| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2012 06:25:06 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
if you perceive an otherwise-normal situation as repugnant simply because of the class of people participating, then that's your problem. |
Would that not apply to the NeoNazi rally? I don't want to have anything to do with them. They scare and repulse me. I think it has nothing to do with who they are, but how they choose to behave, and the vile ideas they hold. Those are my beliefs. I will shoot a Democratic Party rally, heck even a Tea Party Rally, but I don't want to have anything to do with NeoNazis because they offend me.
I happen to think that those who fear and are repulsed my homosexuals are foolish and uninformed, but how can a law that forces them to take an action they disagree with not erode my right to conduct business as I choose? |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:27:25 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Would that not apply to the NeoNazi rally? |
No, NeoNazis are not a protected class of people. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:33:54 PM · #128 |
So essentially a christian photographer is not allowed to own a wedding photography business and stay true to their own beliefs? That seems like descrimination to me, and religion is a protected class.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:36:38 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, NeoNazis are not a protected class of people. |
It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of political view point in employment. I linked the federal guideline below.
Hate crimes and protected classes are based not on any inherent traits but on the perceptions of those who take the actions against them. The fact that I have publicly stated that I hate NeoNazis would make them defacto a protected class in any dealings I have had with them.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:37:30 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, NeoNazis are not a protected class of people. |
It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of political view point in employment. I linked the federal guideline below.
Hate crimes and protected classes are based not on any inherent traits but on the perceptions of those who take the actions against them. The fact that I have publicly stated that I hate NeoNazis would make them defacto a protected class in any dealings I have had with them. |
What you linked didn't protect them.
CS |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:46:20 PM · #131 |
Dang I have having a tent pole in an argument pulled out. On further research, I was wrong.
It is illegal to discriminate against political views only In California, New York, and DC.
Fortunately there aren't many of those them there guys who I don't want to work with in these parts. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:47:07 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
So essentially a christian photographer is not allowed to own a wedding photography business and stay true to their own beliefs? That seems like descrimination to me, and religion is a protected class. |
The business and the person who owns the business are two separate entities. They are not the same being under the law.
CS |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:49:58 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
More seriously, do you think Leroy could turn down shooting boudoir pictures of men on the basis of their gender? |
Someone still needs to answer this one. It can be with cheese or without. That is optional. We're not barbarians. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:53:58 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
More seriously, do you think Leroy could turn down shooting boudoir pictures of men on the basis of their gender? |
Someone still needs to answer this one. It can be with cheese or without. That is optional. We're not barbarians. |
I'm pretty sure Leroy has done some male boudoir shots. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 06:58:48 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
More seriously, do you think Leroy could turn down shooting boudoir pictures of men on the basis of their gender? |
Someone still needs to answer this one. It can be with cheese or without. That is optional. We're not barbarians. |
I'm pretty sure Leroy has done some male boudoir shots. |
Ha! Foiled. Well, you get the point. Should boudoir photographers be prepared to shoot all comers. Pin-up or sausage fest. It does strike me that this would be a reasonable verdict. Perhaps people are comfortable with that, but it might make some photographers think twice just because they wouldn't feel comfortable doing so (but the law may force them to do so if someone forced the issue). |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 07:00:56 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
So essentially a christian photographer is not allowed to own a wedding photography business and stay true to their own beliefs? That seems like descrimination to me, and religion is a protected class. |
You keep asking this, so I want to clarify, what exactly is it that violates their religion? They are not being asked to be gay. They are not being asked to kiss someone of the same sex. They are not being asked to participate in any way, shape or form other than to perform their job. They are only being asked to take photographs. Document an occasion. That, I'm pretty sure, is not against any religion and if it is, then they shouldn't be in that business.
As far as the animal sacrifice thing, if anyone remembers this bizarre question, while it is not specifically illegal to kill an animal as a sacrifice for religious purposes, there are still ways to easily run afoul (get it) of the law. Therefore, you would be able to refuse on the grounds that it can't be guaranteed to be legal. You never have to put your business in legal jeopardy. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 07:01:52 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm pretty sure Leroy has done some male boudoir shots. |
Infamously so, although I'm not sure that type of business would be considered open to the general public. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 07:17:57 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.
WHAT?!
It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?
IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.
It's their business. |
No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination. |
The reason they can tell someone what to do about smoking in a private business is simple. There are still employees. They still need to be protected. This was a big fight in NJ between the bars & casinos. They lost. You can't just say, if you don't want to be exposed don't work here. I agree with this, and I smoke. What I'm against are the outdoor bans. I have no problem with going outside to smoke. In NJ I can go to the aquarium, and go out on their balcony and have a cigarette. But if I go to Philadelphia, to say the zoo, I have to completely leave the premises (not an easy task) to smoke even though I'm already outside and wouldn't be bothering anyone. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 07:44:38 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
In NJ I can go to the aquarium, and go out on their balcony and have a cigarette. But if I go to Philadelphia, to say the zoo, I have to completely leave the premises (not an easy task) to smoke even though I'm already outside and wouldn't be bothering anyone. |
If I was in charge, I would heard smokers into a pen and put an "Endangered Species Exhibit" sign on it and let visitors throw peanuts at them. :P
(fwiw, I'm an ex-smoker, several times over) |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 07:56:21 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Kelli:
In NJ I can go to the aquarium, and go out on their balcony and have a cigarette. But if I go to Philadelphia, to say the zoo, I have to completely leave the premises (not an easy task) to smoke even though I'm already outside and wouldn't be bothering anyone. |
If I was in charge, I would heard smokers into a pen and put an "Endangered Species Exhibit" sign on it and let visitors throw peanuts at them. :P
(fwiw, I'm an ex-smoker, several times over) |
I understand. Sometimes I'm an ex-smoker too. ;D |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:04:13 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Sure they are, if else why the lawsuit. That's the problem I gave with this whole matter. If someone doesn't want to perform a service for you. Move along. You know your lifestyle isn't widely accepted. Deal with it.
Everyone feels they need to suw when their feeling get hurt. |
I kind of feel this approach is kind of lame and a bit cowardly. I mean, leaving aside the fact that i don't equate homosexuality as a lifestyle, we are talking about discrimination in general so if we change the word 'lifestyle' to, say, 'colour' or 'religion' or 'disability' what are we left with? The same old tired bigotry that we've heard a million times before. 'Your type ain't welcome round here. Deal with it and move along.' |
Valid points. But I say again, people won't change over night. Especially when the way they live their life goes against the grain of what someone believes.
We all know how cooky religious people can be. My point is that just because you feel you were discriminated against, doesnt mean you need to run to the first lawyer you can find. They need to understand that change is happening, it will happen, just give it time.
People dont want the government telling them how to live, if anyone should know that it's homosexuals. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:06:07 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nothing stirs up a conversation on DPC like this one... |
Why do you think I posted it. ;)
Heck I even thought about putting it /rant, but I figured I'd let things take their natural course and see where this goes.
Message edited by author 2012-06-05 20:06:24. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:07:02 PM · #143 |
I don't understand the disconnect.... The person and the business are just plain two different things. Sole prop are a classic case of people not separating themselves from the business (lots of people get into tax issues for the same reason). It comes down the the WHY they were refused not the fact they were - so if the photg just said you know it's not a good fit for your style with my photography style or similar then there would be no issues - regardless of the persons thoughts (and yeah that sux but I agree with earlier that this stuff takes generations to go away and never will in some percentage of the population).
Originally posted by Kelli:
But if I go to Philadelphia, to say the zoo, I have to completely leave the premises (not an easy task) to smoke even though I'm already outside and wouldn't be bothering anyone. |
I don't think been outside means tour not bothering anyone..... but the smoke thing is a smoke screen in this discussion anyway - different topic. |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:07:37 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I think it's the same principle as the government telling restaurants that they can't allow smoking in their private business.
WHAT?!
It's a private business and they're telling them what they can and can't do?
IMHO, if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, knowing that the non-smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right. Or if they don't want to allow smoking, knowing that the smokers won't eat there, then that should be their right.
It's their business. |
No, it's not. Smoking is not legally protected from discrimination. |
The reason they can tell someone what to do about smoking in a private business is simple. There are still employees. They still need to be protected. This was a big fight in NJ between the bars & casinos. They lost. You can't just say, if you don't want to be exposed don't work here. I agree with this, and I smoke. What I'm against are the outdoor bans. I have no problem with going outside to smoke. In NJ I can go to the aquarium, and go out on their balcony and have a cigarette. But if I go to Philadelphia, to say the zoo, I have to completely leave the premises (not an easy task) to smoke even though I'm already outside and wouldn't be bothering anyone. |
You can go to the casinos in Philly and smoke. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:38:19 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Valid points. But I say again, people won't change over night. Especially when the way they live their life goes against the grain of what someone believes.
We all know how cooky religious people can be. My point is that just because you feel you were discriminated against, doesnt mean you need to run to the first lawyer you can find. They need to understand that change is happening, it will happen, just give it time.
People dont want the government telling them how to live, if anyone should know that it's homosexuals. |
So what you are saying is that people should just shut up and accept discrimination and hope that "some day" things will change. I don't agree. If everyone, from Rosa Parks to Susan B. Anthony to Frederick Douglass (to name a few), just sat around waiting for change, we would probably still be waiting for something, anything, to change.
For what it is worth, "Willock had not sought monetary damages, just a declaration of her rights." |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 08:53:14 PM · #146 |
|
|
|
06/05/2012 09:13:55 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Valid points. But I say again, people won't change over night. Especially when the way they live their life goes against the grain of what someone believes.
We all know how cooky religious people can be. My point is that just because you feel you were discriminated against, doesnt mean you need to run to the first lawyer you can find. They need to understand that change is happening, it will happen, just give it time.
People dont want the government telling them how to live, if anyone should know that it's homosexuals. |
So what you are saying is that people should just shut up and accept discrimination and hope that "some day" things will change. I don't agree. If everyone, from Rosa Parks to Susan B. Anthony to Frederick Douglass (to name a few), just sat around waiting for change, we would probably still be waiting for something, anything, to change.
For what it is worth, "Willock had not sought monetary damages, just a declaration of her rights." |
apparently i cant articulate my point.
the original article never said it wasn't for monetary damages, i assumed that it was since all the appeals plus some christian legal team taking up the cause.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2012 11:54:58 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Sure they are, if else why the lawsuit. That's the problem I gave with this whole matter. If someone doesn't want to perform a service for you. Move along. You know your lifestyle isn't widely accepted. Deal with it.
Everyone feels they need to suw when their feeling get hurt. |
I kind of feel this approach is kind of lame and a bit cowardly. I mean, leaving aside the fact that i don't equate homosexuality as a lifestyle, we are talking about discrimination in general so if we change the word 'lifestyle' to, say, 'colour' or 'religion' or 'disability' what are we left with? The same old tired bigotry that we've heard a million times before. 'Your type ain't welcome round here. Deal with it and move along.' |
Valid points. But I say again, people won't change over night. Especially when the way they live their life goes against the grain of what someone believes.
We all know how cooky religious people can be. My point is that just because you feel you were discriminated against, doesnt mean you need to run to the first lawyer you can find. They need to understand that change is happening, it will happen, just give it time.
People dont want the government telling them how to live, if anyone should know that it's homosexuals. |
Just give it time?
What on earth are you talking about? The time for them to get used to the idea was BEFORE the law was passed.
Basically what you're saying is the same as - "Let's give people a few years to get used to the idea that blacks are people too...you know, before we actually let them sit at the front of the bus." Once the law changes, why should people continue to have to endure being discriminated against? So racists can ease out of their bigotry and into something more comfortable. Like riding around wearing sheets in the night, burning crosses, crap like that? |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 12:21:22 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
To inject a little humor, my aunt owns a beauty salon, and will pursue and hire gay stylists whenever possible. In that business it's a plus. |
Sounds discrimanatory. HAHA
|
|
|
|
06/06/2012 12:42:26 AM · #150 |
Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.
Be careful about voicing your prejudices in public, you never know who's help your life might depend on. |
|
