Me too. I just re-read the transcript of the NMHRC hearing. The photographer makes no such statements or inferences. So where are you getting this stuff? Just making it up? Now a bias is clear - despite the facts in evidence, many wish to continue to demonize the photographer and attribute the decision to decline the client to bigotry, hatred, misjudgement, etc. This is just a parroting of the plantiffs reaction to the e-mails - read page 6, paragraph 21 of the transcript - an unreasonable and hyperbolic reaction to the communication from the photographer.
I get that the plaintiff prevailed - I don't agree - but I can see the reasoning of the commission based on the evidence presented, as well as the statutes cited. My problem is the continued assault on the character and motives of the photographer - speaking of "simple" - what makes it so hard to understand that some people are instructed by their religious beliefs, live their lives and conduct their business accordingly while at the same time are just decent folks - and like many - hate no-one, believe in anti-discrimination, mean no harm, mow their lawn, etc. It's not necessarily bigotry - it's a belief system - quit fantasizing that we must all agree - right and wrong are subjective, and if I disagree with someone, quit fantasizing the I must therefore be a bigot and a hater.
Matt, gauged by the number and diversity of posts to this thread and the original one from 4 years ago, it is clear this matter is not "simple" To say so repeatedly is just a semantic cop-out designed to dismiss other points of views - it's lazy.
Eric, all I'm saying is that according to this court, in this case, ...the photographer picked an illegal reason to decline service to a customer. In this particular situation and context, it is indeed that simple.
I never said or implied that everyone who obeys their God is likely to be a bigot etc. I am only saying that one "belief system" cannot trump another in court, in the context of denying professional service. The courts must determine how to protect and preserve the rights and beliefs of each...
Maybe you are arguing that the court DID trump one belief system with another; (homosexuality trumped personal beliefs this time) ...I guess that is what makes it, well, not so simple.
Eric, all I'm saying is that according to this court, in this case, ...the photographer picked an illegal reason to decline service to a customer. In this particular situation and context, it is indeed that simple.
I never said or implied that everyone who obeys their God is likely to be a bigot etc. I am only saying that one "belief system" cannot trump another in court, in the context of denying professional service. The courts must determine how to protect and preserve the rights and beliefs of each...
Maybe you are arguing that the court DID trump one belief system with another; (homosexuality trumped personal beliefs this time) ...I guess that is what makes it, well, not so simple.
=Matt=
I can't disagree with you Matt, except to say, for me it was never about sexual orientationvs.personal beliefs, it was creating the best balance between Libertyvs. Responsibility to Protect - probably something that has been debated since, like, forever. Cheers!
Congratulations, you just posted the first reply that could get deleted!
Do you realize that you likened homosexuality to pedophilia? Think about it a minute, and tell me that's not offensive.
A note to everybody: THINK! Always ask yourself how "the other side" would see your statements. I won't delete this, at preset, because it sounds to me like you're only pointing it out as a "Look what Greece is doing" type thing, as opposed to a "this is what I believe" type thing...
Respectfully,
=Matt=
BTW, here is some reading on the subject for you, as per your recent question about the bill of rights etc...
Matt,
No I did not intend for it to offend someone. If it did I will apologize for them taking the comment wrong. However I do want to point out that the argument for the case would be the xact same if you truned away the pedophile in Greece. Under USA discrimination laws you would be in trouble. If you did not want to shoot this paticular person because of what they do behind closed doors you just discrimanted. Same argument just different set of circumstances. Not stating that they are alike in their lifestyle. Sorry if anyone has taken it that way.
Matt,
No I did not intend for it to offend someone. If it did I will apologize for them taking the comment wrong. However I do want to point out that the argument for the case would be the xact same if you truned away the pedophile in Greece. Under USA discrimination laws you would be in trouble. If you did not want to shoot this paticular person because of what they do behind closed doors you just discrimanted. Same argument just different set of circumstances. Not stating that they are alike in their lifestyle. Sorry if anyone has taken it that way.
Times are a changing.
Pedophiles are not a protected class. It is a totally different kettle of fish. And yes, bringing up pedophilia in the same breath as same sex marriage is offensive. To me, at least.
Pedophiles are not a protected class. It is a totally different kettle of fish. And yes, bringing up pedophilia in the same breath as same sex marriage is offensive. To me, at least.
Apparently in Greece they are and do have recognized rights.
If you can't see and understand the reason the comparison was made as explained which is totally and completely logical, sorry but you need to open your eyes.
I also find it ironic that you are in fact doing the exact same thing the shooter in question did. You are picking and choosing whom your clients would be based on your personal values.
As has been pointed out, if pedophilia in Greece has a legal status, then refusing to photograph a pedo Under the US Laws would be a crime. That appears to be the law as it stands.
Now you and other gay rights supporters may not like the comparison but you DON"T get to have the law all your own way as much as the special bleeding heart groups always want.
You can't say it's wrong/ illegal to discriminate against one mob but then it is ok to discriminate another, possibly with more legal rights and status, just because you find them offensive.
That's what some people are complaining the shooter in the story did and saying she was in the wrong.
So no, it's not a different kettle of fish at all, it's the exact same bloody fish only you don't like the flavor of this one. There are probably a few more out there you wouldn't like as well. What about the KKK ? are they a religious group or have some other recognized stats? What about the cool Aide mob or any of these other wacko groups or cults? Guess if any of them come knocking on my door I'll be booked up that decade but I know a guy who'd just love to help you out.
The sentiment of the pro lezzos is basically fairness for all that have rights. I know murderers have rights too. You better hope if you want to uphold the rights of the gays and lezzos that the next people that come along aren't' Pedos or murderers that also have rights you just championed.
And if your offended, please continue to be outraged.
It may bring you just a little reality of how the photographer that has been dragged through the courts must feel.
All I can get from this story and thread is be careful how you turn people down, especially the whining, bitching " Special" interest groups who are perpetually offended and insistent on shoving their lifestyle down everyone elses throats but demand they be left alone to persue their proclivities.
It also re affirms my belief with dealing with irrational trouble makers who's only agenda is to make your life hell.
There is dealing with it through legal channels and the cost in money and to your health that brings as it drags on forever, then there is the direct way of making a call, having the boys go round to see the trouble makers and explain your position in a way lawyers are not trained.
From personal experience, I know which way is cheaper, easier, more expedient and overall far more efficient.
Your offended. OK, understood, but why are you sticking your tail between your legs and running away? This is one guy who has vary few posts on Dgrin and posts one comment you (and many others probably) find offensive. If you run away every time one person offends you you are doomed. Many here on Dgrin have offended me. Shall I leave because all don't agree with my every word? Note: To those who say yes.....forget it.
The path to tolerance and acceptance is knowledge. When one begins to see you as an unique individual person the veils of prejudice become cloudy and will force them to reevaluate their position. One can like and support a person even if you disagree with what they do or how they live their life. While some may not accept your homosexuality they may begin to tolerate this difference. That's the start.
Example: I can like you, respect you and enjoy your company yet still side with the photographer in THIS case.
I am sorry to see you go. Your unique perspective on these issues would be very helpful and informative.
Sam
I thought I'd post my email reply to you Sam in here for others to read:
Its not that,
Its that it get starts to hurt your head when your repeatedly hitting it against a wall every day of your life :bash All views within that thread have been spoken, there's no need for me to respond to someones ignorant comments and getting fired up emotionally as that won't serve my viewpoint at all. Instead I chose to walk away. I could debate this issue for ever, at the end of the day I'd rather spend my time living my life surrounded by those who make my life positive.
In decades to come, generations will look back on these topics in the same way we look back at how stupid those that believed interracial couples shouldn't marry were.
I can't disagree with you Matt, except to say, for me it was never about sexual orientationvs.personal beliefs, it was creating the best balance between Libertyvs. Responsibility to Protect - probably something that has been debated since, like, forever. Cheers!
Okay - I hear you but where do you draw the line on the balancing act? I suggest that is why we have elected legislative bodies. These statutes were typically enacted to ensure, for example, that minorities could be served at a lunch counter --- a protected class and a place or service of public accommodation -- and the decision to do so was a part of a considered legislative process. New Mexico's inclusion of sexual orientation is no different. It's been repeated by Matt and Ziggy, among others ad nauseum.
It may not be agreeable to all but we all know that as far as we have come there are still some folks in the world that don't think minorities or gender discrimination should be protected or illegal. The fascinating thing to me about this thread is that the very statutes which were enacted to protect liberty (admittedly of certain groups deemed worthy of protection by our elected, representative legislatures) are being viewed as oppressing it.
Seriously Sam? Firing a parting shot at someone bowing out of the thread? That's really lame dude.
Re the pedophile thing, that is a weak comparison on many levels. First, it's a different country and culture. We don't worry about apostasy becoming a capital offense here just because it is in iran. Second, homosexuality is not a disability, it does not hurt anyone, so comparing it to a crime against children is (unsurprisingly) inaccurate and offensive.
To Sam and the others saying this is just a respectful debate - it is not. How often is a christian photographer troubled by gay marriages? Not very often. LGBT face everything from minor discrimination to physical abuse on a daily basis. While you guys rage on forums about theoretical rights, these couples are trying to make it work with handicaps you never imagined.
It's easy to "agree to disagree" when the situation heaps a host of injustices on your opposition and only one inconvenience on yourself. And yes, potentially having to work someday for a client you disagree with is an inconvenience.
And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.
Forgive me if this comes out garbled - I typed it on my phone
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited June 20, 2012
Downhill fast, people. Time for closing statements...
Pedophiles are not a protected class. It is a totally different kettle of fish. And yes, bringing up pedophilia in the same breath as same sex marriage is offensive. To me, at least.
And to me.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Seriously Sam? Firing a parting shot at someone bowing out of the thread? That's really lame dude.
WHAT PARTING SHOT!!!! I wanted her to stay. She voiced her reasons for leaving and I respect that.
[QUOYE]Re the pedophile thing, that is a weak comparison on many levels. First, it's a different country and culture. We don't worry about apostasy becoming a capital offense here just because it is in iran. Second, homosexuality is not a disability, it does not hurt anyone, so comparing it to a crime against children is (unsurprisingly) inaccurate and offensive.[/QUOTE]
Please.....I had nothing to do with that post!!
To Sam and the others saying this is just a respectful debate - it is not. How often is a christian photographer troubled by gay marriages? Not very often. LGBT face everything from minor discrimination to physical abuse on a daily basis. While you guys rage on forums about theoretical rights, these couples are trying to make it work with handicaps you never imagined.
I and others have said this has been respectful debate, and I stand by that 100% You misunderstand what disagreement is and don't seem to believe a different view can be voiced while being polite and respectful.
It's easy to "agree to disagree" when the situation heaps a host of injustices on your opposition and only one inconvenience on yourself. And yes, potentially having to work someday for a client you disagree with is an inconvenience.
NO! This is not an easy subject for those who are trying to be honest and forthcoming. Attempts to maximize equal rights, is damn hard.
[QUOTE}And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.[/QUOTE]
, Many feel just like Glort and I do understand your feelings. Personally if he and I ever met and had a couple of bears I think it could easily end with fists. That said I'm not all that politically correct or Mr. sensitive although I do try to be polite and nice especially on line I really do despise tough talk behind the keyboard. All that said let me tell you what I do like about Glort..............there is NO question about where he is or what his views are. No Politically correct namby pamby stuff.
I also understand those who object to how he presents his argument and understand if you want to tune him out.
Forgive me if this comes out garbled - I typed it on my phone
I think the garbled part is....................ah.....forget it.
Sorry Sam, I did not mean to imply you had anything to do with that post. I was trying to address several people, but am having a hard time multi quoting on my phone.
And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.
Tough.
I'm as entitled to my opinion and position as you are.
But like I said, I'm a bigot or racist or a homophobe or whatever it is that the perpetually offended choose to label anyone that disagrees with their Point of view which of course is always the only right one anybody can have. Never fails.
Funny you haven't been able to put forward a single point to address or refute what I have said though.
Ironically, I got an application for a model job I advertised this afternoon from a very overtly gay ( or whatever the hell they are) Lesbian. Makes quite a fuss about her proclivities in her portfolio. Why she even applied for the role is beyond me but I certainly have my gaurd up ATM.
First thing I thought of is this thread. For all the bleeding hearts, don't worry, I'll respect her rights and won't be getting myself into the chitfight the shooter at the centre of this story got herself into.
I'll be careful not to say anything like I am not interested in working with people that have a demonstrated history of making life hard for others or where one has to watch every word they say around them in case they say the wrong thing.
I won't comment on the fact she looks more like a bloke than a girl nor anything else that could get me in trouble.
Unfortunately the role has already been filled and I am no longer looking for anyone.
Sorry.
Although the ruling on this appeal was unanimous, Judge James J. Wechsler wrote separately to point out that Elane had failed to raise a potentially valid argument under a different sentence in the New Mexico Constitution. Elane had focused its defense on the provision banning compelled participation in religious ceremonies, but, wrote Judge Wechsler, "the language of Article II, Section 11 that to me captures Elane Photography's religious freedom position is the first sentence, stating that 'every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience' and prohibiting the denial of any 'privilege on account of his religious opinion. This language, which focuses on a person's freedom to act in accordance with one's conscience concerning one's religious opinion or worship, seems broader than the First Amendment alnguage that focuses on preventing federal laws that 'prohibit' a person's free exercise of religion," he continued. However, since Elane had not expressly raised this at trial, and it would be presenting a question of "first impression" for New Mexico courts, Judge Wechsler pointed out that it was appropriate for the court to refrain from considering it on this appeal, commenting that "determination of its cope remains for another day."
At least the Judge recognized the photog's rights for something! It's as if to say we will save this for a rainy day!
Let's see -- we have a few Muslims suing a Catholic University because they cannot find a place to pray due to all the crosses hanging every where (human rights violation) -- and then there is the Christian wedding cake decorator in the same situation as this photographer...but she was kind and had a long discussion with the homosexual couple so they are 'thinking' about suing her, or not... might be harder in a different state though... (another human rights violation). I don't think it's over... And I'm not about bashing another religion or lifestyle just because one's conscience is not in agreement with another.
I am a Christian I try hard to live my life daily as a Christian. I personally thing that Homosexuality is wrong (hence I will never participate) BUT!!! it is not my place to make a judgement against them or anyone(with the exception of serving on a jury), I do have friends that are in same sex relationships they are my friends because they are good people.
I do have a same sex ceremony to shoot in November and I will do the same job that I would do for anyone.
No matter how hard we as Photographers try to be inconspicuous at a weeding we are participants and I don't think we should be forced to participate in something we don't believe in.
If I am approached by a couple that is abusive to each other I will not participate.
I do find one thing sad is the way some take opinions to far and label others because of their beliefs.
I will apologize again for people taking offense to the new roll-play I introduced to the thread. It was meant to be for the sake of the argument not comparing the two lifestyles.
Who would have thought that 85 years ago we would ride on the same bus today, or drink from the same water fountain or women could vote today. Who would have thought 25 years ago we would be arguing about same sex marraige. So what about another 25 or 50 years from now, what will the argument be for that generation? That was my point to the disability argument.
I have my on own core beliefs and will stand by them but I do not judge someone elses lifestyle. I truly do not want anyone judging mine. It would not end well for me.
Before long a photographer will not be able to turn away a pedophilia shoot because it will be a disability and that will be discrimination. O'wait it is a disability in Greece. Dont believe me....look it up. The Government has ruled it as a disability and subject to disability pay. So in a few years dont say no or you could be in trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/furor-greece-over-pedophilia-disability-174002476.html
What happens in Greece stays in Greece. This here, pard, is the good ole' U-S-of-A.
And here in the USA, there is a difference between "homosexual" and "pedophile". Allow me to try to explain it to you:
One is a person whose sexual proclivities are legal and harm no-one, so long as they are practiced between consenting adults.
The other is a person whose sexual proclivites are illegal, because they are violent, and devastatingly harmful to the persons on whom they are performed, by force. Said practices can NOT, by definition, be performed between consenting adults, since they involve minor children who cannot legally give consent to such practices. In point of fact, said practices are, at there heart, violent crimes against children.
So, how is it that you see them as even remotely similar enough to compare them?
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal.
I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal.
If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.
I think you misunderstand the conversation, Glort. Williaes was not talking about discriminating against people who may have been accused or convicted of pedophilia, he was talking about pedophilia shoots, which is quite a different thing and is highly illegal in the US. It's called child pornography, and will send you to prison for a very long time. Hence, the mere suggestion that US laws protecting homosexual people from discrimination and abuse might be extended to force photographers to unwillingly engage in pedophilia shoots is ludicrous on its face
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal.
I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal.
If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.
I think you are out of context here. We're talking about whether or not a small business can deny you service. That's the main point of discussion here.
Walk into a business and say "I indulged in homosexuality the other day". ...Then walk into another and say "I indulged in pedophilia the other day".
One will get you some weird looks but CANNOT get you denied service, ...the other will get your ass in prison hopefully.
:bigbs Nice bump! It had been 10, count 'em, 10 days since the last post.
"The man who can't dance thinks the band is no good" European proverb
I wouldn't post except it's already at the top. It is time this was put to sleep. It be done! Over! Finesse! Kaput! Everybody has chosen a side and are hunkered down. No one left in the middle between the trenches.
I wouldn't post except it's already at the top. It is time this was put to sleep. It be done! Over! Finesse! Kaput! Everybody has chosen a side and are hunkered down. No one left in the middle between the trenches.
I think it's mostly due to the fact that it's in the United States of America, the land of free that has more lawyers than doctors.
More often than not, people are in other strangers' business quite too frequently (just like US international affairs), and people will not hesistate for a nanosecond before suing one another.
Gay, lesbian, colored, or disabled... its usually the generation(s) of the past that stirs up ruckus about these silly issues.
As for pedophiles, they're criminals much like a bank robber or a terrorist, therefore should be put away.
Or better yet, unlike the current judicial system that's concerned with the moral issues of punishment by death, implement a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy.
That'll weed out the habitual criminals, real quick.
-Mike Jin
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900. It never gets easier, you just get better.
I think it's mostly due to the fact that it's in the United States of America, the land of free that has more lawyers than doctors.
More often than not, people are in other strangers' business quite too frequently (just like US international affairs), and people will not hesistate for a nanosecond before suing one another.
Gay, lesbian, colored, or disabled... its usually the generation(s) of the past that stirs up ruckus about these silly issues.
As for pedophiles, they're criminals much like a bank robber or a terrorist, therefore should be put away.
Or better yet, unlike the current judicial system that's concerned with the moral issues of punishment by death, implement a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy.
That'll weed out the habitual criminals, real quick.
A lot of states have the 3 strike laws...and it has not slowed down the habitual criminals at all... ... ...
A lot of states have the 3 strike laws...and it has not slowed down the habitual criminals at all... ... ...
Three-strikes and a death-sentence?
Or three-strikes and you're getting a life-sentence with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care that the taxpayers are ultimately paying for?
If it doesn't slow them down, it'll definitely "weed" them out.
I think the problem lies in the judicial system, where there are plenty of lawyers that are willing to defend a case that brings them either monetary gain, or some kind of public exposure.
-Mike Jin
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900. It never gets easier, you just get better.
Comments
I never said or implied that everyone who obeys their God is likely to be a bigot etc. I am only saying that one "belief system" cannot trump another in court, in the context of denying professional service. The courts must determine how to protect and preserve the rights and beliefs of each...
Maybe you are arguing that the court DID trump one belief system with another; (homosexuality trumped personal beliefs this time) ...I guess that is what makes it, well, not so simple.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I can't disagree with you Matt, except to say, for me it was never about sexual orientation vs. personal beliefs, it was creating the best balance between Liberty vs. Responsibility to Protect - probably something that has been debated since, like, forever.
Matt,
No I did not intend for it to offend someone. If it did I will apologize for them taking the comment wrong. However I do want to point out that the argument for the case would be the xact same if you truned away the pedophile in Greece. Under USA discrimination laws you would be in trouble. If you did not want to shoot this paticular person because of what they do behind closed doors you just discrimanted. Same argument just different set of circumstances. Not stating that they are alike in their lifestyle. Sorry if anyone has taken it that way.
Times are a changing.
williamspics.smugmug.com
Pedophiles are not a protected class. It is a totally different kettle of fish. And yes, bringing up pedophilia in the same breath as same sex marriage is offensive. To me, at least.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Apparently in Greece they are and do have recognized rights.
If you can't see and understand the reason the comparison was made as explained which is totally and completely logical, sorry but you need to open your eyes.
I also find it ironic that you are in fact doing the exact same thing the shooter in question did. You are picking and choosing whom your clients would be based on your personal values.
As has been pointed out, if pedophilia in Greece has a legal status, then refusing to photograph a pedo Under the US Laws would be a crime. That appears to be the law as it stands.
Now you and other gay rights supporters may not like the comparison but you DON"T get to have the law all your own way as much as the special bleeding heart groups always want.
You can't say it's wrong/ illegal to discriminate against one mob but then it is ok to discriminate another, possibly with more legal rights and status, just because you find them offensive.
That's what some people are complaining the shooter in the story did and saying she was in the wrong.
So no, it's not a different kettle of fish at all, it's the exact same bloody fish only you don't like the flavor of this one. There are probably a few more out there you wouldn't like as well. What about the KKK ? are they a religious group or have some other recognized stats? What about the cool Aide mob or any of these other wacko groups or cults? Guess if any of them come knocking on my door I'll be booked up that decade but I know a guy who'd just love to help you out.
The sentiment of the pro lezzos is basically fairness for all that have rights. I know murderers have rights too. You better hope if you want to uphold the rights of the gays and lezzos that the next people that come along aren't' Pedos or murderers that also have rights you just championed.
And if your offended, please continue to be outraged.
It may bring you just a little reality of how the photographer that has been dragged through the courts must feel.
All I can get from this story and thread is be careful how you turn people down, especially the whining, bitching " Special" interest groups who are perpetually offended and insistent on shoving their lifestyle down everyone elses throats but demand they be left alone to persue their proclivities.
It also re affirms my belief with dealing with irrational trouble makers who's only agenda is to make your life hell.
There is dealing with it through legal channels and the cost in money and to your health that brings as it drags on forever, then there is the direct way of making a call, having the boys go round to see the trouble makers and explain your position in a way lawyers are not trained.
From personal experience, I know which way is cheaper, easier, more expedient and overall far more efficient.
I thought I'd post my email reply to you Sam in here for others to read:
Its not that,
Its that it get starts to hurt your head when your repeatedly hitting it against a wall every day of your life :bash All views within that thread have been spoken, there's no need for me to respond to someones ignorant comments and getting fired up emotionally as that won't serve my viewpoint at all. Instead I chose to walk away. I could debate this issue for ever, at the end of the day I'd rather spend my time living my life surrounded by those who make my life positive.
In decades to come, generations will look back on these topics in the same way we look back at how stupid those that believed interracial couples shouldn't marry were.
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
Okay - I hear you but where do you draw the line on the balancing act? I suggest that is why we have elected legislative bodies. These statutes were typically enacted to ensure, for example, that minorities could be served at a lunch counter --- a protected class and a place or service of public accommodation -- and the decision to do so was a part of a considered legislative process. New Mexico's inclusion of sexual orientation is no different. It's been repeated by Matt and Ziggy, among others ad nauseum.
It may not be agreeable to all but we all know that as far as we have come there are still some folks in the world that don't think minorities or gender discrimination should be protected or illegal. The fascinating thing to me about this thread is that the very statutes which were enacted to protect liberty (admittedly of certain groups deemed worthy of protection by our elected, representative legislatures) are being viewed as oppressing it.
Re the pedophile thing, that is a weak comparison on many levels. First, it's a different country and culture. We don't worry about apostasy becoming a capital offense here just because it is in iran. Second, homosexuality is not a disability, it does not hurt anyone, so comparing it to a crime against children is (unsurprisingly) inaccurate and offensive.
To Sam and the others saying this is just a respectful debate - it is not. How often is a christian photographer troubled by gay marriages? Not very often. LGBT face everything from minor discrimination to physical abuse on a daily basis. While you guys rage on forums about theoretical rights, these couples are trying to make it work with handicaps you never imagined.
It's easy to "agree to disagree" when the situation heaps a host of injustices on your opposition and only one inconvenience on yourself. And yes, potentially having to work someday for a client you disagree with is an inconvenience.
And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.
Forgive me if this comes out garbled - I typed it on my phone
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
+1
It's been generally informative and mostly civilized - good times.
Thanks for the chance to share ideas.
maybe I should dust-off my camera and go outside.........
And to me.
WHAT PARTING SHOT!!!! I wanted her to stay. She voiced her reasons for leaving and I respect that.
[QUOYE]Re the pedophile thing, that is a weak comparison on many levels. First, it's a different country and culture. We don't worry about apostasy becoming a capital offense here just because it is in iran. Second, homosexuality is not a disability, it does not hurt anyone, so comparing it to a crime against children is (unsurprisingly) inaccurate and offensive.[/QUOTE]
Please.....I had nothing to do with that post!!
I and others have said this has been respectful debate, and I stand by that 100% You misunderstand what disagreement is and don't seem to believe a different view can be voiced while being polite and respectful.
NO! This is not an easy subject for those who are trying to be honest and forthcoming. Attempts to maximize equal rights, is damn hard.
[QUOTE}And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.[/QUOTE]
I also understand those who object to how he presents his argument and understand if you want to tune him out.
I think the garbled part is....................ah.....forget it.
Sam
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Tough.
I'm as entitled to my opinion and position as you are.
But like I said, I'm a bigot or racist or a homophobe or whatever it is that the perpetually offended choose to label anyone that disagrees with their Point of view which of course is always the only right one anybody can have. Never fails.
Funny you haven't been able to put forward a single point to address or refute what I have said though.
Ironically, I got an application for a model job I advertised this afternoon from a very overtly gay ( or whatever the hell they are) Lesbian. Makes quite a fuss about her proclivities in her portfolio. Why she even applied for the role is beyond me but I certainly have my gaurd up ATM.
First thing I thought of is this thread. For all the bleeding hearts, don't worry, I'll respect her rights and won't be getting myself into the chitfight the shooter at the centre of this story got herself into.
I'll be careful not to say anything like I am not interested in working with people that have a demonstrated history of making life hard for others or where one has to watch every word they say around them in case they say the wrong thing.
I won't comment on the fact she looks more like a bloke than a girl nor anything else that could get me in trouble.
Unfortunately the role has already been filled and I am no longer looking for anyone.
Sorry.
At least the Judge recognized the photog's rights for something! It's as if to say we will save this for a rainy day!
Let's see -- we have a few Muslims suing a Catholic University because they cannot find a place to pray due to all the crosses hanging every where (human rights violation) -- and then there is the Christian wedding cake decorator in the same situation as this photographer...but she was kind and had a long discussion with the homosexual couple so they are 'thinking' about suing her, or not... might be harder in a different state though... (another human rights violation). I don't think it's over... And I'm not about bashing another religion or lifestyle just because one's conscience is not in agreement with another.
I am a Christian I try hard to live my life daily as a Christian. I personally thing that Homosexuality is wrong (hence I will never participate) BUT!!! it is not my place to make a judgement against them or anyone(with the exception of serving on a jury), I do have friends that are in same sex relationships they are my friends because they are good people.
I do have a same sex ceremony to shoot in November and I will do the same job that I would do for anyone.
No matter how hard we as Photographers try to be inconspicuous at a weeding we are participants and I don't think we should be forced to participate in something we don't believe in.
If I am approached by a couple that is abusive to each other I will not participate.
I do find one thing sad is the way some take opinions to far and label others because of their beliefs.
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
I will apologize again for people taking offense to the new roll-play I introduced to the thread. It was meant to be for the sake of the argument not comparing the two lifestyles.
Who would have thought that 85 years ago we would ride on the same bus today, or drink from the same water fountain or women could vote today. Who would have thought 25 years ago we would be arguing about same sex marraige. So what about another 25 or 50 years from now, what will the argument be for that generation? That was my point to the disability argument.
I have my on own core beliefs and will stand by them but I do not judge someone elses lifestyle. I truly do not want anyone judging mine. It would not end well for me.
Thank you for the insight and great topic.
williamspics.smugmug.com
What happens in Greece stays in Greece. This here, pard, is the good ole' U-S-of-A.
And here in the USA, there is a difference between "homosexual" and "pedophile". Allow me to try to explain it to you:
One is a person whose sexual proclivities are legal and harm no-one, so long as they are practiced between consenting adults.
The other is a person whose sexual proclivites are illegal, because they are violent, and devastatingly harmful to the persons on whom they are performed, by force. Said practices can NOT, by definition, be performed between consenting adults, since they involve minor children who cannot legally give consent to such practices. In point of fact, said practices are, at there heart, violent crimes against children.
So, how is it that you see them as even remotely similar enough to compare them?
Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal.
I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal.
If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.
I think you misunderstand the conversation, Glort. Williaes was not talking about discriminating against people who may have been accused or convicted of pedophilia, he was talking about pedophilia shoots, which is quite a different thing and is highly illegal in the US. It's called child pornography, and will send you to prison for a very long time. Hence, the mere suggestion that US laws protecting homosexual people from discrimination and abuse might be extended to force photographers to unwillingly engage in pedophilia shoots is ludicrous on its face
I think you are out of context here. We're talking about whether or not a small business can deny you service. That's the main point of discussion here.
Walk into a business and say "I indulged in homosexuality the other day". ...Then walk into another and say "I indulged in pedophilia the other day".
One will get you some weird looks but CANNOT get you denied service, ...the other will get your ass in prison hopefully.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Too many people here just don't know when to zip it and move on.
Proofing: clients.captured-photos.com
Facebook: Like Me || Twitter: Follow Me
Gear: Lots of Nikon bodies & glass, an office full of tools and toys
:bigbs Nice bump! It had been 10, count 'em, 10 days since the last post.
"The man who can't dance thinks the band is no good"
European proverb
I wouldn't post except it's already at the top. It is time this was put to sleep. It be done! Over! Finesse! Kaput! Everybody has chosen a side and are hunkered down. No one left in the middle between the trenches.
Let's go for a record, say at least a year.
Sam
That was my point.
More often than not, people are in other strangers' business quite too frequently (just like US international affairs), and people will not hesistate for a nanosecond before suing one another.
Gay, lesbian, colored, or disabled... its usually the generation(s) of the past that stirs up ruckus about these silly issues.
As for pedophiles, they're criminals much like a bank robber or a terrorist, therefore should be put away.
Or better yet, unlike the current judicial system that's concerned with the moral issues of punishment by death, implement a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy.
That'll weed out the habitual criminals, real quick.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
A lot of states have the 3 strike laws...and it has not slowed down the habitual criminals at all... ... ...
Three-strikes and a death-sentence?
Or three-strikes and you're getting a life-sentence with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care that the taxpayers are ultimately paying for?
If it doesn't slow them down, it'll definitely "weed" them out.
I think the problem lies in the judicial system, where there are plenty of lawyers that are willing to defend a case that brings them either monetary gain, or some kind of public exposure.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.