| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2008 02:59:24 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I guess I fall in the middle of this somewhere and can see both sides. What if it were a black couple, and the photographer said that they only shoot white weddings? Would you consider that grounds for discrimination? Surely you would( I hope). There is really little difference, at least imo. Now I completely agree that I wouldn't want someone to take my wedding photos who didn't feel comfortable, for whatever reason, and would move on to the next photographer. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought. |
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is.
Regardless, yes, the photographer should be free to choose not to photographer black, white, red, yellow as well. It's a private contract, the photographer is not running a public store. |
As the others have stated, you really think people choose to be gay? That's ridiculous. Just for giggles, if they can find a gene that points to a person being gay, you will be the first to champion their rights then right?
As to the other statement, any business that has a private contract, i.e lawyers, contractors, loan companies, Realtors, etc. should all be excluded from anti-discrimination laws? Discrimination is wrong whether it be in the private or public sector. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:10:56 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I guess I fall in the middle of this somewhere and can see both sides. What if it were a black couple, and the photographer said that they only shoot white weddings? Would you consider that grounds for discrimination? Surely you would( I hope). There is really little difference, at least imo. Now I completely agree that I wouldn't want someone to take my wedding photos who didn't feel comfortable, for whatever reason, and would move on to the next photographer. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought. |
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is.
Regardless, yes, the photographer should be free to choose not to photographer black, white, red, yellow as well. It's a private contract, the photographer is not running a public store. |
As the others have stated, you really think people choose to be gay? That's ridiculous. Just for giggles, if they can find a gene that points to a person being gay, you will be the first to champion their rights then right?
As to the other statement, any business that has a private contract, i.e lawyers, contractors, loan companies, Realtors, etc. should all be excluded from anti-discrimination laws? Discrimination is wrong whether it be in the private or public sector. |
Yes, as I clearly spelled out, homosexual acts are a choice. If a "gene" is found it would only be to prove my point that you may be born with a stronger desire or propensity to be weak in that regard. No more, no less.
As to the so-called discrimination. You're wrong (with all due respect). A lawyer can choose his clients. A contractor is the same situation as a photographer. Realtors too. Any service based profession. A loan company is a public facing entity. The company should not refused service as I said.
There are countless other photographers, lawyers, realtors (people, not offices) to turn to. But as someone else said... just don't disclose your preference.
I would have no problem based on race... and in some situations dealing with people living a gay lifestyle.
As a web developer, if a client was "gay" and wanted to make a website for his/her automotive shop, mainstream bookstore, flower shop, clothing store, etc... Wouldn't care a hill of beans. If they wanted to hire me to design a site promoting their lifestyle or agenda, then that I would have every right to refuse. Same thing with Obama... if he wanted me to make a site for him (wouldn't, but this is what if), I would turn him down flat. Not because he's black, but because I don't support his policies.
So for something like gay "marriage" where there is an intertwined political statement or endorsement for a controversial issue, then no... the photographer is 110% correct and within her rights to turn down the work. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:13:27 PM · #178 |
Oh, forget it. *walks off muttering*
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 15:15:40. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:20:46 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
the photographer should be free to choose not to photographer black, white, red, yellow as well. It's a private contract, the photographer is not running a public store. |
Your ignorance of science is only rivaled by your ignorance of law. If you hung out a sign that read, "Wedding Photographer– Whites Only," private contract or not, you would lose that lawsuit.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by milo655321:
How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? (I'm assuming you are heterosexual.) |
I did not. Every single person is born that way. Just like we're all born to breathe air. |
People don't choose to breathe air. You breathe or you die. Preference (sexual or otherwise) is just that- a preference, and you might as well abolish kissing on the same grounds. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:22:26 PM · #180 |
| Homosexuality is as much a choice as skin colour. Are homosexual people lying when they say so? Acting on one's homosexuality by having sex with men or women (as the case may be) is as natural as acting on one's propensity to religiosity by praying, attending church, or condemning others. I suppose in both these cases, one could resist the urge to do what comes naturally, but to what purpose? |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:23:06 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
If a "gene" is found it would only be to prove my point that you may be born with a stronger desire or propensity to be weak in that regard. No more, no less. |
Genetic proof of sexual orientation only reinforces your belief that it's not genetic. ROFL! |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:33:18 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
the photographer should be free to choose not to photographer black, white, red, yellow as well. It's a private contract, the photographer is not running a public store. |
Your ignorance of science is only rivaled by your ignorance of law. If you hung out a sign that read, "Wedding Photographer– Whites Only," private contract or not, you would lose that lawsuit.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by milo655321:
How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? (I'm assuming you are heterosexual.) |
I did not. Every single person is born that way. Just like we're all born to breathe air. |
People don't choose to breathe air. You breathe or you die. Preference (sexual or otherwise) is just that- a preference, and you might as well abolish kissing on the same grounds. |
Heterosexual is not a preference, you missed that important part of the conversation.
And I clearly said if there was a storefront situation requesting public patronage, it's a different matter entirely. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:33:55 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Homosexuality is as much a choice as skin colour. Are homosexual people lying when they say so? Acting on one's homosexuality by having sex with men or women (as the case may be) is as natural as acting on one's propensity to religiosity by praying, attending church, or condemning others. I suppose in both these cases, one could resist the urge to do what comes naturally, but to what purpose? |
You seem to be the one condemning. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:34:36 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
If a "gene" is found it would only be to prove my point that you may be born with a stronger desire or propensity to be weak in that regard. No more, no less. |
Genetic proof of sexual orientation only reinforces your belief that it's not genetic. ROFL! |
Genetic proof of weakness does not validate actions. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 04:01:47 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Heterosexual is not a preference, you missed that important part of the conversation. |
Neither is homosexual. You just refuse to accept it. My grandmother felt the same way about my left-handedness and tried to "correct" it.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And I clearly said if there was a storefront situation requesting public patronage, it's a different matter entirely. |
Legally, it's not. Racial discrimination does not suddenly become legal if you practice it quietly.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 16:22:39. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 04:06:39 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Genetic proof of weakness does not validate actions. |
Ever wear sunscreen? |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 04:51:17 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Genetic proof of weakness does not validate actions. |
Ever wear sunscreen? |
No. The sun is good for you. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 04:52:00 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Heterosexual is not a preference, you missed that important part of the conversation. |
Neither is homosexual. You just refuse to accept it. My grandmother felt the same way about my left-handedness and tried to "correct" it. |
I've given a logical discourse on the matter. You respond with "uh-huh". Nice tactic dude.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 16:52:43. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 05:00:33 PM · #189 |
| Sorry, but "homosexuality is a choice" is not logical discourse. You are offering a mere opinion without supporting evidence, nothing more. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 05:30:34 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
you missed that important part of the conversation. |
I've given a logical discourse on the matter. |
I must have missed that part, too. All I saw was an assertion that was no more logical than my grandmother telling me it's unnatural to be left-handed. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 05:34:30 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
you missed that important part of the conversation. |
I've given a logical discourse on the matter. |
I must have missed that part, too. All I saw was an assertion that was no more logical than my grandmother telling me it's unnatural to be left-handed. |
And that was the same as what you offered... but with no rhyme or reason to back your view up.
Just your opinion.
You really have no debate skills do you? You just insult. Sad for you. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 06:01:10 PM · #192 |
Everybody has a bit of gay in them, even straight guys. They're just better at hiding it.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 06:13:38 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by JH:
Everybody has a bit of gay in them, even straight guys. They're just better at hiding it. |
?? explain please. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 06:33:53 PM · #194 |
| He means to suggest that everyone is essentially bisexual. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 06:42:40 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Louis:
He means to suggest that everyone is essentially bisexual. |
Yes, that's my belief. I suggested it in a humorous way.
People need to lighten up about this, what I'm reading is virulent. Why does anybody feel the need to judge people by their own moral standards?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 06:43:31 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Louis:
He means to suggest that everyone is essentially bisexual. |
Don't know if I buy that but would be interested to see some studies on this subject. That would then leave the door open for homosexuality being a choice and not necessarily an innate trait, where nurture may play more a role than nature. Maybe a mixture of both would be somewhat more realistic. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 07:29:10 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Nice tactic dude. |
Is the presentation of factual or logical evidence contrary to your bald statement really just a "tactic" to your mind?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 08:01:55 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
He means to suggest that everyone is essentially bisexual. |
Don't know if I buy that but would be interested to see some studies on this subject. That would then leave the door open for homosexuality being a choice and not necessarily an innate trait.... |
That would also mean that heterosexuality is also a choice, and not an innate trait.
For reference, consider the Kinsey scale. Anecdotally, I believe sex researchers now feel there are no "exclusives" at either end of that scale.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 08:18:00 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
You really have no debate skills do you? You just insult. Sad for you. |
I wasn't the one who said, "You respond with "uh-huh". Nice tactic dude," and you haven't offered anything resembling real logic (or even a debate).
You claim that everyone is heterosexual, but offer nothing to back that up, just as my grandmother claimed everyone was right-handed (that was a rebuttal you ignored BTW). Both claims are opinions, nothing more. Just as right or left-handedness is likely determined by genetics, so too is sexual preference, and just because you "could" choose to use a particular hand doesn't mean it isn't perfectly natural or normal for others to prefer the opposite hand (or both). It's not because the person is overriding some universally natural tendency, but because that *IS* their natural tendency.
Oh, and as repeatedly pointed out, your, "certain body parts are only meant for one thing" argument is utter hogwash unless you don't urinate, or only use your mouth for talking, eating, expression, breathing, taste, sex, self-defense, blowing bubbles, whistling, or prying the caps off beer bottles. One could argue that you're sticking your nose where IT doesn't belong! Your argument that homosexuality can't be a natural evolutionary trait because it doesn't lead to procreation is equally bogus because neither does ED (found in roughly the same percentage of the population). Your "logic" doesn't even stand up to plain old common sense. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 02:51:57 AM · #200 |
nice goin guys... you found a way to ressurect the gay marriage thread without making it obvious.
I have given a lot of thought to the gay situation and I cannot wholeheartedly believe that it is simply a choice to be attracted to anyone. I cannot choose to be attracted to men and I would have to think that I could not choose to be attracted to women if I were gay. That being said it is definitely not normal to be gay regardless of how it comes about whether genetic, nurture, or some combination. I do not think that this means that people should be discriminated against because they are not 'normal' but then neither should people be forced to participate in things which they deem to be against their religious beliefs. A business person who deals in things which do not involve basic necessities such as photography should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. For instance i shouldn't be compelled to accept a photography assignment from OJ Simpson even if I would from anyone else otherwise. I believe him to be a murderer even though he was acquitted. There will be many who will take his money but I would not. It is the same with this situation with the commitment ceremony. Many will want that assignment even if some will choose to reject the assignment. I think unless the refusal of the assignment completely denies the service requested then they should have no claim against the photographer for choosing to turn the assignment down. In other words there has to be a serious harm done.
And before someone decides to hammer me as anti-gay I am not comparing being a murderer with being gay as the same morally. It's just an example of a situation in which I would turn down a prospective client.
|
|
