This is a tough question since location has a lot to do with it but let me throw it out here anyway...
How does photographing same-sex ceremonies or taking it one step further: how does becoming a gay friendly business affect your overall photography business opportunities?
I guess what I am really asking is, "Overall, is it worth it considering how much the topic seems to polarize people?"
bigotry
You know Harryb, you've been awfully intolerant of those whose beliefs are different than yours, and the amount of name-calling you've been doing in this thread is rather remarkable.
Doesn't that make you a bigot as well?
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
It does not overrule the first amendment. The two biggoted photographers in NM are still free to express any inanities they wish. They just can't discriminate in their business practices.
People who practice law and study the Constitution think otherwise. The First Amendment does not have an exclusion because an artistic expression is held out for commercial purposes. Forcing someone to express ideas they do not agree with is violating 1st Amendment Rights. For anti-discrimmination laws to apply to this case, it has to be determined photography is not an artistic expression. Court cases have upheld photography is more than a service, but an expression of ideas, regardless if it's commercial.
The Human Rights Commission does not make laws it only enforces the laws that have been passsed by the state legislature. There can be laws against discrimination based on sexual preference while still having a law that bars same-sex marriages. In time these silly laws against same sex marriages will fade away just as many of our discriminatory practices of the past have faded away.
Which doesn't make sense to punish someone for a event that isn't legal in the state to begin with.
Fortunately your views on the constitutionality of anti-discrimiantion laws is not supported by current case history.
You know Harryb, you've been awfully intolerant of those whose beliefs are different than yours, and the amount of name-calling you've been doing in this thread is rather remarkable.
Doesn't that make you a bigot as well?
I've seen bigotry kill people so I have very little tolerance for it.
The only people I've called names were the two photographers in NM. Their actions were bigoted so the name bigot applies in this case.
The definition for bigot is " One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
As for myself I'm intolerant of bigotry, child molestors, and lovers of pineapple pizza. If that fits the above defintion of a bigot I can live with that.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
People who practice law and study the Constitution think otherwise. The First Amendment does not have an exclusion because an artistic expression is held out for commercial purposes. Forcing someone to express ideas they do not agree with is violating 1st Amendment Rights. For anti-discrimmination laws to apply to this case, it has to be determined photography is not an artistic expression. Court cases have upheld photography is more than a service, but an expression of ideas, regardless if it's commercial.
I have handled discrimination hearings before the EEOC and arbitrations on EEO issues before arbitrators. Case history is on my side. The issue in question in this matter is about commercial practices not artistic practices. The two photographers never even raised that issue in this case.
Which doesn't make sense to punish someone for a event that isn't legal in the state to begin with.
You fail to understand a rather basic and very germane issue here. The issue of same sex marriage is not in question in this case. The gay couple were not being married. It was a comittment ceremony not a marriage.
The state law makes it illegal to discriminate and that's the issue not gay marriage.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
This is a tough question since location has a lot to do with it but let me throw it out here anyway...
How does photographing same-sex ceremonies or taking it one step further: how does becoming a gay friendly business affect your overall photography business opportunities?
I guess what I am really asking is, "Overall, is it worth it considering how much the topic seems to polarize people?"
Taking pictures of a committment ceremony does not make one "gay friendly" any more than taking picture of a political candidate makes you a Democrat or a Republican.
If you took pictures of a gay marriage it would not brand you as being "gay friendly" unless you took it upon yourself to advertize it.
Things could get polarized if you decided to discriminate against someone and it became part of the public record.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I've seen bigotry kill people so I have very little tolerance for it.
The only people I've called names were the two photographers in NM. Their actions were bigoted so the name bigot applies in this case.
The definition for bigot is " One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
and how, exactly, is politely declining to offer their services in support of something their faith doesn't agree with either hatred or intolerance?
They didn't call them names, didn't show any rage, there's no record of them threatening these people's lives or advising others to do the same, just a statement that they didn't do that kind of work in accordance with their faith.
In this case, the term 'bigot' really doesn't fit other than as a pejorative to make your position seem stronger than it is.
And point of fact, that the inquirer filed a suit about this shows just as much intolerance as what you're accusing the photogs of!
As for myself I'm intolerant of bigotry, child molestors, and lovers of pineapple pizza. If that fits the above defintion of a bigot I can live with that.
Anyone that's prejudiced against pineapple pizza definitely needs a good talking to.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
and how, exactly, is politely declining to offer their services in support of something their faith doesn't agree with either hatred or intolerance?
For years we practiced a very polite form of racism in the North and prided ourselves as being so much better than our Southern breathern. Unfortunately any form of prejudice or bigotry no matter how "polite' still comes out to denying other people their equal rights. When you start with your polite prejudice it lends support to other forms of less "polite" displays of the same prejudice.
While I was serving in Vietnam we had a driver who had this problem of being an alcoholic. His original job was to drive down to our main base in Nha Trang and bring back our perishable food items. Unfortunately trees and buildings had the bad form to jump into the road while he was driving and hitting his truck.
Now our battery commander was a good man and very polite, a West Point grad. He decided that this man could not be trusted with that assignment so he very politely gave him a new assignment, driving our Vietnamese workers back and forth to their jobs on our base. Now one day he asked me, very politely, to "shotgun" our medic down to the accident site. Our driver had managed to have an accident and killed twelve of our Vietnamese workers. The first thing you saw when you got there were someone's brains laying in the road. We very politely picked up the remains and very politely paid their families $50 each for their loss.
There was no rage, no name calling, or any threats. We just treated a group of people as being less worthy than ourselves. Its amazing how far some polite prejudice and bigotry can take you.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You know Harryb, you've been awfully intolerant of those whose beliefs are different than yours, and the amount of name-calling you've been doing in this thread is rather remarkable.
I'm at a complete loss for words why Harryb should have to defend himself so much in this day and age, but maybe we still are in the Dark Ages. Here's Harry trying to defend a segment of the population who is still looked down upon and treated like second class citizens, often at the justification of religion, and he is the one who is called intolerant?????????
I'm at a complete loss for words why Harryb should have to defend himself so much in this day and age, but maybe we still are in the Dark Ages. Here's Harry trying to defend a segment of the population who is still looked down upon and treated like second class citizens, often at the justification of religion, and he is the one who is called intolerant?????????
First, being "looked down and treated like second class citizens" isn't sufficient reason to defend a class of people - you need something more substantive than that to justify a position.
Second, hypocrisy and double standards are just as offensive and flat out wrong as these so-called "crimes of discrimination." One doesn't bring about correction to a perceived injustice by engaging in the same form of behavior that is being complained about.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
People can find justification for their prejudices and bigotry in their religion. Hell, the bible has been used to justify slavery, genocide, multiple marriage, etc.
I agree it's been used to justify this list of things, but I'd submit it was done by people who didn't understand what it was about.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
For years we practiced a very polite form of racism in the North and prided ourselves as being so much better than our Southern breathern. Unfortunately any form of prejudice or bigotry no matter how "polite' still comes out to denying other people their equal rights.
And isn't that what you're doing to people of faith who want to be free to follow their faith?
While I was serving in Vietnam we had a driver who had this problem of being an alcoholic. His original job was to drive down to our main base in Nha Trang and bring back our perishable food items. Unfortunately trees and buildings had the bad form to jump into the road while he was driving and hitting his truck.
Now our battery commander was a good man and very polite, a West Point grad. He decided that this man could not be trusted with that assignment so he very politely gave him a new assignment, driving our Vietnamese workers back and forth to their jobs on our base. Now one day he asked me, very politely, to "shotgun" our medic down to the accident site. Our driver had managed to have an accident and killed twelve of our Vietnamese workers. The first thing you saw when you got there were someone's brains laying in the road. We very politely picked up the remains and very politely paid their families $50 each for their loss.
There was no rage, no name calling, or any threats. We just treated a group of people as being less worthy than ourselves. Its amazing how far some polite prejudice and bigotry can take you.
Was that racism, or a quota system that required that base commander to keep that incompetent Vietnamese driver on the payroll?
And I'm a bit puzzled how the failure of a base commander to fire that incompetent worker has anything to do with prejudice or bigotry... It could've been that the base commander couldn't get rid of this guy because of orders he had, a quota system he had to work under, or he didn't have the cajones to get a patently unsafe driver off the payroll. There's a lot of other possible explanations to this besides racism.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
First, being "looked down and treated like second class citizens" isn't sufficient reason to defend a class of people - you need something more substantive than that to justify a position.
I'm curious. What would you define as sufficient or more substantive?
And isn't that what you're doing to people of faith who want to be free to follow their faith?
Faith does not trump law. If your faith says that it's permissible to have multiple wives, to treat women as property, to commit honor killings or to burn heretics at the stake, you have no legal right whatsoever to do any of that in a civil society.
And isn't that what you're doing to people of faith who want to be free to follow their faith?
With that rationale I'm sure you will have your marshmellows ready when people of faith decide to burn some witches.
Like people of faith getting sued for saying that certain behaviors aren't compatible with what they believe and they won't participate in them.
:bigbs
Was that racism, or a quota system that required that base commander to keep that incompetent Vietnamese driver on the payroll?
The driver was a good ole boy from Arkansas. Good try though.
And I'm a bit puzzled how the failure of a base commander to fire that incompetent worker has anything to do with prejudice or bigotry... It could've been that the base commander couldn't get rid of this guy because of orders he had, a quota system he had to work under, or he didn't have the cajones to get a patently unsafe driver off the payroll. There's a lot of other possible explanations to this besides racism.
Yes you are puzzled. You can't be this obtuse. The battery commander shared the feelings that we all had that the Vietnamese were sub-humans. We called them gooks, dinks, slopes, etc. He assigned the driver to the job of driving the Vietnamese around because in our twisted little world they were not as important as our food. It took me seeing someone's brain laying on the roadside to start understanding that. It was quotas, the driver was an American. The driver wasn't on the "payroll".
Please give me an explanation that would explain that other than racism. I was only there I'm sure you must have a better understanding of how things were.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I agree it's been used to justify this list of things, but I'd submit it was done by people who didn't understand what it was about.
I think that excuse was offered at Nuremberg. It didn't pass muster then and it doesn't pass muster now.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm curious. What would you define as sufficient or more substantive?
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure.
My objection to "looked down and treated like second class citizens" is that's it's not nearly specific enough, and all too easy to be used as a "reason" by others to get special or preferential treatment they wouldn't get otherwise.
Consider, for instance, if people who are members of NAMBLA claimed they were looked down on and treated like second class citizens. Is this sufficient reason to legitimize their agenda as well?
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
Faith does not trump law. If your faith says that it's permissible to have multiple wives, to treat women as property, to commit honor killings or to burn heretics at the stake, you have no legal right whatsoever to do any of that in a civil society.
How about keeping women from voting and slavery? Both of these were once laws of the land in the US. That something is the "law of the land" doesn't make it right.
If one were to restate your position to be one of 'my rights end where yours begins', then I think we're in agreement.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
How about keeping women from voting and slavery? Both of these were once laws of the land in the US. That something is the "law of the land" doesn't make it right.
Good point, and I agree. Where I think we disagree is that I believe that anti-discrimination laws are right as well. Not a perfect solution by any means, but as I think I must have said about 80 posts ago, they are the best we have been able to come up with so far to address historical, systematic injustices.
You think not? Have you already forgotten the story that started this thread? That people of faith were sued for following their beliefs? And who have been repeatedly called bigots, etc in this thread?
The battery commander shared the feelings that we all had that the Vietnamese were sub-humans. We called them gooks, dinks, slopes, etc. He assigned the driver to the job of driving the Vietnamese around because in our twisted little world they were not as important as our food. It took me seeing someone's brain laying on the roadside to start understanding that. It was quotas, the driver was an American. The driver wasn't on the "payroll".
now that you've done a better of job of explaining it in more detail than the "polite"ness you'd mentioned initially, I can see your point.
Please give me an explanation that would explain that other than racism. I was only there I'm sure you must have a better understanding of how things were.
When you explain things like this instead of what you wrote in your original post, I'd have to agree.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
Have you already forgotten the story that started this thread? That people of faith were sued for following their beliefs? And who have been repeatedly called bigots, etc in this thread?
Now I studied the New Testament when I was a student a St. Johns. I must of missed the part that called for discriminating against gays. Is there an 11th commandment that I'm unaware of? Simply put they were not following their religious beliefs they were acting out of their own bigotry and intolerance. Now of course intolerance is part of their own belief system just don't call it "faith".
The photographers were purveyors of intolerance don't try to make the criminals the victims of this piece.
This story is very simple. Two photographers violated their own local ordinances by discriminating against two innocent human beings. The photographers were bigots.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Now I studied the New Testament when I was a student a St. Johns. I must of missed the part that called for discriminating against gays. Is there an 11th commandment that I'm unaware of?
Are you actually going to suggest that sacred texts which were completed over 2,000 years ago had any notion or concern for US law that would be written in today's times?
BTW - I've studied the New Testament as well, and in it sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman is either fornication or adultery, and is forbidden. I have a hard time seeing how a person of faith could participate in an event which promoted behavior and conduct which was incompatible with their beliefs.
Simply put they were not following their religious beliefs they were acting out of their own bigotry and intolerance. Now of course intolerance is part of their own belief system just don't call it "faith".
This story is very simple. Two photographers violated their own local ordinances by discriminating against two innocent human beings. The photographers were bigots.
yadda yadda yadda.
Save $5 off your first year's SmugMug image hosting with coupon code hccesQbqNBJbc
My objection to "looked down and treated like second class citizens" is that's it's not nearly specific enough, and all too easy to be used as a "reason" by others to get special or preferential treatment they wouldn't get otherwise.
Consider, for instance, if people who are members of NAMBLA claimed they were looked down on and treated like second class citizens. Is this sufficient reason to legitimize their agenda as well?
Here I will dare to say; "How Dare you!?"
Why is it that people (may I say, like you?) always fly the flag of NAMBLA or beastiality or any number of other weirdities when arguing against gay people?
You do understand that the vast majority of child molesters and cross-dressers are white, heterosexual males?
As for second class citizens try these on for size: How about the fact that in 38 of 50 states it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone based solely on homosexuality and landlords can refuse tenancy or can evict based solely on homosexuality?
How about Matthew Shepard? - a 20 year old college student beaten to within an inch of his life, strung up on a wooden fence post, crucifixion style, and left to die in the rurals of Wyoming. His murderers were never tried for hate crimes and received only a minimum sentence for their heinous crime.
And of course there is this issue of marriage. Gay people have it bashed against their heads every day of the past 8 years of this current administration that they are of lesser import in our society. Their committed, loving relationships can not be recognized and it's perfectly OK to "beat the living crap outta one of dem fags" because the republican congress has consistently blocked any debate on expanding the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
And please, PLEASE stop repeating your assertion that the 2 photographers in question or the content of this thread in any way denies them their right to religious freedom. The issue is about the fact that they openly and indiscriminately refused service to members of the public based on sexual orientation. END OF STORY!
Who is being intolerant here? The person who is being sued for believing something one way and coming out and saying so? Or the people suing someone for not believing things the same way they do and choosing not to participate in something they do not believe in?
It's one thing to say "I'm gay/not gay and it's none of your business" the trouble starts when people say "I'm gay/not gay and you will accept my position as your own and behave accordingly".
Using some of the same logic we see in this thread the Ku Klux Klan can sue a black photographer for refusing to photograph a Klan rally. Would the Klan have a legal advantage? Probably. Would it be right outside of being a legal issue? You tell me..........
Are you actually going to suggest that sacred texts which were completed over 2,000 years ago had any notion or concern for US law that would be written in today's times?
I didn't say that at all. I was speaking about the fallacy of using the teachings of Jesus to justify intolerance.
BTW - I've studied the New Testament as well, and in it sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman is either fornication or adultery, and is forbidden. I have a hard time seeing how a person of faith could participate in an event which promoted behavior and conduct which was incompatible with their beliefs.
:lol4 I met very few religionists in my life who haven't "fornicated".
Make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.
Trying the "fait accompli" maneuver, eh? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
It is "fait accompli" that the photographers violated the law. Its folks like you who try to turn them into victims and turn the persons who were harmed into the perpetrators.
yadda yadda yadda.
Its hard to respond to such eloquence.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Using some of the same logic we see in this thread the Ku Klux Klan can sue a black photographer for refusing to photograph a Klan rally. Would the Klan have a legal advantage? Probably. Would it be right outside of being a legal issue? You tell me..........
Marty
Yes, if there were a law on the books that stated discrimination against members of the KKK was forbidden. But there isn't. Next!
Who is being intolerant here? The person who is being sued for believing something one way and coming out and saying so? Or the people suing someone for not believing things the same way they do and choosing not to participate in something they do not believe in?
It's one thing to say "I'm gay/not gay and it's none of your business" the trouble starts when people say "I'm gay/not gay and you will accept my position as your own and behave accordingly".
Using some of the same logic we see in this thread the Ku Klux Klan can sue a black photographer for refusing to photograph a Klan rally. Would the Klan have a legal advantage? Probably. Would it be right outside of being a legal issue? You tell me..........
Marty
If you want to be in business you have to follow the laws. If the photographers don't want to follow the law then they have can follow the example of some of their fellow bigots of the past who choose to close their restaurants rather than serve blacks.
The only trouble here for some is that the gays wanted to be teated like other people. The nerve of them! They wanted the photographers to follow the laws of their locality. The mind boogles at their impudence. Imagine what this country would become if we al had to follow the law.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I've seen bigotry kill people so I have very little tolerance for it.
So someone turning down a commitment ceramony that would make them uncomfortable due to their beliefs is essentially the same as killing a person????
I don't think you really understand my point. I'm not talking about hardcore conservative cristians here.
The definition for bigot is " One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
I guess my question to you would be when has sexual orientation had anything to do with race or ethnicity?
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I guess my question to you would be when has sexual orientation had anything to do with race or ethnicity?
It doesn't. But as Angelo made very clear in his post above, homosexuals have suffered as a group for centuries and continue to be victims of prejudice. We are now just starting to address this injustice by including sexual orientation in the specific list of groups protected by anti-discrimination laws. It will take years before the US federal government and all states enact the needed legislation and it will take decades of enforcement before the benefits are realized. It will take some getting used to by some, just as racial integration did, but in the long run we all benefit when people are judged as individuals rather than as members of one group or another.
Comments
How does photographing same-sex ceremonies or taking it one step further: how does becoming a gay friendly business affect your overall photography business opportunities?
I guess what I am really asking is, "Overall, is it worth it considering how much the topic seems to polarize people?"
You know Harryb, you've been awfully intolerant of those whose beliefs are different than yours, and the amount of name-calling you've been doing in this thread is rather remarkable.
Doesn't that make you a bigot as well?
Which doesn't make sense to punish someone for a event that isn't legal in the state to begin with.
Not like this case.
I've seen bigotry kill people so I have very little tolerance for it.
The only people I've called names were the two photographers in NM. Their actions were bigoted so the name bigot applies in this case.
The definition for bigot is " One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
As for myself I'm intolerant of bigotry, child molestors, and lovers of pineapple pizza. If that fits the above defintion of a bigot I can live with that.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Taking pictures of a committment ceremony does not make one "gay friendly" any more than taking picture of a political candidate makes you a Democrat or a Republican.
If you took pictures of a gay marriage it would not brand you as being "gay friendly" unless you took it upon yourself to advertize it.
Things could get polarized if you decided to discriminate against someone and it became part of the public record.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
They didn't call them names, didn't show any rage, there's no record of them threatening these people's lives or advising others to do the same, just a statement that they didn't do that kind of work in accordance with their faith.
In this case, the term 'bigot' really doesn't fit other than as a pejorative to make your position seem stronger than it is.
And point of fact, that the inquirer filed a suit about this shows just as much intolerance as what you're accusing the photogs of!
Anyone that's prejudiced against pineapple pizza definitely needs a good talking to.
For years we practiced a very polite form of racism in the North and prided ourselves as being so much better than our Southern breathern. Unfortunately any form of prejudice or bigotry no matter how "polite' still comes out to denying other people their equal rights. When you start with your polite prejudice it lends support to other forms of less "polite" displays of the same prejudice.
While I was serving in Vietnam we had a driver who had this problem of being an alcoholic. His original job was to drive down to our main base in Nha Trang and bring back our perishable food items. Unfortunately trees and buildings had the bad form to jump into the road while he was driving and hitting his truck.
Now our battery commander was a good man and very polite, a West Point grad. He decided that this man could not be trusted with that assignment so he very politely gave him a new assignment, driving our Vietnamese workers back and forth to their jobs on our base. Now one day he asked me, very politely, to "shotgun" our medic down to the accident site. Our driver had managed to have an accident and killed twelve of our Vietnamese workers. The first thing you saw when you got there were someone's brains laying in the road. We very politely picked up the remains and very politely paid their families $50 each for their loss.
There was no rage, no name calling, or any threats. We just treated a group of people as being less worthy than ourselves. Its amazing how far some polite prejudice and bigotry can take you.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
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
Second, hypocrisy and double standards are just as offensive and flat out wrong as these so-called "crimes of discrimination." One doesn't bring about correction to a perceived injustice by engaging in the same form of behavior that is being complained about.
Like people of faith getting sued for saying that certain behaviors aren't compatible with what they believe and they won't participate in them.
Was that racism, or a quota system that required that base commander to keep that incompetent Vietnamese driver on the payroll?
And I'm a bit puzzled how the failure of a base commander to fire that incompetent worker has anything to do with prejudice or bigotry... It could've been that the base commander couldn't get rid of this guy because of orders he had, a quota system he had to work under, or he didn't have the cajones to get a patently unsafe driver off the payroll. There's a lot of other possible explanations to this besides racism.
I'm curious. What would you define as sufficient or more substantive?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Faith does not trump law. If your faith says that it's permissible to have multiple wives, to treat women as property, to commit honor killings or to burn heretics at the stake, you have no legal right whatsoever to do any of that in a civil society.
With that rationale I'm sure you will have your marshmellows ready when people of faith decide to burn some witches.
:bigbs
The driver was a good ole boy from Arkansas. Good try though.
Yes you are puzzled. You can't be this obtuse. The battery commander shared the feelings that we all had that the Vietnamese were sub-humans. We called them gooks, dinks, slopes, etc. He assigned the driver to the job of driving the Vietnamese around because in our twisted little world they were not as important as our food. It took me seeing someone's brain laying on the roadside to start understanding that. It was quotas, the driver was an American. The driver wasn't on the "payroll".
Please give me an explanation that would explain that other than racism. I was only there I'm sure you must have a better understanding of how things were.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I think that excuse was offered at Nuremberg. It didn't pass muster then and it doesn't pass muster now.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
My objection to "looked down and treated like second class citizens" is that's it's not nearly specific enough, and all too easy to be used as a "reason" by others to get special or preferential treatment they wouldn't get otherwise.
Consider, for instance, if people who are members of NAMBLA claimed they were looked down on and treated like second class citizens. Is this sufficient reason to legitimize their agenda as well?
If one were to restate your position to be one of 'my rights end where yours begins', then I think we're in agreement.
Good point, and I agree. Where I think we disagree is that I believe that anti-discrimination laws are right as well. Not a perfect solution by any means, but as I think I must have said about 80 posts ago, they are the best we have been able to come up with so far to address historical, systematic injustices.
That the driver wasn't a Vietnamese national makes this even worse IMPO. I can only go by what you wrote Harry, which didn't include one mention of these kinds of comments:
now that you've done a better of job of explaining it in more detail than the "polite"ness you'd mentioned initially, I can see your point.
When you explain things like this instead of what you wrote in your original post, I'd have to agree.
Now I studied the New Testament when I was a student a St. Johns. I must of missed the part that called for discriminating against gays. Is there an 11th commandment that I'm unaware of? Simply put they were not following their religious beliefs they were acting out of their own bigotry and intolerance. Now of course intolerance is part of their own belief system just don't call it "faith".
The photographers were purveyors of intolerance don't try to make the criminals the victims of this piece.
This story is very simple. Two photographers violated their own local ordinances by discriminating against two innocent human beings. The photographers were bigots.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
BTW - I've studied the New Testament as well, and in it sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman is either fornication or adultery, and is forbidden. I have a hard time seeing how a person of faith could participate in an event which promoted behavior and conduct which was incompatible with their beliefs.
Make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.
Trying the "fait accompli" maneuver, eh? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
yadda yadda yadda.
Here I will dare to say; "How Dare you!?"
Why is it that people (may I say, like you?) always fly the flag of NAMBLA or beastiality or any number of other weirdities when arguing against gay people?
You do understand that the vast majority of child molesters and cross-dressers are white, heterosexual males?
As for second class citizens try these on for size: How about the fact that in 38 of 50 states it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone based solely on homosexuality and landlords can refuse tenancy or can evict based solely on homosexuality?
How about Matthew Shepard? - a 20 year old college student beaten to within an inch of his life, strung up on a wooden fence post, crucifixion style, and left to die in the rurals of Wyoming. His murderers were never tried for hate crimes and received only a minimum sentence for their heinous crime.
And of course there is this issue of marriage. Gay people have it bashed against their heads every day of the past 8 years of this current administration that they are of lesser import in our society. Their committed, loving relationships can not be recognized and it's perfectly OK to "beat the living crap outta one of dem fags" because the republican congress has consistently blocked any debate on expanding the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
And please, PLEASE stop repeating your assertion that the 2 photographers in question or the content of this thread in any way denies them their right to religious freedom. The issue is about the fact that they openly and indiscriminately refused service to members of the public based on sexual orientation. END OF STORY!
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
It's one thing to say "I'm gay/not gay and it's none of your business" the trouble starts when people say "I'm gay/not gay and you will accept my position as your own and behave accordingly".
Using some of the same logic we see in this thread the Ku Klux Klan can sue a black photographer for refusing to photograph a Klan rally. Would the Klan have a legal advantage? Probably. Would it be right outside of being a legal issue? You tell me..........
Marty
I didn't say that at all. I was speaking about the fallacy of using the teachings of Jesus to justify intolerance.
:lol4 I met very few religionists in my life who haven't "fornicated".
Make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.
It is "fait accompli" that the photographers violated the law. Its folks like you who try to turn them into victims and turn the persons who were harmed into the perpetrators.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Yes, if there were a law on the books that stated discrimination against members of the KKK was forbidden. But there isn't. Next!
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
If you want to be in business you have to follow the laws. If the photographers don't want to follow the law then they have can follow the example of some of their fellow bigots of the past who choose to close their restaurants rather than serve blacks.
The only trouble here for some is that the gays wanted to be teated like other people. The nerve of them! They wanted the photographers to follow the laws of their locality. The mind boogles at their impudence. Imagine what this country would become if we al had to follow the law.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
So someone turning down a commitment ceramony that would make them uncomfortable due to their beliefs is essentially the same as killing a person????
I don't think you really understand my point. I'm not talking about hardcore conservative cristians here.
I guess my question to you would be when has sexual orientation had anything to do with race or ethnicity?
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"