|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Stonespring's Same Sex Wedding Photography Question
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But what's the difference? If the singer has religious objections to gay marriage, how is playing such a leading role at a gay wedding better than singing a hymn with bad theology?
In the former you are discriminating against people, in the latter against a song.
So you can't force a singer to do Black Sabbath numbers at your gay wedding, but if she usually does Black Sabbath numbers for everybody else you can force her not to discriminate against gay weddings in selecting her performance venue.
But on the other hand a singer available for hire can say that they don't do weddings and will only do funerals, for instance.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Let's consider a different example - imagine a singer who advertises herself as available to sing solos at weddings.
Can the singer refuse a hire from a gay couple because she's opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds? Most would say no.
Can the singer refuse to sing particular songs on religious grounds (if they express a theology she doesn't hold, say)? At least some people have suggested "yes".
But what's the difference? If the singer has religious objections to gay marriage, how is playing such a leading role at a gay wedding better than singing a hymn with bad theology?
First off, very few singers offer their services on a "I'll sing anything you want me to" basis. Most have a set repertoire and will venture outside it only by special prior arrangement. Some of this is for practical reasons, such as keeping the songs selected within the singer's vocal range or within languages the singer understands. (It can be awkward singing a song phonetically and getting it almost, but not quite, right.) As mdijon noted above, there's a difference between deciding which professional services you'll offer and who you'll offer those services to. The former is the typical "scope of business" decision most business owners go through, the latter is discrimination.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
I'm really struggling with this. When the Chinese president came to the UK, Prince Charles declined to attend the formal dinner, saying that he was 'having a private supper with friends' and I applauded his polite but firm moral stance.
Presumably, others felt it was a public and rude snub.
But it was legal for the Chinese statesman to visit, and for our queen to entertain him. Presumably some people he met will have raised the issues of human rights abuses..
Someone can surely refuse services that are so personal.. if I pierced ears for a living, I think I'd be refusing children under 5. As a photographer, I'd be refusing boudoir shoots, go to someone who's ok with it, cos there are lots who are very happy, believe me.
I wouldn't be rude.. if the thing is legal, it sbould be illegal to be rude or offensive or to suggest that it is wrong or shouldn't be allowed... it's easy enough to say you're otherwise engaged.
I wouldn't want someone on my team who wasn't onside. And, i think if people are actively refusing bAsic rights and services,like entry to a public facility or buying food, the book should be thrown, here and now.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
As a photographer, I'd be refusing boudoir shoots, go to someone who's ok with it, cos there are lots who are very happy, believe me.
So long as you refuse them for everybody, regardless of gender or race, you'll be fine.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
if I pierced ears for a living, I think I'd be refusing children under 5.
Age discrimination is usually legal provided you're discriminating against (or sometimes in favor of) those who are legally regarded as minors in your jurisdiction.
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
As a photographer, I'd be refusing boudoir shoots, go to someone who's ok with it, cos there are lots who are very happy, believe me.
As orfeo points out, there's nothing discriminatory about limiting the services offered for sale. For example, if your bakery only makes cakes it's not discrimination to refuse to bake someone a pie, regardless of who is ordering it. It would be discriminatory to say "No cakes for [gays/blacks/women/Muslims/whatever]".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Exactly.
You can turn down state dinners with Chinese presidents because they are repressive dictators who invade Tibet, but not simply because they are Chinese. Hence questions might be asked if you turn down state dinners with Chinese presidents but are seen regularly in Edgware road with Syrian presidents.
The legislation doesn't force you to do nude shots as a photographer, but if you are going to do nude shots you can't do them for whites and not blacks.
You can, on the other hand, refuse a particular photography assignment because the date doesn't suit you, because you think the bride's mother is ugly, or simply because you don't feel like it. But you can't refuse it because the couple are gay.
Hence the smart thing for the prudent homophobe/racist to do is to find another reason for turning the job down, make sure the timing of finding that other reason doesn't suspiciously coincide with the first hint that the lucky couple are both blokes, and stick to your story come what may.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You can in fact turn down State dinners on any basis you feel like, because 'attending a State dinner' is not any kind of service or business. If you're a screaming racist who only wants to go to dinner with white people, you're perfectly at liberty to do so.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
...if I pierced ears for a living, I think I'd be refusing children under 5. As a photographer, I'd be refusing boudoir shoots, go to someone who's ok with it, cos there are lots who are very happy, believe me.
The UK situation is summarised here: basically AIUI public bodies (and any other organisation carrying out a public function) can only discriminate based on what UK law calls a 'protected characteristic' unless there is either a specific exemption in the legislation or an 'objective justification' (i.e. a good reason can be shown for the differential treatment).
So, as others have said, it's up to you what services you offer (I don't bake wedding cakes; I don't do photo shoots in boudoirs) but if you want to offer different or no services to certain groups of people then you need to carefully justify why. And I expect 'I don't recognise their marriage as valid' would not pass the test, in the UK.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
because 'attending a State dinner' is not any kind of service or business.
Fair enough. Although fun to argue through whether Prince Charles is in fact in the position of attending state dinners as a service and/or a business.
That caveat aside, I shall duly note that I'm free to indulge my prejudice on the next occasion I'm invited to a state dinner.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
In the case of the state dinner, I'd have thought the Queen *must* attend (as Head of State) but Prince Charles (as heir to the throne) can choose not to. Which is exactly what happened.
If he was acting as the Queen's representative, as he did at the recent Commonwealth summit and will presumably be doing more often as her health gets worse, he would have to attend whether he liked it or not, once the decision to give a state dinner for the Chinese premier had been made.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have a great image of Prince Charles sticking his chin out and asking "Who's going to make one?".
And of the Chinese premier provocatively pointing to his face and eyes saying "'s cos a this init? you gotta problem with this?"
[ 26. November 2013, 15:41: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I guess I don't see why alleged followers of Christianity so often seem to end up with the attitude that it's their personal duty to be nasty toward anyone whose conduct they feel God disapproves of... what exactly do they feel their nastiness achieves except for hurting people?
I don't think it's necessarily a case of "being nasty," although there certainly seems to be some of that going on out there.
The Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 8 "However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." He exhorts the church in Corinth not to take ambiguous-seeming actions that cause their brethren to fall into wrong thinking.
So let's say that you believe homosexual acts are sinful. You also know that there is a significant strand of Christian opinion that states that homosexual acts are not sinful, and that therefore the love between two members of the same sex should be celebrated by the church.
Isn't there a case that by helping to celebrate a gay wedding, you create an ambiguous impression that homosexuality might be OK after all, and so will help to tempt some of your fellows towards the belief that gay is OK? There probably isn't this danger in the case of a Muslim couple, say, as nobody would think that a Christian helping to celebrate a Muslim wedding was endorsing Islam.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Isn't there a case that by helping to celebrate a gay wedding, you create an ambiguous impression that homosexuality might be OK after all, and so will help to tempt some of your fellows towards the belief that gay is OK? There probably isn't this danger in the case of a Muslim couple, say, as nobody would think that a Christian helping to celebrate a Muslim wedding was endorsing Islam.
Is believing that Gay is OK the sin, or being gay? I'm getting confused. If I don't believe that believing Gay is OK is a sin, is that a sin?
I'm not going to tempt people to become gay by arranging flowers for a gay wedding, because that's not how gay works. By publicly refusing to, I tempt people to be judgmental and spiteful against gays.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Isn't there a case that by helping to celebrate a gay wedding, you create an ambiguous impression that homosexuality might be OK after all, and so will help to tempt some of your fellows towards the belief that gay is OK?
NO. They are not "helping celebrate," they are documenting an event. A wedding photographer is a business providing a service. As such they are not allowed to discriminate, nor should they be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There probably isn't this danger in the case of a Muslim couple, say, as nobody would think that a Christian helping to celebrate a Muslim wedding was endorsing Islam.
Why not? Or, more to the point, what's the reasoning there and why doesn't the same thinking apply to same-sex weddings?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to tempt people to become gay by arranging flowers for a gay wedding, because that's not how gay works.
But the very root cause of this problem is that many people still believe that is how gay works. The notion that giving 'approval' to homosexuality will have consequences is part and parcel of the idea that people choose to become homosexual. Make homosexuality more attractive in some way, any way, and there'll be more homosexuals.
That you and I find this reasoning process bonkers is not in dispute, but that's the reasoning process. The fundamental premise that all of this 'we must indicate our disapproval' thinking is built on is that gay is a choice. Hence, the theory goes, we must indicate our disapproval in order to discourage people from choosing to be gay.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
mdijon: quote:
I have a great image of Prince Charles sticking his chin out and asking "Who's going to make one?".
And of the Chinese premier provocatively pointing to his face and eyes saying "'s cos a this init? you gotta problem with this?"
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) (I hadn't really noticed Prince Charles has a chin...)
But seriously... isn't that what civilization is all about? Treating other people with respect, whether you think they deserve it or not?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Isn't there a case that by helping to celebrate a gay wedding, you create an ambiguous impression that homosexuality might be OK after all ...
When you make your guest list for the wedding, do you include the photographer, the tux rental shop, the janitor, the disk jockey, the florist, the caterer, or any of the other vendors that you hired for the wedding? No. They're all hired help. They are not celebrating the wedding with you. They are assisting you in your celebration. It's not the same thing at all.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
orfeo, point taken. Although the whole "meat sacrificed to idols" thing was about causing one's brethren to stumble, and how many people who take this line of reasoning (a) consider gay Christians their fellow Christians, or (b) really believe that the people whom THEY consider to be real Christians are likely to decide to become gay? In short, their pressing this line of reasoning is disingenuous.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There probably isn't this danger in the case of a Muslim couple, say, as nobody would think that a Christian helping to celebrate a Muslim wedding was endorsing Islam.
Why not? Or, more to the point, what's the reasoning there and why doesn't the same thinking apply to same-sex weddings?
I would like to know the answer to this as well.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Isn't there a case that by helping to celebrate a gay wedding, you create an ambiguous impression that homosexuality might be OK after all, and so will help to tempt some of your fellows towards the belief that gay is OK? There probably isn't this danger in the case of a Muslim couple, say, as nobody would think that a Christian helping to celebrate a Muslim wedding was endorsing Islam.
Leorning: I sympathize with your point of view because if I were the photographer and had serious qualms of conscience with applying my skills/art to make two women (as was the case in the court case) appear as the same "happy married couple" that I had for opposite-sex couples, and had to choose between going against my conscience and facing fines or giving up my livelihood, I would feel that the whole thing is unfair, and would probably justify it by saying that even if sexual orientation is not a choice, sexual activity is, and that marriage is public sanction of a sexual relationship, therefore choosing not to give photography services (which are much more editorial in content than, say, limousine driving services) for the wedding of a same-sex couple is not the same as doing so for an interracial couple.
But even though I sympathize with (and in the past came close to believing) this point of view, I ultimately disagree with it because you actually could make a similar argument about interracial couples. When interracial marriage was illegal or frowned upon, an argument that sexual activity is a choice, therefore people can control their desires for the good of society and marry within their race would have seemed logical to opponents of interractial marriage - and used as the basis of discrimination.
Those opponents of same-sex marriage who acknowledge that sexual orientation is not a choice, when faced with this comparison to interracial marriage, would then argue about the value of a child having parents of both sexes and the need for the laws to reflect that, even if many straight people have non-traditional families in practice, and those families should not be discriminated against. Belief in the need for society to legally portray as an ideal a family where parents are of both sexes, even if not always the case in practice, would be the basis, then, for any artistic expression or free exercise of religion argument against non-discrimination laws. But this argument: that government should allow discimination against same sex couples who wish to have wedding ceremonies, the legal rights of marriage, and raise children as legal parents all because of a need to show society that a family where the parents are of both sexes is ideal - has to be supported with evidence, as would any argument in favor of a type of discrimination. You may or may not be a supporter of affirmative action, but those people who do support it have to give evidence for why it is a necessary form of discrimination. Similarly, if a government provides funding for shelters for battered women but does not provide equal funding for shelters for battered men (and perhaps, one might argue, a proportional amouunt of funding for shelter for battered persons who do not identify as either women or men), one has to justify this form of discrimination with evidence. Some forms of discrimination, in my belief, are justifiable because of the evidence that exists (but the infringement on people's rights given by this discrimination is often relatively minor).
When it comes to discriminating against same sex couples in their wedding ceremonies - I have yet to see any evidence that supports the argument that government has any legitimate purpose in permitting discrimination in order to uphold an ideal of a family with parents of both sexes. Furthermore, the harm caused to the marrying same-sex couple by infringing upon their right to celebrate their forming relationships and families and having those relationships recognized by the government like anyone else is pretty big.
You can say that there are plenty of other photographers that will happily provide services to a same sex couple, but there are towns in just about every state where that is not true even nowadays because of opposition to same sex marriage among a sizeable part of the population, especially in certain geographical areas and among certain demographics. In addition, laws need to take into account that opinions change and people's rights need to be protected regardless. A town may feel no need to have laws banning discrimination on race while people of different races all seem to be getting along with each other. But if changes in the economy and society over time cause racial tensions to flare up in that town, discrimination against people based on race in the offering of public services may become an issue. The law should not wait until it becomes an issue before it starts defending people's rights.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the very root cause of this problem is that many people still believe that is how gay works. The notion that giving 'approval' to homosexuality will have consequences is part and parcel of the idea that people choose to become homosexual. Make homosexuality more attractive in some way, any way, and there'll be more homosexuals.
That you and I find this reasoning process bonkers is not in dispute, but that's the reasoning process. The fundamental premise that all of this 'we must indicate our disapproval' thinking is built on is that gay is a choice. Hence, the theory goes, we must indicate our disapproval in order to discourage people from choosing to be gay.
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head here. The notion that homosexual behaviour is a choice, which it is important not to make 'attractive' seems to be very strong in the minds of many. The idea is that a sufficiently strong negative reaction from society might limit people's homosexual behaviour. This was the reasoning behind the view popularised a few decades ago in US Christian circles that parents should disown their gay children, who would then be forced to choose between their family and the attractiveness of a homosexual lifestyle - it was hoped that forcing them into such a choice would lead them to choose their family and abandon homosexuality. Suffice to say, it didn't work well, and in many cases led to suicide.
I suspect, however, that a core premise behind their reasoning is probably true: a sufficiently strong negative reaction from society might lead to less overall homosexual behaviour. Sure, you're not going to make people who are attracted to people of the same gender any less attracted, but you might be able to stop some of them acting on it. (But you're certainly going to make a lot of them unhappy, and likely drastically increase the rates of mental illness and suicide among this group.) A certain proportion of people with same sex attractions are going to act on their desires no matter what society says, but another proportion will likely weigh very carefully the pros and cons of acting out their same sex attraction versus, say, simply getting married to a person of the opposite sex and feeling fairly unhappy about the whole thing, or trying to stay single all their lives (unfortunately the Catholic Church has demonstrated that attempting chastity isn't necessarily a good idea if you're not suited for it, and children can suffer if you fail).
I think the problem is that a lot of Christians have only thought as far as the first idea ("we can reduce the amount of homosexual behaviour slightly with strong negative social pressure, so let's do it!") and haven't really thought through the massive negative consequences for the entire group of homosexual people that such negativity has. And so they think condemnation is the loving response, because it keeps some people from the perceived harms of homosexual behaviour, but they haven't thought it through far enough to see that the condemnation actually causes a whole lot more harm itself than the small amount of homosexual behaviour that they succeed in preventing would have. And, unfortunately, Christians have been extremely guilty with regard to creating and propagating lies claiming that homosexual behaviour is harmful to the people doing it, to families, to children, to society etc. So your average Christian probably hasn't been in a great position to actually think clearly about the costs and benefits of condemnation of homosexual behaviour, because they have been lied to about the harms of homosexual behaviour, and they are unlikely to see the harm that their own condemnation inflicts upon homosexuals unless they have one in their immediate family. And, I suppose, that is exactly why the government having anti-discrimination laws is so important... because Christians through ignorance have been regularly coming to the wrong conclusion about whether discrimination is a good idea.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Twilight, I entirely agree. I had actually thought some of those further thoughts but hadn't decided to add them here.
Essentially the result is more people 'in the closet'. I know large numbers of gay Christian men who responded in precisely that way - staying in the closet for various lengths of time, sometimes decades. And that's just the ones who have eventually stopped being in the closet. The ones I don't get to talk to are the ones who haven't come out yet, or who never came out. Including the ones that concluded the best 'solution' to their dilemma was suicide.
I have talked more than once on the Ship about the angst and distress involved in this situation, and apparently made a strong impression on others. But the whole reason I write about it with such passion is because it is so wrong and so damaging and that large parts of the church don't actually realise the damage that's occurring under their noses. They need to be told.
My own rejection of certain interpretations of the Bible regarding homosexuality is pretty much built on seeing that those interpretations result in misery and death, and that other interpretations bring life. I think a lot fewer Christians would subscribe to the opinion that the Bible condemns homosexuality outright if they fully understood the results of that interpretation.
[ 28. November 2013, 09:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
isn't that what civilization is all about? Treating other people with respect, whether you think they deserve it or not?
I don't think I was clear enough here - I was thinking of the photographer treating the wedding couple with respect, just in case anyone was wondering.
Leorning Cniht, I think you are making an unwarranted assumption about the Christian helping to celebrate an Islamic wedding. Some Muslims might think that Christians who were willing to attend a wedding at the mosque were considering converting...
Like Josephine, I take the view that if you're the hired help you should do your utmost to make the wedding a happy experience for everyone. Whatever your private opinion of the happy couple.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Like Josephine, I take the view that if you're the hired help you should do your utmost to make the wedding a happy experience for everyone. Whatever your private opinion of the happy couple.
That's fine in itself. I do have qualms, though, about being forced to be a happy, smiley hired help on pain of losing your business.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
If you find it impossible to be a happy smiley hired help except at weddings you approve of, you're in the wrong business.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Like Josephine, I take the view that if you're the hired help you should do your utmost to make the wedding a happy experience for everyone. Whatever your private opinion of the happy couple.
That's fine in itself. I do have qualms, though, about being forced to be a happy, smiley hired help on pain of losing your business.
My initial response was similar to JaneR. However, on further thought, your statement is bullocks.
In a service industry, one often wears a smile no matter one's personal mood. It is not required though. Unless the mood is severe and extremely evident, it is not a consideration.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is believing that Gay is OK the sin, or being gay? I'm getting confused.
In the scenario I set up, "believing that gay is OK" would be the error into which you would be leading your fellows. The framing assumption was that the "you" in this scenario did think that believing that was a problem.
quote:
By publicly refusing to, I tempt people to be judgmental and spiteful against gays.
Yes, that's the other side of the coin.
When an Orthodox or Catholic Christian "publicly refuses" to receive communion in a protestant church, does that tempt people to be judgmental and spiteful against protestants? At some level, yes.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you find it impossible to be a happy smiley hired help except at weddings you approve of, you're in the wrong business.
It's pretty common for even the guests to disapprove of something at a wedding, but it's simple courtesy to be happy and smiley anyway.
Of all the weddings I've ever attended, I can think off-hand of three I disapproved of (the most recent three I've attended, as it happens) - in two I disapproved of the match (I felt strongly that the couple were not well-suited and that the marriage was a bad idea) and in one I disapproved of the service (due to the religion). In these I was a close relative or very close friend of one of the people getting married, but out of common courtesy I smiled and congratulated the couple and got my photo taken with them etc. Weddings are about the couple themselves having a great day and a great event to celebrate an important moment in their lives with their family and friends. it's not an occasion for people to publicly express disapproval with the couple's decision to marry or with their decision about what type of service to have. How the guests feel about the wedding is not the point of the event.
And if it's obligatory for me as a guest to keep my mouth shut and act like I'm happy, then that goes ten times over for caterers / photographers / organists etc who are being paid to do their thing - they need to shut up and do their thing like they are being paid to do preferably with a smile plastered on their face like this is the best day of their lives. Even the minister performing the ceremony doesn't need to approve of the match (if he knows the couple) - if he disapproves of the match he can simply talk generally about love and marriage and so forth and nothing requires him to ever state specifically that he thinks the couple are well-suited to each other or tell any anecdotes from their lives that suggest they will make a good couple (as I have seen done plenty of times).
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
When an Orthodox or Catholic Christian "publicly refuses" to receive communion in a protestant church, does that tempt people to be judgmental and spiteful against protestants? At some level, yes.
I'm not even sure what behavior would constitute publicly refusing to receive communion in a protestant church? Does everybody who is there receive communion every single time? How would anybody know, if I were at a Protestant church, that I was not receiving the eucharist? How would any of my fellow Orthodoxen or Catholickers know?
I don't get this at all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... I do have qualms, though, about being forced to be a happy, smiley hired help on pain of losing your business.
You do realize that this is what every employee in the service industry does every day for each and every customer, right? It's not a great moral crisis, it's just part of a day's work.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... I do have qualms, though, about being forced to be a happy, smiley hired help on pain of losing your business.
You do realize that this is what every employee in the service industry does every day for each and every customer, right? It's not a great moral crisis, it's just part of a day's work.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Nailed it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Thank you, Mousethief. In answer to your question:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not even sure what behavior would constitute publicly refusing to receive communion in a protestant church? Does everybody who is there receive communion every single time? How would anybody know, if I were at a Protestant church, that I was not receiving the eucharist? How would any of my fellow Orthodoxen or Catholickers know?
I don't get this at all.
In churches where Communion is "sit 'n' sip" - the wee cuppies and cubes of Wonder Bread - some people will just pass the trays along and not take anything. In churches where people go to a station for "rip 'n' dip" - intinction - some people will simply remain seated in the pews. Others will go up, but do that arm-crossing thing and get only a blessing. So yes, it's clear who does and doesn't, but I never got the impression that anyone particularly cared. I never heard anyone at the coffee hour say "Did you see that scandalously unrepentant sinner went up for Communion?" or "Boy howdy, what the hell did you do on Saturday night that you couldn't take Communion Sunday morning?" I never got the impression that anyone was scrutinizing who did and who didn't. The only time I've seen any kind of to-do about who takes Communion was at a church where members were required to attend a certain number of services in the year and they had to fill out little cards and put them in the collection plate each time they took Communion. Which is obviously just too weird for me, since it always made me wonder what the door prize was.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Soror Magna: quote:
The only time I've seen any kind of to-do about who takes Communion was at a church where members were required to attend a certain number of services in the year and they had to fill out little cards and put them in the collection plate each time they took Communion. Which is obviously just too weird for me, since it always made me wonder what the door prize was.
Probably the complete collection of Chick publications.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Well, it has been ruled illegal for a baker in Denver to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, even though they could not get married in Colorado. Story here.
quote:
"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer [the judge] wrote in his 13-page ruling.
"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
Being a Che Guevara fan or a believer in anthropogenic climate change is not an inherent immutable quality of who someone is. Sexual orientation is, though, and being able to marry is a fundamental right. That is why it is different. I feel uncomfortable making someone do something that is against their principles, but a certain amount of that is part of offering a public service. I've tried really hard, but I can't argue refusing a wedding cake for a same sex couple any different than refusing a wedding cake for an interracial couple.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The only time I've seen any kind of to-do about who takes Communion was at a church where members were required to attend a certain number of services in the year and they had to fill out little cards and put them in the collection plate each time they took Communion. Which is obviously just too weird for me, since it always made me wonder what the door prize was.
That's creepy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
Being a Che Guevara fan or a believer in anthropogenic climate change is not an inherent immutable quality of who someone is. Sexual orientation is, though, and being able to marry is a fundamental right. That is why it is different.
Anti-discrimination laws don't depend on the characteristics in question being "immutable". If that were the case, religious discrimination would be legal. After all, people do change religions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
[QUOTE]Being a Che Guevara fan or a believer in anthropogenic climate change is not an inherent immutable quality of who someone is. Sexual orientation is, though, and being able to marry is a fundamental right. That is why it is different.
Anti-discrimination laws don't depend on the characteristics in question being "immutable". If that were the case, religious discrimination would be legal. After all, people do change religions.
And being able to marry someone of the same sex as a fundamental right really isn't the issue either - unless a slice of cake from Bigot Bobs's Bakery is a legal requirement for a marriage.
The issue is to what extent a person in business can be compelled to abet a completely legal act that he finds personally odious or immoral. In the cases that have made the headlines - baking wedding cakes and taking wedding photos - the businesspeople seem to have a unique objection to gay marriage, which puts them fairly squarely in the sights of anti-discrimination laws.
It would be completely legal for a person to refuse to do business with a remarrying divorcee - divorcees are not a protected class in anyone's laws, as far as I know. I wonder what would happen to a person who refused to photograph weddings unless they involved a never-married man and a never-married woman. You'd probably still lose a discrimination case, but it might be an interesting argument (although in practice you'd have long since gone out of business...)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
Being a Che Guevara fan or a believer in anthropogenic climate change is not an inherent immutable quality of who someone is. Sexual orientation is, though, and being able to marry is a fundamental right. That is why it is different.
Anti-discrimination laws don't depend on the characteristics in question being "immutable". If that were the case, religious discrimination would be legal. After all, people do change religions.
In England, employees can't be discriminated against on the grounds of 'religious or philosophical beliefs'. A court has found a strong belief in Climate Change to be an example of such a philosophical belief.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
The reason these refusals wouldn't be discrimination is nothing to do with immutability. As noted above a customer doesn't have the right to demand particular versions of the goods a business might provide, but they do have the right not to be discriminated against as a person.
So the Che Guevara fans can't demand a Lenin cake, but they can expect not to be ejected simply because they are Che Guevara fans.
Likewise the baker can refuse to do a global warming cake, but can't refuse to do a cake full stop on the basis of the customer's belief in global warming.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... I do have qualms, though, about being forced to be a happy, smiley hired help on pain of losing your business.
You do realize that this is what every employee in the service industry does every day for each and every customer, right? It's not a great moral crisis, it's just part of a day's work.
Apparently not for some...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a couple in matching Che Guevara t-shirts entered a bakery, should an anti-communist baker have the right to ask them to leave if he wants? If they ask for a Lenin birthday cake, should he have the right to refuse them?
If a dedicated climate change activist entered the same shop, should the baker have the right to refuse to make a cake on the theme of anthropogenic global warming?
The reason these refusals wouldn't be discrimination is nothing to do with immutability. As noted above a customer doesn't have the right to demand particular versions of the goods a business might provide, but they do have the right not to be discriminated against as a person.
So the Che Guevara fans can't demand a Lenin cake, but they can expect not to be ejected simply because they are Che Guevara fans.
Likewise the baker can refuse to do a global warming cake, but can't refuse to do a cake full stop on the basis of the customer's belief in global warming.
Could a Jewish baker refuse to make a cake saying, "Jesus is Lord" for the wedding of Christian couple who wanted to emphasize their mutual faith as part of their wedding?
I agree that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which like race is something one's own or someone else's effort is not going to change, is different from discrimination of religion, which, although still wrong and a violation of fundamental rights, is something that can change in someone's lifetime due to all kinds of internal and external influences. In my case you have both the baker and the marrying couple claiming a right to free exercise of religion.
Interestingly, courts in the US have ruled that a person cannot have the legal name "JesusIsLord" because, for one possible reason, a Jewish or Atheist person working at a courthouse should not be forced to read aloud the name, "JesusIsLord" when annoucing the parties to a court case. This stands as precedent but I guess a new case, if taken up by a higher court, could overturn it. (Then again there was the Judge (I think it was a state judge, not federal, but I may be wrong who said that no child could be named Messiah because only Jesus is the messiah - but that ruling was condemned by almost all her fellow judges (think of all the people named Jesus in this country) and is sure to be overtuned on appeal.)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
stonespring: quote:
(Then again there was the Judge (I think it was a state judge, not federal, but I may be wrong who said that no child could be named Messiah because only Jesus is the messiah - but that ruling was condemned by almost all her fellow judges (think of all the people named Jesus in this country) and is sure to be overtuned on appeal.)
It already has been at the local level.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Could a Jewish baker refuse to make a cake saying, "Jesus is Lord" for the wedding of Christian couple who wanted to emphasize their mutual faith as part of their wedding?
Assuming that making cakes with messages is part of the hypothetical Jewish baker's usual range of services, refusing all non-Jewish religious messages probably constitutes religious discrimination. Interestingly enough, just such a cake case was decided last Friday by Colorado's Administrative Law Court [PDF]. Colorado does not recognize the legality of same-sex marriage, but does have a statute forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A relevant section:
quote:
The ALJ*, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.
I'm pretty sure no one takes the message on the cake to be an assertion of either fact or opinion being expressed by the baker. No one thinks the baker is checking to make sure that Sylvia is really twenty-nine like it says on the cake rather than thirty-one like it says on her birth certificate, or that he truly believes a cake's intended recipient really is "The World's Best Grandpa".
--------------------
*"ALJ" stands for Administrative Law Judge, the official title of the adjudicating official in this case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From the Parable of the Loaves and Cakes, by Fred Clark:
quote:
They did so and made them all sit down. And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.
“Hold on a minute, there, Jesus,” the twelve said. “Some of these people might be sinners and people we disapprove of. Feeding them all would be like opening a store and having to sell your wares to everyone who came in, without discriminating between the worthy and unworthy customers. That violates our religious liberty.”
And they became angry and refused to go in.
And Jesus said “Is it right for you to be angry about these loaves and cakes?”
And they said, “Yes, angry enough to die. Religious liberty, dammit, religious liberty.”
And Jesus said, “I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.”
And he set the loaves and fishes before the crowd by himself. And all ate and were filled.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Boy was that Jesus fellow a poor example of Christian morals.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Could a Jewish baker refuse to make a cake saying, "Jesus is Lord" for the wedding of Christian couple who wanted to emphasize their mutual faith as part of their wedding?
Assuming that making cakes with messages is part of the hypothetical Jewish baker's usual range of services, refusing all non-Jewish religious messages probably constitutes religious discrimination. Interestingly enough, just such a cake case was decided last Friday by Colorado's Administrative Law Court [PDF]. Colorado does not recognize the legality of same-sex marriage, but does have a statute forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A relevant section:
quote:
The ALJ*, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.
I'm pretty sure no one takes the message on the cake to be an assertion of either fact or opinion being expressed by the baker. No one thinks the baker is checking to make sure that Sylvia is really twenty-nine like it says on the cake rather than thirty-one like it says on her birth certificate, or that he truly believes a cake's intended recipient really is "The World's Best Grandpa".
--------------------
*"ALJ" stands for Administrative Law Judge, the official title of the adjudicating official in this case.
But a baker could surely refust to decorate a wedding cake with genitalita-shaped frosting all over for a couple who requested it. So cake-baking is speech of a sort.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But a baker could surely refuse to decorate a wedding cake with genitalita-shaped frosting all over for a couple who requested it. So cake-baking is speech of a sort.
Once again, that depends on whether genital-bedecked cakes are part of the usual stock-in-trade of the particular baker. In this particular case the baker refused to sell a product that is part of his standard offerings (a wedding cake, undescribed in the ruling, but probably a tiered cake with white frosting) on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. As noted elsewhere in the ruling:
quote:
Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.
Part of the limitations of judicial rulings is that they're often narrowly tailored, so it's hard to extrapolate to "well, what if X?" In this particular case the baker held that there was no possible cake he could make for a same-sex wedding.
You could, and the Respondents did, argue that discriminating against same-sex weddings is not the same as discriminating against homosexuals, but the ALJ deals with that argument as well.
quote:
That, however, is not the case here. In this case, Respondents' objection to same-sex marriage is inextricably tied to the sexual orientation of the parties involved, and therefore disfavor of the parties' sexual orientation may be presumed. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Bray, recognized that "some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Id. at 270. Similarly, the ALJ concludes that discrimination against same-sex weddings is the equivalent of discrimination due to sexual orientation.
[ 12. December 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
