| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2012 02:17:43 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I got a shot of you eating imaginary food! ;D |
Would be perfect to enter in the upcoming challenge ... ;-) |
Taken a few years too early I'm afraid, LOL ...  |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 06:49:09 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Hey, if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Duh! But until anyone offers a plausible explanation as to how two people getting married affects the people across the street, outside of parking issues, it's just rude to try to pass of your beliefs to govern their lives. |
And thus we have come full circle to the original post. Here's your plausible explanation. If you don't accept someone else's beliefs, you can get sued.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 06:51:37 PM · #278 |
| It has nothing to do with accepting someone else's beliefs, it's about not discriminating your client base. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 07:45:15 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
It has nothing to do with accepting someone else's beliefs, it's about not discriminating your client base. |
Exactly, I didn't realize homosexuality was a belief. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 08:41:20 PM · #280 |
| The funny thing about this is that everyone keeps saying you're not supposed to push or impose your beliefs on someone else. If I understand this story right the photogrphers went out of their way NOT to bring their beliefs into it. They said they were booked and offered to connect them with someone else, to me they were being sensitive to the feelings of the couple. It was only because the couple decided not to leave well enough alone that this even came out. Nowadays that photogrpher is in the minority, it has become fashionable and politically correct to accept homosexuality and many other photographers would consider it a gem in their portfolio and would have happliy shot the wedding. They could have just shrugged their shoulders and muttered that the photographer was a bigot and gone somewhere else. You can't convince me that the money and resources wasted on this case benefits anyone other than the lawyers and the couples own sense of self righteousness. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 08:59:12 PM · #281 |
"I'm not going to sell you my townhouse. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. My neighbor, Jack, is a homophobe, though, and he'd never forgive me if I sold it to you. But look, a quarter mile up the road is another complex that already HAS half a dozen gay owners; you'd be happier there. There's nothing personal about this; you seem like a nice couple but we have to be practical here."
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 20:59:42. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 10:30:48 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"I'm not going to sell you my townhouse. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. My neighbor, Jack, is a homophobe, though, and he'd never forgive me if I sold it to you. But look, a quarter mile up the road is another complex that already HAS half a dozen gay owners; you'd be happier there. There's nothing personal about this; you seem like a nice couple but we have to be practical here." |
Nice, but this would work better:
"I'd love to sell you my townhouse, the son of a gun next door is the biggest asshole and homophobe I've ever seen, this is gonna piss him off so much!!! Seriously, I'll even give you a good discount, I just really want you to move in here."
The joke is that discrimination like this will continue for at least some time to come - unfortunately we really do have a bad habit of only punishing the honest, as the more deceptive folks can discriminate all they want as long as they do it cleverly. Sad, but true.
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 23:23:31. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 10:32:03 PM · #283 |
I think what's generally being missed in the case is the massive collision between two important philosophical values of our society. One, the freedom from discrimination, and, two, the freedom of conscience. And although this particular case has been decided, I think I will choose the middle ground and say those who feel one of the values trumps the other in all circumstances is not viewing it, IMO, clearly.
Wasn't there already another similar lawsuit in New Mexico along the same lines? It seems ironic they are both in a state that does not even recognize the status of a gay marriage. I know it's not necessary to the case. It's just ironic. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:01:54 PM · #284 |
This is an honest scenario, so I'm only looking for thoughtful responses. Sometimes it's interesting to take the principle of the case and reapply it to other scenarios.
What if the marriage couple was a 63 year old man who is the charismatic leader of a local cult. His bride-to-be will be one day over the age of consent. While she tells you she is excited to be married, she avoids eye contact and generally acts skittish and uncomfortably. Could you turn this wedding down based on your conscience without jeopardizing a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination? The details of why you are uncomfortable (the age difference and the seeming reluctance of the bride) are deeply entwined in the particulars of their religious system.
What would be the defining principle that would protect the gay ceremony and allow you out of this one? |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:07:09 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"I'm not going to sell you my townhouse. Personally, I don't care if you're gay. My neighbor, Jack, is a homophobe, though, and he'd never forgive me if I sold it to you. But look, a quarter mile up the road is another complex that already HAS half a dozen gay owners; you'd be happier there. There's nothing personal about this; you seem like a nice couple but we have to be practical here." |
I understand what you're getting at Robert but isn't that a completly different scenario than offering a public service? |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:08:00 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is an honest scenario, so I'm only looking for thoughtful responses. Sometimes it's interesting to take the principle of the case and reapply it to other scenarios.
What if the marriage couple was a 63 year old man who is the charismatic leader of a local cult. His bride-to-be will be one day over the age of consent. While she tells you she is excited to be married, she avoids eye contact and generally acts skittish and uncomfortably. Could you turn this wedding down based on your conscience without jeopardizing a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination? The details of why you are uncomfortable (the age difference and the seeming reluctance of the bride) are deeply entwined in the particulars of their religious system.
What would be the defining principle that would protect the gay ceremony and allow you out of this one? |
I don't see that there would be anything to let you out of the second one either. We should, however, consider that there is a trendiness to gay rights at the moment, so that almost certainly played into this whole thing.
Personally I'd take both jobs, and do my best for both clients. My rates for photography are far below my rates for consulting, unless they're paying me to consult them, I'm just taking the pictures and leaving it at that, as it's not my job to fix their lives - they can live it however they'd like, mistakes and all, and I'll provide high quality visual memories of it.
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 23:09:03. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:12:10 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
I understand what you're getting at Robert but isn't that a completly different scenario than offering a public service? |
Well, my point is THAT scenario is blatantly illegal, and whether or not the seller's religion condones homosexuality is irrelevant. It's not so much a stretch to see the need to extend the principle downstream a ways.
Bottom line: we can't justify discrimination based on religious teachings. Period. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:25:01 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bottom line: we can't justify discrimination based on religious teachings. Period. |
Do you think there are justifiable justifications for discrimination that are not based on religious teachings? |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:40:01 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bottom line: we can't justify discrimination based on religious teachings. Period. |
The period isn't quite as final as it seems. I know you are aware, but the courts have defended the right of discrimination based on religious teachings when it comes to hiring and firing within a religious organization or their ancillary services. Just pointing it out. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:44:09 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bottom line: we can't justify discrimination based on religious teachings. Period. |
The period isn't quite as final as it seems. I know you are aware, but the courts have defended the right of discrimination based on religious teachings when it comes to hiring and firing within a religious organization or their ancillary services. Just pointing it out. |
I disapprove. Not that it matters. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 11:54:17 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you think there are justifiable justifications for discrimination that are not based on religious teachings? |
In the narrow sense that the "discrimination" we are talking about is against a group or class of people, no. |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 01:36:24 AM · #292 |
| What's your take on the cult marriage scenario, Robert? Do you think it's just whistling Dixie? That there is some crucial delineator between the two? |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 05:06:50 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bottom line: we can't justify discrimination based on religious teachings. Period. |
The period isn't quite as final as it seems. I know you are aware, but the courts have defended the right of discrimination based on religious teachings when it comes to hiring and firing within a religious organization or their ancillary services. Just pointing it out. |
...You do understand the differences between these scenarios right? One is restricted to activities within the organization whilst the other deals with service to the general public.
I also seem to recall that some religious organizations are getting out of the adoption process because they were no longer allowed to discriminate against gays... a factor which seemingly addresses the very issue you bring to the fore.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 06:27:40 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is an honest scenario, so I'm only looking for thoughtful responses. Sometimes it's interesting to take the principle of the case and reapply it to other scenarios.
What if the marriage couple was a 63 year old man who is the charismatic leader of a local cult. His bride-to-be will be one day over the age of consent. While she tells you she is excited to be married, she avoids eye contact and generally acts skittish and uncomfortably. Could you turn this wedding down based on your conscience without jeopardizing a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination? The details of why you are uncomfortable (the age difference and the seeming reluctance of the bride) are deeply entwined in the particulars of their religious system.
What would be the defining principle that would protect the gay ceremony and allow you out of this one? |
I don't see that there would be anything to let you out of the second one either. We should, however, consider that there is a trendiness to gay rights at the moment, so that almost certainly played into this whole thing.
Personally I'd take both jobs, and do my best for both clients. My rates for photography are far below my rates for consulting, unless they're paying me to consult them, I'm just taking the pictures and leaving it at that, as it's not my job to fix their lives - they can live it however they'd like, mistakes and all, and I'll provide high quality visual memories of it. |
Cory is right here.
i wouldn't go so far as to say its trendy, but more and more gays are pressing for equal rights and standing firm when then can (and should be btw...)
if this is the same case i read about before, part of the ruling was based on the fact that a photographer provides a service to the public, and when you do that you are not allowed to discriminate, you are not allowed to allow your beliefs and morals to decide whether you take a job. You have to accept them all if on equal grounds.
In Roberts scenario I'm not sure if you are allowed to discriminate while performing a sale of your own goods, you may be, i dont know.
this isn't just about photography, think if you were the caterer or the DJ, how about florist? hell lets say you had to go to their home, what you were a plumber, or electrician? how about a roofer, every single one of those folks has a service to provide to any customer that enlists them. You are not allowed to discriminate. You can argue what if and what nots all day, you cant do it.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2012 11:10:40 AM · #295 |
I'm not arguing it mike. I'm asking if this would be a similar case but with a different class of protected citizen.
Ray, I understand. I just got through saying neither value (protection of discrimination and freedom of conscience) always trumped the other and Robert's statement disagreed with it. I was just pointing out the caveat to Robert's position.
Message edited by author 2012-11-02 11:16:46. |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 11:21:20 AM · #296 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm asking if this would be a similar case but with a different class of protected citizen.
|
for consistency it should be, but with our legal system, who really knows... |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 12:26:10 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think what's generally being missed in the case is the massive collision between two important philosophical values of our society. One, the freedom from discrimination, and, two, the freedom of conscience. |
So Doc, what if the photographer's "conscience" said that interracial couples shouldn't get married? Should the photographer have the right to turn down the job then?
As far as the cult scenario, are you really trying to compare two loving adults getting married with abuse and borderline pedophilia? Regardless, if I were a professional wedding photographer and the wedding was legal, I'd hold my nose and do the job. If the girl were underage, however, I'd also call social services, and report what I saw to them. |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 12:36:02 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What if the marriage couple was a 63 year old man who is the charismatic leader of a local cult. His bride-to-be will be one day over the age of consent. While she tells you she is excited to be married, she avoids eye contact and generally acts skittish and uncomfortably. Could you turn this wedding down based on your conscience without jeopardizing a lawsuit based upon religious discrimination? The details of why you are uncomfortable (the age difference and the seeming reluctance of the bride) are deeply entwined in the particulars of their religious system.
What would be the defining principle that would protect the gay ceremony and allow you out of this one? |
I'd do whatever I had to in order to raise consciousness of what was going on in the cult scenario. Whatever I could do to make a big, splashy, noisy scene. Just because this young woman is over the age of consent doesn't mean she isn't under his thrall. Too many kids are ruined, hurt, and killed by these predators. Granted, it may be under the guise of religion, but in most cases, it is a pedophile who has found a twisted loophole to prey on young women....and young men, too.
Yeah, I'd prolly get my @$$ in serious hot water, but having seen firsthand from people I've known what can happen in cults, I'd risk it.
Crap......I guess that means I'm one of "those" who would impose his will on others.
Sorry.......REALLY hate pedophiles...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2012 12:54:48 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think what's generally being missed in the case is the massive collision between two important philosophical values of our society. One, the freedom from discrimination, and, two, the freedom of conscience. |
So Doc, what if the photographer's "conscience" said that interracial couples shouldn't get married? Should the photographer have the right to turn down the job then?
As far as the cult scenario, are you really trying to compare two loving adults getting married with abuse and borderline pedophilia? Regardless, if I were a professional wedding photographer and the wedding was legal, I'd hold my nose and do the job. If the girl were underage, however, I'd also call social services, and report what I saw to them. |
Good question. I thought of this too. I'm actually trying to decide if refusing an interracial marriage would actually be prosecutable. What is the protected class? Race? Let's assume the interracial couple is black and white and you have plenty of examples where you shoot all-white weddings and all-black weddings. Could it be convincingly shown that you are discriminating against a race (protected) or just that you are discriminating against an activity, interracial marriage (not protected)? Remember, you can discriminate all you want as long as it isn't one of a select few protected classes. In the New Mexico case, I would think the problem is that you are discriminating against having gay clients rather than discriminating against shooting an actual gay ceremony (it wasn't likely even a "wedding" as that wouldn't be recognized in New Mexico).
As far as comparing the two scenarios, don't go getting all upset. I'm applying a principle to different situations and seeing what the outcome would be. Personally, I am actually similar to Jeb in this situation (egad!) where my own values are too strong for me to just "hold my nose". I'd probably get in trouble and, thus, it makes me uncomfortable to think the government is in the business of telling me what to do. Between the two scenarios the cult wedding would creep me out far more than the same-sex ceremony.
I really wouldn't want to shoot the cult wedding (the seeming coercive nature of it would be too much) and would look for every possible means to get out of it. Would I shoot a same-sex ceremony? I probably would, but only after explaining that I have personal values that conflict with their ceremony and asking them if they are comfortable with that fact. I would think the majority of people would respect that and look elsewhere or have me help them find someone else.
Message edited by author 2012-11-02 13:07:04. |
|
|
|
11/02/2012 01:06:29 PM · #300 |
What if someone refused to shoot my wedding, because I was white?
I'm betting I'd have one hell of a time getting any traction on a prosecution. |
|
