DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Court rules against Christian photographer
Pages:  
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 286, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/06/2012 12:43:35 AM · #151
That's awesome!
06/06/2012 01:59:01 AM · #152
oops double post

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 02:10:28.
06/06/2012 02:09:35 AM · #153
Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.

I see both sides and I believe in the rights of both sides, that's all.

I really hope people see that I am not saying I don't think homosexuals deserve to have marriages. That has not once been my point.
06/06/2012 02:32:29 AM · #154
Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.

06/06/2012 02:47:24 AM · #155
Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.


But do you think forcing a photog to do the wedding is doing nothing but fostering dishonesty? Is that what we want? Why not let a wedding photog say "sorry, we only do traditional marriages" and the same sex couple can say "well thanks for the honesty, sorry your traditional views will cost you clients and money" and leave it at that. Forcing people with laws and the hand of government will not change discrimination, it just disguises it.

Now, as I said before if the photog agreed but canceled later then the couple is due some compensation for inconvenience.
06/06/2012 03:02:01 AM · #156
Originally posted by chazoe:

Why not let a wedding photog say "sorry, we only do traditional marriages" and the same sex couple can say "well thanks for the honesty, sorry your traditional views will cost you clients and money" and leave it at that.

Because some people's ideas of "traditional marriages" not so long ago were white only.

It's discrimination!

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 03:02:33.
06/06/2012 03:53:33 AM · #157
Originally posted by chazoe:

Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.


But do you think forcing a photog to do the wedding is doing nothing but fostering dishonesty? Is that what we want? Why not let a wedding photog say "sorry, we only do traditional marriages" and the same sex couple can say "well thanks for the honesty, sorry your traditional views will cost you clients and money" and leave it at that. Forcing people with laws and the hand of government will not change discrimination, it just disguises it.

Now, as I said before if the photog agreed but canceled later then the couple is due some compensation for inconvenience.


Laws are passed to protect people, if you've ever lived in a country without big brother and his long arm, you would know that laws are as necessary as oxygen if you want freedom. If the couple are black, gay, Jewish or Arab, we have no right to discriminate.
06/06/2012 06:57:04 AM · #158
Originally posted by chazoe:


But do you think forcing a photog to do the wedding is doing nothing but fostering dishonesty? Is that what we want? Why not let a wedding photog say "sorry, we only do traditional marriages" and the same sex couple can say "well thanks for the honesty, sorry your traditional views will cost you clients and money" and leave it at that. Forcing people with laws and the hand of government will not change discrimination, it just disguises it.

Now, as I said before if the photog agreed but canceled later then the couple is due some compensation for inconvenience.


The government is not forcing a photographer to do a wedding. The government is telling a business they have to treat everyone equally. The business advertized that they do weddings. If one of the photographers in the business has an objection to certain types of weddings or certain types of people, it is up to the business to find another photographer. If the business wants to cater to only certain types of events or certain types of clients, the business should not publicly advertize.

In this case, there is only one photographer in the business. Sucks to be them but, as a business person, he/she needs to 'suck it up.' Everyone's money is the same color green. A job is a job is a job. The goal of a photographer is supposed to be to take the best images one can of what they are in front of. Morality, likes, and dislikes should play no part. Just ask all the freelancers who lived (and died) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam...
06/06/2012 07:15:53 AM · #159
Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.


what about the pain caused to the Christian photographer for being forced to have to cover a wedding that violates the rules of their beliefs?

06/06/2012 07:24:21 AM · #160
Originally posted by dahkota:



The government is not forcing a photographer to do a wedding. The government is telling a business they have to treat everyone equally. The business advertized that they do weddings. If one of the photographers in the business has an objection to certain types of weddings or certain types of people, it is up to the business to find another photographer. If the business wants to cater to only certain types of events or certain types of clients, the business should not publicly advertize.

In this case, there is only one photographer in the business. Sucks to be them but, as a business person, he/she needs to 'suck it up.' Everyone's money is the same color green. A job is a job is a job. The goal of a photographer is supposed to be to take the best images one can of what they are in front of. Morality, likes, and dislikes should play no part. Just ask all the freelancers who lived (and died) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam...


why, dont we all do that? i dont photograph kids. am I age discriminating? I also probbaly wouldn't do anything besides a traditional wedding, not being discriminatory to other religions I'm not comfortable with it becuase I'm unfamiliar with it. what if someone from camden, NJ contacted me to go into camden (murder capital if the US) to photograph them? I have to oblige??? or should i be able to consider my safety? am i now a race discriminating?

im all for equal rights but a private business should be able to turn down any work they please.

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 07:25:20.
06/06/2012 07:29:48 AM · #161
Originally posted by mike_311:

im all for equal rights but a private business should be able to turn down any work they please.

No, they shouldn't.

I have to assume everyone who shares your sentiments is white, male, agnostic or Christian, heterosexual, probably not overweight. Now imagine you're not in one of those categories. Would you want to give businesses the right to turn you away because you don't meet a criteria which has no bearing on them delivering a service other than their own ignorance?

CS
06/06/2012 07:30:54 AM · #162
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.


what about the pain caused to the Christian photographer for being forced to have to cover a wedding that violates the rules of their beliefs?

It's hard to sympathize with bigots, especially ones who claim religious superiority.

CS
06/06/2012 07:38:03 AM · #163
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by chazoe:

I just take a live and let live view of the world, but I look at both sides that way. If a same sex couple wants to get married go ahead, and if a Christian photog doesn't want to take their picture, that's fine too. Whatever helps you along this crazy trip we call life, as long as your not harming others.


The Christian photog is harming others, his discrimination causes pain.


what about the pain caused to the Christian photographer for being forced to have to cover a wedding that violates the rules of their beliefs?


Members of the general public come in all shapes and sizes, if you live in a non religious state with laws that protect people against discrimination and you yourself hold certain religious, racist or homophobic beliefs that might stop you from interacting with a part of your clientele, you should think twice about opening a business.

If we lived in a society were none of these laws existed it would be a truly sad state of afairs, we simply shouldn't do to others what we couldn't accept ourselves, it's as simple as that.

Hey mike, sorry i can't do business with you but I have a strong belief system that prevents me from dealing with expert editors ;-), now do I sound a prick?

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 07:38:54.
06/06/2012 07:58:12 AM · #164


Originally posted by cosmicassassin:



Would you want to give businesses the right to turn you away because you don't meet a criteria which has no bearing on them delivering a service other than their own ignorance?

CS


no, but I'd also like know if they strongly disapprove of me for some reason that they aren't providing a service to me becuase they are being forced to.

the business is only hurting themselves by turning down the work. It's not like aren't other businesses to bring my money to.

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:


It's hard to sympathize with bigots, especially ones who claim religious superiority.

CS


i agree, but can't you at least the see the point, one side is always going to be distressed in some way, why cant we just allow the business to not occur and both parties agree to move on.
Originally posted by jagar:



Members of the general public come in all shapes and sizes, if you live in a non religious state with laws that protect people against discrimination and you yourself hold certain religious, racist or homophobic beliefs that might stop you from interacting with a part of your clientele, you should think twice about opening a business.

If we lived in a society were none of these laws existed it would be a truly sad state of afairs, we simply shouldn't do to others what we couldn't accept ourselves, it's as simple as that.

Hey mike, sorry i can't do business with you but I have a strong belief system that prevents me from dealing with expert editors ;-), now do I sound a prick?


agree
agree
that is your choice

06/06/2012 08:11:07 AM · #165
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:


It's hard to sympathize with bigots, especially ones who claim religious superiority.

CS


It's hard to sympathize with homosexuals, especially ones who claim whatever. Feel free to change homosexuals to little people, black, white, Asian, fat skinny, bald, hairy or whatever. It's just getting old. If there was actual discrimination then sure I can see a problem, but there wasn't. I just saw an article where the little people of America, or whatever the organization is called, are claiming discrimination because the new Snow White movie didn't cast little people in the role of the dwarfs. Should the owner of the business bash someone for who they are, absolutely not. Should they be allowed to adhere to their moral beliefs as long as they are not harming another person? I think so. Perhaps a person who's religious beliefs don't allow them to eat or touch pork, should they claim discrimination if a bbq caterer refuses to do their wedding because all they serve is pork or vice versa? Discrimination is thrown around far too loosely. Yes there are still real cases of it but for the most part it is bs.
06/06/2012 08:39:10 AM · #166
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Should they be allowed to adhere to their moral beliefs as long as they are not harming another person?


yes, I'm all for gay marriage and equal rights but if someone truly believes, not matter how distorted their view maybe, that what you are doing is wrong and makes them uncomfortable, why are we forcing them to interact in a business relationship when their are plenty of other options available?

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 08:39:58.
06/06/2012 08:45:41 AM · #167
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Originally posted by cosmicassassin:


It's hard to sympathize with bigots, especially ones who claim religious superiority.

CS


It's hard to sympathize with homosexuals, especially ones who claim whatever. Feel free to change homosexuals to little people, black, white, Asian, fat skinny, bald, hairy or whatever. It's just getting old. If there was actual discrimination then sure I can see a problem, but there wasn't. I just saw an article where the little people of America, or whatever the organization is called, are claiming discrimination because the new Snow White movie didn't cast little people in the role of the dwarfs. Should the owner of the business bash someone for who they are, absolutely not. Should they be allowed to adhere to their moral beliefs as long as they are not harming another person? I think so. Perhaps a person who's religious beliefs don't allow them to eat or touch pork, should they claim discrimination if a bbq caterer refuses to do their wedding because all they serve is pork or vice versa? Discrimination is thrown around far too loosely. Yes there are still real cases of it but for the most part it is bs.


Well, from my own experience i would say there is huge discrimination and bigotry aimed towards homosexuals. In fact, i have never met so many people of a minority who have had so much abuse and violence aimed at them. I've met many people who have been beaten in the street, i've been with gay friends and been attacked in the street, i've seen people with scars from knife wounds on their stomachs, been on a bus when a lesbian couple were verbally abused then attacked by a gang, heard of friends of friends who have been attacked and murdered because they were gay. All in a supposed civilised city like London. Now, to my mind one of the roles the state of a civilised country should have is to protect people who are routinely open to prejudice and abuse and one of those ways to protect them is have discrimination laws. I think things are bad for LGBT people at the moment but one thing i'm utterly sure of is that it would be a hundred times worse if we didn't have these laws; if we turned back time 60 years and prejudiced people were allowed to ban people from their establishments and business because they didn't like the colour or their skin or they didn't like lesbians or Jews. If they could put those signs up in their windows saying 'We don't serve your type here.' Sorry, this is meant to be the 21st century, surely we're better than that.
06/06/2012 08:59:55 AM · #168
Originally posted by rooum:


Well, from my own experience i would say there is huge discrimination and bigotry aimed towards homosexuals. In fact, i have never met so many people of a minority who have had so much abuse and violence aimed at them. I've met many people who have been beaten in the street, i've been with gay friends and been attacked in the street, i've seen people with scars from knife wounds on their stomachs, been on a bus when a lesbian couple were verbally abused then attacked by a gang, heard of friends of friends who have been attacked and murdered because they were gay. All in a supposed civilised city like London. Now, to my mind one of the roles the state of a civilised country should have is to protect people who are routinely open to prejudice and abuse and one of those ways to protect them is have discrimination laws. I think things are bad for LGBT people at the moment but one thing i'm utterly sure of is that it would be a hundred times worse if we didn't have these laws; if we turned back time 60 years and prejudiced people were allowed to ban people from their establishments and business because they didn't like the colour or their skin or they didn't like lesbians or Jews. If they could put those signs up in their windows saying 'We don't serve your type here.' Sorry, this is meant to be the 21st century, surely we're better than that.


what you are talking about is hate crime, and should not be tolerated.

no crime was committed by the photographer besides being uncomfortable.

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 09:00:52.
06/06/2012 09:03:24 AM · #169
I'm not understanding this thread, or a lot of it anyway. As Clive says, this is supposed to be the 21st century. We have, for the most part, laws in place to protect the civil liberties of groups that might otherwise be discriminated against. I haven't seen anybody here suggesting they should be allowed not to provide services to blacks or Asians; there seems to be complete agreement that this is a no-no. Thanks heavens... BUT....

We have people saying that if someone has a religious justification for not catering to homosexuals, this should be accommodated. Apparently on the grounds that religious expression is a protected activity. EXPLICITLY on the grounds that it would make someone "uncomfortable" to "violate" their religious proscriptions, and what right does the government have to "make someone uncomfortable"?

And apparently some people don't see how bogus that is?

People, IF IT DIDN'T MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE, WE WOULDN'T NEED LAWS ABOUT IT! The laws are there so people like you can be required to do the right thing! It's as simple as that. IN the privacy of your own home you can be as discriminatory as you want, but when it comes to serving the public you have NO right to make any protected group of individuals feel like second-class human beings.

I'll concede that sometimes the application of the anti-discrimination laws can feel a little bit draconian, but that doesn't mean we don't need them and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking the principles to heart. Just suck it up and treat people like people, no matter who they're holding hands with.

R.
06/06/2012 09:14:37 AM · #170
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by rooum:


Well, from my own experience i would say there is huge discrimination and bigotry aimed towards homosexuals. In fact, i have never met so many people of a minority who have had so much abuse and violence aimed at them. I've met many people who have been beaten in the street, i've been with gay friends and been attacked in the street, i've seen people with scars from knife wounds on their stomachs, been on a bus when a lesbian couple were verbally abused then attacked by a gang, heard of friends of friends who have been attacked and murdered because they were gay. All in a supposed civilised city like London. Now, to my mind one of the roles the state of a civilised country should have is to protect people who are routinely open to prejudice and abuse and one of those ways to protect them is have discrimination laws. I think things are bad for LGBT people at the moment but one thing i'm utterly sure of is that it would be a hundred times worse if we didn't have these laws; if we turned back time 60 years and prejudiced people were allowed to ban people from their establishments and business because they didn't like the colour or their skin or they didn't like lesbians or Jews. If they could put those signs up in their windows saying 'We don't serve your type here.' Sorry, this is meant to be the 21st century, surely we're better than that.


what you are talking about is hate crime, and should not be tolerated.

no crime was committed by the photographer besides being uncomfortable.


No, i get that. But my point is that hate crime becomes far more common place, and even accepted, when people are able to display their prejudices more openly. Nothing exists in a vacuum. I'm all for freedom of speech, hell, i'd like to live in some anarchist utopia ideally but that isn't going to happen so what we are left with is the state and, like i said, i feel the state should protect those who are more open to abuse and hopefully change will happen. Like you say, it's not a quick process. If the law says, 'Actually, you can't treat people unequally. By law, it is wrong,' then i think that is a step in the right direction on the road to a prejudice free society. And after all, they are not having their free speech curtailed- in America they are more than welcome to make their 'God Hates Fags' signs to tell the world what they think (i don't think they'd get away with it in the UK which is a bit rubbish when it comes to freedom of speech)- but they are being told that, by law, people should be treated as equals and it is wrong to do otherwise.
06/06/2012 09:15:26 AM · #171
Exactly Robert, the more i read threads like this, the more i'm happy about those laws being in place, its proof that they are desperately needed.
06/06/2012 09:23:10 AM · #172
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not understanding this thread, or a lot of it anyway. As Clive says, this is supposed to be the 21st century. We have, for the most part, laws in place to protect the civil liberties of groups that might otherwise be discriminated against. I haven't seen anybody here suggesting they should be allowed not to provide services to blacks or Asians; there seems to be complete agreement that this is a no-no. Thanks heavens... BUT....

We have people saying that if someone has a religious justification for not catering to homosexuals, this should be accommodated. Apparently on the grounds that religious expression is a protected activity. EXPLICITLY on the grounds that it would make someone "uncomfortable" to "violate" their religious proscriptions, and what right does the government have to "make someone uncomfortable"?

And apparently some people don't see how bogus that is?

People, IF IT DIDN'T MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE, WE WOULDN'T NEED LAWS ABOUT IT! The laws are there so people like you can be required to do the right thing! It's as simple as that. IN the privacy of your own home you can be as discriminatory as you want, but when it comes to serving the public you have NO right to make any protected group of individuals feel like second-class human beings.

I'll concede that sometimes the application of the anti-discrimination laws can feel a little bit draconian, but that doesn't mean we don't need them and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking the principles to heart. Just suck it up and treat people like people, no matter who they're holding hands with.

R.


oh what the hell.

what gives you the right to introduce logic into this thread???

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 09:29:47.
06/06/2012 09:31:18 AM · #173
Originally posted by rooum:



No, i get that. But my point is that hate crime becomes far more common place, and even accepted, when people are able to display their prejudices more openly. Nothing exists in a vacuum. I'm all for freedom of speech, hell, i'd like to live in some anarchist utopia ideally but that isn't going to happen so what we are left with is the state and, like i said, i feel the state should protect those who are more open to abuse and hopefully change will happen. Like you say, it's not a quick process. If the law says, 'Actually, you can't treat people unequally. By law, it is wrong,' then i think that is a step in the right direction on the road to a prejudice free society. And after all, they are not having their free speech curtailed- in America they are more than welcome to make their 'God Hates Fags' signs to tell the world what they think (i don't think they'd get away with it in the UK which is a bit rubbish when it comes to freedom of speech)- but they are being told that, by law, people should be treated as equals and it is wrong to do otherwise.


fair point, i cant argue with that.

06/06/2012 09:33:05 AM · #174
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

It's hard to sympathize with homosexuals, especially ones who claim whatever. It's just getting old.

Why? Personally, I'd hate to be continuously shit on by society. It might be getting old from your vantage point, but considering the glacial speed at which others are willing to accept them as members of society, get used to it.

When I had to travel to the US, the Southern states are prime examples of racism in action. Would you tell African Americans that their plight is getting old? It's hard to sympathize because you've been at it too long.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

If there was actual discrimination then sure I can see a problem, but there wasn't.

A couple was denied service because of their sexual orientation. If the obvious doesn't smack of discrimination, I don't know what does.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Should they be allowed to adhere to their moral beliefs as long as they are not harming another person? I think so.

See above.

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Perhaps a person who's religious beliefs don't allow them to eat or touch pork, should they claim discrimination if a bbq caterer refuses to do their wedding because all they serve is pork or vice versa?

Not the same thing. The two scenarios are perpendicular. The caterers would deny service since they sell a product Jews can't eat. They are not denying service because they are Jewish. This is the essence of the entire argument. If you can't differentiate between the two scenarios, it's going to be hard to move forward.

CS

Message edited by author 2012-06-06 09:33:35.
06/06/2012 09:39:54 AM · #175
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by rooum:


Well, from my own experience i would say there is huge discrimination and bigotry aimed towards homosexuals. In fact, i have never met so many people of a minority who have had so much abuse and violence aimed at them. I've met many people who have been beaten in the street, i've been with gay friends and been attacked in the street, i've seen people with scars from knife wounds on their stomachs, been on a bus when a lesbian couple were verbally abused then attacked by a gang, heard of friends of friends who have been attacked and murdered because they were gay. All in a supposed civilised city like London. Now, to my mind one of the roles the state of a civilised country should have is to protect people who are routinely open to prejudice and abuse and one of those ways to protect them is have discrimination laws. I think things are bad for LGBT people at the moment but one thing i'm utterly sure of is that it would be a hundred times worse if we didn't have these laws; if we turned back time 60 years and prejudiced people were allowed to ban people from their establishments and business because they didn't like the colour or their skin or they didn't like lesbians or Jews. If they could put those signs up in their windows saying 'We don't serve your type here.' Sorry, this is meant to be the 21st century, surely we're better than that.


what you are talking about is hate crime, and should not be tolerated.

no crime was committed by the photographer besides being uncomfortable.


Wrong, the crime was the photographer's discrimination.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:44:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:44:18 AM EDT.