|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Stonespring's Same Sex Wedding Photography Question
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Stonespring's post - moved from another thread to avoid tangents
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Has anyone discussed this court case?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html?_r=0
What is interesting is that the photographers' justification of refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding is not based on free expression of religion, but instead on their right to control the editorial content of the works of art they produce (of the "stories they tell"). Could the same argument be used in court to justify refusal to photograph an interracial marriage, an interfaith or avowedly atheist marriage, a marriage of first cousins where that is legal, or a marriage of two divorced persons?
On the other hand, should the law call it discrimination if a wedding singer refuses to perform at a wedding ceremony with white supremacist elements? No, you might say, because the photographer's refusal is clearly based on an ideology that s/he does not portrayed in his/her work, and not on the gender or another immutable aspect of the clients.
Can the gender and sexual orientation of a same-sex couple getting married - which is part of their unchangeable identity and harmful to no one and hence something that should not be discriminated against - be separated from the "narrative" that same-sex marriage is religiously possible and acceptable that the photographers do not want to portray?
[ 08. April 2017, 01:43: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Lil Buddha's reply to Stonespring
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem for the wedding photographer here is that she is not "telling a story" in the manner a documentary, press or art photographer might. She is documenting a ceremony. If a story is told, it will be the couple telling the story.
Her rights end at the point she created a business in a state which does not allow her to discriminate. If her " principles" are that strong, she should have started a different business.
In the wedding singer example, distasteful as it is, the singer could also not discriminate. She could certainly refuse certain songs, but as long as the ceremony contained no illegal elements, I am not sure she would have any grounds for refusal either.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I'm afraid that, when I saw this story, I thought of the Oregon bakery that wouldn't do a cake for a same-sex wedding, but had no problem doing one for a party celebrating a divorce, a pagan solstice party, or cloning human stem cells.
I wonder what the limits are with this photographer.
And I also wonder where the line is, when you're asked to perform services you find objectionable. As the story linked to in the OP says, would you require a tattoo artist to do a swastika for a white supremacist? Would you require someone who does voice-overs to voice an advertisement for a political cause they didn't support? If the wedding was for a couple of members of a Christian Identity group, would a printer be within his rights to refuse to print the invitations?
What kind of work should a photographer, baker, printer, tattoo artist, musician be free to reject?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Now this i don't get. Any work, of course. Photography, cake decorating, singing--none of these are vital emergency services that will cause somebody death or bodily harm if denied. Go find another freaking singer or whatever. They .ay be srongheaded stupid asses, but it' s not my prerogative to force them. To take a more serious example, there are restaurants and even banks in this town that won't serve my mixed race family. I may point and laugh, or write nasty reviews on the internet, but in the end it is their freedom--freedom even to make asses of themselves. For me to try to force such people would be as small-minded and inexcusable as they are.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To take a more serious example, there are restaurants and even banks in this town that won't serve my mixed race family. I may point and laugh, or write nasty reviews on the internet, but in the end it is their freedom--freedom even to make asses of themselves. For me to try to force such people would be as small-minded and inexcusable as they are.
Lamb Chopped, did your American History classes somehow miss this?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Clearly i.m not ideologically correct. But you are referencing a world where huge swathes of vital human services were being denied across the board to black people, causing a significant harmful impact on their lives thereby. But a wedding photographer or a baker, seriously? There are millions more fish in the sea. Throw this one back ( with a raspberry, if you prefer,) and get on with life.
Nobody has a right not to have their feelings get hurt. Not me, either.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the point is that society is a better place if we do not tolerate racism in public. Allowing bakers and hotels to exhibit casual racism creates an environment in which worse things can happen. A baker where one is allowed to turn down black customers is hardly going to be a place where black staff feel comfortable. The baker may also decide to turn down work from suppliers with black staff, leading to less willingness to hire black staff by companies that deal with them. Why would they take the risk of losing business? And then how would we prevent this overtly racist baker from doing catering work for the local school party? And if such casual racism is tolerated by society, and adults indulging in it are part of school work, what impact on the environment for black children in school?
If we want to be effective in society against racism we need to draw the line much earlier than direct actual physical harm, or it will be too late. This is nothing to do with hurt feelings or offense, by the way, but to do with reducing the harm of racism.
You can be racist as you like in private conversation, and if you use racist language to me at a private social gathering then I'll obviously leave or argue with you, but don't have any legal recourse to protect me against being offended.
It might be worth noting that we draw the line even further on what is done in private with regard to paedophilia. We don't allow written or drawn paedophilic pornographic material, even if only for private use. There may be no actual harm to any actual children in the production of that material, but as a society we don't want to allow that sort of interest to flourish for fear that it becomes more likely to be acted on.
I would apply the same principles as to racism to same sex wedding photography. A private individual is entitled to explain that she doesn't wish to attend a same sex wedding, and to turn down a private request to photograph it, but someone running a public company does not have the right to explicitly discriminate against a group for which equality should be ensured by a just society.
[ 22. November 2013, 04:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What kind of work should a photographer, baker, printer, tattoo artist, musician be free to reject?
A wedding photographer, a printer or a musician are providing a service. Not that they cannot create art, but that is not the primary purpose.
A tattoo is art.* Does art get an exception?
*Whilst I would question some pieces I have seen, this is no different to painting.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Aren't musicians artists?
I think they can legitimately arbitrarily determine their subject matter - for instance a musician can decline to play certain pieces, or a tattooist can decline to do a swastika - but they can't legitimately arbitrarily refuse customers based on their race, sexuality or religion.
I would not accept that a wedding photographer refusing particular customers is like an artist choosing subject matter though. Like you say it is a service provision, and the customer it the customer, not the subject matter of an artistic endeavour.
[ 22. November 2013, 09:13: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
I've come to the view that whenever the question of "would it be okay for X to discriminate against gay people under circumstance Y?" comes up, the go-to comparison should be "would the same discrimination be considered appropriate if it was based on race?" Usually that comparison leads to me noting that there would be zero chance of the discriminatory behaviour being considered acceptable if it was race-based and not sexuality-based.
In this case, I imagine that if the photographer had said that she wouldn't photograph black people because she didn't like black people getting married, she'd go down in a firestorm of media criticism and public disapproval, and I imagine that in much of the Western would she would probably be breaking laws that prohibit such discrimination. So is her discrimination against the gay couple here acceptable? Of course not. And it's presumably illegal in any country that has appropriate laws.
There are plenty of motivating reasons for countries to have anti-discrimination laws. For one, it is extremely stressful and depressing to be discriminated against repeatedly. To have your life made harder in small ways by others on a constant and ongoing basis would be hell. Known as minority stress, constant discrimination in the environment causes long-term elevation of stress levels in minorities at the receiving end of prejudice. Unfortunately chronic stress is now known to cause significant negative health outcomes - it increases the rate of heart attacks, strokes, depression etc, and slows rates of healing and recovery. Prejudice expressed towards minorities group thus literally kills these people - it significantly lowers their life expectancy due to the harmful stress response it causes.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I just don't think it's true that because some photography is personal expressive art (or 'speech', to use the peculiarly broad American conception of the term), that all photography is art of that kind.
Or if it's 'speech', I think it's fundamentally wrong to assume it is all the photographer's speech.
A photographer offering their services to the public in this way is actually facilitating the 'speech' of their customers. Not their own 'speech'.
It's no different to the fact that I write other people's ideas professionally. I'm using writing skills that I could hopefully use to express my own ideas well if I so chose, but my employment is about helping other people achieve what they want to communicate (in the form of laws, in my case).
So basically I think this photographer falls at the first hurdle. It's not about her celebrating a same-sex marriage. It's about her making herself available to a same-sex couple so that the same-sex couple can celebrate their own marriage.
No-one actually cares whether the photographer thinks a heterosexual couple were made for each other or a bad match, so to talk of a photographer 'celebrating' a heterosexual union is foolish. Therefore her claim that she is being forced to 'celebrate' a same-sex union is equally foolish. If she wants to only photograph weddings that she is 'celebrating', she should stick to offering her services to her friends and family, not to the public.
--------------------
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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I'm with Orfeo - her argument's flawed, and she was daft to use it.
OTOH, as someone who runs a business, I have to say that it's equally true that no-one can force me to do business with anyone against my will. Our business offers a service (admittedly to other businesses, not members of the public) but it's my choice who gets to be a client, not the potential client's*.
As a result we have refused to work with certain people/companies on more than one occasion. Just not on grounds of race, religion, gender or sexuality.** And personally, those factors would never come into play for me, but if they did, I'd be bright enough not to vocalise them, and would find some other plausible reason ...
*Excluding the obvious thing that they may not want us as a supplier!
**Primarily on grounds of them quite clearly being horrible bastards to work with, and life being far too short to deal with that kind of grief if you don't have to
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Racism is not 'hurt feelings'. Homophobia is not 'hurt feelings. Small acts of injustice lead up to big acts of injustice and hurt people. It is not about people complaining about hurt feelings at all.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
There must be photographers/cake makers/musicians/dressmakers etc, etc, who turn down couples all the time: and they do this because they have a prior committment or engagement or just because they fancy taking that particular day off.
For this couple to have been aware that the photographer was anti SSM then the photographer must have expressed her views to them.
The photographer hasn't a leg to stand on: she decided to gratuitously and, IMO, needlessly, apprise the couple of her distaste for their proposed union and then declined the job.
In short, she made the rod and put it into their hands, having stuck a large sign on her back saying BEAT ME: she can't now complain if people do as bidden.
Silly mare.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Clearly i.m not ideologically correct. But you are referencing a world where huge swathes of vital human services were being denied across the board to black people, causing a significant harmful impact on their lives thereby.
Yeah, there's always an excuse about why this discrimination is totally different than that other, pernicious discrimination.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But a wedding photographer or a baker, seriously?
A lunch counter? Just eat somewhere else. A hotel room? Find another hotel. Or a park bench!
You're basically advocating a principle where there can be no such thing as anti-discrimination law. My take on it is that if you're offering a service to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which bits of the public you can refuse to serve. Under your proposed "just let unpopular minorities shop somewhere else", what would prevent a re-emergence of something like Segregation?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Aren't musicians artists?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) All sorts of responses fly through my mind.
Seriously, yes of course. But at a wedding this is not the primary purpose. And I think this is the primary consideration. Regardless of the intent to create art, when a service is the primary negotiation, discrimination laws have primacy.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the point is that although the product may be art and there may be legitimate freedom of speech (i.e. you can't force a musician to play music they don't want to play - unless they are an organist in the C of E perhaps), on the other hand if they are a band-for-hire they can't choose which weddings to play at based on skin colour or sexual orientation.
I take Snags point that businesses can't be forced to do business, but as Snags says they can be forced not to engage in racial or other forms of discrimination.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Starlight, thank you. I had never heard the term "minority stress" before. It will be helpful for discussion in my multicultural education class.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, the court opinion got it right.
quote:
The court agreed, to a point. “If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery,” it said, then it could say what it liked, but a business open to the public must take all comers.
However, I do not agree with this judge's qualified endorsement.
quote:
Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily.
“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”
If the Huguenins gave a moral questionnaire to every potential client, they would at least be consistent. But, as mentioned above and demonstrated on the cake thread, this is not the case. So, this photographer has very likely "promoted" morals she did not approve, but never bothered to ascertain.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
However, I do not agree with this judge's qualified endorsement.
quote:
Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily.
“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”
If the Huguenins gave a moral questionnaire to every potential client, they would at least be consistent. But, as mentioned above and demonstrated on the cake thread, this is not the case. So, this photographer has very likely "promoted" morals she did not approve, but never bothered to ascertain.
Even if they had distributed such a questionnaire, the underlying premise would still be troubling. It would essentially turn religion into an automatic exemption from any generally applicable law you didn't like. What about a business that claimed any of the following?
- A sincere belief that blacks are soulless animals and Jews are the literal descendants of Satan, thus refusing to either hire or do business with either
- A belief that God is opposed to the minimum wage and business taxes
- Man has dominion over the world and can do what he likes with it, therefore pollution standards are against God's will.
I'm sure many others that suggest themselves. You could argue that these are just obviously self-serving positions rather than sincerely held beliefs, but the U.S. doesn't have a Department of Dogma that decides what everyone really believes. At any rate, if you accept that someone's religious beliefs permit them to ignore anti-discrimination laws, doesn't the same legal reasoning apply to all other business-related laws?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not arguing that they should, or should be allowed to, apply such a survey. I am saying that businesses which deny service based on homosexual marriage claiming moral issues are hypocrites.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
tangent alert quote:
posted by mdijon
...you can't force a musician to play music they don't want to play - unless they are an organist in the C of E perhaps...
Two words: Mission Praise
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Croesos, I am suggesting that as long as reasonable alternatives exist, using the force of law to compel private business owners to serve everyone regardless of their own beliefs is a bad idea. Liberty ought to exist for all, not just for those who are being served. And certainly there will be times when the wishes of those being served come into conflict with the wishes of those offering services. But we need to find a balance, not just say "If you have anything to do with the public in the course of your private business, you must therefore serve ALL of it in whatever way they demand regardless of your own feelings in the matter." What makes me a public slave? Because I offer freelance writing and editing services, must I make those available to (say) the Westboro Baptist Church? Or may I tell them politely that I don't hold with their beliefs and they'd be better off to go find another person to serve their needs? Or what about the convicted pedophile down the street? If he comes to me asking me to design a photobook including nothing but a series of glamour shots of dolled-up, provocatively-dressed four-year-old girls, may I not say the polite version of "Ewwwww" and refuse him my services?
I do not believe it proper for me to be rude and nasty in such cases; but I am not a robot, I have personal ethics, and I will not be a party either to Fred Phelps or to persons who are continuing to carry on an unhealthy fascination with underage children. While their "communication projects" fall within the bailiwick of the First Amendment, they do NOT fall within the limits of what I can personally stomach. I would go out of business first.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped,
I see the law as basically saying "professionals much act in a professional manner", and I see that as being a very reasonable requirement. So your complaints about it "forcing" them to act professionally make me roll my eyes - yes it does, and of course it should, force them to act professionally.
While the laws vary between countries, commonly there are a list of criteria on which discrimination is forbidden - eg gender, race, nationality, religion, sexuality etc, and beyond that businesses are encouraged to discriminate as to what business transactions they choose to engage in. So your examples of being forced to take on other types of business you disagree with seem irrelevant, because the law is not at all forcing you to do so. Indeed, in the examples you give, producing hate-speech materials or paedophilia-related ones is likely illegal in many Western countries anyway.
More interesting is the question of what things merit entry into the list of things protected from discrimination (and whether sexuality should be in it). From what you have said, you seem to object to anti-discrimination laws in general, and thus I assume you believe that there should be no entries in the list of prohibited discrimination criteria, and thus that everyone should be free to discriminate as much as they like against women, against black people etc.
The reason that items on that list have made it there historically, is that some group has suffered ongoing and extensive discrimination which has been clearly harmful to them which has led to such discrimination being banned in order to protect them, and ensure they are properly treated as people. Typically the discrimination towards these groups was not based on any legitimate reasons but rather the product of irrational prejudice and ignorance. It is clear, for example, that black people in the US were suffering discrimination in all aspects of their daily lives, and legislation was a necessary part of ensuring they could live their lives normally. Likewise it seems pretty clear gay people have been suffering extensive discrimination from the ignorant and bigoted and that this has been extremely harmful to them.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Lamb Chopped,
I see the law as basically saying "professionals much act in a professional manner", and I see that as being a very reasonable requirement. So your complaints about it "forcing" them to act professionally make me roll my eyes - yes it does, and of course it should, force them to act professionally.
While the laws vary between countries, commonly there are a list of criteria on which discrimination is forbidden - eg gender, race, nationality, religion, sexuality etc, and beyond that businesses are encouraged to discriminate as to what business transactions they choose to engage in. So your examples of being forced to take on other types of business you disagree with seem irrelevant, because the law is not at all forcing you to do so. Indeed, in the examples you give, producing hate-speech materials or paedophilia-related ones is likely illegal in many Western countries anyway.
More interesting is the question of what things merit entry into the list of things protected from discrimination (and whether sexuality should be in it). From what you have said, you seem to object to anti-discrimination laws in general, and thus I assume you believe that there should be no entries in the list of prohibited discrimination criteria, and thus that everyone should be free to discriminate as much as they like against women, against black people etc.
The reason that items on that list have made it there historically, is that some group has suffered ongoing and extensive discrimination which has been clearly harmful to them which has led to such discrimination being banned in order to protect them, and ensure they are properly treated as people. Typically the discrimination towards these groups was not based on any legitimate reasons but rather the product of irrational prejudice and ignorance. It is clear, for example, that black people in the US were suffering discrimination in all aspects of their daily lives, and legislation was a necessary part of ensuring they could live their lives normally. Likewise it seems pretty clear gay people have been suffering extensive discrimination from the ignorant and bigoted and that this has been extremely harmful to them.
Starlight, the key is in your words "ongoing and extensive." If the discrimination is of such a widespread, continuing, and serious nature that it is causing damage to people, by all means regulate. But if we're talking about the occasional asshole, let assholes be assholes and allow public opinion to take care of them.
Look. The Denny's down the street won't serve me and my family. I could probably sue their asses at law for racial discrimination. But I'm not doing so because it causes me no particular harm (there are a helluva lot of restaurants in this city, all eager to take my money), because I don't believe in over-regulating society, and because Denny's is shooting itself in the foot (head) by their racist ways anyway. I'd be more inclined to tweet about it and let the Twitterverse at them. I suspect it would have a greater impact anyway.
At the heart of my concern for regulating private business butchers, bakers, and candlestickmakers is the fact that any law, once made, can be turned against you. I already run into idiots who assume that the First Amendment entitles them to freedom from having to even see a freakin' cross round my neck or a manger scene on my lawn. It's "offensive" and "noninclusive." And we're all about tolerance, aren't we? Except for those who are unacceptable. And frankly, I run into more trouble on account of my Christianity than I do on account of my racial issues.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ah, the curse of forgetting things. Since when were wedding photographers, bakers, etc. professionals? To the best of my knowledge they are neither licensed nor regulated by any professional society as doctors and lawyers are. And for good reason, as their activities are much less likely to lead to serious harm if carried out poorly.
The professions carry a greater weight of responsibility because of the consequences to their clients/patients/parishioners if they screw up. The general run-of-the-mill business owner? not so much.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Croesos, I am suggesting that as long as reasonable alternatives exist, using the force of law to compel private business owners to serve everyone regardless of their own beliefs is a bad idea.
So then in Racistville, USA, every restaurant can refuse to serve blacks until there's only one left that hasn't, and that one can be forced to serve blacks.
[ 24. November 2013, 00:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If the discrimination is of such a widespread, continuing, and serious nature that it is causing damage to people, by all means regulate. But if we're talking about the occasional asshole, let assholes be assholes and allow public opinion to take care of them.
Exactly.
So I guess it boils down to the question of whether discrimination against gay people is of a widespread, continuing, and serious nature. The answer to which is rather obviously duh!
But, bizarrely, you don't seem to think that it is, and this is apparently based on your own experiences of having only a very small amount of discrimination come your way due to being part of an interracial family, which you apparently assume is directly comparable to the levels of discrimination experienced by gay families. I would refer you to this chart, which shows that interracial marriage is nearing universal acceptance (and that is for black-white marriage, which is usually the most objected-to of all types of interracial marriage in the US), but that this was not always the case. I suspect had your family lived in the 60s you would have found life a lot less enjoyable. Compare that to this chart which shows that support for same-sex marriage is only just above 50%. (Interestingly support for both has increased very close to linearly at a constant rate of about 1.4 percentage points per year) This suggests that in about 20 years' time there will be as little discrimination against gay families as there is currently against your own interracial family. Perhaps then, they too will be able to laugh at the one solitary restaurant that refuses them.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm afraid you're confusing what I've written with something else you've read. I have not said a single word here about gay people or the amount of discrimination they face. I have made no such judgements. I have simply commented on what seems to me the folly of attempting to use the law to force private, non-professional businesses to keep to the same "take all comers" approach that is appropriate for government and vital health and wellness services.
And if you think being part of an interracial marriage involves a small amount of discrimination, particularly when one is the female partner, think again.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ah, the curse of forgetting things. Since when were wedding photographers, bakers, etc. professionals? To the best of my knowledge they are neither licensed nor regulated by any professional society as doctors and lawyers are. And for good reason, as their activities are much less likely to lead to serious harm if carried out poorly.
The professions carry a greater weight of responsibility because of the consequences to their clients/patients/parishioners if they screw up. The general run-of-the-mill business owner? not so much.
"Professional" is one of those words that has changed meaning a great deal over time. You're using it here in its older meaning. But these days it basically means doing something for a living.
cf 'professional athlete'.
[ 24. November 2013, 01:14: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What the hell is a nonprofessional business?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
[tangent] Lambchopped, I wish you would drop a quiet line to Denny's corporate office. Give names and dates. The Denny's chain went through a BIG workover on racial issues a number of years ago, and I doubt that you would even have to breathe the word lawsuit to get them to drop like a ton of bricks on your local freak show. Think of the children. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) [/tangent]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have made no such judgements. I have simply commented on what seems to me the folly of attempting to use the law to force private, non-professional businesses to keep to the same "take all comers" approach that is appropriate for government and vital health and wellness services.
Do you genuinely think that taking legal anti-discrimination action against private businesses hasn't had positive effects, on the whole? Obviously things aren't perfect, but I can't imagine they would be better if people didn't at least have the right to challenge discrimination in court.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
LC,
I think you to be a caring and sensitive person. So I am having a bit of difficulty with this stance. No one is completely free, we all accept limitations to exist as a society. One of the limitations accepted by a business owner is the relinquishing of right to keep "morals"* over law. Your Denny's transgressions should be brought to the attention of the public and the authorities. You may rise above it, but others will be hurt. And such discrimination sets bad precedent.
*Though I have a difficult time ascertaining the morality of discrimination.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"Professional" is one of those words that has changed meaning a great deal over time. You're using it here in its older meaning. But these days it basically means doing something for a living.
cf 'professional athlete'.
Yes, the meaning has changed over time. However, saying "these days" to mean 1798 'til now, might be a bit of a stretch.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ Sure. Although it's probably more pertinent that the 'old' meaning hasn't died away until a lot more recently. Although, judging by LC's use of the word, it isn't dead yet...
But it's clearly dead here, in this conversation. It's obvious that when Starlight referred to 'professionals', it wasn't about folks like doctors and lawyers. It was about anybody in business offering their services to the public on the grounds of having skill. Making LC's decision to say "yes, that only applies to professionals" distinctly odd.
A quick glance at a couple of Australian laws suggested that it's not necessarily that important, anyway. Doing things for free won't get you a pass to discriminate here. One of the sections in the Disability Discrimination Act, for example, applies to "a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available" (emphasis mine). The sex and age discrimination laws are the same. The Racial Discrimination Act is older and framed a little differently: "a person who supplies goods or services to the public or to any section of the public".
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ah, the curse of forgetting things. Since when were wedding photographers, bakers, etc. professionals? To the best of my knowledge they are neither licensed nor regulated by any professional society as doctors and lawyers are. And for good reason, as their activities are much less likely to lead to serious harm if carried out poorly.
The professions carry a greater weight of responsibility because of the consequences to their clients/patients/parishioners if they screw up. The general run-of-the-mill business owner? not so much.
It varies by state, but in the United States almost all businesses are regulated. You have to have a business license, probably a Doing Business As permit if you're not using your personal name on the business and of course pay taxes. Other licenses are applied to almost everything. You have to go to Beauty School and get a license in order to be a hairdresser. Bakeries require inspection by the city health inspector and there's a long list of regulations.
In U.S. the sad history of segregation; many or all businesses would refuse to serve Blacks in some places. The anti-discrimination laws were passed in order to fix this problem. If you are discriminated against in that someone won't serve you lunch in their restaurant, or sell you gasoline in their gas station, your legal rights to public service have been violated and you can sue for redress. Many people won't bother if it's just one difficult owner, but in a place with wide spread discrimination it becomes necessary. A person who is being discriminated against may decide to take their business elsewhere as being more convenient to themselves, since we all have to pick our battles. However, in order to allow them to have the right to demand service, the law has to apply to all commercial establishments, not just "well there are adequate alternatives so it doesn't apply here."
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if you think being part of an interracial marriage involves a small amount of discrimination, particularly when one is the female partner, think again.
I make no judgement on your experience. I don't agree with you about anti-discrimination legislation, and I expect to be able to argue that without having to demonstrate how much discrimination I have encountered in my life. I'll therefore accord you the same courtesy.
So applying logic rather than a contest of authority to opine... I would point out that the idea of the law being abused once in statute is essentially an argument against any form of legislation, including the legislation that protects access to the sorts of services that you do think are important.
My problem with the "no discrimination regarding healthcare-and-life-and-death-stuff" position is that it isn't clear where to draw the line. The caterer might go into schools. Or work in hospitals. If I'm an inpatient or a student I don't want to see a caterer well known for racial discrimination in serving practices making a profit from my educational or inpatient stay. Unless we have a simple, enforce-able rule I don't see how we can achieve equality.
By the way this isn't a "must-serve-all-comers" rule - you are still entitled to pick and choose, you just can't do it on the basis of race, sex or orientation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ah well, i suppose this dinosaur ought to bow out. But you do realize that if you can create a world where nobody is permitted to follow personal ethics in business, however wrongheaded those might be, under threat of law, you will have also prevented those people from most forms of making a living? Remember, too, that these are not people who see ethics as a choice that can be changed.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A rule that says that some are allowed to discriminate, because some don't, sounds truly bizarre. And also, actually truly horrible. I mean it would produce a really ghastly culture, and place to live. Imagine that some businesses didn't serve gays/blacks, and some did? Good grief, it sounds like hell to me, or rather like 1950s England.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Remember, too, that these are not people who see ethics as a choice that can be changed.
This is frightening. The ethics described in this case seem to be the antithesis of Jesus teaching even should one think homosexuality wrong.
Society is, and should be, a compromise of ethics, not an abandonment of ethics.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I work for a not-for-profit which serves people with disabilities. My clients deal with discrimination constantly and know more about this than I ever will.
My staff people, who are of various races (if you accept the notion that humans divide into more than one race), often express racist or classist or sexist views to me during supervision. Staffer 1 doesn't want to work with Client X because of Client X's sexual orientation. Staffer 2 complains that Client Y shouldn't be able to "eat better than I do when I work for a living and she sits on her a$$ collecting disability." Staffer 3 is afraid to work with Client Z because "I've never dealt with black people before."
These staffers are considered "professionals" even though not one of them has more than a high school education.
My agency is forbidden by law to discriminate. We can't discriminate against clients on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, though there are eligibility standards for qualifying for services. We can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexual orientation in hiring as long as hirees meet hiring standards.
Frankly, one of the hardest aspects of my job is dealing, on a daily basis, with the expressed prejudices of both my clients and my staff. It leaves me little room for managing / quelling my own prejudices (and yes, I have some. I'm working on it.).
IME, we do nobody any favors letting them off their prejudice hooks. The staffer reluctant to work with a black client gets assigned to the black client anyway (along with much heavier supervision to prevent harm to the client), and in the course of dealing with that client on a daily basis, and with guidance during supervision, eventually overcomes the prejudice. The staffer who disapproves of the homosexual client, or the client "able to eat better," goes through the same wringer. It's one reason I keep tissues in my office.
Over the years, I've only had to fire one staffer for failing to change his/her tune after extended, consistent daily contact with the "prejudice," careful (and sometimes exhaustive) supervision to protect clients, and simple, ordinary, human experience.
My own view is that everyone has an absolute right to have their prejudices revealed to them, and to be exposed to prejudice-banishing (or at least prejudice-diminishing) experience, and the sooner, the better; the more, the merrier.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ah well, i suppose this dinosaur ought to bow out. But you do realize that if you can create a world where nobody is permitted to follow personal ethics in business, however wrongheaded those might be, under threat of law, you will have also prevented those people from most forms of making a living? Remember, too, that these are not people who see ethics as a choice that can be changed.
They can think what they like in their head.
Do you think I personally like everyone that I perform work for? No.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But you do realize that if you can create a world where nobody is permitted to follow personal ethics in business, however wrongheaded those might be, under threat of law, you will have also prevented those people from most forms of making a living?
Um, of course everyone is permitted to follow personal ethics in business. Unless their "ethics" are unethical like "I must not honour contracts I make" or "I must not ever do the work I have been paid to do" or "I must not serve black people", in which case the law is going to jump up and down on them for the sake of society.
quote:
Remember, too, that these are not people who see ethics as a choice that can be changed.
Er, so homophobia is not a choice? (but homosexuality is?)
In practice, people's ethics change all the time throughout their lives. Even people who all their lives remain committed to the "unchanging word of God" still develop and change their understanding of the bible, and change the parts they give emphasis to, or forget about, at any given time. In my experience Christians are particularly gifted at skipping over or passed bible passages they are uncomfortable with or don't understand or don't particularly want to give emphasis to, and are really good at focusing on and repeating passages which they see as being significant at the present time.
[ 24. November 2013, 20:50: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I work for a not-for-profit which serves people with disabilities. My clients deal with discrimination constantly and know more about this than I ever will.
Porridge: There have been a couple of recent cases involving racist patients in hospitals attempting to refuse service from black medical staff. Have you had any of your clients attempt to refuse help from a particular member of your staff because of his/her race, sexuality or whatever? How do you deal with it?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What the hell is a nonprofessional business?
A hobby.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A rule that says that some are allowed to discriminate, because some don't, sounds truly bizarre. And also, actually truly horrible. I mean it would produce a really ghastly culture, and place to live. Imagine that some businesses didn't serve gays/blacks, and some did? Good grief, it sounds like hell to me, or rather like 1950s England.
Bizarre and horrible, perhaps, but not entirely unprecedented. It was sort of the whole over-arching ethos of Segregation in the southern bits of the United States. The idea was that as long as there was some kind of accommodation available for black people, it didn't refuse their right to equality under the law to discriminate against them.
It's an idea with a very long pedigree but for some reason those favoring discrimination seem to keep returning to it like it's something fresh, new, and original.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I work for a not-for-profit which serves people with disabilities. My clients deal with discrimination constantly and know more about this than I ever will.
Porridge: There have been a couple of recent cases involving racist patients in hospitals attempting to refuse service from black medical staff. Have you had any of your clients attempt to refuse help from a particular member of your staff because of his/her race, sexuality or whatever? How do you deal with it?
This happens only infrequently, as (IME) people who have first-hand experience of being discriminated against on the basis of things they can do nothing about tend to be presensitized to discrimination.
That said, I have had an occasional client (or on occasion, one of their family members) complain about the "chinks" (my Nepali staff) or "the fatso" (a plump staffer) I assign to assist them.
Provided clients are reasonably verbal, I usually ask them about any recent experiences they've had themselves with being called "crips" or "retards" or being refused service. They've usually had such an experience recently. If not, they've had an experience which they vividly remember.
Then I ask them to compare what they're doing / saying about my staffer to the experience they've recalled. How are the two actions different? How are they the same? How might the staffer feel if s/he knew what the client was saying?
Then I explain the situation: I have a limited number of staff, and a large number of clients, and I try hard to "match" people by needs, personality, interests, etc. I ask if they think this makes sense. They usually agree.
Then I ask if it would work better to match people by weight or race, etc. -- You like to go bowling, right? I have a Nepali staffer who's loves bowling. I have another staffer who has white, like you, but hates bowling. Would you rather have the staffer who likes bowling or the staffer who's white? Would you be willing to try a couple of visits with the staffer who likes bowling?
It's harder with family members, and I'm usually more hard-nosed, with the option of having the staffer they object to or going back on the waiting list for services in hope that a white / thin / hetero / whatever staffer will be freed up in the future. Nobody has ever asked to go back on the waiting list.
Things usually work out. The exceptions have been with two people with autism. In one such situation, I simply caved because the individual's living situation was at risk, and he was adamant about not working with Nepalis. I didn't feel good about it then, and I don't now, and the fact is it's not a good match. The client isn't making progress, and the white staffer is frustrated. That client's annual review is coming up in February, and I'm hoping to make a change.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But you do realize that if you can create a world where nobody is permitted to follow personal ethics in business, however wrongheaded those might be, under threat of law, you will have also prevented those people from most forms of making a living?
Rights are often in conflict with each other. We can't have our rights in total without impinging on other people. My right to be a racist in the workplace if I choose impinges someone else's right to a living. And I reject the idea that we could construct a law that was able to distinguish between things that matter and things that don't matter in this regard for the reasons I set out in my last posts.
Therefore society has to choose between rights, and I think it is right to choose against those wishing to indulge their prejudices in the workplace. We already have such laws regarding taxation - some people think that the amount of tax they have to pay is immoral and that the government has no right to it. But society wouldn't be able to function if we allowed them the right to choose. Society's right to fix a tax policy takes precedence.
--------------------
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 Porridge:
That said, I have had an occasional client (or on occasion, one of their family members) complain about the "chinks" (my Nepali staff) or "the fatso" (a plump staffer) I assign to assist them.
[..snip a long and sensible response..]
Thanks for sharing that, Porridge.
Going back to the original case, there is a tension between the photographer's obligation not to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation and her free speech rights.
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?
Do you give the singer a pass, but force compliance on the photographer? Is this because you assess wedding photography as being more mechanical and less artistic, or because singing in a church is a religious practice whereas taking a photograph in one isn't?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Something that puzzles me in relation to this story is what, exactly, the wedding photographer thinks she is achieving by refusing this request...
Presumably she is a Christian, who interprets the Bible as teaching that God disapproves of homosexual acts. The common view is that it is the homosexual sex itself that is prohibited by the Bible. I'd guess it's safe to assume, however, that the amount of sex the couple has is not going to be affected by whether they get wedding photographs from that photographer. So the photographer doesn't seem to be causing a reduction in total sin by her actions.
But, common Christian teaching says that murder, thievery, adultery etc are all sins too, and that in fact every single person is a sinner because even the smallest sin counts. It's also quite a common teaching that every single sin is equally and infinitely bad, being an offence against God who is infinite, and thus even the least sin makes one deserving of hell and in need of Christ's blood. I'm guessing the photographer is quite a zealous fundamentalist from the strength of her stand for her views, so she probably believes all that. But in such a case, the world can be simply divided into two categories of people: sinners, and Christians who were sinners but have been redeemed. In such a view, the sinners can't be saved simply by living a good life, and the Christians are saved even if they occasionally and inevitable do still sin somewhat, so if the gay couple were to repent of their gayness and not get married it wouldn't actually help them in the eyes of God because they are either still sinners in need of salvation or saved.
I can also imagine easily that the photographer holds the belief that gay marriage isn't really "marriage" and believes that marriage "is defined" as between a man and a woman. That seems a statement that conservatives often make, and they seem to believe the bible teaches that - so she probably believes this couple's marriage is "not really a marriage". However, presumably she can accept this "marriage" as being a commitment ceremony that is meaningful to the couple and those attending it and that it is a legally binding union according to the laws of her nation, regardless of whatever spiritual significance she wishes to deny that it has and/or whatever word-definition games she wants to play about what the word "marriage" means. So regardless of how she interprets the event she is being asked to photograph, surely she can understand that is a significant day for the people involved and that they would be pleased to have photos to remember it by?
I guess at the end of the day, what I don't get is how some Christians seem to get from the statement of "the bible says God disapproves of X" to the view that they need to themselves publicly and clearly demonstrate their own condemnation of X. If God is going to enact judgement in the afterlife, why should Christians go out and enact judgement in the here and now? Why does the photographer see it as her duty to make the lives of these people as miserable as possible rather than enjoying with them a happy day in their lives? 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?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
