Gray Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 In the example of the photographer, the gay person liked the way a particular photographer took her photos, and wanted that for her gay wedding. The photographer informed her that she couldn't participate because it would violate her own core beliefs. The "undue hardship" was having to find another photographer. However, the complaint lead to the photographer losing in court and probably losing her business unless she's willing to violate her own conscience. And even then the style of photographs that she took wouldn't be found in a gay wedding, because the artist was motivated by her inspiration of the event, and if one is forced to violate their conscience, that person certainly isn't feeling inspired, but violated. Is that what everyone wants? Disrespected beliefs and violation by force? If she had a photo booth, where the public was invited to sit and get photos of themselves, then sure, her refusal to give them service would be a violation of the law. But, these cases are instances that require not just service, but a special type of service that involves participation. Should a gay print shop be forced to print signs for Westboro Baptists demonstrations? If you think that serving gay people at their celebrations violates your religious beliefs, you can always stop photographing weddings altogether. But I think the ability of American citizens to get the same services equally is more important than any particular religious belief, at least in the context of public policy and law. 1
california boy Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 In the example of the photographer, the gay person liked the way a particular photographer took her photos, and wanted that for her gay wedding. The photographer informed her that she couldn't participate because it would violate her own core beliefs. The "undue hardship" was having to find another photographer. However, the complaint lead to the photographer losing in court and probably losing her business unless she's willing to violate her own conscience. And even then the style of photographs that she took wouldn't be found in a gay wedding, because the artist was motivated by her inspiration of the event, and if one is forced to violate their conscience, that person certainly isn't feeling inspired, but violated. Is that what everyone wants? Disrespected beliefs and violation by force? If she had a photo booth, where the public was invited to sit and get photos of themselves, then sure, her refusal to give them service would be a violation of the law. But, these cases are instances that require not just service, but a special type of service that involves participation. Should a gay print shop be forced to print signs for Westboro Baptists demonstrations? Actualy the complaint was that the photographer was breaking the laws of New Mexico. The courts found her guilty of breaking the law. It is that simple. We don't give exceptions in this country based on religious belief to break the law. Can you imagine the mess it would cause in this country if we did give those kinds of exceptions? Would you really want to live in a society where we had laws that could legally be broken based on "religous belief"??
danielwoods Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 If you think that serving gay people at their celebrations violates your religious beliefs, you can always stop photographing weddings altogether. But I think the ability of American citizens to get the same services equally is more important than any particular religious belief, at least in the context of public policy and law. Actualy the complaint was that the photographer was breaking the laws of New Mexico. The courts found her guilty of breaking the law. It is that simple. We don't give exceptions in this country based on religious belief to break the law. Can you imagine the mess it would cause in this country if we did give those kinds of exceptions? Would you really want to live in a society where we had laws that could legally be broken based on "religous belief"?? Neither of you responded to the fact that these are not just service, but a type of service where participation is required (The law would of course be just fine, just as doctors are allowed to opt out of doing abortions). Second, neither of you responded to my last question about a gay print shop.
Gray Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Neither of you responded to the fact that these are not just service, but a type of service where participation is required (The law would of course be just fine, just as doctors are allowed to opt out of doing abortions). Second, neither of you responded to my last question about a gay print shop. I don't think it's participation. It is attendance. And again if you don't want to attend those kinds of events, no one can force you to photograph weddings. Regarding the printing of signs, I'm not sure how the law comes down on that. I think it would be more a matter not being able to refuse service to someone based on who they are. I don't think print shops are compelled to print anything (like pornography or hate speech, for instance).
JLHPROF Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Well there is nothing so restrictive in current US law. You can choose to disregard law as a matter of conscience. Or you can find ways around them. The choice is yours, of course. Optimist. Let's hope it stays that way. That would make every religion a law unto itself. Laws would be meaningless if there were religious exemptions. Some laws SHOULD be meaningless. Many historical laws are now considered jokes.Imagine what laws we have to follow right now will be considered meaningless in the near future.
danielwoods Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 I don't think it's participation. It is attendance. And again if you don't want to attend those kinds of events, no one can force you to photograph weddings. Regarding the printing of signs, I'm not sure how the law comes down on that. I think it would be more a matter not being able to refuse service to someone based on who they are. I don't think print shops are compelled to print anything (like pornography or hate speech, for instance). Just as a photographer isn't refusing to take photos based on who they are, but rather their opposition to the event.
Gray Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) Some laws SHOULD be meaningless. Many historical laws are now considered jokes.Imagine what laws we have to follow right now will be considered meaningless in the near future. Well, if we get the religious privileges that some seem to want, I'll be starting my own church that preaches that paying taxes is immoral and paying bills is downright devilish. Edited April 7, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Just as a photographer isn't refusing to take photos based on who they are, but rather their opposition to the event. But the opposition to the event is based on who they are.
california boy Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Neither of you responded to the fact that these are not just service, but a type of service where participation is required (The law would of course be just fine, just as doctors are allowed to opt out of doing abortions). Second, neither of you responded to my last question about a gay print shop. There is a REAL easy solution to all of these cases. A photographer who does not want to attend a gay wedding only has to say that his assistant will be the actual photographer at the wedding. He can then hire a freelance photographer to shoot the wedding. A business is only required to provide the service eually. There is no requirement on who that business chooses to send to do the assignment. I am sure you will find fault with this solution as well because what I have learned about these threads is that some people don't want solutions, they just want to be able to discriminate against gays. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) There is a REAL easy solution to all of these cases. A photographer who does not want to attend a gay wedding only has to say that his assistant will be the actual photographer at the wedding. He can then hire a freelance photographer to shoot the wedding. A business is only required to provide the service eually. There is no requirement on who that business chooses to send to do the assignment. I am sure you will find fault with this solution as well because what I have learned about these threads is that some people don't want solutions, they just want to be able to discriminate against gays. Another option is to rent the camera to the wedding party and let them take the pictures themselves. Or hire an illegal alien or someone from the Westboro Baptist Church. If I was forced to go I just would laugh at the wedding group. Really make it a bad experience for everyone. Edited April 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide
danielwoods Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 But the opposition to the event is based on who they are. Yes, but attendance is agreement or support of the event. I can love and serve someone I disagree with, but giving the appearance that I agree with their actions, when I don't, violates my conscience.
danielwoods Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 There is a REAL easy solution to all of these cases. A photographer who does not want to attend a gay wedding only has to say that his assistant will be the actual photographer at the wedding. He can then hire a freelance photographer to shoot the wedding. A business is only required to provide the service eually. There is no requirement on who that business chooses to send to do the assignment. I am sure you will find fault with this solution as well because what I have learned about these threads is that some people don't want solutions, they just want to be able to discriminate against gays. You know I'm all about solutions. The referenced incident, the gay couple wanted that particular photographer because they liked her style. What the gay couple failed to realize is that by forcing someone to violate their conscience, they no longer would get the same inspired style that they liked. Further, your solution would fail as well, because it's not the same photographer that she wanted. As for a solution. My solution is to find a different photographer. Or failing that, in this politically correct culture that crucifies those who hold a differing opinion (especially religious one), the photographer should have found a creative way to decline. The problem is that as a christian, they are likely to just tell the truth and then left uses that to attack those they disagree with.
Gray Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Yes, but attendance is agreement or support of the event. I can love and serve someone I disagree with, but giving the appearance that I agree with their actions, when I don't, violates my conscience. I'm not sure how, as you wouldn't be a guest but rather a vender of a service. But in any case, you can always not provide service to any weddings if the prospect of attending certain weddings troubles you.
Stone holm Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Oh what a quagmire the religious right has opened up. I am still pondering the concept that was recently posted on the internet that "If selling a cake to be used at a gay wedding means you are participating in celebrating a gay wedding, does the sale of a gun to a murderer mean you are participating in celebrating a murder." I suppose the difference is that you might not know that the person was a murderer when you sold it to the person. At what point does this participation argument break down. If its a generic wedding cake without any figurines on it, would you be participating in celebrating anything other than eating cake? What if you were selling flour that you knew was going to be used in baking a wedding cake for gays? What if you were employing someone who was earning money to go attend a gay wedding. What if you were paving the road to a Church which allows gay weddings? 4
california boy Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 You know I'm all about solutions. The referenced incident, the gay couple wanted that particular photographer because they liked her style. What the gay couple failed to realize is that by forcing someone to violate their conscience, they no longer would get the same inspired style that they liked. Further, your solution would fail as well, because it's not the same photographer that she wanted. As for a solution. My solution is to find a different photographer. Or failing that, in this politically correct culture that crucifies those who hold a differing opinion (especially religious one), the photographer should have found a creative way to decline. The problem is that as a christian, they are likely to just tell the truth and then left uses that to attack those they disagree with. Legally, it doesn't matter whether the gay couple liked the photographer's style or not. Is all the photographer's business has to do to comply with the law is to photograph their wedding. There is no law that says who in the company has to provide that service. If the gay couple didn't like the assistant doing the photography, then it would be the gay couples choice whether to still have the business do the work. Sometimes I think that people don't really want any solutions to this issue.
carbon dioxide Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Legally, it doesn't matter whether the gay couple liked the photographer's style or not. Is all the photographer's business has to do to comply with the law is to photograph their wedding. There is no law that says who in the company has to provide that service. If the gay couple didn't like the assistant doing the photography, then it would be the gay couples choice whether to still have the business do the work. Sometimes I think that people don't really want any solutions to this issue. One option to do a literal drive by shooting. Get the address of the place the wedding is occurring. Drive up, take a few pics and drive away.
sunstoned Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Feminist movements are bad news for society. I put Feminist and civil rights activist in the same category. They disrupt status quo and that is uncomfortable. We were much better off when privileged white men had full control of our society.
Gray Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 I work for a company that provides services to a large number of businesses every year. There is never any assumption that us taking them on as clients is any kind of endorsement of every business practice they engage in. Their business practices are their own concern. We're just here to sell them a service.
california boy Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 One option to do a literal drive by shooting. Get the address of the place the wedding is occurring. Drive up, take a few pics and drive away. I like it. Perfect solution for homophobic photographers that are afraid they might catch the "gay" by being seen at a gay wedding.
california boy Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 You know I'm all about solutions. The referenced incident, the gay couple wanted that particular photographer because they liked her style. What the gay couple failed to realize is that by forcing someone to violate their conscience, they no longer would get the same inspired style that they liked. Further, your solution would fail as well, because it's not the same photographer that she wanted. As for a solution. My solution is to find a different photographer. Or failing that, in this politically correct culture that crucifies those who hold a differing opinion (especially religious one), the photographer should have found a creative way to decline. The problem is that as a christian, they are likely to just tell the truth and then left uses that to attack those they disagree with. Well I am sure the gay couple did find a different photographer. But the photographer that declined his services still broke the law and still had to face the penalties for breaking the law. I am ok with that as well. My solutions don't require breaking the law, and the photographer still doesn't have to attend the wedding. So for me, it seems like a much better legal option.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 I like it. Perfect solution for homophobic photographers that are afraid they might catch the "gay" by being seen at a gay wedding. What exactly is a homophobic photographer?
Russell C McGregor Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 What exactly is a homophobic photographer? That would be a photographer who is afraid of men. Regards, Russell
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) That would be a photographer who is afraid of men.Regards,RussellActually it is a photographer that is afraid of gay people. I know of no one that is afraid of gay people. The word homophobic as it is used to day by the left is incorrect. If I were to apply their logic to other words containing the "phobic" suffix people will look at you funny. Arachnophobic " irrational fear or discrimination against arachnids" How can one discriminate against spiders? Except Arachnophobia is defined as pathological fear or loathing of spiders Other phobias are defined as such. It is only the special "homophobia" definition that gets special treatment. I am starting to see a trend here when it comes to things that are gay or that relate to being gay. (My gaydar is going off). Edited April 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Recommended Posts