Your inability to understand does not make my logic "twisted" or "Orwellian".
A photographer from a conservative area may wish to take a gay client, either because they need the money or because they're a decent person. Photographing a same-sex wedding can often be taken as a political statement (as can rejection of same-sex weddings, as the news frequently attests to.) Said photographer may then face backlash from his family/friends, his church, and the community at large (perhaps even potential customers - do conservatives really want their wedding shot by the guy who did the gay couple?)
For this photographer, the law is a blessing. When they are prohibited from discriminating by sexual orientation, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a political statement. He can face his family without having to fight about it, because "The government says I have to."
The law doesn't prohibit you from rejecting clients who happen to be gay. It only prohibits you from rejecting them on the basis on their orientation. So yes, if you're a bigot and want to stick it to gay people - this law is harmful.
So for people who have no intention to discriminate, most of them will see no difference. For some, it will benefit them by de-politicizing their work. For bigots, yeah, it'll severely impact their ability to discriminate. I cry a thousand crocodile tears for them.
Let's look at you, personally, Sam. Are you going to reject a client simply because they're gay? If no, then these laws don't hurt you. It's not taking a single "freedom" you would exercise, and it would help many, many people (keep in mind that these anti-discrimination laws go far beyond our profession.)
I clearly understand your stance on the gay rights issue. I understand you are doing everything you can to argue in support of your position. BUT, for the umpteenth time I have not taken a position in this thread. I am only addressing the use of, yes, twisted logic.
This entire post is twisted. One created hypothetical photographer living in a hypothetical town populated by all hypothetical bigoted people will benefit by a law forcing him to something he doesn't want to do and thus it's good for everyone.
You state a law (that ostensibly protects another) and makes me do something I don't want to do is actually protecting me. Twisted.
Then you state: anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them? More irrational logic, and it's not a very intelligent argument to state that anyone who disagrees with you is a (insert any nasty name of your choice here).
....
You state a law (that ostensibly protects another) and makes me do something I don't want to do is actually protecting me. Twisted.
Then you state: anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them? More irrational logic....
Sam
Sam, it's okay, you can stop pounding your head against the wall. This is, after the wild roller-coaster of discussion, still quite simple.
I totally understand that you are pointing out how it is twisted to think you're being PROTECTED, by being FORCED to do something you don't want to.
I'll agree with that; it is completely and uselessly twisted, and it tramples on one persons rights for the sake of another's. Yup.
However: I don't think any of these laws are created to protect YOU, as a person. These laws are created to stop unfair discrimination by a BUSINESS, against a minority.
When you open your doors as a business, then it, not you, becomes obligated to refrain from discrimination. Of course if you're a sole proprietor, then you are in fact your business. You're welcome to pick a bone with that flaw in the system!
In other words, your business is free to discriminate for any number of other reasons. You as a person, by the way, are also free to vote on which discriminations are illegal or not.
As it stands, however, it just sounds like you're fighting for the right to discriminate against a minority. As a human being, you are in fact allowed to be as discriminatory as you want. (And the law will in fact do its best to protect you from any social backlash, too!) I know you said you aren't taking sides here, and I get that.
But that is person VS person. This is about business VS minority.
Either way, instead of banging your head against the wall over how twisted political correctness has become, your energy would best be focused on the true core of the debate: helping society decide which minorities need which protections, ...and which issues should have their dead-horse-beating licenses revoked once and for all.
Sam, it's okay, you can stop pounding your head against the wall. This is, after the wild roller-coaster of discussion, still quite simple.
If only that were true.:cry
I totally understand that you are pointing out how it is twisted to think you're being PROTECTED, by being FORCED to do something you don't want to.
Thank you for addressing what I actually wrote!
I'll agree with that; it is completely and uselessly twisted, and it tramples on one persons rights for the sake of another's. Yup. However: I don't think any of these laws are created to protect YOU, as a person. These laws are created to stop unfair discrimination by a BUSINESS, against a minority.
Unfortunately this is were you go astray. I never mentioned anything about trampling one persons rights for the sake of another!
I HAVE ONLY WRITTEN / COMMENTED / ARGUED / LAMENTED THE USE OF NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS LACKING RATIONAL THOUGHT OR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TWISTED BACKWARDS LOGIC OR LACK THERE-IN IN SUPPORT OF ONES POSITION OR OPINION.
When you open your doors as a business, then it, not you, becomes obligated to refrain from discrimination. Of course if you're a sole proprietor, then you are in fact your business. You're welcome to pick a bone with that flaw in the system!
In other words, your business is free to discriminate for any number of other reasons. You as a person, by the way, are also free to vote on which discriminations are illegal or not.
I understand this position, but why reiterate it here? It has nothing to do with my post.
As it stands, however, it just sounds like you're fighting for the right to discriminate against a minority. As a human being, you are in fact allowed to be as discriminatory as you want. (And the law will in fact do its best to protect you from any social backlash, too!) I know you said you aren't taking sides here, and I get that.
You write you understand I am not taking sides on this issue in this thread........then leap to the conclusion I am fighting for the right to discriminate?????? Where have I written this?
This is an example of twisted logic. I make a statement that doesn't support your position, but only addresses the way some are supporting your stance and you without any evidence jump to the conclusion I want to discriminate.scratchscratch
But that is person VS person. This is about business VS minority. Either way, instead of banging your head against the wall over how twisted political correctness has become, your energy would best be focused on the true core of the debate: helping society decide which minorities need which protections, ...and which issues should have their dead-horse-beating licenses revoked once and for all.
The core of the debate will not be settled here. :cry But maybe just maybe some will be persuaded to look at how they are debating their position on not only this issue but any issue.
The idea of using facts, and real logic, as apposed to screaming, name calling, and nonsensical catch phrases.
This is an example of twisted logic. I make a statement that doesn't support your position, but only addresses the way some are supporting your stance and you without any evidence jump to the conclusion I want to discriminate.scratchscratch
The core of the debate will not be settled here. :cry But maybe just maybe some will be persuaded to look at how they are debating their position on not only this issue but any issue.
The idea of using facts, and real logic, as apposed to screaming, name calling, and nonsensical catch phrases.
Sam
I understand that you're trying to expose the whole debate, out of context, as twisted. This is entirely fine. I'd also say that I understand why you dislike the methods by which some / most will often debate this topic, as the "forcing you to do something because it's for your own good" tends to happen.
But that is simply because people don't know what they're actually arguing, for or against, or cannot present their argument clearly or completely.
Simply put, the inference is a fair one: that we should protect OTHERS' right to discriminate, (not necessarily yours in particular, I know) ...in an effort to reverse the twisted situation. I know you're not talking about HOW to reverse the twistedness. You're just saying it's twisted. But that is the inference.
One created hypothetical photographer living in a hypothetical town populated by all hypothetical bigoted people will benefit by a law forcing him to something he doesn't want to do and thus it's good for everyone.
Sam
You got one thing wrong in your statement above. As stated by Demian, the scenario was actually a hypothetical photographer living in a hypothetical town populated by all hypothetical bigoted people who will benefit by a law forcing him to do something he DOES want to do and thus it's good for everyone. The photographer who is happy to provide his services to the gay couple can claim to his family/friends/potential clients that he was forced to do it by law and does not have to suffer the consequences of having provided the service against the norms of his local culture.
There were white people in the South before the Civil Rights Act who would have been pleased to provide services to black people, but would have been boycotted by the bigoted whites who controlled most of the money in their towns. They could only stay in business if they followed the rules of segregation. In some places and at some times, they would have been burned out of business.
Comments
:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash:bash
My poor head can't much more of this.
I clearly understand your stance on the gay rights issue. I understand you are doing everything you can to argue in support of your position. BUT, for the umpteenth time I have not taken a position in this thread. I am only addressing the use of, yes, twisted logic.
This entire post is twisted. One created hypothetical photographer living in a hypothetical town populated by all hypothetical bigoted people will benefit by a law forcing him to something he doesn't want to do and thus it's good for everyone.
You state a law (that ostensibly protects another) and makes me do something I don't want to do is actually protecting me. Twisted.
Then you state: anti-discrimination laws don't hurt you if you don't discriminate. Who else but bigots would fear them? More irrational logic, and it's not a very intelligent argument to state that anyone who disagrees with you is a (insert any nasty name of your choice here).
Sam
Sam, it's okay, you can stop pounding your head against the wall. This is, after the wild roller-coaster of discussion, still quite simple.
I totally understand that you are pointing out how it is twisted to think you're being PROTECTED, by being FORCED to do something you don't want to.
I'll agree with that; it is completely and uselessly twisted, and it tramples on one persons rights for the sake of another's. Yup.
However: I don't think any of these laws are created to protect YOU, as a person. These laws are created to stop unfair discrimination by a BUSINESS, against a minority.
When you open your doors as a business, then it, not you, becomes obligated to refrain from discrimination. Of course if you're a sole proprietor, then you are in fact your business. You're welcome to pick a bone with that flaw in the system!
In other words, your business is free to discriminate for any number of other reasons. You as a person, by the way, are also free to vote on which discriminations are illegal or not.
As it stands, however, it just sounds like you're fighting for the right to discriminate against a minority. As a human being, you are in fact allowed to be as discriminatory as you want. (And the law will in fact do its best to protect you from any social backlash, too!) I know you said you aren't taking sides here, and I get that.
But that is person VS person. This is about business VS minority.
Either way, instead of banging your head against the wall over how twisted political correctness has become, your energy would best be focused on the true core of the debate: helping society decide which minorities need which protections, ...and which issues should have their dead-horse-beating licenses revoked once and for all.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Matthew, that was the best insight into this I've seen yet.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
If only that were true.:cry
Thank you for addressing what I actually wrote!
Unfortunately this is were you go astray. I never mentioned anything about trampling one persons rights for the sake of another!
I HAVE ONLY WRITTEN / COMMENTED / ARGUED / LAMENTED THE USE OF NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS LACKING RATIONAL THOUGHT OR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TWISTED BACKWARDS LOGIC OR LACK THERE-IN IN SUPPORT OF ONES POSITION OR OPINION.
I understand that you're trying to expose the whole debate, out of context, as twisted. This is entirely fine. I'd also say that I understand why you dislike the methods by which some / most will often debate this topic, as the "forcing you to do something because it's for your own good" tends to happen.
But that is simply because people don't know what they're actually arguing, for or against, or cannot present their argument clearly or completely.
Simply put, the inference is a fair one: that we should protect OTHERS' right to discriminate, (not necessarily yours in particular, I know) ...in an effort to reverse the twisted situation. I know you're not talking about HOW to reverse the twistedness. You're just saying it's twisted. But that is the inference.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Simply replace "same sex/gay" with "black".
facebook.com/robertchenphotography
You got one thing wrong in your statement above. As stated by Demian, the scenario was actually a hypothetical photographer living in a hypothetical town populated by all hypothetical bigoted people who will benefit by a law forcing him to do something he DOES want to do and thus it's good for everyone. The photographer who is happy to provide his services to the gay couple can claim to his family/friends/potential clients that he was forced to do it by law and does not have to suffer the consequences of having provided the service against the norms of his local culture.
There were white people in the South before the Civil Rights Act who would have been pleased to provide services to black people, but would have been boycotted by the bigoted whites who controlled most of the money in their towns. They could only stay in business if they followed the rules of segregation. In some places and at some times, they would have been burned out of business.