| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2008 12:12:04 PM · #101 |
Karmat said;
I believe homosexuality is wrong, and before you get your dander up and come at me with homophobic sensoring pitchforks, that does NOT mean I love my homosexual/bisexual/transsexual friends and family any less.
Yes it does Karmat.
If a member of my family told me that they thought homosexuality was wrong, and I was gay, it would mean they think I am in the wrong by living my life as I see fit. It's like saying having black skin is wrong but you love African Americans just the same. I am surprised to see this type of posting on this site.
I would support 100% the removal of all threads pertaining to: religion, homosexuality, and anything political. There are other places to talk about that kind of stuff. This is a photography site and it should be managed as such. But that's just my newbie opinion of this thread and this site. I will give myself a long time to think about renewing my membership to this site come next Feb. Yes, I know I can modify my forum preferences, and I will. But I am attracted to the rantings that permeate in these threads and feel compelled to participate when I read utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 12:18:16 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I will give myself a long time to think about renewing my membership to this site come next Feb. Yes, I know I can modify my forum preferences, and I will. |
Give yourself some time. You'll find you'll develop a curious love-hate relationship with the non-photography threads, particularly the Rants. Something about helplessly watching a car wreck from the sidelines... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 12:21:57 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Karmat said;
I believe homosexuality is wrong, and before you get your dander up and come at me with homophobic sensoring pitchforks, that does NOT mean I love my homosexual/bisexual/transsexual friends and family any less.
Yes it does Karmat.
If a member of my family told me that they thought homosexuality was wrong, and I was gay, it would mean they think I am in the wrong by living my life as I see fit. It's like saying having black skin is wrong but you love African Americans just the same. I am surprised to see this type of posting on this site.
|
Well the impression I get from Karmat's post is of somebody who, although they think homosexuality is wrong, respects the right of others to live their lives as they see fit and would not treat them any differently. You and I may consider her views ignorant (and I do) but frankly I think we'd be doing rather well if everyone who was against homosexuality on a moral basis had the same respect for others' beliefs. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 12:26:35 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by figaro:
Well the impression I get from Karmat's post is of somebody who, although they think homosexuality is wrong, respects the right of others to live their lives as they see fit and would not treat them any differently. You and I may consider her views ignorant (and I do) but frankly I think we'd be doing rather well if everyone who was against homosexuality on a moral basis had the same respect for others' beliefs. |
The contrary impression I get is that some think such attitudes are archaic and immoral. Given how much information there is at people's fingertips these days, it isn't ignorance causing them to treat others differently, it's discrimination masquerading as religious practice, however sincere the adherents think they are. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 12:53:48 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by figaro:
Well the impression I get from Karmat's post is of somebody who, although they think homosexuality is wrong, respects the right of others to live their lives as they see fit and would not treat them any differently. You and I may consider her views ignorant (and I do) but frankly I think we'd be doing rather well if everyone who was against homosexuality on a moral basis had the same respect for others' beliefs. |
The contrary impression I get is that some think such attitudes are archaic and immoral. Given how much information there is at people's fingertips these days, it isn't ignorance causing them to treat others differently, it's discrimination masquerading as religious practice, however sincere the adherents think they are. |
Well put Louis. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 12:59:38 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by figaro:
Well the impression I get from Karmat's post is of somebody who, although they think homosexuality is wrong, respects the right of others to live their lives as they see fit and would not treat them any differently. You and I may consider her views ignorant (and I do) but frankly I think we'd be doing rather well if everyone who was against homosexuality on a moral basis had the same respect for others' beliefs. |
The contrary impression I get is that some think such attitudes are archaic and immoral. Given how much information there is at people's fingertips these days, it isn't ignorance causing them to treat others differently, it's discrimination masquerading as religious practice, however sincere the adherents think they are. |
I don't disagree with that - I find the anti-gay discrimination that has become inherent in modern religion deeply offensive and I hope that society will reach the stage where homosexuality is completely accepted regardless of religious belief. The point I was trying to make was that karmat doesn't appear to treat others differently as a result of her beliefs, which is an attitude I find quite refreshing. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 01:43:09 PM · #107 |
| Interesting that the discussion of religious freedom in this thread takes quite a different tack ... |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:45:57 PM · #108 |
All I can say is that I'd be geeked as hell to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.
Especially since, after a while, all the traditional weddings start to blur together and one is hardly different from the other. It'd be a refreshing change of pace.
I do remember a wedding I shot as a 2nd shooter back in the 90's where the MOB told us that it would be a mixed race wedding and asked if we had any issues with that, of course we didn't. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:50:45 PM · #109 |
My sincerest, most heartfelt apologies to those that my posts or opinions offended in any form or fashion. If my "attitudes" or "ignorance" bothers you or makes you feel like less of a person, I sincerely offer a plea for forgiveness for that as well.
I have the utmost respect for 99% of the people in this community (and it might be noted that I don't think any of the 1% has posted in this thread). I would never ask you to change any of your beliefs so that you could live by my worldview or "code." If I came across that way, I am sorry.
Frankly, I don't care if you are gay, straight, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, black, white, pink with purple polka dots, or a Dallas Cowboy fan, I can still appreciate, respect, and "love" you even if we have disagreements about something -- even if it is something fundamental to your existence to this world.
Someone challenged that I could not love someone who was gay if I felt being gay was wrong. I would offer that doing or being something "I" think is wrong (or right) is not what I use to gauge whether or I respect or love a person.
Someone suggested to me in a pm that perhaps this time the lesson was mine.
Indeed. I can concede that. The lesson is indeed mine. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 04:50:53 PM · #110 |
I repeat:
Originally posted by figaro:
[Well the impression I get from Karmat's post is of somebody who, although they think homosexuality is wrong, respects the right of others to live their lives as they see fit and would not treat them any differently. I think we'd be doing rather well if everyone who was against homosexuality on a moral basis had the same respect for others' beliefs. |
I think this thread has run its course. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 05:04:29 PM · #111 |
I wonder if this kind of stink would be raised if a hunter wanted an animal activist/professional videographer to film him shooting a mule deer? Since deer hunting is legal the animal rights activist should have to go against his/her beliefs and film it anyway?
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 17:09:44. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 05:07:19 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I would support 100% the removal of all threads pertaining to: religion, homosexuality, and anything political. There are other places to talk about that kind of stuff. This is a photography site and it should be managed as such. |
In a quiet, non-confrontational way, what should photography be limited to considering, in your opinion ? These things we discuss are the fundamentals of life and art. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 05:10:41 PM · #113 |
OK, Imagine you're a Jewish photographer and you get an assignment to photograph a convicted, but freed, Nazi slave boss in one of his factories. Keep in mind that this guy may well have worked several of your relatives to death during the war to make the money that allowed him to build his factories and is totally unapologetic about his actions.
Would you refuse the assignment?
ETA:If you know the specifics of the case I'm referring to, please don't spoil it for those who don't.
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 17:20:58. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 05:19:15 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Phil:
I wonder if this kind of stink would be raised if a hunter wanted an animal activist/professional videographer to film him shooting a mule deer? Since deer hunting is legal the animal rights activist should have to go against his/her beliefs and film it anyway? |
Not really the same since hunters are not on the States anti-discrimination list.
Edit to add the NM state section listing groups you cannot discriminate against
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
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 17:23:05. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 09:59:57 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Phil:
I wonder if this kind of stink would be raised if a hunter wanted an animal activist/professional videographer to film him shooting a mule deer? Since deer hunting is legal the animal rights activist should have to go against his/her beliefs and film it anyway? |
Not really the same since hunters are not on the States anti-discrimination list.
Edit to add the NM state section listing groups you cannot discriminate against
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 |
Okeydokey. Let's say it's the brand spankin' new "Church of the Dead Deer". Does that mean the animal rights activist should now have to film it? |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 10:45:22 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Okeydokey. Let's say it's the brand spankin' new "Church of the Dead Deer". Does that mean the animal rights activist should now have to film it? |
Your "Church" will first have to prove to the IRS that it is a legitimately religious association and not a conspiracy to evade taxes ... |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 10:54:02 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Phil:
Okeydokey. Let's say it's the brand spankin' new "Church of the Dead Deer". Does that mean the animal rights activist should now have to film it? |
Your "Church" will first have to prove to the IRS that it is a legitimately religious association and not a conspiracy to evade taxes ... |
Ho hum.
Okeydokey. The "Church of the Dead Deer" has proven itself to be a legitimately religious association. Now, should the animal rights activist have to film it? |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 11:04:07 PM · #118 |
Depends. Does the activist hold themselves out to be a photographer of wildlife, hunting, or anything similar? If so, they may be liable if, for example, they'll shoot duck hunters but not deer hunters.
But if they are portrait or landscape photograpers I doubt you'd have a case if they refused your job.
However, I suspect that most "wildlife activists" would jump at the chance to photographically document at close range the inane cruelty and brutality of trophy hunting ... and to get paid for it as well would be a huge bonus. Maybe you should try another comparison. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 11:34:52 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Depends. Does the activist hold themselves out to be a photographer of wildlife, hunting, or anything similar? If so, they may be liable if, for example, they'll shoot duck hunters but not deer hunters.
But if they are portrait or landscape photograpers I doubt you'd have a case if they refused your job.
However, I suspect that most "wildlife activists" would jump at the chance to photographically document at close range the inane cruelty and brutality of trophy hunting ... and to get paid for it as well would be a huge bonus. Maybe you should try another comparison. |
It's amusing how I have to go through all these hypotheticals - almost as if you think the more you throw them in the more it diminishes the point.
The fact of the matter is that if an animal activist who happens to be a wildlife photographer turned down a hunt shoot based on principle or personal belief, no one would give it a second thought.
I couldn't care less about sexual preference but if someone doesn't want something in their history/resume that they don't agree with on any level, they should hold the right to be able to turn it down for that reason alone. I find it ironic that one of the things the person copied/pasted above that we can't discriminate against is religion yet when someone practices their belief by simply saying, "I'm not interested in photographing something my religion considers sin" they can be sued - not to mention in such an obviously set up way.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:33:53 AM · #120 |
For all of US citizens that get stuck with jury duty summons that they want to avoid:
Just send the court clerk a link to this thread with your post in it.
Blatant disregard for the law would get you off in no time.
There is a law. It got broken. The punishment ensued. In my opinion, commensurate with the actions. End of story.
You don't like the law? Change it, or try to. This is a democracy of sorts. You pick representatives that make those laws. Talk to them. If the majority really thinks that this law should not exist, then on paper and in theory, the law can be nixed. New Mexicans, talk to your local representatives and suggest the rewording. Only, be careful what you wish for - you may remove the protections from the law that may just be right when applied to something you care about.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 01:03:12 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
For all of US citizens that get stuck with jury duty summons that they want to avoid:
Just send the court clerk a link to this thread with your post in it.
Blatant disregard for the law would get you off in no time.
There is a law. It got broken. The punishment ensued. In my opinion, commensurate with the actions. End of story.
You don't like the law? Change it, or try to. This is a democracy of sorts. You pick representatives that make those laws. Talk to them. If the majority really thinks that this law should not exist, then on paper and in theory, the law can be nixed. New Mexicans, talk to your local representatives and suggest the rewording. Only, be careful what you wish for - you may remove the protections from the law that may just be right when applied to something you care about. |
Thanks so much for that! If only you'd had made that the first reply there would have not been a need for this entire thread.
Did you know that carrying a lunchbox down main street in Las Cruces NM is a crime? Do you say, "Death to all who carry lunchboxes!!" since it is a "law"?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:40:07 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by srdanz:
For all of US citizens that get stuck with jury duty summons that they want to avoid:
Just send the court clerk a link to this thread with your post in it.
Blatant disregard for the law would get you off in no time.
There is a law. It got broken. The punishment ensued. In my opinion, commensurate with the actions. End of story.
You don't like the law? Change it, or try to. This is a democracy of sorts. You pick representatives that make those laws. Talk to them. If the majority really thinks that this law should not exist, then on paper and in theory, the law can be nixed. New Mexicans, talk to your local representatives and suggest the rewording. Only, be careful what you wish for - you may remove the protections from the law that may just be right when applied to something you care about. |
Thanks so much for that! If only you'd had made that the first reply there would have not been a need for this entire thread.
Did you know that carrying a lunchbox down main street in Las Cruces NM is a crime? Do you say, "Death to all who carry lunchboxes!!" since it is a "law"? |
Are you saying that it's okay to pick and choose what laws you want to obey? |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 05:41:07 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by Phil:
It's amusing how I have to go through all these hypotheticals - almost as if you think the more you throw them in the more it diminishes the point.
The fact of the matter is that if an animal activist who happens to be a wildlife photographer turned down a hunt shoot based on principle or personal belief, no one would give it a second thought. |
You're comparing something that is legal to something that is not. Apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Phil:
I couldn't care less about sexual preference but if someone doesn't want something in their history/resume that they don't agree with on any level, they should hold the right to be able to turn it down for that reason alone. I find it ironic that one of the things the person copied/pasted above that we can't discriminate against is religion yet when someone practices their belief by simply saying, "I'm not interested in photographing something my religion considers sin" they can be sued - not to mention in such an obviously set up way. |
You're confusing business rights with individual rights. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:50:49 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by srdanz:
For all of US citizens that get stuck with jury duty summons that they want to avoid:
Just send the court clerk a link to this thread with your post in it.
Blatant disregard for the law would get you off in no time.
There is a law. It got broken. The punishment ensued. In my opinion, commensurate with the actions. End of story.
You don't like the law? Change it, or try to. This is a democracy of sorts. You pick representatives that make those laws. Talk to them. If the majority really thinks that this law should not exist, then on paper and in theory, the law can be nixed. New Mexicans, talk to your local representatives and suggest the rewording. Only, be careful what you wish for - you may remove the protections from the law that may just be right when applied to something you care about. |
Thanks so much for that! If only you'd had made that the first reply there would have not been a need for this entire thread.
Did you know that carrying a lunchbox down main street in Las Cruces NM is a crime? Do you say, "Death to all who carry lunchboxes!!" since it is a "law"? |
Are you saying that it's okay to pick and choose what laws you want to obey? |
If that is what you're getting from me here? Don't you think that the entire gist of this thread is to see if people agree with this "law"?
I definitely think it's okay for me to pick and choose the laws I want to disagree with. Doesn't mean I won't obey them. Clear that up for you?
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 09:01:28. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 09:00:47 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Phil:
It's amusing how I have to go through all these hypotheticals - almost as if you think the more you throw them in the more it diminishes the point.
The fact of the matter is that if an animal activist who happens to be a wildlife photographer turned down a hunt shoot based on principle or personal belief, no one would give it a second thought. |
You're comparing something that is legal to something that is not. Apples and oranges.
|
Um, no. Deer hunting is legal in New Mexico. In fact, it's legal in many more states than same sex marriages.
Originally posted by Phil:
I couldn't care less about sexual preference but if someone doesn't want something in their history/resume that they don't agree with on any level, they should hold the right to be able to turn it down for that reason alone. I find it ironic that one of the things the person copied/pasted above that we can't discriminate against is religion yet when someone practices their belief by simply saying, "I'm not interested in photographing something my religion considers sin" they can be sued - not to mention in such an obviously set up way. |
Originally posted by yanko:
You're confusing business rights with individual rights. Big difference. |
Not confusing - comparing. It's no different than forcing a minister who preaches against having false idols to marry two people who worship a golden cow.
After all is said and done, would you really want someone recording a special moment in your life when they believe what you're doing is wrong?
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 09:51:14. |
|
