| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2008 04:48:03 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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? |
Sorry spaz you didn't understand. read my post in response to the holocoast a few posts up.
actually I'll just post it here for you....
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. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:48:40 PM · #52 |
I can't really form an opinion without knowing exactly what happened between the parties.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:49:53 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
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. |
Here's the question, Patrick: are you arguing that
1) there should be no protected classes when it comes to photographers, or
2) that it's okay to protect against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and maybe others, but not sexual orientation?
Tact isn't a legal concern, although I certainly agree there are all kinds of reasons to be tactful.
To me, though, this isn't about how to discriminate without being overt about it. Rather, it's a question of what should be legal and illegal.
And at least as far as race, gender, and religion go, some laws now say you can't discriminate, no matter how nicely you say it.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:51:42 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
To me it's a definite choice as whether or not I'll take on a shoot. |
This wasn't a question of shooting white dresses vs. black, or refusing to take a job where you couldn't bring in all of your equipment. It was a question of specific bases on which businesses may not discriminate.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:54:36 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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? |
Sorry spaz you didn't understand. read my post in response to the holocoast a few posts up.
actually I'll just post it here for you....
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. |
Who is being cruel to Christians? People who question their beliefs? their motives? who dislike proselytizing and aren't afraid to tell people about it? People who don't want Jesus shoved down their throats in public buildings and schools? People who look critically at Christianity and question it? Who equate God with a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sorry, your martyr card is invalid here |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 04:57:06 PM · #56 |
[i]Here's the question, Patrick: are you arguing that
1) there should be no protected classes when it comes to photographers, or
2) that it's okay to protect against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and maybe others, but not sexual orientation?
Nope I'm arguing that there shouldn't be protection to any one group at all. I don't feel I as a Christian should be legally protected above others nor do I feel homosexuals should be protected above others.
To me, though, this isn't about how to discriminate without being overt about it. Rather, it's a question of what should be legal and illegal.
I agree. Me telling a client I wont shoot their wedding isn't illegal and never should be end of story.
And at least as far as race, gender, and religion go, some laws now say you can't discriminate, no matter how nicely you say it.
Very true! I was refering to photographers rights. This isn't a job interview it is a business and I can reserve the right to refuse service to someone if I deem it necessary. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:06:34 PM · #57 |
Who is being cruel to Christians? People who question their beliefs? their motives? who dislike proselytizing and aren't afraid to tell people about it? People who don't want Jesus shoved down their throats in public buildings and schools? People who look critically at Christianity and question it? Who equate God with a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sorry, your martyr card is invalid here
Not trying to be a martyr I was defending clouds statement I've said at least 4 times that everyone get persecuted and everyone has to learn to deal with it. I don't shove my religion down ANYONES throat here or anywere. You are making a generalization and assuming that I am some psycho Christian. I'm not in fact none of my arguments have even involved "God talk" I stated my personal beliefs and thats it. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:10:08 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Patrick_R:
And at least as far as race, gender, and religion go, some laws now say you can't discriminate, no matter how nicely you say it.
Very true! I was refering to photographers rights. This isn't a job interview it is a business and I can reserve the right to refuse service to someone if I deem it necessary. |
No, you may not refuse service for some reasons. That's what this case was all about. Otherwise there would be no case.
Here's the citation.
Originally posted by New Mexico law:
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; |
I understand that your opinion is there should be no such prohibition, but it seems there is, at least in New Mexico.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 17:14:48.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:15:31 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Originally posted by citymars:
So then what makes the photographer different from another businessman, legally speaking? Can then a caterer or florist refuse service to lesbians? How about a restaurant owner? |
Citymars, I was thinking along the same lines. I see no difference between a restaurant posting a sign saying 'No Blacks will be served' a photographer saying 'No same-sex couples will be photographed'.
My high school history teacher once taught me that you have the freedom to swing your arm. But that freedom ends when your arm reaches someone elses face. In this case, I think there was a face in the way. |
But, I think, in this situation, who is the fist and who is the face?
I'm a photographer. Again, if I choose not to do a wedding, I feel like that is my right. To sue me because I said no, for whatever reason, is taking your fist to my face.
In one of my first posts, I talked about the bride I turned away. My reason? It is the middle of football season and I would rather shoot my son's little league football game. I just discriminated against her. Does she have grounds for a lawsuit? And if so, when is the photographer allowed to say, "Yes, I will do that." and "No, I will not."
 levyj413 posted while i was composing. So, is a private business such as a photography business still considered "public accommodation," as it reads in NM law?
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 17:19:45. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:18:44 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by karmat:
In one of my first posts, I talked about the bride I turned away. My reason? It is the middle of football season and I would rather shoot my son's little league football game. I just discriminated against her. Does she have grounds for a lawsuit? And if so, when is the photographer allowed to say, "Yes, I will do that." and "No, I will not." |
Read levyj413's post above about protected classes, and the various determinations used. Your football-less bride doesn't count. Your gay customer does. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:27:25 PM · #61 |
| I'm not going to hide the offtopic (and rant-like) posts, since the thread appears to be making its way back on track, so lets keep it that way! |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:28:18 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by karmat:
In one of my first posts, I talked about the bride I turned away. My reason? It is the middle of football season and I would rather shoot my son's little league football game. I just discriminated against her. Does she have grounds for a lawsuit? And if so, when is the photographer allowed to say, "Yes, I will do that." and "No, I will not." |
Read levyj413's post above about protected classes, and the various determinations used. Your football-less bride doesn't count. Your gay customer does. |
Again, as stated earlier the right of one (the fist) ends as soon as it hits the right of another (the face).
So the [insert "protected" people of choice here] rights supersede the rights of those who choose to practice their religion (though, that too, in theory is supposed to be allowed). Am I understanding this correctly? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:32:53 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So the [insert "protected" people of choice here] rights supersede the rights of those who choose to practice their religion (though, that too, in theory is supposed to
be allowed). Am I understanding this correctly? |
You are operating from the false premise that one's right to practice one's religion is guaranteed even when it curtails the rights of others. It isn't so. To take an extreme example, it may be the religious duty of certain African tribal cults to circumcise the clitoris of their daughters, but the practice is illegal in most (if not all) Western countries. That particular practice is certainly not a guaranteed right simply by virtue of the fact that it is some sort of religious belief. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:34:32 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by karmat:
In one of my first posts, I talked about the bride I turned away. My reason? It is the middle of football season and I would rather shoot my son's little league football game. I just discriminated against her. Does she have grounds for a lawsuit? And if so, when is the photographer allowed to say, "Yes, I will do that." and "No, I will not."
|
I don't see it as an issue of whether she could refuse the job or not, but rather that she stated specifically in an email to the potential client that her reason not to take it was based on her disapproval of homosexuality. In NM that is just as illegal as not taking a job because the person was black, over 50, disabled, etc.
There are certain responsibilities when engaging in business, and obeying the laws - whether you agree with them or not - is one of them, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:38:36 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So the [insert "protected" people of choice here] rights supersede the rights of those who choose to practice their religion (though, that too, in theory is supposed to be allowed). |
Think of it in terms of some other kind of discrimination, like race. You simply can't say, "We don't serve your kind here," no matter what religious or moral justification you may offer. If you turn them down for some non-biased reason like a conflict with your son's little league game, that's no problem, but as a business you do not have the right to refuse service based on sex, religion, race, etc. Imagine how outraged you'd be if the owner of a falafel stand refused to serve you because you're Christian.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 17:40:24. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:48:18 PM · #66 |
It's probably obvious I support the NM law, but now that we seem to have at least established that it is, in fact, NM law, I think it's still a reasonable point of discussion as to what the law should say.
But be specific about what you want to change.
Do you want to be allowed to refuse to serve people of a specific race or religion? If so, how would that mesh with claims that some religion is being persecuted? Patrick, simply because you've engaged on this specific point, and seem to be arguing for no restrictions, I'd be especially curious to hear your opinions.
Or do you simply not want to be forced to serve homosexuals, while still agreeing it's appropriate to bar discrimination based on race, gender, and the other protected classes? Karma, is that your argument?
But hopefully we've put to rest any claims that this case bears any relation to not shooting nudes, or bestiality, or things that conflict with our kids' sporting events.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:50:29 PM · #67 |
No, that is not necessarily my argument. I'm just trying to get my head around when I can say, "NO." and when I can't.
The lesson I've learned is, if I refuse to "serve" anyone, I simply will not give them a reason. :/
blah.
what a world we live in.
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something
(said somewhat lightheartedly)
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 17:51:43. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:53:35 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something |
Could be. Possibly to prove that this sort of discrimination is commonplace and tolerated. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:53:56 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by karmat:
levyj413 posted while i was composing. So, is a private business such as a photography business still considered "public accommodation," as it reads in NM law? |
It would seem so, yes. That's the 1-page decision from the NM Human Rights Commission.
Thanks very much to jemison for so helpfully posting it, along with the actual section of the law that document referred to.
An interesting point to me is that despite the hyperbole, there was apparently no fine and no other damages. So all the plaintiff got out of it was a determination that she was discriminated against, with the defendant paying for her legal fees.
But again, that determination was based in established law; regardless of her job, this wasn't her somehow shoving her wishes down the throat of anyone.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:57:17 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by karmat:
No, that is not necessarily my argument. I'm just trying to get my head around when I can say, "NO." and when I can't.
The lesson I've learned is, if I refuse to "serve" anyone, I simply will not give them a reason. :/ |
Karma: if you're operating as a photography business, I'd encourage urge you to hire an attorney to research this for you in NC.
And be careful. Being sly won't necessarily help you. If you tell person X "no," you'd best not tell person Y "yes," especially if the difference between them is that X is a member of a protected class.
Reminds me of an old saying: It's easier to tell the truth because you don't have to remember what you told everyone.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:58:31 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by karmat:
No, that is not necessarily my argument. I'm just trying to get my head around when I can say, "NO." and when I can't.
The lesson I've learned is, if I refuse to "serve" anyone, I simply will not give them a reason. :/
blah.
what a world we live in.
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something
(said somewhat lightheartedly) |
This was my question :) I suppose I am with karmat on that one... simply do not give them a reason beyond, "Sorry, I am full up." lol |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:59:07 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something |
Rosa Parks? |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 05:59:55 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something
|
I don't get the feeling that she was out looking for a lawsuit as much as that she was particularly attuned to discrimination, particularly this type. If she was looking for a lawsuit, it seem strange that all she sought was the ruling and attorney's fees and court expenses. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 06:10:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by karmat:
It still sounds like to me that someone (especially because of where she works) went out looking for a lawsuit, just to prove something |
Rosa Parks? |
Rosa Parks filed a lawsuit?
And all this time I thought she just refused to give up her seat as her way of protesting.
(again, lighthearted, not a heavy, heavy argument for me) |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 06:14:21 PM · #75 |
The same law is effective in the UK.
I had a long conversation about the law with some gay friends. They thought that the law was a bit of a waste of time. They are all too aware of being actively discriminated against very regularly. Refused tables in restaurants, ignored at the bar, chucked out of hotels, etc etc. Call me naieve, but I had no idea - It just doesn't happen to me.
It might not be a particularly effective law - some of the attitudes here pay testament to that. But it is an appalling state of affairs and must change. From small acorns etc...
|
|
