# Photographer sued for refusing service



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

I just read an article in which a photographer was sued for refusing service to a same sex couple in New Mexico. The courts ruled that the photographer had discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?

Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 6, 2012)

not discrimanation based on race, creed or sexual orientation, no. All they had to do was refuse without reason.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 6, 2012)

Bigger question is why would a client want to hire a photographer that was unwilling?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2012)

Sad.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Bigger question is why would a client want to hire a photographer that was unwilling?




once they found out they wouldn't photograph them due to her being gay they came back so they could catch them and take them to court. They had no intention of using them as there photographer. As trevor said, just say no, don't give a reason.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jun 6, 2012)

No wonder this country is in the toilet, people use their sexual orientation to exploit people who knowingly don't agree with it.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

Personally I disagree with the courts on this one.

I don't agree with same sex marriage but I'm not arguing or fighting against it. But I should be able to decline services for any reason including my own opinions on these kind of matters. Photography is an art. I can't see myself trying to photograph two men or two women in that manner. I don't "feel" it.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

I also disagree with the court, but I also disagree with how the defense seemed to present it's case.

Personally, I just would left the religion out of it completely.  I am pretty sure, in New Mexico, a same-sex couple cannot get married.  If the studio says it only does weddings, that should be the end of it.  I also assume the price list that was presented to the 'other half' was for a wedding.

A black guy can't walk into Mcdonalds, order a steak, and then sue because he didn't get it.  It's simply not on the menu.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jun 6, 2012)

At the same time to me that's like me going to a Vegan eatery and suing for discrimination because they don't serve meat.  I feel in the context of what happened it is just a way to get money from someone not to "advance our society towards unity"


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.



Discrimination should not be illegal.

Let's assume, that the next time around this Studio takes the gig because they are afraid of the legal backlash.  They are still equally disgusted, distracted, and the quality of their work is going to reflect that.  And, once they get through the wedding, they still have to stare at the images for hours upon hours doing editing, so instead, they hurry through that, also.

So, in Case A, they don't take the gig and the 'couple' gets another photographer who gives them their best work.
And, in Case B, they take the gig and the 'couple' gets a photographer that doesn't want to be there and substandard work.

Which 'Case' is more fair to the couple?
Which 'Case' is more fair to the photographer?


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> No wonder this country is in the toilet, people use their sexual orientation to exploit people who knowingly don't agree with it.



You can't "not agree" with someone's sexual orientation. It's like not agreeing with someone's colour of hair, or height. "Oh, I'm sorry, I don't agree with how tall you are, I can't take your picture". sounds stupid, huh? well, just as stupid as not wanting to take someone's picture because they are gay, or black, or any other thing that bothers you about a person, even though it doesn't directly affect you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Discrimination should not be illegal.



Wow.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.
> ...



Perhaps it would be fair to have an actual professional do the job, not someone who is going to do a bad job because of personal reasons.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Discrimination should not be illegal.
> ...


What do you mean, 'Wow.'  I went on to specifically say why I felt that was the case.  You taking a small part of what I said is inflammatory and unnecessary.  If you feel that something I said was inaccurate, why don't you mention that, instead of your typical 'one word' answers?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> No wonder this country is in the toilet, people use their sexual orientation to exploit people who knowingly don't agree with it.



Yeah, that's not why this country is in the toilet. :roll:


----------



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

I think the key here is that they didn't ask for something that was not offered. From the article, the photographer declined the job stating that they only do traditional weddings. The plaintiff's partner called and asked for the same service ( a "commitment ceremony" ), but didn't mention that it was for a same sex couple. The photographer responded by providing a price list. That, IMO proves discrimination.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.
> ...



Gee, I wonder how minorities feel about that. Interesting viewpoint George. Unfortunately it's those kinds of viewpoints that set this country back in terms of societal normalcy, and creates dissent because people "don't want to look at it." Imagine if Rosa Parks never existed? Imagine if the Greensboro Sit-in's never happened? 

Yeah George, people don't deserve to be equal. Black people shouldn't even be able to vote, should they? They're only 3/5ths of a person, after all, right? 



> Let's assume, that the next time around this Studio takes the gig because they are afraid of the legal backlash.  They are still equally disgusted, distracted, and the quality of their work is going to reflect that.  And, once they get through the wedding, they still have to stare at the images for hours upon hours doing editing, so instead, they hurry through that, also.
> 
> So, in Case A, they don't take the gig and the 'couple' gets another photographer who gives them their best work.
> And, in Case B, they take the gig and the 'couple' gets a photographer that doesn't want to be there and substandard work.
> ...



Yes, lets assume that the photographer is so close minded, brainwashed, and ignorant to the point that they can't stand to look at two people during one of the happiest moments of their life. It's not like he/she's going to be photographing them in the bedroom "after hours." The most he's going to see are two people of the same gender standing next to each other, and kissing at some point or another. If you can't stomach that right now, you better get used to it. 

I hear the Westboro Baptist Church is looking for new members, if you're interested.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



What difference does it make what else you said?
Discrimination is discrimination, whether you want to propose "specific cases" where it should be legal.
 Your opening statement stands, and stands on it's own. "Discrimination should not be illegal." Think about it. 

And wow, because I cannot believe I read that. I can't.


edited to correct my quote.


----------



## davisphotos (Jun 6, 2012)

Should it be legal for restaurants to refuse to serve gay couples? Taxi cabs to refuse to pick them up? Landlords to refuse to rent to them? Doctors to refuse them care? Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?


----------



## snowbear (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Discrimination should not be illegal.


I really hope this is a typo.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

davisphotos said:


> Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?



If only you could... Wait, can you?


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photographers should have the right to refuse to work for anyone that they choose not to.  As a professional I can't think of any situations, apart from illegal ones that I would not shoot, if people want to pay me the money, I'm there.  Unfortunately in the States, more than in Canada, people can sue for pretty much anything.  The MacDonalds coffee spill from years ago, so a clumbsy person spills hot coffe into her lap, that's not MacDonalds fault.  People drink 20 bottles of coke a day and sue Coke because they are obese.  Stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.

It sounds to me that the whole situation was handled wrong, from start to finish.  Discrimination is, and always will be alive and doing well. We don't have to like it, disagree with it, or agree with it, just try to change it.  Easy to say, impossible to do.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****


LOLS


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 6, 2012)

Discrimination is still discrimination and it's illegal. Wrong is still wrong at the end of the day. I would have just said I am going to be on vacation or some other bs excuse. I'm glad the photographer lost for the simple fact of him being dumb enough to say that as his reason.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> A black guy can't walk into Mcdonalds, order a steak, and then sue because he didn't get it.  It's simply not on the menu.



Misplaced argument.
Neither McDonalds not this company can advertise as providing a service to the public and then refuse to provide it to members of the public based on certain conditions.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2012)

Only in the US


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jun 6, 2012)

> the simple fact of him being dumb enough to say that as his reason


One more thing to learn before a noob want to start a business.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

I feel there is a difference between a black person being denied service at a restaurant and being denied photos. I think you have a right to be accepted in any restaurant but not choose and force any photographer to take your photos.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry.  It's no different from being on the wrong side of the segregation debate forty years ago.  Ignorance is ugly in person and completely baffling when looked upon by history.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry.  It's no different from being on the wrong side of the segregation debate forty years ago.  Ignorance is ugly in person and completely baffling when looked upon by history.



I don't think it will ever happen in the US too many ignorant bible bashers


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.




Slavery was outlawed in 1863.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the photographer lost this case. Discrimination is discrimination, IMO. Religion and "moral beliefs" were brought into the mix in their defense, and that is the basis for their discrimination. Gay people being unable to get married like straight people is also discrimination in my book. This is no different.
> ...



So discrimination doesn't exist anymore?


----------



## sm4him (Jun 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I hear the Westboro Baptist Church is looking for new members, if you're interested.



For the record, I belong to a Baptist Church. A Southern Baptist Church. And I am a self-professed Evangelical, Fundamental, Right-Wing Christian. By the standards of the world, anyway. Mostly, I'm just a follower of Christ (sorry, Mods, if that breaks the whole "don't talk about religion" thing, I'm just saying, that's who I am).

I won't tell you my views on homosexuality. Because it doesn't matter what my views are.  If I CHOOSE to run a restaurant, I'd better be prepared to serve whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, as well as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and whatever else there is.  if I CHOOSE to run a photography business, I'd better be ready to suck it up and do photography for the same people. NO matter WHAT I think of their "lifestyle." 

Because--even as a conservative Christian, narrow-minded as I am... :lmao:--I can see the immediate problem with that. The problem is: 
I don't want someone to be able to refuse to do MY photo shoot, just because I'm a heterosexual. Or just because I'm a Christian and they're Muslims, or an Atheist.


That said, for the record: we ALL discriminate, to some degree, by the technical definition of discrimination: "to make a distinction in favor or against one person or thing as compared with others." For instance, some seem to think that EVERY Baptist is "close minded, brainwashed and ignorant." 
Personally, I feel very discriminating against young people who wear their pants around their knees. And brown M&Ms--I always pick out every other color first, and only eat the brown ones grudgingly.


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone? 

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex marriage opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the marriage between two individuals of the same sex.

A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it. 

Not now, not ever.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Espike said:


> I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post



I don't take on black clients. I don't want them spoiling my portfolio. I am a white-only establishment.


----

If the law protects sexual orientation, thendexcriminating against a gay couple would be no different than discriminating against a black couple, regardless f you admit that you are refusing services for that reason. If sufficient evidence exists that I routinely refuse services to black customers, then I can be charged with a civil rights violation, so the blanket "I have a right to refuse service to anyone" is far from fool-proof. I also sincerely doubt that by being paid to photograph a gay couple would violate the photographers first amendment right to free speech, as it would in no way be an endorsement of gay marriage.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2012)

davisphotos said:


> Should it be legal for restaurants to refuse to serve gay couples? Taxi cabs to refuse to pick them up? Landlords to refuse to rent to them? Doctors to refuse them care? Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?


Why is this any more or less discrimantory than telling someone who has a persornal or moral object to <cir***stance> that they have to provide a service relating to that? Why is it more "right" to offend one group than another?

Edit:    We have GOT to fix that word filter...


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...




No, I think discrimination is alive and well today as unfortunate as that may be.   I'm just thinking that if the photographer didn't want to do the shots for whatever reason, good or bad, why make a fuss of it?  The photographer can't be forced to take the photos, so instead of worrying about it and making it a legal issue, why didn't the plaintiffs here just find another photographer?  Everybody's happy that way and there is no wasted court time, court fees, attorneys' fees, and hurt feelings.  Why make an issue out of it is my point.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone? Homosexual activists argue that same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the &#8220;marriage&#8221; between two individuals of the same sex.


This is completely false, homosexual activity is well do***ented in nature at times when overpopulation is a threat, and in some cases spontaneously or even socially. Animals as close to us as canines engage in homosexual activities. While most would conclude that this is some sort of dominance ritual, it is nonetheless homosexual, and could just as easily be argued that this "dominance" hypothesis is anthropometric in interpretation.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 6, 2012)

At the end of the day, this country is full of shipoopie.  A country that claims freedom but was built on the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another. Much of the crap that goes on should be no surprise.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 6, 2012)

So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?


----------



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Espike said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit confused as to why the photographer lost the case. I mean, don't business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all?Court: Christian studio that refused to photograph ceremony discriminated against gay couple - The Washington Post
> ...



Right on, I get your point.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

sm4him said:
			
		

> For the record, I belong to a Baptist Church. A Southern Baptist Church. And I am a self-professed Evangelical, Fundamental, Right-Wing Christian. By the standards of the world, anyway. Mostly, I'm just a follower of Christ (sorry, Mods, if that breaks the whole "don't talk about religion" thing, I'm just saying, that's who I am).
> 
> I won't tell you my views on homosexuality. Because it doesn't matter what my views are.  If I CHOOSE to run a restaurant, I'd better be prepared to serve whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, as well as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and whatever else there is.  if I CHOOSE to run a photography business, I'd better be ready to suck it up and do photography for the same people. NO matter WHAT I think of their "lifestyle."
> 
> ...



Well, westboro is particularly known for actively protesting against homosexuals.
I agree with your point of view though, it's not about religion...it's about being a homophobic *******, and those are everywhere.
And prejudging someone is not the same as discriminating. If someone tells me they are ultra religious, or conservative or into twilight I immediately form a concept of them in my head that might not be favorable, but I would never deny their rights, and I certainly wouldn't deny service to someone who wants to pay for them.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:


> So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?



No. Because pedophiles are not a legally protected class. Simply because teh sexual activity is homosexual does not make it legal, no more so than if an adult man demanded a photographer take sexually explicit images of himself having sex with an little girl. Don't be absurd.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:


> So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?




Hey!  I PAID for that service!!  Whoa!  Wait...what?   :smileys:


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:


> So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?



What ever happen to "right to refuse service"?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?
> 
> Homosexual activists argue that same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
> 
> ...



Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Nothing.
Gay people are after the same *LEGAL* rights marriage brings. They will have sex whether they are married or not. *Just like straight people do*.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> No. Because pedophiles are not a legally protected class.



So he should sue the government because he's being discriminated against.


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Photoes said:
> 
> 
> > I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone? Homosexual activists argue that same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the &#8220;marriage&#8221; between two individuals of the same sex.
> ...



Animal's don't know any better. We do. That's a terrible argument. Why don't we all just poop on the floor? After all, animals do it!


----------



## sm4him (Jun 6, 2012)

The betting is now open for how many comments this thread can get before it gets locked.


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Photoes said:
> 
> 
> > I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?
> ...



Buzz. Wrong! 

Look up the word marriage in the dictionary. 


The social institution under ​which *a man and **woman* establish their ​decision to live as* husband and wife* by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.​


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> don't even get me started on women..psh, bitches wanting to vote and ****



"He's right! It's the same thing with the femenists. You know, they want everything to be equal, everything! But when the check comes, where are they?" - George Costanza


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?
> 
> Homosexual activists argue that same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
> 
> ...



You have every right not to like them, just as much as I don't like homophobes like you. You cannot, however, deny their rights, just as I cannot deny yours.
I don't care what each individual thinks about gay people, it's not the point. Homosexuals may not be able to naturally reproduce, that bit is right. Marriage, however, is a legal binding contract, and it is not "natural" per se. 
Furthermore, there is evidence that implies homosexuality has a genetic factor. Would that make it ok in your eyes, then? would that make it natural? I don't give a flying **** anyways, the point here is that gay people pay their taxes and should be able to get married. Ans yes, you may never see that, but fortunately humanity evolves and people like you eventually dies. Or at least learns to shut up about it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...


.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 6, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I can't wait until we are thirty years in the future, looking back on these times wondering what in the **** was wrong with people that it took so long to give gays the right to marry.



I know!  They should have to suffer like the rest of us!

(I'd like to point out that I'm only kidding in case my wife is reading this)


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2012)

*Okay, okay... we're starting to swerve here.  I think this is a potentially worthwhile debate, BUT we have keep things on the [reasonably] straight and narrow....  'kay?    Thanks!*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?
> ...


Because people like you abused it. They used religion to deny services to blacks, Jews and now homosexuals.

As for animals knowing better, you said "nature" so I pointed to nature. If you're going to use the unnatural argument, then you have to assume we're a part of it, no different than any other animal only that our ecology is unique. But it's not the role of government to establish what is and is not 'natural' anyway, but rather what activities violate the rights of others. Laws against gays are laws which are designed to limit rights, not protect them.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



yes, and the word salary comes from salt, would you like your next costumer to pay you in NaCl?


----------



## Overread (Jun 6, 2012)

lets NOT bring pedo arguments into this shall we - since they fast end up with things getting silly and then locked.



As for the situation I'm of two minds. Firstly discrimination should not be something that is allowed to take part through the population and through the legal system as a whole for activities which don't cause harm (that's the best I can get into once sentance without writing a full essay on activities which should remain illegal). 

That said I feel that a person providing any personal service, be it photographs, food, car repairs - should be totally free to choose who they do and do no do business with. Just as they should be free to hire who they feel is suited to the job at hand. This, of course, should not extend to government services which should always provide their service to any who wish to partake in them (in short a church can refuse to marry you, but the government cannot refuse to offer you a marital status/couple status). 


That said I do understand the need to somewhat break some old traditions/conceptions and that the use of no-discrimination clauses can be used to help ease former discriminated groups into the general working of society (or at least speed up their acceptance in the working and social environment).


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> I do not like gays. Is there a rule in life that says we have to like everyone?



No, but considering that you don't like gay people because they're gay is pretty stupid. They're still people, and they deserve equal rights.



> Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.



That's because there's a chasm of inequality that you apparently fail to see due to a distinct lack of intellect or tolerance.



> First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.



Since when did marriage, a legal institution, become about the "requirements of nature?" It isn't. It's about allowing two people that love eachother unconditionally allowing to share the same rights as straight couples, because they deserve to be equal. Can a man who was castrated and a female who had her womanly parts sewed shut not be able to get married because it "doesn't mean the requirements of nature?" 



> Same-sex marriage opposes nature.


 

No, it doesn't. See above. 



> Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.



Gee, I wonder how many straight married couples get married but never have children? Marriage isn't solely about reproduction, just FYI. Are you REALLY that ignorant or are you just trolling? 



> Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the marriage between two individuals of the same sex.



Because you don't believe people deserve equal rights? You're a bigot. 



> A few years ago we called these people perverts. Now society demands that we all not only put up with it, but openly embrace it.





> Not now, not ever.



If by "a few years ago" you mean 50 years ago, then yes. 

You are nothing but a bigoted fool.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

This is getting GOOD!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



Yes, lets look up marriage in the dictionary. Mine's Miriam Websters, yours must be "skewed and biased." 

_a __(1)_ *:* the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ *: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage* <same-sex _marriage_>


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

I really don't know what the fuss is anyway for some of these people.  If you want the two guys that live next door to quit having sex with each other the best method is to let them get married and let it sort itself out.

On a more serious note, why is it that homophobes think about what other people do in their bedrooms so much?  I had a guy trying to explain his narrow mindedness to me once and he was all, "...just thinking about what they're doing in there is making me sick." and I had to ask if he spent a lot of time thinking about all his neighbors' sex lives or just the gay ones.


----------



## Haya.H (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:


> So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?



Im sorry but that is the craziest most pathetic comparison i have ever heard. That is NO WHERE near what the case was with the photographer and the gay couple. Having sex with a child is called rape. The child is 6 years old. how the hell is he to know right from wrong? As in the other case they are to adults that made a life desicion at an age where they can decide for themselves what they think is right. So to compare those to situations to each other is absolute ignorance.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I really don't know what the fuss is anyway for some of these people.  If you want the two guys that live next door to quit having sex with each other the best method is to let them get married and let it sort itself out.
> 
> On a more serious note, why is it that homophobes think about what other people do in their bedrooms so much?  I had a guy trying to explain his narrow mindedness to me once and he was all, "...just thinking about what they're doing in there is making me sick." and I had to ask if he spent a lot of time thinking about all his neighbors' sex lives or just the gay ones.



Probably just the gay ones. Lets be logical here.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

Okay, back to photography.  Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people.  They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse.  Was this discrimination?  Possibly.  Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?

How about a hair stylist?  I can think of many black hair stylists that are not comfortable working on white people's hair, and vice versa.  Is that discrimination?

Or even something a little more close to the article.  Let's say I am asked to do an Indian wedding...the full shebang.  It can be 3 to 7 days of coverage and I've never done one before, don't know where I will need to be, and don't know what the important parts are.   If I say no, can I now be sued for religious discrimination?


----------



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

When I first came across the article, I had mixed feelings. I know that discrimination is wrong, and this person was wrong for discriminating on this couple based on sexual orientation. Conversely, I felt that a business owner should be able to do business with who he/she feels like. After reading some well thought out posts (and some really stupid arguments) I have realized that a business owner does not, and should not, have the right to refuse service based on who someone is.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Photoes said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


Well. Let's get to a real secondary persuasive source. According to The Abridged Blacks Law Dictionary. While Blacks does define marriage as "the legal union of a couple as husband and wife"

However, gender is not considered in the "essentials of being a valid marriage" which are as follows: 1) "the parties are legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) "mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law." Blacks makes no mention of Gay marriage, likely due to its lack of national recognition.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Okay, back to photography.  Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people.  They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse.  Was this discrimination?  Possibly.  Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?
> 
> How about a hair stylist?  I can think of many black hair stylists that are not comfortable working on white people's hair, and vice versa.  Is that discrimination?
> 
> Or even something a little more close to the article.  Let's say I am asked to do an Indian wedding...the full shebang.  It can be 3 to 7 days of coverage and I've never done one before, don't know where I will need to be, and don't know what the important parts are.   If I say no, can I now be sued for religious discrimination?




Why wouldn't you want to learn about those things you don't know and expand your customer base?


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 6, 2012)

I hate everyone equally and without discrimination. 

That NAMBA or whatever question was really lame. No comparison. If I didn't want to shoot a gay wedding I would just decline the job without cause. Gay money is as good as straight money.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Okay, back to photography.  Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people.  They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse.  Was this discrimination?  Possibly.  Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?
> 
> How about a hair stylist?  I can think of many black hair stylists that are not comfortable working on white people's hair, and vice versa.  Is that discrimination?
> 
> Or even something a little more close to the article.  Let's say I am asked to do an Indian wedding...the full shebang.  It can be 3 to 7 days of coverage and I've never done one before, don't know where I will need to be, and don't know what the important parts are.   If I say no, can I now be sued for religious discrimination?



It's not the same thing. Refusing to do a job because you don't have the skills is not the same as refusing to photograph black people because you feel "disgusted" by them.


----------



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Okay, back to photography.  Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people.  They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse.  Was this discrimination?  Possibly.  Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?
> 
> How about a hair stylist?  I can think of many black hair stylists that are not comfortable working on white people's hair, and vice versa.  Is that discrimination?
> 
> Or even something a little more close to the article.  Let's say I am asked to do an Indian wedding...the full shebang.  It can be 3 to 7 days of coverage and I've never done one before, don't know where I will need to be, and don't know what the important parts are.   If I say no, can I now be sued for religious discrimination?


I say no, because those are limitations based on your lack of experience, or technical ability.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > No. Because pedophiles are not a legally protected class.
> ...


You're acting like a teenager looking for a reaction. Having sex with a minor and photographing the act is the illegal part, not denying service to a pedophile.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Gay money is as good as straight money.




Not true.  I tried to pay for a meal the other night with my Gaymex card and there was a 5% "kicker" fee for paying with gay currency.  Who knew?


My feeble attempt at humor.  Crawling back under my rock now....


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

Welcome to ThePoliticForum!


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).

If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less. 

However the *problem* is that they want to take it outside of the home, the want to turn it into a status.

Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO! 
Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO! 

Sexuality is something that should not be public. That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".

I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust. 

I don't like coke, but I don't mind being around a six pack of coke. But if a can of coke started telling me that "coke is cool, your wrong to hate coke", then I'm going to stomp the can flat.

We were born with different shaped reproductive organs for a reason. It's like plugging a fan into the wall. But the fan does not plug into another fan. It does not work at all. 

If two men are able to legally get married, and never reproduce, then I should be able to legally marry a rock.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

If I ever do photography professionaly, I'm going to have a strict no Christians policy.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

Espike said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, back to photography.  Lets say a certain photographer has trouble with skin tones or lighting of black people.  They know starting out that they won't be able to do the job properly, so they refuse.  Was this discrimination?  Possibly.  Or was it a photographer who knew he didn't have the skills or experience necessary?
> ...



Okay, so you would say a lack of experience is a qualifying reason to say no.  Well, lets say the studio that was sued doesn't have any experience around same-sex couples.  When I shoot a wedding, I know where the bride and the groom are at all times.  Everything from the getting ready stuff, to the places they are going to be, a general idea of what they are going to be doing, what moments to look for, how and in what order they are going to approach the officiant, and pretty much everything else.  It's a very scripted affair.  At the reception, I know which person is going to be wearing the garter, how the first dances are going to line up, etc.  

For a same-sex commitment ceremony, all that goes out the window.  I have no idea what happens at one of those, so for me, would I be just in refusing based on a lack of experience?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm trying to steer myself back to the photography aspect but I can't help but laugh at the "it's against nature" argument.  Makes me want to start a petition to outlaw plastic.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less. However the *problem* is that they want to take it outside of the home, the want to turn it into a status.Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO! Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO! Sexuality is something that should not be public. That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust.  I don't like coke, but I don't mind being around a six pack of coke. But if a can of coke started telling me that "coke is cool, your wrong to hate coke", then I'm going to stomp the can flat.


You do have a right to say you like boobs and butts, even if it's impolite. I agree that when people are sexual in public I find it offensive, but that doesn't excuse discrimination, no more than me having a "no Christians" policy because evangelicalism makes me uncomfortable, an ant-isemite because Jews make him or her uncomfortable, or a racist because blacks make him or her uncomfortable.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).
> 
> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
> 
> ...




Jesus H. Christ.  They're just people.  Give them a break.


----------



## Haya.H (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).
> 
> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
> 
> ...



Why are people comparing two things that have NOTHING in common? 
If a gay couple cant hold hands in public neither should a straight couple, if a gay couple cane kiss in public neither should a straight couple.
who say gay people are out having sex in public? Who said they are out naked in public? Those rules apply to EVERYONE gay or straight. AS should the privilege of being married and being committed to each other. Banning gay marriage or banning them for anything is not gonna stop them from being together nor is it gonna stop them from being gay, your just taking away the rights of another human.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

So wait, if I start my own business I am forced to take ever client that walks through the door?  How have I read signs that say "have the right to refuse service for any reason" before?


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:
			
		

> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).
> 
> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
> 
> ...



then you shouldn't say you dislike gay people, you should say you dislike inappropriate people, shouldn't you?

The bit about the rock I'm gonna ignore, but the fact that you are comparing a human being to an inanimate object just states how desperate you are to find arguments agains equal rights.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

jake337 said:


> So wait, if I start my own business I am forced to take ever client that walks through the door?  How have I read signs that say "have the right to refuse service for any reason" before?


No, you are still free to refuse white males.  Anybody else and you could face a lawsuit.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).
> 
> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
> 
> ...



My wife can't have kids so I guess our marriage is invalid as well.  I'll be sure to tell her when I get home after weaving my way through the hordes of gays having sex with each other on the street.


----------



## Haya.H (Jun 6, 2012)

jake337 said:


> So wait, if I start my own business I am forced to take ever client that walks through the door?  How have I read signs that say "have the right to refuse service for any reason" before?



No but you have to respect them and decline them as you would any other person.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Jake - no, it doesn't. However you cannot deny service on the sole basis of certain criteria as defined by state and federal law. You can discriminate against dirty clothes, economic status, if they are wearing a hat inside or not (provided it is not a part of religious dress), cowboys, heavy metal fans, but you can't decriminalize against race, religion, gender, disability certain age criteria, national origin and in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.

However, it's bad practice to discriminate against anyone. For example, if you don't serve hippies, you may also be violating certain religious rights which are protected. For example, if you use dreadlocks as an indication someone is a hippy, you may be discriminating against members or the Rastafari Movement. Whether this was intended or incidental, it is still discrimination.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> then you shouldn't say you dislike gay people, you should say you dislike inappropriate people, shouldn't you?



Who do you think you are coming in here with all this logic and stuff.  Pfft, no place for that here.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2012)

Sexuality is something that should not be public. That's the issue I  have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".


I DO


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

As long as you don't give reasons you have a right to decline anyone you want. For example, if a family with a child with downs syndrome comes and you feel disgusted by him or her, just say you are booked for ever. I'm sorry, is that unethical? Politically incorrect, perhaps? So is discriminating based on sexual orientation, but a whole lot of you are defending that.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).



Yeah, like no one ever shoves their "gay hate" in anyone elses face. *COUGH* YOU *COUGH* 



> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.



Apparently you don't. 



> However the *problem* is that they want to take it outside of the home, the want to turn it into a status.
> 
> Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO!
> Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO!



That goes for straight and gay people. Unless you think having sex in public for straight people is common practice and widely accepted. 



> Sexuality is something that should not be public. That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".



And not all gay people go around saying "I like men/women." Gay people are JUST LIKE YOU, they just happen to like being romantically involved with someone of their own gender. Big deal.



> I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust.



I've been around fundamentally religious people (not by choice). If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act bigoted and ignorant that I disgust.



> I don't like coke, but I don't mind being around a six pack of coke. But if a can of coke started telling me that "coke is cool, your wrong to hate coke", then I'm going to stomp the can flat.



I don't like backwards religious principles, however I don't mind being around people that agree with those principals. But if a person with backwards religious principles starts telling me "gay people are not equal because they're gay," I'll call them a bigoted, ignorant fool. 



> We were born with different shaped reproductive organs for a reason. It's like plugging a fan into the wall. But the fan does not plug into another fan. It does not work at all.



Not every straight person can reproduce. Ever heard of sterile men? What's the difference? Marriage is about love, not banging your partner to make a ton of babies. Get that through your head. 



> If two men are able to legally get married, and never reproduce, then I should be able to legally marry a rock.



Yes, lets equate human beings to non-living objects. That won't blatantly show how stupid you are, or anything like that. Keep it up.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2012)

*LAST CHANCE PEOPLE!  The issue is that a photographer was sued for refusing service, NOT about what is right/wrong or indifferent with being homosexual/straight/black/white/green.*


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Also, I don't like bitches dropping it like it's hot at the club, I find it innapropiate. doesn't mean I can ban their dance moves.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Jake - no, it doesn't. However you cannot deny service on the sole basis of certain criteria as defined by state and federal law. You can discriminate against dirty clothes, economic status, if they are wearing a hat inside or not, cowboys, heavy metal fans, but you can't decriminalize against race, religion, gender, disability certain age criteria, national origin and in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
> 
> However, it's bad practice to discriminate against anyone. For example, if you don't serve hippies, you may also be violating certain religious rights which are protected.




There is too much gray area.  Sorry.. even if everyone is the same race, has the same sexual orientation, same religion, there is always discrimination.  It is a touchy subject.. always!  Human nature.


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Photoes said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less. However the *problem* is that they want to take it outside of the home, the want to turn it into a status.Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO! Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO! Sexuality is something that should not be public. That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust.  I don't like coke, but I don't mind being around a six pack of coke. But if a can of coke started telling me that "coke is cool, your wrong to hate coke", then I'm going to stomp the can flat.
> ...



Refusing service to gays is not discrimination. I can refuse service to people who like the Beatles, I can refuse service to fat people. 

The LEGAL definition of discrimination is:
_ On the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion.
_
Does it say sexuality? No. Does it say weight? No.  Does it say "people who like the beatles"? No it does not. 

I can't choose to be white, therefore I can't be discriminated against. 
I can't choose to be male, I can't choose to be American. I can't choose to be disabled. I can't choose to be Christian, because I'm born into that religion.

However, one can chose to be gay. So you can be legally discriminated upon choice. If I owned a barber shop, I can refuse service to someone who has a pony tail. It's their choice to have a pony tail.

It's not ALWAYS someone's choice to be gay, since some people are born gay. However since it is a choice, then you can be legally discriminated against it. If I chose not to wear a shirt into McDonald's, then I can be asked to leave, because I chose to not wear a short.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 6, 2012)

tirediron said:


> *LAST CHANCE PEOPLE!  The issue is that a photographer was sued for refusing service, NOT about what is right/wrong or indifferent with being green.*



[video=youtube;hpiIWMWWVco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco[/url][/video]


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

John, you are discriminating asian people.  You didnt put yellow.



tirediron said:


> *LAST CHANCE PEOPLE!  The issue is that a photographer was sued for refusing service, NOT about what is right/wrong or indifferent with being homosexual/straight/black/white/green.*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

> The LEGAL definition of discrimination is:
> _ On the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion.
> _
> Does it say sexuality? No. Does it say weight? No.  Does it say "people who like the beatles"? No it does not.



It depends on jurisdiction, those are federal guidelines. Sme states include sexual orientation depending on state statute or constitutional law.

Oh and I'd be REAL careful about weight. While its trendy and government-endorsed to pick on the fat kid, obesity may be a symptom of a protected disability.

(trying to keep this on topic of discrimination)


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

tirediron said:


> *LAST CHANCE PEOPLE!  The issue is that a photographer was sued for refusing service, NOT about what is right/wrong or indifferent with being homosexual/straight/black/white/green.*



Well I pardon what I said, because I did not get what you said until after I posted. However I'm done talking about the differences.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

So gonna be locked soon lol


----------



## Haya.H (Jun 6, 2012)

Actually i enjoyed this thread.. i dont think there is any reason to ban/close it. No one is crossing the line or attacking one another, some crazy POV's but we are all intitled to that. We can all handle a debate right?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

I think some issues with this for me, is the fact that because they are a protected group. you "have" to do it. as said, if they were black and klan members came in you wouldn't have to photo them because they are not a "protected" group. so, now does this mean I could tell fat people to go away because i don't photo fat people? does this mean if im a  photographer, i could tell a hippy couple to go take a hike because they arn't a "protected" group? so to me it seems a bit unfair to say its okay to say no if your this group. but if your that group its unfair to say no. that to me really isn't equality. 

Reality is you can't govern hate. equality laws for me just seem to make people like photoes hate gays more. the people who are okay with gays don't need laws to be okay with gays, and to those that hate gays, laws will never make them like gays.

If I was gay and someone didn't want to work with me, I would go find someone who did, taking someone to court to force them into doing something for you isn't going to make that person like you. its not going to change there opinion of you, its just going to make them hate you even more. just seems entirly counter-productive.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

I am also glad I saw this thread.  Some time in the future, I may have the same situation come up, and it's definitely food for thought about how I would handle it.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> If I was gay and someone didn't want to work with me, I would go find someone who did, taking someone to court to force them into doing something for you isn't going to make that person like you. its not going to change there opinion of you, its just going to make them hate you even more. just seems entirly counter-productive.



Their point probably wasn't changing their mind..it was either the noble cause of bringing attention to discrimination for sexual orientation, or just taking money from a less that clever photog who stated the cause for turning down the job.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> I think some issues with this for me, is the fact that because they are a protected group. you "have" to do it. as said, if they were black and klan members came in you wouldn't have to photo them because they are not a "protected" group. so, now does this mean I could tell fat people to go away because i don't photo fat people? does this mean if im a  photographer, i could tell a hippy couple to go take a hike because they arn't a "protected" group? so to me it seems a bit unfair to say its okay to say no if your this group. but if your that group its unfair to say no. that to me really isn't equality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No but you could say you don't have any wide angle lenses


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> The problem with gay people is that they want everyone else to think being gay is "cool", like it's some sort of lifestyle. Then they proceed to shove it in your face (so to speak).



Hmmm...I'm gay, and never shoved it anyones face. 



> If two men want to go at it in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it. I could care less.
> However the *problem* *is that they want to take it outside of the home, they want to turn it into a status*.



*We do?* How is it a status?
I like how you know *all about *what gay people want. Even if it IS misguided.



> Can we be naked in our own house? Yes. Can we be naked in public? NO!
> *Can we have sex in our own house? Yes. Can we have sex in public? NO! *


*Thnak god!*



> Sexuality is something that should not be public.
> 
> 
> That's the issue I have with gays. I don't go around saying "I love boobs and butts".


Hooter's! 
Many men do go around saying they like boobs and butts.
Heck, look at the comments in the Glamour photography threads here!



> I have (not by choice), been around gay people. If they want to act like humans, then I don't mind them. It's the ones that act "flamboyant" that I disgust.


 I am sure you disgust many people.




> We were born with different shaped reproductive organs for a reason. It's like plugging a fan into the wall. But the fan does not plug into another fan. It does not work at all.


We won't talk about what fit's where. Straight single AND married people do it that way too. Just in case you don't realise that.




> If two men are able to legally get married, and never reproduce, then I should be able to legally marry a rock.


Sure if the rock can actually give consent.
BTW, that is the stupidest argument ever. But we hear it again and again. Why is that? Why is that the best you can do?



Oops. Sorry didn't see Tiredirons request.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

A Christian who opposes gay marriage should express concerns of conflict of interest, rather than outright refusal. A photographer should explain that he or she may not have their best interest in mind, and allow the couple to decide how to proceed. Conflict of interest may also be a legally valid reason to refuse service, and photographers who oppose homosexual activities in states where sexual orientation is protected ought to consult with an attorney about this issue.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..


I am not sure about that. While you cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of addiction, you can discriminate against their addictive behaviors or the results.

For example, you can't discriminate against a meth addict simply for having the medical condition of methamphetamine addiction, but you can discriminate against them for not having any teeth due to malnutrition as a result.


----------



## Espike (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Espike said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Yes, If you are indeed refusing based on lack of experience. The photographer in question stated that they decline the job based on religious and moral beliefs.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

davisphotos said:
			
		

> Should it be legal for restaurants to refuse to serve gay couples? Taxi cabs to refuse to pick them up? Landlords to refuse to rent to them? Doctors to refuse them care? Can I refuse to photograph the wedding of a Republican couple because I don't like their politics?



Just tell them I voted Democrat, is that ok?


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Jake - no, it doesn't. However you cannot deny service on the sole basis of certain criteria as defined by state and federal law. You can discriminate against dirty clothes, economic status, if they are wearing a hat inside or not (provided it is not a part of religious dress), cowboys, heavy metal fans, but you can't decriminalize against race, religion, gender, disability certain age criteria, national origin and in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
> 
> However, it's bad practice to discriminate against anyone. For example, if you don't serve hippies, you may also be violating certain religious rights which are protected. For example, if you use dreadlocks as an indication someone is a hippy, you may be discriminating against members or the Rastafari Movement. Whether this was intended or incidental, it is still discrimination.



I understood that.  Was just poking fun at this whole thread.  See I always thought this whole discrimination thing was about jobs.  Of course I can't tell a gay person they didn't get the job because the are gay.  

But as a business owner, one should be able to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.  It's their own business.  Not saying I would.  I wouldn't refuse service for any reason because that would be money in my bank account, food on the table and a roof over our heads.

But I believe I should have the right to refuse service for any reason because I own the business, not the public.


Anyways why would someone want a business to do work for them, when they know they do not want to do said work for them?


Just a sue happy country we live in I guess.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 6, 2012)

I refuse to shoot llamas.  ****ing drama queens of the camelid family.  I draw the line at alpacas.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility in a specific and uniform way, they ought to be compelled to.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> Someone who is obese could probably argue they are addicted to food, which would count as a disease, which would mean you can't discriminate by law..




But my issue is that you CAN discriminate  certain groups and people. but not this certain selection of people(not just gays) to me that is not equality. that is making groups speacial. 

I just feel a lot of what people do to "protect" people ends up making a bigger divide then if people are just left alone.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility, they ought to be compelled to.



They have no such responsibility.  Just as they cannot force a citizen to purchase an item from them, they should not be forced to sell an item.  It is a two way street.

And we aren't talking about whether or not we let somebody take an item from a shelf to a cash register.  We are talking about creative effort.

Many people who design custom projects only accept the ones they will enjoy.  The better those people are, the more they get to pick and choose.

If I am not going to enjoy a project, I am not going to do it unless money is a deciding factor.  Either I really need the money or they offer so much I can't refuse.  My enjoyment of the job greatly influences whether I will do it or not, and so far, I am not aware of any law that says I have to enjoy all jobs equally.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

Wow, and hear I thought in the art world, people were open mind an above petty skin tone, sexuality.  A bigot in the art world?  What's next a gay white supremacist?  Sorry it doesn't compute in my logical mind....gah syntax error!!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The problem with refusal of services is that some individuals may be left tremendously disadvantaged. Imagine if you had to travel many miles to get groceries simply because that's the only one which serves black people. What if the best private school in the area only admitted whites? A business owner is providing services and goods to the public, and their for has a responsibility to not discriminate. When business owners do not fulfill this responsibility in a specific and uniform way, they ought to be compelled to.



now a days the majority of people are out there trying to make money. look at this site. how many people were for the gays versus a few people who are against. the majority of people will ask the most important question. "can you pay"   forcing someone to do something with laws doesnt change peoples views. to me changing peoples views will do more to end racism or sexism. or gay gender equalities. then trying to force people in courts to do what you want.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Thats why I mentioned conflict of interest rather than "eww that's gross and sinful". I don't know if it has any legal standing or not, however.

---

So, then under this same logic, George, business owners should be allowed to not serve "colored" people? If not, then why are homosexuals any different? After all, many of the same arguments, that they'd make the customers feel uncomfortable, or that because it's unnatural or against "God" we're used before desegregation.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> So if a member of NAMBLA walks into a studio with a 6-year old boy, the photographer is legally bound to photograph the man and the boy having sex?


Nope that's where the right ends.  Rights do have limits, but given the fact the guy hates gays, an owns a legitimate business that's open to the public, the courts favored the gay couple.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> "He's right! It's the same thing with the femenists. You know, they want everything to be equal, everything! But when the check comes, where are they?" - George Costanza



Thumbsup.  I wonder what homophobes think when they extend their telephoto lens hmmmmmm.


----------



## JSER (Jun 6, 2012)

This appears to be the culture in the USA, sue and compensation, sahme is we are going the same way.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 6, 2012)

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread regarding rights and homosexuality. I do go around saying I like boobies (and butts) .. but somewhat discretely. 


I don't think Gay people choose to be gay any more than I choose to be straight.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

yerlem said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > If I was gay and someone didn't want to work with me, I would go find someone who did, taking someone to court to force them into doing something for you isn't going to make that person like you. its not going to change there opinion of you, its just going to make them hate you even more. just seems entirly counter-productive.
> ...



they didn't ask for any money damages only for court costs.
And that's what they received.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Thats why I mentioned conflict of interest rather than "eww that's gross and sinful". I don't know if it has any legal standing or not, however.
> 
> ---
> 
> So, then under this same logic, George, business owners should be allowed to not serve "colored" people? If not, then why are homosexuals any different?


Sticking strictly to photography, I already addressed that.  A difference in skin tones requires a different skill set.  A different lighting setup, and different editing methods.   Whether we as a society have forgotten or not, there actually is a difference between black and white people.  I happen to know since my wife is black.

As far a this particular case, a homosexual ceremony is something that is completely alien to many people.  I have never seen one, and honestly, I can say that it would be an unfamiliar setting for me.  That unfamiliarity would lead to me not being able to do the best job that I could.  Maybe after 3 or 4, I would be familiar enough with it to be able to anticipate the events of the day, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to do a poor job on the first.

And again, whether or not society wants to acknowledge it, there is a difference between a commitment ceremony between two people of the same gender and a wedding.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

JSER said:


> This appears to be the culture in the USA, sue and compensation, sahme is we are going the same way.



If you break a law in criminal jurisdiction you go to jail. Break a law in civil jurisdiction, you get sued. If you are caught breaking the law, you have to live with certain consequences regardless if what you did should be illegal or not. Don't want to go to jail? Don't break the law. Don't want to get sued? Don't break the law.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> they didn't ask for any money damages only for court costs.
> And that's what they received.



In that case they weren't trying to profit financially from it, which renders a lot of comments invalid. You can stop comparing the case with scams won by consumers..


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> However, one can chose to be gay.



Wrong.
Wrong on the facts.
Wrong on the law.

Wrong on just so many things.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Thats why I mentioned conflict of interest rather than "eww that's gross and sinful". I don't know if it has any legal standing or not, however.---So, then under this same logic, George, business owners should be allowed to not serve "colored" people? If not, then why are homosexuals any different?
> ...


I don't really know, George. I think a professional would be obligated to inform them that they may not be the best choice, but I am not 100% sure if this wold be grounds to decline services. You'd certainly have a better defense.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> As far a this particular case, a homosexual ceremony is something that is completely alien to many people.  I have never seen one, and honestly, I can say that it would be an unfamiliar setting for me.  That unfamiliarity would lead to me not being able to do the best job that I could.  Maybe after 3 or 4, I would be familiar enough with it to be able to anticipate the events of the day, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to do a poor job on the first.



So, that same kind of thinking would mean you could never have sex because you didn't have any experience and didn't want to do a bad job.

I've been to several  commitment cenremonies and there's nothing different except the pair getting married is of the same gender.

Oh, there is one other difference, I'm pretty certain there a very few stupid bigots in attendance.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > As far a this particular case, a homosexual ceremony is something that is completely alien to many people. I have never seen one, and honestly, I can say that it would be an unfamiliar setting for me. That unfamiliarity would lead to me not being able to do the best job that I could. Maybe after 3 or 4, I would be familiar enough with it to be able to anticipate the events of the day, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to do a poor job on the first.
> ...




I didnt get paid the first time i had sex, was i suppposed to? am I missing out on something here?    lol


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Lew, I think George does have a valid point (hah! This is likely the only time you'll hear me say that!!) - should a professional photographer be compelled to photograph a subject which presents a political or ethical conflict of interest? I am enclined to say that they do, but also have a professional responsibility to inform the clients of this conflict.

No matter, There is no need to call names.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

I would love to do my first Indian wedding, first gay wedding.  I have done my first jewish wedding, that was fun.  Your argument is very weird George.  I dont know about you, I always love to photograph something comepletely different.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Lew, I think George does have a valid point - should a professional photographer be compelled to photograph a subject which presents a political or ethical conflict of interest? I am enclosed to say that they do, but also have a professional responsibility to inform the clients of this conflict.
> 
> No matter, There is no need to call names.



Lie like the rest of them and referr them to another photographer it's not hard people.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

IByte said:


> Wow, and hear I thought in the art world, people were open mind an above petty skin tone, sexuality.  A bigot in the art world?  What's next a gay white supremacist?  Sorry it doesn't compute in my logical mind....gah syntax error!!



Lol, I want to post a video from the Dave Chappelle's Show but....

Just search Clayton Bigsby....


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

*Photoes: Posting a controversial or unpopular opinion is one thing. Stating  it as fact is another. Remarks such as those edited from this thread will NOT be tolerated.*


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Lew, I think George does have a valid point (hah! This is likely the only time you'll hear me say that!!) - should a professional photographer be compelled to photograph a subject which presents a political or ethical conflict of interest? I am enclined to say that they do, but also have a professional responsibility to inform the clients of this conflict.
> 
> No matter, There is no need to call names.




I would have to disagree based on this case. If you say up front you will do it but are against what they do. they are likely easily capable of saying at the end you took poor pics of you and demand free payment or threaton a lawsuit since you have allready admitted being against them or there lifestyle. I would say do it and just keep your mouth shut or risk lawsuit.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

IByte said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too many lies turns into an easy to prove class action. Hope you pay your attorney well.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> I can't choose to be white, therefore I can't be discriminated against.


Micheal Jackson did.



> I can't choose to be male,


Well, you can actually. Gender re-assignment surgery.


> I can't choose to be American.


Oh, yeah, you can choose to be or not be that as well.



> I can't choose to be disabled.


Well, you could, actually, in a number of ways.


> I can't choose to be Christian, because I'm born into that religion.


That really is still a choice. You can become whatever religion you want to be.



> However, one can chose to be gay.


Hmmm...while you like to pretend to be an expert on all things gay, it is not a choice.
Trust me. The gay person. The gay person that knew he was "different" at a very young age.
How does an 8 year old decide he/she has "feelings" for the same sex? 
At what point did YOU decide to be straight?
I mean, if it is actually a choice, it we be a choice we would *all *be making at some point in our lives.
Please don't continue going through life pretending to be an expert on all things gay.



> So you can be legally discriminated upon choice. If I owned a barber shop, I can refuse service to someone who has a pony tail. It's their choice to have a pony tail.



Can you really? Are you a lawyer? Where do you get this information?



> It's not ALWAYS someone's choice to be gay, since some people are born gay. However since it is a choice, then you can be legally discriminated against it.


Make up your mind. Please.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

The bible said Jesus walked on water. My question is, what was the temperature of the water? 




Photoes said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



Opinions based on fairy tales my friend.......


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > As far a this particular case, a homosexual ceremony is something that is completely alien to many people.  I have never seen one, and honestly, I can say that it would be an unfamiliar setting for me.  That unfamiliarity would lead to me not being able to do the best job that I could.  Maybe after 3 or 4, I would be familiar enough with it to be able to anticipate the events of the day, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to do a poor job on the first.
> ...



I am fairly certain that the first time I had sex I wasn't being offered money for services rendered...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Lew, I think George does have a valid point (hah! This is likely the only time you'll hear me say that!!) - should a professional photographer be compelled to photograph a subject which presents a political or ethical conflict of interest? I am enclined to say that they do, but also have a professional responsibility to inform the clients of this conflict.
> 
> No matter, There is no need to call names.



Let's not mix issues here.
Trying to find a reason to refuse a service one should legally provide is just immoral in itself.
There are no ethical issues here.  It's a matter of law.
I would just like the situation to be that a bigot finds another reason to refuse the work because he/she is ashamed of his own feelings.
I think bigoted thinking should be the kind of thing one hides and confesses only to one's therapist or spiritual advisor.

Lew


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 6, 2012)

It boils down to this: Intelligent, well-informed people make choices to perform or not perform but never in a discriminatory manner.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes, I've seen fewer holes in swiss cheese!


----------



## JAC526 (Jun 6, 2012)

I find it sad that the gay couple felt it necessary to even sue the photographer at all.

I have a very close friend who is gay and if this scenario presented itself to her she would have shook her head (maybe told the guy to **** off) and then just walked away.

As a gay in America you should unfortunately expect this type of treatment sometimes.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...


 My god says no such thing.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes is the first on my ignore list!!!!!!!


----------



## yerlem (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:
			
		

> *EDITED TO REMOVE QUOTED OFFENSIVE MATERIAL *



To be married there has to be mutual consent and animals other than humans can't consent. You are so obvious going there it is not even funny. 
Stop putting words in god's mouth, he didn't write the bible, men did. 
God also says we must all love each other, and you are drastically failing at that.
the bible says a lot of things you religious people don't follow.
You should be more humble, I don't think god would want someone like you representin him.
And I'm wriing everything without actually having a coherent post because your hate, human stupidity and bigotry are so overwhelming I can't even begin to comprehend how someone could be so wrong.


----------



## IByte (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Too many lies turns into an easy to prove class action. Hope you pay your attorney well.



I'm not a bigot of any sort. I come both Black and Greek background and I welcome everyone for a pint or two.  I was just stating that is what some people do in these situations, and how they try to cover up their piss poor hatred.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 6, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I find it sad that the gay couple felt it necessary to even sue the photographer at all.
> 
> I have a very close friend who is gay and if this scenario presented itself to her she would have shook her head (maybe told the guy to **** off) and then just walked away.
> 
> As a gay in America you should unfortunately expect this type of treatment sometimes.



Same thing was said to black Americans, Women, Native Americans, Japanese, etc etc. Nobody should ever have to feel discrimated upon in the USA where all the white people came from OTHER countries to begin with. Jeesh, this is retarded.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2012)

We shouldnt discriminate against other religion too.  Yet the Egyptians died in the red sea by the wrath of GOD.  

Oh another thing.. who wrote the bible?  Some dude I heard.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes!  Your on my ignore list but I would recommend you never visit Thailand....


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

He might be on my ignore list but if I ever see him in person I'm agonna kiss him right on the mouth really hard and long - and wait for a response.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> He might be on my ignore list but if I ever  see him in person I'm agonna kiss him right on the mouth really hard and  long - and wait for a response.



Just promise us you'll have your camera with you to capture the moment!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

The problem with the legal aspects of homosexuality is that it seves only to as a back-door to religious establishment, and I would argue that by denying sects who would otherwise perform gay marriage is a violation of their first amendment rights.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 6, 2012)

I just find it amazing that reasonably thinking adults on a forum can turn into such a bunch of narrow minded idiots, spewing out hate against fellow humans, pulling references of incest, adult/child relationships into a debate simply because they don't have better arguments or reasons. There are people that I dislike, not because of their race, creed or sexual orientation, but because they simply have chosen to hate for no reason, because their narrow minded religion tells them what to think.  For all you over religious types, you can rest assured that there are gay couples sitting next to you in church, singing along with you, shaking your hand, sitting at the same table eating dinner with you, calling you friend .They have just chosen to hide who they are.

Grow up, let people live the lives they choose, as long as it is not illegal, hurting those that are not in a position to protect themselves, children especially.  Learn to accept what is different, don't run and hide, the world is dealing with way too much hate as it is. 

The world is full of gutless people, don't be one.

Reverend Imagemaker


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Namaste, rev. Imagemaker  its nice to finally say that and mean it in this thread.


----------



## JAC526 (Jun 6, 2012)

You should do the forum and more importantly the world a favor.

The next time you have a thought....just let it go.


EDIT:  Meant to reply to Photoes post about stomping coke cans.  Forgot to add the quote.  Although I'm glad I didn't as I would have just reproduced his retarded drivel.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Well, I did, but that's another story.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Lew, I think George does have a valid point (hah! This is likely the only time you'll hear me say that!!) - should a professional photographer be compelled to photograph a subject which presents a political or ethical conflict of interest? I am enclined to say that they do, but also have a professional responsibility to inform the clients of this conflict.
> ...


Let's say I was advertising a 'general' photography business.  Let's say a client walked in and wanted me to take a picture of a box every day, three times a day, using outoor light to illustrate the difference in the seasons.  Sounds like a reasonable assigment.  Also sounds like one I would refuse in a heartbeat.  It's boring and I wouldn't enjoy it.

For instance, I am already booked for the next annual St. Jude's Charity Horse Ride.  You know what I am charging?  Nothing.  Because it is a cause I support and a job I will enjoy.

I feel that photographers taking the stance that it is okay for the gov't to tell us what jobs we should and should not take is a very slippery slope.  It's our camera, our vision, our time...why should another person or entity compel us to use that as they wish rather than as we wish?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

This shoulda have been locked ages ago.


----------



## JAC526 (Jun 6, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it sad that the gay couple felt it necessary to even sue the photographer at all.
> ...



I agree with you completely.  I just think that by sueing the photographer they have descended down to his level of stupidity.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 6, 2012)

It's time for me to try out for Playboy, then sue because I'm not a woman and I am fat........



Do fashion magazines and photographers get to choose their models?


Artist get to choose what they paint, right?


Again, in this economy, it would be stupid and financially unwise to decline over such ridiculous reasons but do artists no longer have a choice in what they create?


----------



## NikonDude (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:
			
		

> ...You missed my point.


*NO!  You missed mine!*


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

Honestly. All this same sex stuff aside. Discrimination aside. There are different levels or discrimination. Plain an simple. I don't think you should be able to sue a photographer because they didn't want to take your photos. Regardless of the reason.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

jake337 said:


> It's time for me to try out for Playboy, then sue because I'm not a woman and I am fat........



Ability to fit a role in the case of perforance arts are a well-established exception. Come on people. Cut the dramatic, sophomoric crap.


----------



## JAC526 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> yerlem said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



Holy slippery slope Batman!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Honestly. All this same sex stuff aside. Discrimination aside. There are different levels or discrimination. Plain an simple. I don't think you should be able to sue a photographer because they didn't want to take your photos. Regardless of the reason.


Why are photographers different from restaurant owners or bus companies. Should photographers be allowed to refuse service to blacks, but a restaurant is required to serve them? Why should a photographer have this special right to discrimination, unshared by anyone in any other industry?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

Taking the bus and eating food is a right. It's part of survival. Having photos taken is not.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> yerlem said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but you are an idiot.  Homosexuality is not a chose, it is biological. If you are going to continue to toss out mindless and uneducated drivel, at least get the facts right.  You are one of those people that I choose to dislike, and it's not biological.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Since when is eating at chillis survival? Mechanical transportation is a convenience.

But that aside. What about movies? Baseball games? Who can join the tennis club?

Degree of necessity is beside the point, civil liberty is about equality.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 6, 2012)

The judge just opened up a can of worms. Now every photographer out there will be force to take pictures he or she doesn't want with fear of being sued. Why couldn't they just get another photographer? The couple is just throwing around and abusing their status.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 6, 2012)

Photoes said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Photoes said:
> ...



Sodom and Gommorrah were destroyed because of prostitution, sloth, ignorance, and idolation. If you're going to cite the Bible, please do it correctly.

I don't think you're IN the wrong. I just think you're wrong. You have every right to your opinions.

Don't be childish. Hating someone because they hate you is very un-Christian. I know for sure that it's a Sin.

 I could probably fall in love with one of my family members, but I wouldn't marry them because, well, it was just be a strange dynamic. I don't have any qualms about others marrying their family members, because it doesn't affect me. Like, at all. Unless you try to calculate the indirect impact by way of the Butterfly Effect then I'm not sure why I should care. The argument against the whole incest thing is genetic stagnation. The offspring would have a high chance of having many health problems.

There's a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. Have you never seen a romantic comedy before?

Who the hell says that a one parent family can't work? I graduated Valedictorian of my high school. As did my brother after me. I'm on the Dean's List at my university. I've been in a stable relationship without any sort of problems for 7 months.

And who the **** cares if homosexuality works? Do you have a couple of homosexual nudists going at it like rabbits in your backyard? Are they infringing on you? 

I mean really? I'll be willing to bet that you've masturbated several times during your life, but you probably just repent for it (and if you don't that explains your stress). Masturbation is a waste of resources, yes? It is a sin, yes? I thought so.

If that's the case then I guess homosexuals can just repent every time they homosex.

I don't disagree with your opinion as much as I disagree with your dumbass argument.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

Patriot said:


> The judge just opened up a can of worms. Now every photographer out there will be force to take pictures he or she doesn't want with fear of being sued. Why couldn't they just get another photographer? The couple is just throwing around and abusing their status.


 


The state provided their status protection! Like i said, if you don't want to get sued, don't break the law.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Since when is eating at chillis survival? Mechanical transportation is a convenience.
> 
> Degree of necessity is beside the point, civil liberty is about equality.
> 
> But that aside. What about movies? Baseball games? Who can join the tennis club? Who can go to what parks?



We eat to survive. Just because it's at a restaurant makes it less important?

This day and age when your job that provides for your family can be an hour drive or more. We need "mechanical transportation". Our current society would not survive without it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly. All this same sex stuff aside. Discrimination aside. There are different levels or discrimination. Plain an simple. I don't think you should be able to sue a photographer because they didn't want to take your photos. Regardless of the reason.
> ...



Photographers can refuse to take pictures of anyone they want. I can choose not to talk to people, or refuse to get into a taxi with a black driver. I choose to treat people as people regardless of who they are, I don't decide who is good or bad, I offer people respect, and if they choose not to show me the same respect, then my opinion is now based of that.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2012)

<Fin>


----------

