marriage should only have to meet a standard set of requirements:

[x] Currently unmarried
[x] Adult/emancipated
[x] Mentally competent
[x] Unrelated to co-applicant
[n/a] Gender
06/06/2012 04:40:30 PM · #16
Originally posted by rooum:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger.


That damn Judy Garland!! *raises fist at air*


LOL.
06/06/2012 04:35:15 PM · #17
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger.


That damn Judy Garland!! *raises fist at air*
06/06/2012 04:32:28 PM · #18
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't.


I don't quite get what your are saying. What do you mean by similarly-situated?

Don't be naive ... I mean any two competent, unrelated, unmarried adult citizens who wish to marry each other.

It's not even a matter of sexual practices at all -- it's simple gender discrimination, something already ruled unconstitutional.

Imagine three (single, competent, etc.) people, John, Joan, and Amy. John asks the marriage license bureau "Can I marry Joan?" and is told "Sure." Then Amy asks if she can marry Joan and is told she cannot, the sole reason being that she is a woman. That seems to me simple discrimination based on gender. What kind (if any) sexual practices might be engaged in was never an issue in the first case -- AFAIK "having relations" is not a state-mandated requirement for issuance of a license -- why should they be of any more concern (to the state) than in the first case?

In case you forget you history of western civilization, the record is replete with instances of marriages of political expediency, monetary gain, or a variety of other reasons unrelated to romantic love or procreation.


I understand your argument, although I don't think your gender discrimination holds because, as far as I know, no court that has ever ruled on this issue in specific has mentioned such an argument. Am I missing something?
06/06/2012 04:28:26 PM · #19
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic.

By your little flipping game, this also means that homosexuality is partially environmental, but not completely (and not a choice either way).


I don't disagree with this at all, except I would say that there are probably cases where it WAS a choice. The study wouldn't rule that possibility out. I don't think that's common though.

I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger. That makes the most sense to me.
06/06/2012 04:15:07 PM · #20
Good summary, Paul.
06/06/2012 04:08:13 PM · #21
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't.


I don't quite get what your are saying. What do you mean by similarly-situated?

Don't be naive ... I mean any two competent, unrelated, unmarried adult citizens who wish to marry each other.

It's not even a matter of sexual practices at all -- it's simple gender discrimination, something already ruled unconstitutional.

Imagine three (single, competent, etc.) people, John, Joan, and Amy. John asks the marriage license bureau "Can I marry Joan?" and is told "Sure." Then Amy asks if she can marry Joan and is told she cannot, the sole reason being that she is a woman. That seems to me simple discrimination based on gender. What kind (if any) sexual practices might be engaged in was never an issue in the first case -- AFAIK "having relations" is not a state-mandated requirement for issuance of a license -- why should they be of any more concern (to the state) than in the first case?

In case you forget you history of western civilization, the record is replete with instances of marriages of political expediency, monetary gain, or a variety of other reasons unrelated to romantic love or procreation.
06/06/2012 04:05:38 PM · #22
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic.

By your little flipping game, this also means that homosexuality is partially environmental, but not completely (and not a choice either way).
06/06/2012 04:03:18 PM · #23
Originally posted by rooum:

I believe that it is something we are born with, something that is ingrained and a part of our identity. So, with that belief, it is very easy for me to equate the discrimination against LGBT people with that of racial discrimination.


Here in lies the legal issue of if it is allowable to discriminate against homosexuals. It is not legal to discriminate against an inborn trait, while it is legal to discriminate against a behavior. You can't bar based on skin type, but you can based on footwear.

If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a behavior. That is the belief of certain religious people. So it is grouped with polygamy. They see it as a "life-style" choice.

If sexual orientation is something you are born with, then it is an inborn trait. This is the belief of proponents of gay marriage, so banning gay marriage is grouped with racism. They see bans as discriminating against a group who had no choice of their inclusion in that group.

Society as a whole is moving towards seeing homosexuality as a normal inborn variant on genetic outcome, away from being a sexual perversion, indulged in by choice. When genetic studies return some solid evidence one way or another ( and most of the science has been coming down on the determinist side), then the law will be easy to make, but right now it is in a state of flux.
06/06/2012 04:02:46 PM · #24
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One can say you cannot "marry" someone of your own sex whether you are hetero or gay. You can't do it for love. You can't do it so they can get a green card. You can't do it for any reason and it doesn't matter who you are.

Wrong. From your link on the current case: "The court also noted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), where she rejected Texas's argument that the Homosexual Conduct Law, outlawing same-sex conduct, did not discriminate based on sexual orientation because it would also be violated by same-sex conduct involving straight men or straight women. Finding that the law targeted "conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual," Justice O'Connor concluded that it was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OR you could argue the other way and say only one particular religious group in our country wants to be polygamous. Mormons. You are now discriminating against them as a group. They view marriage in a certain way and you are saying that way isn't valid.

Wrong again. Mormons are not a protected minority, but one religion among thousands, and the Supreme Court ruled that the law prohibiting bigamy did not restrict free exercise of religion.

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 16:06:11.
06/06/2012 03:49:03 PM · #25
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

the best studies say it's partially genetic but not completely (which doesn't make it a choice, but rather environmental).

The best studies?


Yes. Versus the worst studies. :) I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:18:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:18:45 PM EDT.