| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2008 12:29:22 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
My biggest problem with homosexuality is that its very self contradicting. For example, if you don't believe that God created the earth then you pretty much have to go with evolution. The problem with that mix is that homosexuality is completely against the evolutionary principle. There is no way for them to pass down there bloodline without the other sex being involved.
If you were to have a world full of lesbians, a world full of gay men and, a world full of straight male and females. The mixed gender world is going to be the ONLY one of the three to not die off in one generation. Does anyone see what I'm saying? |
Yes, but your error lies in your assumption that evolutionary programming would be simply to reproduce in order to maximize the population. It's not true. I've seen studies (no, I don't have a link, it's been quite some time since I read them) where other species, when confronted with overpopulation, adopt behaviors similar to what we would call homosexuality. That would suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary tool to deal with overpopulation. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:34:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
It may also come to more a business solution than you are thinking. A future client might be turned away because they were uncomfortable with a past shoot the artist did. I would feel wierd looking at a portfolio with that in it.
on another note....
My biggest problem with homosexuality is that its very self contradicting. For example, if you don't believe that God created the earth then you pretty much have to go with evolution. The problem with that mix is that homosexuality is completely against the evolutionary principle. There is no way for them to pass down there bloodline without the other sex being involved.
If you were to have a world full of lesbians, a world full of gay men and, a world full of straight male and females. The mixed gender world is going to be the ONLY one of the three to not die off in one generation. Does anyone see what I'm saying? |
Yes I see that you are scared of different. Not just gay but different. Also your logic could just as easily be used against vegetarians. Evolution has given human beings canine teeth, eyes placed on the front side of out head, and the need for 22 specific amino acids (all found in red meat). All of these were evolved to help us catch, eat and digest meat! Maybe we should all say that is wrong also! Sounds stupid doesn't it...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 01:09:59 PM · #28 |
For those interested in the legal basis:
order by New Mexico Human Rights Commission
the pertinent section of the law (see section (f))
FWIW, it is my opinion that the photographer clearly broke NM laws. While it might seem fair that she should be able to chose clients as she sees fit, she made the mistake of revealing her illegal reasons for refusing the shoot in an email which spelled out her reasons, which were clearly because of her feelings about homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 01:21:17 PM · #29 |
Why did she not just say she didn't have an opening on that day? duh
Does this mean that whatever bride we turn down can sue us?? eek! |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 01:29:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
on another note....
My biggest problem with homosexuality is that its very self contradicting. For example, if you don't believe that God created the earth then you pretty much have to go with evolution. The problem with that mix is that homosexuality is completely against the evolutionary principle. There is no way for them to pass down there bloodline without the other sex being involved.
If you were to have a world full of lesbians, a world full of gay men and, a world full of straight male and females. The mixed gender world is going to be the ONLY one of the three to not die off in one generation. Does anyone see what I'm saying? |
Here is a quote from a TV show that I think responds to this rather poetically
I think God appreciates it even more. Because He created you in His image, at least that̢۪s what I was always taught. And since God is love and God doesn̢۪t make mistakes, then you must be exactly the way He wants you to be, the way He intended you to be. And that goes for every person, every planet, every mountain, every grain of sand, every song, every tear, and every homosexual. We̢۪re all His, and He loves us all.
As part of the community that is being discriminated against in this case, I don't understand it. Not from the photographers point of view but the point of view of the couple.
I make a choice everyday as to where I spend my money. If a vendor provides bad service I do not sue them, I take my business elsewhere, maybe that's my Canadian culture. But I will be sure to let my friends know about the poor service received so that they too can make an informed choice whether or not to use the vendor for their purposes.
I plan to pay for top service, why would I put money in the pockets of someone that will be providing me subpar results. I am the only one losing in such a case.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 13:31:57. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 01:54:05 PM · #31 |
Some great input here from the always intellectual DPC community!!!! ...
Here's some less intellectual thought. It would actually be better for her to be extremely rude rather than honest" "I only photograph beautiful people" â€Â¦ or "From the looks of you If I take pictures at your wedding it might break my camera" â€Â¦ or â€Â¦
Sorry, I just wanted to lighten it up a bit ;) |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:06:57 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Why did she not just say she didn't have an opening on that day? duh
Does this mean that whatever bride we turn down can sue us?? eek! |
There's a legal distinction here called something like (or maybe exactly) a "protected class." Businesses may not discriminate based on certain characteristics. But others are just fine.
For example, I'd bet there's no protected class for "people with blotchy skin."
But race, gender, religion, and in some places, sexual orientation, are protected from discrimination.
So please be careful in how you extrapolate.
In order to argue this that the NM case is an inappropriate result, someone needs to argue that some step leading to it was inappropriate, such as:
- it's inappropriate for government to regulate businesses at all. Good luck with that.
- it's inappropriate for government to establish protected groups. Note that the lack of such protections was deemed unacceptable by US society when it finally realized racial, gender, and other forms of bias had no place in the marketplace. I assume people in other countries also realized this, but I know only about the US.
- it's inappropriate for sexual orientation to be a protected group. Perhaps this is the best argument, if you wanted to argue against the result. But apparently, New Mexico's government, which at least indirectly reflects the majority of its citizens, disagrees. Those same citizens can elect a different government and reject the original decision, of course.
- protected groups should be established only at the federal level. Some of them are, but others seem to be left to the states. At any rate, if you feel this way, you're free to try to convince legislators of your stance.
This approach immediately counters all of the more extreme arguments, like common sense has been abandoned, or now I have to shoot bestiality, satanic weddings, nudes, or any other example anyone wants to think up that isn't a protected class. Society hasn't decided those are characteristics worth protecting.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:11:08 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought. |
Says who? Once upon a time, that may have been the case, but no more. |
see my post in response to  metatate, I agree but I meant to a lesser degree and certainty less in the history of this country in comparison to others, not that it doesn't happen. I should have been clearer. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:13:19 PM · #34 |
Interesting veiws from you all but I'm not scared of difference. I really enjoy everyones different views here and by far as a general rule of thumb this group of people has MUCH better edicate and proper debating skills than any other forum I have been on. I never said God doesn't love homosexuals or that they were wrong.
To this comment...
Yes I see that you are scared of different. Not just gay but different. Also your logic could just as easily be used against vegetarians. Evolution has given human beings canine teeth, eyes placed on the front side of out head, and the need for 22 specific amino acids (all found in red meat). All of these were evolved to help us catch, eat and digest meat! Maybe we should all say that is wrong also! Sounds stupid doesn't it...
Careful of twisting my worlds and assuming I'm fearful....
If every human being became vegetarians we wouldn't die off entirely. Sorry but that's not what I was getting at. Humans also have teeth that serve the purpose of eating vegetables. My point was that if everyone did that there would be no human race in one generation that's all I was saying. It's not like we would gradually die off we would literally be off the entire face of the earth in 100 years. That's what I was getting at. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:24:02 PM · #35 |
The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico.
Copied from the picture at the bottom of the article. Did everyone miss this? This wasn't some innocent gay couple asking for pictures, it is a government employee trying to force homosexuality down a Christian's throat.
Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:24:29 PM · #36 |
oh and on the note about controlling population.... how can we forget...
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:32:22 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
Does anyone remember the crusades? I don't think that the christians were being trampled on there.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:44:17 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen
UNTIL Christians quit demanding respect for their religion and beliefs BY TRAMPLING on others, dont expect this. What a CRAP LINE! THIS IS OFFENDING! |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:48:56 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
Does anyone remember the crusades? I don't think that the christians were being trampled on there. |
Yeah but that was how many YEARS ago? No one is alive from those days it's completely errelavent. In no way did their acts hurt you or me. What matters is the here and now. And I do agree that Christians see a lot of their beliefs tested and being challenged. Just remember cloudsme that the bible says that those who stand up dispite being persecuted for their beliefs will be blessed. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:53:10 PM · #40 |
Another very good point I think. But let's distill Christianity a bit and ask (as many people do)-- What would Jesus do? or what would Jesus "say" to do? Maybe Jesus would tell her to say "I will shoot the wedding because I respect you as person, but I am slightly uncomfortable with this sort of thing. That may compromise the result since my discomfort may affect the results." This might be a matter of a person walking the line between discrimination and personal beliefs.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico.
Copied from the picture at the bottom of the article. Did everyone miss this? This wasn't some innocent gay couple asking for pictures, it is a government employee trying to force homosexuality down a Christian's throat.
Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 15:00:16. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 02:57:16 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
Does anyone remember the crusades? I don't think that the christians were being trampled on there. |
Yeah but that was how many YEARS ago? No one is alive from those days it's completely errelavent. In no way did their acts hurt you or me. What matters is the here and now. And I do agree that Christians see a lot of their beliefs tested and being challenged. Just remember cloudsme that the bible says that those who stand up dispite being persecuted for their beliefs will be blessed. |
Have you not heard of the old adage 'What goes around, comes around'?
Are you saying that the Holocaust is no longer relevant, because most of the perpetrators are dead?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 03:07:27 PM · #42 |
Have you not heard of the old adage 'What goes around, comes around'?
Are you saying that the Holocaust is no longer relevant, because most of the perpetrators are dead?
No one is going to argue that what hitler did was terrible. My point is that was that you were using something in the past that I did not do to justify people being cruel to christians today. If you use that justification then you are no better than they were. We can not expect to stop fighting until people can grow up forgive the past and move on.
And what cloud said was not offensive in anyway what so ever..... however I think everyone doesn't always get what they want and we are all going to get offended and descriminated to get used to it lol! |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 03:09:37 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by amathiasphoto:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen
UNTIL Christians quit demanding respect for their religion and beliefs BY TRAMPLING on others, dont expect this. What a CRAP LINE! THIS IS OFFENDING! |
Why do you think they would never do this to a Muslim photographer? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 03:10:41 PM · #44 |
| Gosh, and wasn't that a while ago with the photographer? WHEN is the this here now (to paraphrase Hegel)? Would it solve the problem for Patrick_R to have Christians registered as a legally protected group? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 03:46:56 PM · #45 |
why has this thread devolved into a rant about religion? Aren't there any who actually care about the legal issues? I could see this coming when, as I was about to post a thread on the ISSUE, I stumbled onto this inappropriately named thread and found that it was supposedly about the stuff I was going to bring up.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 03:55:37 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Gosh, and wasn't that a while ago with the photographer? WHEN is the this here now (to paraphrase Hegel)? Would it solve the problem for Patrick_R to have Christians registered as a legally protected group? |
I never said we needed protection nor would accept it. Where did you pull that out of? I specifically said that every group is going to feel persicuted..... I have not requested any such thing. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:10:57 PM · #47 |
Here ya go, Jemison.
Maybe the length of my reposting this will reset us to the legal discussion you suggested as opposed to the argument about religion.
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Why did she not just say she didn't have an opening on that day? duh
Does this mean that whatever bride we turn down can sue us?? eek! |
There's a legal distinction here called something like (or maybe exactly) a "protected class." Businesses may not discriminate based on certain characteristics. But others are just fine.
For example, I'd bet there's no protected class for "people with blotchy skin."
But race, gender, religion, and in some places, sexual orientation, are protected from discrimination.
So please be careful in how you extrapolate.
In order to argue this that the NM case is an inappropriate result, someone needs to argue that some step leading to it was inappropriate, such as:
- it's inappropriate for government to regulate businesses at all. Good luck with that.
- it's inappropriate for government to establish protected groups. Note that the lack of such protections was deemed unacceptable by US society when it finally realized racial, gender, and other forms of bias had no place in the marketplace. I assume people in other countries also realized this, but I know only about the US.
- it's inappropriate for sexual orientation to be a protected group. Perhaps this is the best argument, if you wanted to argue against the result. But apparently, New Mexico's government, which at least indirectly reflects the majority of its citizens, disagrees. Those same citizens can elect a different government and reject the original decision, of course.
- protected groups should be established only at the federal level. Some of them are, but others seem to be left to the states. At any rate, if you feel this way, you're free to try to convince legislators of your stance.
This approach immediately counters all of the more extreme arguments, like common sense has been abandoned, or now I have to shoot bestiality, satanic weddings, nudes, or any other example anyone wants to think up that isn't a protected class. Society hasn't decided those are characteristics worth protecting. |
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:25:22 PM · #48 |
Okay so the thing I do agree with (to get back to what this post was about) Is that it is a photographers right to accept or decline clients. Tactfully I might add. In this situation I would politely refuse for personal reasons. Insulting their beliefs or ways of life is not appropriate or professional. My honest assesment if I were offered would be that I would feel uncomfortable shooting the wedding and wouldn't want the couple to have poor photography of an important day to them because I was uncomfortable.
I hope that at least you can all agree to that? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:41:27 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
[snip] Christians are the ones who routinely have their rights trampled on. Until Christians stand up and demand respect for their religion and their beliefs, it will continue to happen. |
Does anyone remember the crusades? I don't think that the christians were being trampled on there. |
Yeah but that was how many YEARS ago? No one is alive from those days it's completely errelavent. In no way did their acts hurt you or me. What matters is the here and now. And I do agree that Christians see a lot of their beliefs tested and being challenged. Just remember cloudsme that the bible says that those who stand up dispite being persecuted for their beliefs will be blessed. |
It's not? Does that mean the Holocaust is nearly irrelevant? Does extermination = irrelevance? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:47:47 PM · #50 |
To me it's a definite choice as whether or not I'll take on a shoot. For instance I don't usually shoot "stock horses" (Quarter horses, Paints, Appaloosas) and refer that work to experts in that field. That's "breed specific". There's also "event specific", like jumping, endurance riding, etc. If I'm a true professional, I don't represent myself as able to do something where I lack expertise.
It's hard to extrapolate that to wedding photography, but guess it's "event specific". To be rejected on the basis of crappy lighting, poor pay, difficult customers, and lacking those, though if I'm not inspired, I probably wouldn't do my best work. |
|
