| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2008 07:56:06 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by karmat:
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. |
If you don't mind me asking, have you changed your views relating to homosexuality (and perhaps your interpretation of your chosen holy book), or just the way that you intend to act when dealing with gay people?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:45:16 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by karmat:
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. |
If you don't mind me asking, have you changed your views relating to homosexuality (and perhaps your interpretation of your chosen holy book), or just the way that you intend to act when dealing with gay people? |
Good question. I honestly don't know.
I've accepted that some things do need to change -- the most immediate is how I deal with those around me. From there, I don't know.
I'm still studying, reading (praying) and investigating.
Keep in mind, though, that my "views relating to homosexuality" are fairly "liberal" when compared to many in my immediate geographical area, any way. If you are asking if I will ever say that homosexuality is not wrong, I don't know. To me, it is pretty clear that my holy book, as you call it, is fairly straight forward about that. However, it also lumps it in with a lot of other "sins" that the "good Christian" often falls prey to (gossip is the first that comes to mind, adultery is also a problem, even amongst Christians). Unfortunately, the church (regardless of denomination, usually) tends to make some "big" and some "little." Some are "forgiveable" and some are not.
At least that is where I am now.
:) |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 11:05:43 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Phil:
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? |
Yup, thank you :) |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 10:54:34 AM · #154 |
I have a difficult time with the original ruling in this thread.
I think as a sole proprietor of a business, shouldn't it be up to you how you choose to make or not make money ? Shouldn't you have the right to refuse anyone you like, for whatever reason you like ? I'd hope to think that if I started up in business, offering a personal service such as a photography, I could decide 'I don't like this person' and as a result, not offer to attend their wedding. For whatever reason.
Maybe.
I fully agree that public services, government services etc shouldn't be allowed to restrict services to anyone, for any reason, if they pay taxes or it is some sort of emergency service.
But should I be required to work for someone I don't want to work for ? I have a hard time with that.
At the same time, I think if a barber or hairdresser - which is I think a comparably personal and intimate service to provide, as a photographer, hung a shingle up that said 'no blacks allowed' or 'no whites allowed' I'd have a harder time accepting that. That seems pretty closely equivalent to this particular case, just reframed slightly.
So I'm left being not sure where I stand on this. It seems a tough decision either way.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 10:55:53. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:12:12 PM · #155 |
You may be required to do it by law. You could tell them that you would be so nervous that your hand shaking may blurr most of the photos. You could refer them to a specialist in a particular area.
Yes, blatent refusal can be hurtful and unlawful, so you may have to come up with legitimate excuses, until the laws get refined more fairly to all. Can you make a religeously objecting photographer shoot a nude wedding?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:20:54 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by karmat:
At least that is where I am now.
:) |
Good luck with finding some answers. There are lots of scriptures and lots of interpretations so I'm sure that you'll find something that works for you if/when you reformulate your opinions.
In case it is relevant or helpful, I'll give you a summary of my view. What we see in the world is that biological factors such as genetics and prenatal development play substantial roles in determining sexual orientation. Being gay is not a matter of choice for most people any more than it is to be black or white. As the subject was not studied seriously until the middle of the last century, it is unreasonable to have expected ancient civilisations to have incorporated this in their holy texts. However, there is not the same excuse now.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:40:52 PM · #157 |
I think a better approach would have been to simply subcontract the job. Hire another photographer without the same hang-ups to do that particular job. That way, the business can still offer the service while the individual photographer is free to decline jobs they have a particular aversion for.
Having a backup photographer is a good idea anyway. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:45:55 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
You may be required to do it by law. You could tell them that you would be so nervous that your hand shaking may blurr most of the photos. You could refer them to a specialist in a particular area.
Yes, blatent refusal can be hurtful and unlawful, so you may have to come up with legitimate excuses, until the laws get refined more fairly to all. Can you make a religeously objecting photographer shoot a nude wedding? |
Just checking - are you suggesting that these are good excuses for objecting to photgraphing people based on their skin colour or their sexual orientation?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:50:29 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I have a difficult time with the original ruling in this thread.
I think as a sole proprietor of a business, shouldn't it be up to you how you choose to make or not make money ? |
I believe in the current case it was a corporation (LLC) which was sued, not the individual photographer; this was not a sole proprietorship.
You may have greater rights to decline customers as a sole proprietorship, but all your personal assets are also at risk if you do get sued. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:58:16 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think a better approach would have been to simply subcontract the job. Hire another photographer without the same hang-ups to do that particular job. That way, the business can still offer the service while the individual photographer is free to decline jobs they have a particular aversion for.
Having a backup photographer is a good idea anyway. |
I think that this is the whole problem. It does not make it okay to provide an alternative service because "I don't like gays" any more than it is okay to provide an alternate service because "I don't like blacks".
The legislation is intended to encourage society to develop beyond discrimination of people based on their biological make-up. It is progressive. It is legislation like this that will mean your grandchildren will squirm at your derogatory remarks about "gays" in the same way as you might be uncomfortable at a grandparent's derogatory remarks about "coloureds".
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 02:03:31 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe in the current case it was a corporation (LLC) which was sued, not the individual photographer; this was not a sole proprietorship.
You may have greater rights to decline customers as a sole proprietorship, but all your personal assets are also at risk if you do get sued. |
I don't think that it makes a difference whether you are a sole trader (individual) or a company (managed by its director) offering the business except for determining who is liable and so who gets sued.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 02:11:04 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The legislation is intended to encourage society to develop beyond discrimination of people based on their biological make-up. It is progressive. It is legislation like this that will mean your grandchildren will squirm at your derogatory remarks about "gays" in the same way as you might be uncomfortable at a grandparent's derogatory remarks about "coloureds". |
Amen! I mean... yeah! LOL
It does take time. Proudly, my own daughters already roll their eyes when they hear someone use the "N" word (or even the "fag..." word). |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 02:45:17 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think a better approach would have been to simply subcontract the job. Hire another photographer without the same hang-ups to do that particular job. That way, the business can still offer the service while the individual photographer is free to decline jobs they have a particular aversion for.
Having a backup photographer is a good idea anyway. |
I think that this is the whole problem. It does not make it okay to provide an alternative service because "I don't like gays" any more than it is okay to provide an alternate service because "I don't like blacks".
The legislation is intended to encourage society to develop beyond discrimination of people based on their biological make-up. It is progressive. It is legislation like this that will mean your grandchildren will squirm at your derogatory remarks about "gays" in the same way as you might be uncomfortable at a grandparent's derogatory remarks about "coloureds". |
I know what the law is intended to do, but, I was speaking practically. If a member of a protected group goes to any kind of firm and asks for service, should they then also demand someone who is uncomfortable providing service to a memebr of that group? Do you honestly think that, given her stong aversion to the idea, this photographer would have had a moment of enlightenment on the issue? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:41:21 PM · #164 |
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 |
That is how it reads to me as well. Doesn't sit well (imo) for the claimant. The lesson is that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from the obligation to it.
1. Any one should be able to refuse service to anyone else - however they do not have the right in every case to be honest on why. The actions in this case, do not to me, increase my compassion towards homosexuals.
2. Kind of raises a question on child photography. If I can be sued for refusing to shoot a homosexual wedding, can I be sued for failing to shoot other acts I may find immoral? What about seductively dressed children? Or illicit affairs of lovers/spouses? How about a religious practice where animal sacrifice was involved?
3. Business ownership has responsibilities inherrent within it. As unfair as it may seem.
Whether I shoot straights or gays makes little difference to me (from a business standpoint). If you're paying, I'm shooting and I'll shoot you some damn nice photos. My personal view on your life's decisions, really are a separate matter - unless we get into realms whereby I suspect/know your actions are criminal.
It is sad though, that this fotog had to learn this lesson this way. I see similar analogies between races, whereby some members of some races "look" for opportunities to gain a financial advantage over another who has strongly held feelings - sometimes for valid reasons to them - but get caught up in a legal battle only to lose to a better informed opponent. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:14:00 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I have NO intention of debating the rights & wrongs of anyone's religious beliefs. In fact, I wish there was an 'ignore' button in real life concerning religion, as it invariably leads to someone getting offended / angry / rude.
|
:) i try to opt out of discussing religion / politics / and or anything else that might potentially cause problems... :-D |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 07:37:54 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. Any one should be able to refuse service to anyone else - however they do not have the right in every case to be honest on why. |
Ah yes â lying about your reasons makes it okay.
Originally posted by Flash:
If I can be sued for refusing to shoot a homosexual wedding, can I be sued for failing to shoot other acts I may find immoral? What about seductively dressed children? Or illicit affairs of lovers/spouses? How about a religious practice where animal sacrifice was involved? |
Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. It has nothing to do with shooting immoral acts. The issue is whether you should be allowed to discriminate against people over their sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Flash:
I see similar analogies between races, whereby some members of some races "look" for opportunities to gain a financial advantage over another who has strongly held feelings - sometimes for valid reasons to them - but get caught up in a legal battle only to lose to a better informed opponent. |
Why not come right out with it? Why not say âblack people swindle white people and then when the white people complain the white people suffer because black people can always play the racial discrimination cardâ?
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 19:38:48.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2008 12:03:33 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. Any one should be able to refuse service to anyone else - however they do not have the right in every case to be honest on why. |
Ah yes â lying about your reasons makes it okay.
Originally posted by Flash:
If I can be sued for refusing to shoot a homosexual wedding, can I be sued for failing to shoot other acts I may find immoral? What about seductively dressed children? Or illicit affairs of lovers/spouses? How about a religious practice where animal sacrifice was involved? |
Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. It has nothing to do with shooting immoral acts. The issue is whether you should be allowed to discriminate against people over their sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Flash:
I see similar analogies between races, whereby some members of some races "look" for opportunities to gain a financial advantage over another who has strongly held feelings - sometimes for valid reasons to them - but get caught up in a legal battle only to lose to a better informed opponent. |
Why not come right out with it? Why not say âblack people swindle white people and then when the white people complain the white people suffer because black people can always play the racial discrimination cardâ? |
It does not surprise me at all, that you selectively edited out this comment of mine:
"Whether I shoot straights or gays makes little difference to me (from a business standpoint). If you're paying, I'm shooting and I'll shoot you some damn nice photos. My personal view on your life's decisions, really are a separate matter -"
I also found it encouraging that from the OP's originallink came this comment:"Anonymous said...
Stupidity! I'm getting civil-unioned in CT. Last thing I want to do is force someone to do something they don't want to do!
The 'professional' gay community is so il-liberal and bigoted. With funding from George Soros the community has been taken over by the uber-left.
If you think you're having this stuff forced on you, think about us regular gays. We've had every deviant group placed under the 'gay/lesbian' umbrella. We're told we (gays) have to accept them because we were discriminated against too.
I'm sorry Elaine Huguenin. We're not all like that. I stand by your side.
"
So my post still stands; activists like this one who set up a business owner, did a greater dis-service for her cause. As is evidenced by others in the gay community who hold these actions as dispicable.
You can defend them if you want - this was not about the "civil rights" of the rejected and clearly an intentional targeting. Why else would she intentionally misrepresent herself (lie by at least ommission). The very kind of lie that you so "haughtily" decried when you replied "Ah yes â lying about your reasons makes it okay." |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 05:44:01 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. Any one should be able to refuse service to anyone else - however they do not have the right in every case to be honest on why. |
Ah yes â lying about your reasons makes it okay.
Originally posted by Flash:
If I can be sued for refusing to shoot a homosexual wedding, can I be sued for failing to shoot other acts I may find immoral? What about seductively dressed children? Or illicit affairs of lovers/spouses? How about a religious practice where animal sacrifice was involved? |
Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. It has nothing to do with shooting immoral acts. The issue is whether you should be allowed to discriminate against people over their sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Flash:
I see similar analogies between races, whereby some members of some races "look" for opportunities to gain a financial advantage over another who has strongly held feelings - sometimes for valid reasons to them - but get caught up in a legal battle only to lose to a better informed opponent. |
Why not come right out with it? Why not say âblack people swindle white people and then when the white people complain the white people suffer because black people can always play the racial discrimination cardâ? |
It does not surprise me at all, that you selectively edited out this comment of mine:
"Whether I shoot straights or gays makes little difference to me (from a business standpoint). If you're paying, I'm shooting and I'll shoot you some damn nice photos. My personal view on your life's decisions, really are a separate matter -"
I also found it encouraging that from the OP's originallink came this comment:"Anonymous said...
Stupidity! I'm getting civil-unioned in CT. Last thing I want to do is force someone to do something they don't want to do!
The 'professional' gay community is so il-liberal and bigoted. With funding from George Soros the community has been taken over by the uber-left.
If you think you're having this stuff forced on you, think about us regular gays. We've had every deviant group placed under the 'gay/lesbian' umbrella. We're told we (gays) have to accept them because we were discriminated against too.
I'm sorry Elaine Huguenin. We're not all like that. I stand by your side.
"
So my post still stands; activists like this one who set up a business owner, did a greater dis-service for her cause. As is evidenced by others in the gay community who hold these actions as dispicable.
You can defend them if you want - this was not about the "civil rights" of the rejected and clearly an intentional targeting. Why else would she intentionally misrepresent herself (lie by at least ommission). The very kind of lie that you so "haughtily" decried when you replied "Ah yes â lying about your reasons makes it okay." |
I don't condone the duplicity in the actions of the plaintiffs in this specific case, but someone lying about their reasons for discrimination does nothing to address the inherent and illegal bias in their actions. |
|
|
|
07/25/2008 08:47:47 AM · #169 |
This is a quote from the other thread.
Originally posted by Jac:
How would the two photographers react to being asked to post a sign underneath their main one that says ' We Do not do business with homosexuals in this establishment'?
Do you think they would comply? |
Any thoughts? Do you think any business would? Do christian establishments post that homosexuals are not permitted on their premises?
|
|
|
|
07/25/2008 09:55:21 AM · #170 |
As a former sole proprieter, and currently one, albeit in a much smaller way, I will reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone I choose for pretty much whatever reason I choose.
I also don't feel any obligation to disclose my reasonings other than I just don't want the job.....if I don't want the job, I don't take the job, period. I don't have to give a reason.
If at that point, whomever I refuse wants to make an issue out of it, that's their problem.
Here in the US, you don't have to have a viable reason to sue, you just can......whether or not you win is the question.
My own personal philosophy is that if for whatever reason the client, and/or the job just doesn't feel right, I'd be doing both of us a disservice to take it on.
I didn't read up on the case in question, but from what I gather, the photographer didn't do themselves any good by stating an inflammatory reason for refusal. Good sense should always prevail.......too often, it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2008 06:39:47 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Any thoughts? Do you think any business would? Do christian establishments post that homosexuals are not permitted on their premises? |
Came over from the other thread too. My thoughts have nothing to do with signs. Mine have to do with the right to do business with whom you wish in the US. No excuse need be given. But...
someone who runs a reasonable business will do some prior research on the subject. Like finding other respectable businesses in the area that will do the shoot. Then advise your potential clients that you think one of these competitors would probably be a better choice. Or.....
do even more research and ask people who have done these types of shoots how they differ from the traditional shoots, other than the obvious. Take this information and take some of these shoots and gain some experience. This makes your business more profitable. If it makes you feel better, donate all your profits on these shoots to your church. Just don't reject your potential clients in such a way to ridicule or embarrass them. This is never a good business strategy and will result in bad karma! A 6000 buck fine to the government will pale in comparison to the lack of business that a bad reputation will garner you. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:50:41 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I guess I fall in the middle of this somewhere and can see both sides. What if it were a black couple, and the photographer said that they only shoot white weddings? Would you consider that grounds for discrimination? Surely you would( I hope). There is really little difference, at least imo. Now I completely agree that I wouldn't want someone to take my wedding photos who didn't feel comfortable, for whatever reason, and would move on to the next photographer. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, though I'm in that group of people who are not discriminated against(white, male)either. Just a thought. |
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is.
Regardless, yes, the photographer should be free to choose not to photographer black, white, red, yellow as well. It's a private contract, the photographer is not running a public store. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 02:13:14 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
]
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is. |
Surely you're not serious?
What about people who catch 'Gay' off someone else? Not to mention gay men who've been turned when they see an attractive woman?
And don't call me shirley. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 02:45:13 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is. |
How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? (I'm assuming you are heterosexual.) |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 02:58:14 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
This is not the same thing at all. Race is not chosen, but sexual preference is. |
How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? (I'm assuming you are heterosexual.) |
I did not. Every single person is born that way. Just like we're all born to breathe air. No choice is required for the normal human creation.
Some have a propensity to abnormal desires, but they always have the choice whether to act upon them. It's the same as being an alcoholic. Some can drink and never become an alcoholic. Some cannot. It never makes being an alcoholic right, but there is still the choice whether to engage in the behavior.
Homosexuality is and always has been behavior centered. In spite of desires, feelings, etc... a person is not a homosexual without committing the act. After the act, they are still a heterosexual who has (past) or will again (future) engage in such an act.
And the choice is always there whether to commit the act. Therefore it's a choice pure and simple.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 14:59:16. |
|
