Listen up... this thread is about a photographer denying service to members of the public, in violation of laws on the books at the time. Period, the end!
I will not allow this discussion to devolve into arguments about religion / science / theology.
Keep this civil and on topic or I'll shut this down in a New York minute.
Listen up... this thread is about a photographer denying service to members of the public, in violation of laws on the books at the time. Period, the end! I will not allow this discussion to devolve into arguments about religion / science / theology. Keep this civil and on topic or I'll shut this down in a New York minute. Thank you. Carry on!
Well, seems the thread went wonky some time ago.
But I devolve. Voltaire aside: You are right. Please excuse me if I got in too deep.
I am really reaching a boiling point at having this issue repeated infinitum in this thread... The photographers had every right and opportunity to reject the request through various means and with various excuses but they chose to make a religious or political point of it by saying they would not provide the service BECAUSE THE COUPLE ARE GAY!!!
Going back to the transcript on page 2 of this thread, what the photographer actually said is "we don't photograph same-sex weddings." They refused based upon the activity, not the prospective client's sexual orientation.
Going back to the transcript on page 2 of this thread, what the photographer actually said is "we don't photograph same-sex weddings." They refused based upon the activity, not the prospective client's sexual orientation.
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 can't help but notice the seemingly Innocent subtle hints at the original thread.
I see the real message here. One cat is in a cat cup, the other in a dog cup, indicating an identity issue. Both are looking in a different direction, indicating some unease with the situation, and the cup handles are not in alignment. Also they are a bit on the young side to be participating in a commitment ceremony.
I wish a moderator would delete this thread. IMHO, there is no place on dgrin for the disrespectful comments on both sides of this discussion.
People fall off the high road of tolerance by declaring there is only one acceptable line of thought on this topic. Shoving your ideas down anothers' throat by calling them a bigot does not make you right - it only makes you a bully. (BTW: Hurling mocking insults at people of faith just because they don't agree with your position is also bigotry.)
Now all the advocates of peace and tolerance can launch their flame thowers at me.
Once again, I wish a moderator would delete this ugly thread!
I wish a moderator would delete this thread. IMHO, there is no place on dgrin for the disrespectful comments on both sides of this discussion.
People fall off the high road of tolerance by declaring there is only one acceptable line of thought on this topic. Shoving your ideas down anothers' throat by calling them a bigot does not make you right - it only makes you a bully. (BTW: Hurling mocking insults at people of faith just because they don't agree with your position is also bigotry.)
Now all the advocates of peace and tolerance can launch their flame thowers at me.
Once again, I wish a moderator would delete this ugly thread!
A moderator is not going to delete this thread. We don't believe in that form of censorship here.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and as long as people don't say nasty things to or about each other then it doesn't have to get ugly.
I wish a moderator would delete this thread. IMHO, there is no place on dgrin for the disrespectful comments on both sides of this discussion.
People fall off the high road of tolerance by declaring there is only one acceptable line of thought on this topic. Shoving your ideas down anothers' throat by calling them a bigot does not make you right - it only makes you a bully. (BTW: Hurling mocking insults at people of faith just because they don't agree with your position is also bigotry.)
Now all the advocates of peace and tolerance can launch their flame thowers at me.
Once again, I wish a moderator would delete this ugly thread!
No one's ideas have been shoved down anyone's throat. The only folks who have been called bigots were the two photographers in NM (and my parents).
There is one acceptable view, IMHO, on illegal activity. Personally I'm against be it murder or when two bigoted photographers violate the laws of their locality.
Please quote the "mocking insults that were hurled at people of faith". I've just reviewed this thread and didn't find any.
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!"
With respect, this seems like a major change from your July 22 comments. Note also that this thread hasn't been "on topic" since then.
On the 22nd I said if this thread devolved into a running argument about religion / philosophy / politics I'd shut it down. That's quite different from deleting it or individual posts that remain civil and / or on topic.
On the 22nd I said if this thread devolved into a running argument about religion / philosophy / politics I'd shut it down. That's quite different from deleting it or individual posts that remain civil and / or on topic.
Well, thanks for the explanation. Still don't follow, though. The discussion (I still don't see where it was an argument) was delving into the finer points of comments from this thread that tied the photographer's actions to political or religious choice. Bigotry was also discussed. That in my most humble opinion, while perhaps delving into sensitive areas, was completely on-topic. Somewhat off the main thread, perhaps: But still as least somewhat close to home. Far more so, I suggest, than cats in cups and stuffed animals.
The comments regarding civility caught me completely off guard. Perhaps you could help me understand where the thread was, in any way, uncivil? A tad trite, perhaps. But uncivil?
To explain, I ended up apologizing because it seemed loud and clear that I had perhaps stepped on your toes somehow. Perhaps a bit too close to your personal beliefs? I don't know. But I suggest your response did not reflect your stated position of:
Well, thanks for the explanation. Still don't follow, though. The discussion (I still don't see where it was an argument) was delving into the finer points of comments from this thread that tied the photographer's actions to political or religious choice. Bigotry was also discussed. That in my most humble opinion, while perhaps delving into sensitive areas, was completely on-topic. Somewhat off the main thread, perhaps: But still as least somewhat close to home. Far more so, I suggest, than cats in cups and stuffed animals.
The comments regarding civility caught me completely off guard. Perhaps you could help me understand where the thread was, in any way, uncivil? A tad trite, perhaps. But uncivil?
To explain, I ended up apologizing because it seemed loud and clear that I had perhaps stepped on your toes somehow. Perhaps a bit too close to your personal beliefs? I don't know. But I suggest your response did not reflect your stated position of:
If I said "nasty things" or got "ugly", please help me to understand where, so I can correct my errant ways.
Dude, chill! I never said there was an argument or uncivil behavior. And you haven't ever stepped on my toes or anyone elses so stop taking this personally.
I'm the moderator here and I referenced my comment of the 22nd because you did. To clarify: I said, "IF" there were arguments or uncivil behavior, BY ANYONE, I would shut this down; "IF"
for a short time there, a string of posts were leaning too far into a religious debate that might "MIGHT" have turned into uncivil argument. It didn't. Good. Done. Breath! Smile!
Dude, chill! I never said there was an argument or uncivil behavior. And you haven't ever stepped on my toes or anyone elses so stop taking this personally.
I'm the moderator here and I referenced my comment of the 22nd because you did. To clarify: I said, "IF" there were arguments or uncivil behavior, BY ANYONE, I would shut this down; "IF"
for a short time there, a string of posts were leaning too far into a religious debate that might "MIGHT" have turned into uncivil argument. It didn't. Good. Done. Breath! Smile!
I think I understand the problem now XSIS!
My comment (post #212) followed yours so you think I was specifically addressing you. I was not. That was aimed at the entire board. OK?
and by extension anyone who believes like they do.
We weren't talking about anyone but two photographers in NM. The consensus seems to be that one should follow the local laws where one runs one's business. That little tidbit is what makes this thread OK for this forum.
Now if you want to go beyond those two photographers I can recommend a number of other forums where this wider issue would be germane.
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!"
We weren't talking about anyone but two photographers in NM.
You can't make comments about two shooters being bigots like you have, and then claim that standard doesn't apply to others who hold a similar position.
You can't make comments about two shooters being bigots like you have, and then claim that standard doesn't apply to others who hold a similar position.
I was speaking to the instant case. You seem to have a need to expand the discussion to a wider scale. As I have said before, if you wish to do so there are numerous non-photography forums where you can have that discussion.
As for the definition of bigotry I would suggest that our old friend, Mr. Webster, would be real handy in resolving that question.
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!"
Comments
Listen up... this thread is about a photographer denying service to members of the public, in violation of laws on the books at the time. Period, the end!
I will not allow this discussion to devolve into arguments about religion / science / theology.
Keep this civil and on topic or I'll shut this down in a New York minute.
Thank you.
Carry on!
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Well, seems the thread went wonky some time ago.
But I devolve. Voltaire aside: You are right. Please excuse me if I got in too deep.
Going back to the transcript on page 2 of this thread, what the photographer actually said is "we don't photograph same-sex weddings." They refused based upon the activity, not the prospective client's sexual orientation.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
:yikes This thread is going to hell
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://youtube.com/watch?v=Qit3ALTelOo
I can't help but notice the seemingly Innocent subtle hints at the original thread.
I see the real message here. One cat is in a cat cup, the other in a dog cup, indicating an identity issue. Both are looking in a different direction, indicating some unease with the situation, and the cup handles are not in alignment. Also they are a bit on the young side to be participating in a commitment ceremony.
Sam
People fall off the high road of tolerance by declaring there is only one acceptable line of thought on this topic. Shoving your ideas down anothers' throat by calling them a bigot does not make you right - it only makes you a bully. (BTW: Hurling mocking insults at people of faith just because they don't agree with your position is also bigotry.)
Now all the advocates of peace and tolerance can launch their flame thowers at me.
Once again, I wish a moderator would delete this ugly thread!
A moderator is not going to delete this thread. We don't believe in that form of censorship here.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and as long as people don't say nasty things to or about each other then it doesn't have to get ugly.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
No one's ideas have been shoved down anyone's throat. The only folks who have been called bigots were the two photographers in NM (and my parents).
There is one acceptable view, IMHO, on illegal activity. Personally I'm against be it murder or when two bigoted photographers violate the laws of their locality.
Please quote the "mocking insults that were hurled at people of faith". I've just reviewed this thread and didn't find any.
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!"
On the 22nd I said if this thread devolved into a running argument about religion / philosophy / politics I'd shut it down. That's quite different from deleting it or individual posts that remain civil and / or on topic.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
The comments regarding civility caught me completely off guard. Perhaps you could help me understand where the thread was, in any way, uncivil? A tad trite, perhaps. But uncivil?
To explain, I ended up apologizing because it seemed loud and clear that I had perhaps stepped on your toes somehow. Perhaps a bit too close to your personal beliefs? I don't know. But I suggest your response did not reflect your stated position of:
If I said "nasty things" or got "ugly", please help me to understand where, so I can correct my errant ways.
Dude, chill! I never said there was an argument or uncivil behavior. And you haven't ever stepped on my toes or anyone elses so stop taking this personally.
I'm the moderator here and I referenced my comment of the 22nd because you did. To clarify: I said, "IF" there were arguments or uncivil behavior, BY ANYONE, I would shut this down; "IF"
for a short time there, a string of posts were leaning too far into a religious debate that might "MIGHT" have turned into uncivil argument. It didn't. Good. Done. Breath! Smile!
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I think I understand the problem now XSIS!
My comment (post #212) followed yours so you think I was specifically addressing you. I was not. That was aimed at the entire board. OK?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
We weren't talking about anyone but two photographers in NM. The consensus seems to be that one should follow the local laws where one runs one's business. That little tidbit is what makes this thread OK for this forum.
Now if you want to go beyond those two photographers I can recommend a number of other forums where this wider issue would be germane.
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 that's your definition of "bigotry"? Even when the law itself is unclear and potentially illegal?
I was speaking to the instant case. You seem to have a need to expand the discussion to a wider scale. As I have said before, if you wish to do so there are numerous non-photography forums where you can have that discussion.
As for the definition of bigotry I would suggest that our old friend, Mr. Webster, would be real handy in resolving that question.
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!"