| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2008 10:48:44 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK, Imagine you're a Jewish photographer and you get an assignment to photograph a convicted, but freed, Nazi slave boss ... |
Well, of course I would refuse it. I don't have to imagine much, seeing as I *am* a Jewish photographer. Not that I offer my services as a business, but it'd be easy enough to imagine.
Our society hasn't decided that Nazi animals were somehow deserving of not being discriminated against, so there's no conflict.
I assume you recognize that there are several very large differences between loving someone of the same sex and enslaving and murdering other people. Further, I'd assume that even the most rabid homophobe would recognize those differences.
I'd argue those differences are why one is a protected class and the other isn't. And that, I suppose, is the only thing worth discussing at this point: which groups should be protected and which shouldn't?
One criterion that could be part of that determination is "does the defining characteristic of the group involve harm to others?"
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 10:55:03 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by yanko:
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. |
You may not refuse service to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation, physical or mental handicap. Hunters aren't on the list of legally protected groups.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 11:13:30 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Um, no. Deer hunting is legal in New Mexico. In fact, it's legal in many more states than same sex marriages.........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. |
Originally posted by Phil:
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? |
Philip, the point is that it is illegal for a BUSINESS (ie, the corporation that WAS sued) to turn down a client. A business should provide services to everyone equally - period. The owner of that business happens to be the woman who stated she couldn't do the job for religious reasons. The potential client sued the corporation, not the individual. Also, the judgment was not a 'fine' or any payment for 'pain & suffering'. It was found that the corporation was in error of the law, and was told to 'not do that again' & cover the plaintiff's legal fees & court costs. Big difference, as the corporation has no business declining work due to religious beliefs.
(Sonofa... ok, Shannon beat me to it LOL)
Hope this helps to point out that, NO - we as business owners do NOT have the right to discriminate. If a personal example would be helpful, I myself would be uncomfortable with photographing my first deer hunt / bar mitvah / same gender ceremony / quincinierra / KKK meeting / whatever, but I would still do my best for the customer. I am in business to provide a service, not to judge people. If I'm not comfortable with the material, then I should not claim to offer such services.
(btw - I'm happy that this topic has remained civil!)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 11:59:02 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I myself would be uncomfortable with photographing my first deer hunt / bar mitvah / same gender ceremony / quincinierra / KKK meeting / whatever |
Um, Billy? You put a KKK meeting, which is nearly universally abhorrent, and gay marriage, which is offensive to a decent chunk of the US population, and deer hunting, which also bothers many people, in the same class as a Bar Mitzvah and quinceañera, which I'm having trouble understanding could offend anyone.
You'd be uncomfortable shooting either a Bar Mitzvah or quinceañera?
I mean, I understand your main point, but the details do matter.
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 12:00:19.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:49:11 PM · #130 |
(thank you for asking Jeffrey) :)
Yes... but only because I have never attended any of those events (well, I used to hunt, but never as a photographer for a client & I no longer enjoy it), and would not be terribly well-prepared to photograph any of them.
Regardless of how I personally feel about the event (and yes, I do find items on that list 'offensive'), my job is to photograph what transpires to the best of my ability. I do understand what you mean Jeffrey... but I'm simply pointing out that my own discomfort should not stop me from doing a job. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to become a better, more understanding person & a better photographer / business owner.
Not my job to judge, and I do not appreciate when others judge me for what I may photograph. Example - some local parents rebuke us photographing their children just because we offer boudoir / nude sessions to adults. Funny, but I have absolutely NO idea how one subject (adults who trust us to capture a private portion of their life) has anything to do with the other (photographing the innocence & wonder of children). Yet judge me, they do. Funny, as people I don't even KNOW tell me that they've heard from others how terrific a father I am & that they wish there were more people like us in the world...
Yeah, I'm long-winded (sorry), but I find that it all ties together :)
Summary - I don't like to be judged, so I try not to judge others. Thanks again for asking Jeffrey.
*almost forgot: believe it or not, some locals (read: rednecks) would not offer to work for 'them danged forners' (bar mitzvah / quinceanera) Hey - its a big country. I'm trying not to limit myself here :D
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 12:53:51.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 01:09:17 PM · #131 |
Billy: good points all. :)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 02:46:10 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hunters aren't on the list of legally protected groups. |
They are if you read the entire thread.
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 14:46:28. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 02:53:04 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by Phil:
Um, no. Deer hunting is legal in New Mexico. In fact, it's legal in many more states than same sex marriages.........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. |
Originally posted by Phil:
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? |
Philip, the point is that it is illegal for a BUSINESS (ie, the corporation that WAS sued) to turn down a client. A business should provide services to everyone equally - period. The owner of that business happens to be the woman who stated she couldn't do the job for religious reasons. The potential client sued the corporation, not the individual. Also, the judgment was not a 'fine' or any payment for 'pain & suffering'. It was found that the corporation was in error of the law, and was told to 'not do that again' & cover the plaintiff's legal fees & court costs. Big difference, as the corporation has no business declining work due to religious beliefs.
(Sonofa... ok, Shannon beat me to it LOL)
Hope this helps to point out that, NO - we as business owners do NOT have the right to discriminate. If a personal example would be helpful, I myself would be uncomfortable with photographing my first deer hunt / bar mitvah / same gender ceremony / quincinierra / KKK meeting / whatever, but I would still do my best for the customer. I am in business to provide a service, not to judge people. If I'm not comfortable with the material, then I should not claim to offer such services.
(btw - I'm happy that this topic has remained civil!) |
Once again, I fully understand that it is illegal for a business to "discriminate" but I totally disagree with it. If I own a shop that makes T-shirts with childrens faces printed on them why should I be forced to print images of two people having sex for a porn comvention? Just because I'm in the T shirt business? |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:14:41 PM · #134 |
and once again, you're trying to mix apples & oranges - won't work (unless you've some ice & vodka)
Come to think of it, that's just the angle I need! Will you print T-shirts for me? I really DO need a place that will print both! :D
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:35:35 PM · #135 |
Phil, your examples are getting more and more extreme, and bearing less and less connection to reality.
Most of your examples would never be protected precisely because they're so extreme that no majority of any legislature would vote for protecting them.
No one has ever argued that every possible scenario should be required for a business.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:41:32 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hunters aren't on the list of legally protected groups. |
They are if you read the entire thread. |
No, they're not. Legal protection is afforded to specific groups defined by law, and your wild scenarios don't fit any of them. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:51:10 PM · #137 |
Okay, guys, I'm back. And a bit more humble. (Well, a bit may be a bit of an understatement).
It is difficult to explain exactly what all has been going on the past few weeks with me, but what you saw from me at the beginning of the thread was sort of the "climax" of it all -- the part of me with psychology training would tell you that I was putting up defenses and making rationalizations.
For the past few weeks, I've been going through what I can only describe as a "sifting." (In Christianese, for the Christians reading, God has been dealing with me and what He expects from me.) As usual, when you face God (haven't slipped out of the Christianese, sorry, but please keep reading, even if you think I'm a lunatic), you can not leave without changing. When you sift flour, it is flour when it begins. It is flour when it ends, but it is of a different level of "usefulness," and hopefully slightly more refined. For a human being (and maybe for flour, I don't know) this can be a bit uncomfortable painful. Discarding what you have embraced as "right" and realizing you were on the wrong path is not fun.
I hate change.
I abhor it.
I like my life and I want to keep it that way.
However, I have come to the stark realization that some things have got to change if I want to be a positive Christian influence in this world. I simply cannot "do" what I've been taught to "do" all of my life and expect the post-modern age to embrace it -- it won't. The world is simply to diverse to even try.
So, I needed to change.
This thread started about the time I realized that I was going to have to change some things, and quite frankly, some of the changes (Christianese warning) God is working in me. Frankly, some of those changes would be quite distasteful to the more traditional Christians around me and I grandstanded in this thread to "prove" I could.
Not a good idea.
As far as the case in the OP. Jesus was very clear, I think, in his teachings about this (following the law). When the Pharisees attempted to trick Him by making Him "choose sides" between Heaven and Rome, He simply said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to Rome what is Rome." I can follow the law, and in deed, am commanded by Christ to do so. If NC has a law that says I cannot discriminate against a "protected" group, and I discriminate, not only am I breaking the laws of the land, but I breaking the laws of my "religion," as well. NOT cool. So, for this thread, yes, I was wrong. Not easy to say, or stomach, but infinitely easier to go ahead and say it than to sit around just knowing it.
Not all Christians will see it that way.
Can I shoot a same-sex wedding? Yes. Do I want to? No, but only because I hate shooting weddings of any combination of sex. Will it make me less of a Christian? No, my faith is in Christ. That can't be touched. My job is to love the individual, not to grandstand and assert my "rights."
It has been a miserable couple of days for me, I promise. AND, I am truly embarrassed at what I posted earlier in the thread (not the apology -- I meant that. the stuff before that).
I am beyond tempted to use Site Council super powers and edit it all, but wouldn't. One, it wouldn't be fair, and two, it needs to remain as a reminder to me what a butthole I can be when I get all self-righteous about stuff.
If you are still reading, I am truly and sincerely sorry.
If you have sent me a PM about this, I haven't read it yet (with the exception of rossbilly), so I don't know if this apology is sufficient or not. If not, I'll will try to respond to you.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 03:58:01 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Phil, your examples are getting more and more extreme, and bearing less and less connection to reality.
Most of your examples would never be protected precisely because they're so extreme that no majority of any legislature would vote for protecting them.
No one has ever argued that every possible scenario should be required for a business. |
Blindly follow the law is pretty much what I've heard more than a few times in this thread, so people HAVE srgued that every possible scenario should be required for a business.
But let's just talk about something that could easily happen. I hope this isn't too far of a stretch of reality (which I find pretty friggin offensive by the way).
I own a print shop in your town. I mainly make flyers and brochures for local schools and functions. NAMBLA is coming to town and they want me to print up some stuff so they can stand on a public street and hand it to kids after they get out of school. I should just print them up because they are a protected organization no matter what this could do to my future business - not to mention my beliefs? How many people would come to my business again after seeing, "Phil's print shop" on the bottom of the flyer? |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:01:27 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hunters aren't on the list of legally protected groups. |
They are if you read the entire thread. |
No, they're not. Legal protection is afforded to specific groups defined by law, and your wild scenarios don't fit any of them. |
I'd bet everything that someone would have said those exact words (a "wild scenario") less than 75 years ago if the topic of same sex marriage was brought up. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:06:42 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Phil:
NAMBLA is coming to town and they want me to print up some stuff so they can stand on a public street and hand it to kids after they get out of school. I should just print them up because they are a protected organization no matter what this could do to my future business - not to mention my beliefs? |
NAMBLA isn't protected by anti-discrimination laws. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:08:07 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Legal protection is afforded to specific groups defined by law, and your wild scenarios don't fit any of them. |
I'd bet everything that someone would have said those exact words (a "wild scenario") less than 75 years ago if the topic of same sex marriage was brought up. |
Since those laws didn't exist 75 years ago, you could say the same thing about discrimination against blacks. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:15:23 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
NAMBLA is coming to town and they want me to print up some stuff so they can stand on a public street and hand it to kids after they get out of school. I should just print them up because they are a protected organization no matter what this could do to my future business - not to mention my beliefs? |
NAMBLA isn't protected by anti-discrimination laws. |
Okay, then change it to a "Member of NAMBLA who wants his name along with the NAMBLA logo on a flyer." |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:17:53 PM · #143 |
Phil, Phil, Phil...
You still aren't holding on to the point being made, and keep bringing up examples that are not related.
BUT, for the sake of your argument: Do you really believe that Kinko's would print the flyers you mention? Why, or why not?
It is not our job to discriminate, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:18:25 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
NAMBLA is coming to town and they want me to print up some stuff so they can stand on a public street and hand it to kids after they get out of school. I should just print them up because they are a protected organization no matter what this could do to my future business - not to mention my beliefs? |
NAMBLA isn't protected by anti-discrimination laws. |
Okay, then change it to a "Member of NAMBLA who wants his name along with the NAMBLA logo on a flyer." |
NAMBLA (and their ideals) aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws. You would be no more compelled to print it than if a member of a terrorist group asked you to print recruiting materials.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:20:53 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
NAMBLA is coming to town and they want me to print up some stuff so they can stand on a public street and hand it to kids after they get out of school. I should just print them up because they are a protected organization no matter what this could do to my future business - not to mention my beliefs? |
NAMBLA isn't protected by anti-discrimination laws. |
Okay, then change it to a "Member of NAMBLA who wants his name along with the NAMBLA logo on a flyer." |
NAMBLA (and their ideals) aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws. You would be no more compelled to print it than if a member of a terrorist group asked you to print recruiting materials. |
Um, but wouldn't I be discriminating against that particular individual because of his sexual orientation? |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:24:02 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Phil, Phil, Phil...
You still aren't holding on to the point being made, and keep bringing up examples that are not related.
BUT, for the sake of your argument: Do you really believe that Kinko's would print the flyers you mention? Why, or why not?
It is not our job to discriminate, plain and simple. |
Sure, Kinkos probably would. Just like another photographer would've been more than happy to record the special moment between the two individuals that the thread is about. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:50:11 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
NAMBLA (and their ideals) aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws. You would be no more compelled to print it than if a member of a terrorist group asked you to print recruiting materials. |
Um, but wouldn't I be discriminating against that particular individual because of his sexual orientation? |
No, you wouldn't, and it's frightening that you don't understand that. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 05:00:35 PM · #148 |
| Please play nice. Thanks! |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 05:51:58 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Okay, then change it to a "Member of NAMBLA who wants his name along with the NAMBLA logo on a flyer." |
Phil - your examples are not very good ones.
The point of the law is not to prevent people discriminating against others due to their religious views, but to protect certain classes of people from being discriminated against (regardless of the reason why).
A historic decision (that you do not appear to object to) is that black people and hispanic people and white people should all be treated the same by businesses (ie, they are not allowed to put up signs saying "[x] people not welcome here"). The decision in some enlightened jurisdictions is to extend that right to people with different sexual orientation. Homsexual men and women should be treated the same as straight or bisexual people.
So - no signs outside hotels or bars saying "gays only" or "gays not welcome". Equally, no such signs outside wedding photographers' shopfronts or web pages. It does not mean that you have to accept all work that comes from gay or black people - just that your reason for declining it should not be their skin colour or sexual orientation.
It has nothing to do with religious views, except that some religions promote racial hatred or hatred of homosexuality (in some people's interpretations) and those views are no longer socially acceptable, and that unacceptability is being given the force of law.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 06:35:54 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK, Imagine you're a Jewish photographer and you get an assignment to photograph a convicted, but freed, Nazi slave boss ... |
Well, of course I would refuse it. I don't have to imagine much, seeing as I *am* a Jewish photographer. Not that I offer my services as a business, but it'd be easy enough to imagine.
Our society hasn't decided that Nazi animals were somehow deserving of not being discriminated against, so there's no conflict.
I assume you recognize that there are several very large differences between loving someone of the same sex and enslaving and murdering other people. Further, I'd assume that even the most rabid homophobe would recognize those differences.
I'd argue those differences are why one is a protected class and the other isn't. And that, I suppose, is the only thing worth discussing at this point: which groups should be protected and which shouldn't?
One criterion that could be part of that determination is "does the defining characteristic of the group involve harm to others?" |
Arnold Newman, who was very much a Jewish photographer and one of no small acclaim, accepted just such an assignment.
He took advantage of being assigned to photograph Alfried Krupp to make him look evil. BTW, Krupp, though convicted was later freed and at the time was living as a free German citizen.
Originally posted by Arnold Newman:
There's only twice I ever tried to deliberately show an individual as bad, and that was Alfried Krupp and Richard Nixon. Actually, I didn't do it on purpose to Nixon -- he did it to himself.
I deliberately put a knife in Krupp's back, visually. He was a friend of Hitler's and Hitler let him use prisoners as slave labor. If the prisoners fell, he just unchained them and they went directly into the crematoriums in Auschwitz.
Krupp's people realized I was Jewish, and they were worried that I might not be kind to him. I was trying to figure a way to show who he really was without being obvious. I lit from both sides and I said, "Would you lean forward." And my hair stood up on end. The light from the sides made him look like the devil. It's an un-retouched photograph. He actually was a handsome man. |
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 18:39:04. |
|
