Yeah, wait a minute. I was under the impression that gay couples wanted their nuptials to be recognized by the state. You're of the party that doesn't want the state to do so because of your religious(moral) beliefs, no? So, in effect, you want to force your views on the state elevating your views above those of other individuals.
This country is supposedly about the freedom of the individual and yet... here you are trying to wave the stick of "the majority". You're being a bully and using a religious majority to help swing your stick.
The point of all this is the not you nor your religious majority should ever, ever be allowed to steer much less dictate the fates and choices of individuals.
Copying and disseminating classified documents is, most assuredly, a crime.
A crime executed for the greater good is still a crime. Is this not the current mantra of every bureau and branch of the DOD and DOJ (where "greater good" is clearly relative)?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
This seems a lot like the proverbial shoe being on the other foot.
So, after eons of kicking, spitting, killing, maiming and discriminating against gays or those perceived as gay, folks are pissy? Where "folks" equates to anyone who may have had the tendency to use the term "those gays"? Folks that have been comfortable because they were "protected" in their bigotry and now... yeah, step it up.
I hear you, loud and clear, so yes, "really". Defend yourself. Not everyone can be a grown up, clearly, and there are strides to be made in every direction.
Ken is not right and he's not wrong, he's lashing out against what was once a very acceptable position at several different levels. Here he is a petulant man who is loosing some power over others that he may have once held that was supported and reinforced by like-minded folks. The seeds of hatred.
The photographer is not in the wrong, just to be clear, however, if there was a remote possibility that this photographer's BUSINESS could place another photographer into position that was not "religiously bound" and still refused to do so only then would she not have a defensible position. As it was, the couple is demanding this very photographer which makes them the hateful bigots here. Morally indefensible on their part. In this I think we agree.
And, yes, I believe that discrimination is not moral. Using religion to defend discrimination is not moral. Lashing out at these observations is petty and a loosing proposition. Those actions are not made of "free will" but rather introduced by indoctrination and as such are learned behaviors,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Batshit! Open up, you're allowed. Self-censorship is half overrated anyway and I can see you're only half-way there.
I admit that I was taken a little back by the firm determination of morality, however, with regards to discrimination it is, in fact, not a moral thing.
And, for the record, you called Mr. Karl skewed and clumsy, sure he weighted his views with his beliefs in the matter but you just sort of fired off like an angry fucking lunatic (and yes, I'm quite sure they procreate because I, typically, am one). Karl made me think, you made me type this batch of nonsense.
Since you clearly did try to respond how about a little something something about why you seem to think that discrimination is a moral thing. Or did that particular church pamphlet not make it to the printer?
Are you not your living God? Step it up a little bit.
Whoa, whoa, easy there big guy. You played your hand and gave the ace you were holding to the guy sitting across the table that you were playing with. You brought your position and debunked it in the same, short post.
Clearly America is much more complex that you've allowed yourself to believe.
Ah, yes, however the chef's art as a service is not contingent upon an interaction with the eater. That's why I inserted cooking homosexuals as the chef would, definitely, be required to interact at that point. "I refuse to cook gay people." is quite different than "I refuse to cook for gay people.". This type of analogy seems a clear misrepresentation/misdirection away from the type of service we're trying to refer to which is an interactive service with little to no control over the setting. And so on.
mhrm.. I thought that was the actual cooking & plating part. No? I would think that it's out of the norm for an establishment's cook to know who, exactly, his dish is for anyway. And nobody here is cooking homosexuals for that matter. I don't think this entire thread has a single applicable analogy. Everyone seems oddly stuck on the service perspective. ... Perhaps with good reason but I'm not seeing it.
Maybe a masseuse? I will rub you even if you're gay but I'm not going to rub you and your partner together. ? Yeah?
I think, and I may have this wrong, that because the photographer did not take the work AND stated why that the argument is that the photographer MUST take the work or be held to account for their apparent discrimination against gay people. I, personally, think that the photographer is not, in fact, discriminating against gay people but against gay people being, somewhat intimately, gay.
I think the argument, at the basest level, is that if one offers services, photography in this case, than one must offer any and all services to homosexual persons that would, normally, be offered to heterosexual persons. My first impression was "of course you have to offer the same services" until I realized that, wait, that means they'd have to observe and document what they're seeing and what they're seeing is not "a gay person" but "a gay person's life choices". I cannot quite see how they are one and the same and that there is, perhaps, a delicate line here between tolerance and acceptance.
I saw no clear distinction separating art from wedding photography, at all. All rocking chairs are not created equally.
The photog needs to insert himself, observe his subjects and facilitate the execution of his trade. He can not "unsee" gay intimacy.
In this case she will need to observe, intimately, exactly that thing that she finds objectionable. That is she'll not be simply observing gay people but gay people expressing their love for each other. That would apply to not only the couple but I would surmise that other gay couples would be in attendance as well. Something for everybody - Combat photography. The situation will by no means be under her control and she can not simply look away.
The essence of this case, for me, is that an individual stands the chance of being told what they can and cannot see as it pertains to their own human experience. There is no inherent opportunity for the individual to simply "pass by" the "crime scene" as they will have been forced to take part in it - Combat photography.
This is not, necessarily, discrimination of gay people so much as discrimination of gay "lifestyle". She would need to insert herself into a position that consists of observing other people's life choices, vis-a-vis intimacy.
This photographer's position is, given the circumstances, a rather respectable one in that she seems to be tolerant of the existence of gay people and will take their portraits willingly. The argument that consists of "She's a photographer therefore she must take pictures of gay weddings." seems, frankly, authoritarian. i.e. "Not only must you provide service to these people but you must provide service to these people in their intimate settings."
I hold that one can, indeed, discriminate against lifestyle while at the same time not discriminate against individuals. It seems a clear difference between tolerance and acceptance. The former can be legislated the latter will forever be a choice.
If the court ultimately decides to go your way I'll be pretty comfortable with the knowledge that they will not have chosen wisely and this solely due to the fact that the "goods" are produced through the eye of the observer. Photography is not a rocking chair and photography is not lunch.
Behold! Forthwith you shall see what I have seen! ... yeah, still no.
It would seem so, yes, but not "in" public. Not everyone will have a right to be there and not everyone wants to be there. The service provider is not comfortable with teh proposed private setting.
The photographer, to produce a photograph, must see the objects being pictured. What the photographer sees results in photographs so in this sense yes, seeing is saying.
Photography is the service. The photographs? Those say a thousand words. :O) No?
A photograph of marriage is the photographer speaking, yes. The expression of speech of the people being married is the marriage. The photographer, obviously, has no bearing on the speech of the marriage. The couple would like the photographer to speak so that they, the couple, may reminisce over the beginning of their marriage, with the photographer's photographs.
I am all religions and I am none. I am the dark and I am the light. I am the wrong and I am the right. What are you? You are your life. The decisions are your own. The decisions are mine.
God has never told me what to do nor how to do it. The best that he has come up with is "I am not a wizard." (which is pretty good if you ask me). Everything else has to be written off to mild psychosis or was lost in the cacophony of reality.
I'm confident that death will bring change. I'm also confident that causing death is deranged. Forcing this photographer to accept and photograph something that he or she doesn't want to photograph falls somewhere in the middle between death and religion.
Being that the "right" to silence must now be "claimed" or it doesn't exist I would not be at all surprised with "silence equals hate" popping up along the way.
Re: Freedom of religion is a constitutional right...
Wait. Wouldn't marriage, at the most rudimentary of levels, be a form of speech?
Is this speech vs religion? Well, being that religion is, in essence, a form of speech (and in some speech it is religious) wouldn't speech set the igher bar here?
Christians fight gay marriage because they are intolerant bigots and do not, in fact, live the tolerance that their lord would have them preach. Isn't there something like . .. something like "Judge not lest ye be judged."? I'm pretty sure that's an important aspect of life much less religion.
Serving lunch is not art. Although your point is not lost on me I think that I disagree with the interpretations of "service" and of "business" when an individual must "intimately observe" to produce their product.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
The hills are to your left and to your right. Running is an option and for some it's even a good option.
Homosexuals exist and being that they exist as individuals they can co-exist, until death. That's the reason they do it.
And so...
The diversity of humanity is exactly the thing that I believe will progress it.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Love is not Marriage
This country is supposedly about the freedom of the individual and yet... here you are trying to wave the stick of "the majority". You're being a bully and using a religious majority to help swing your stick.
The point of all this is the not you nor your religious majority should ever, ever be allowed to steer much less dictate the fates and choices of individuals.
Frankly, boohoo for your traditions.
On the post: Zynga's Founder Asks Obama To Pardon Snowden
Re: Obama is Correct... for the wrong reasons.
Copying and disseminating classified documents is, most assuredly, a crime.
A crime executed for the greater good is still a crime. Is this not the current mantra of every bureau and branch of the DOD and DOJ (where "greater good" is clearly relative)?
Mr. Snowden is eligible for a pardon.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
So, after eons of kicking, spitting, killing, maiming and discriminating against gays or those perceived as gay, folks are pissy? Where "folks" equates to anyone who may have had the tendency to use the term "those gays"? Folks that have been comfortable because they were "protected" in their bigotry and now... yeah, step it up.
I hear you, loud and clear, so yes, "really". Defend yourself. Not everyone can be a grown up, clearly, and there are strides to be made in every direction.
Ken is not right and he's not wrong, he's lashing out against what was once a very acceptable position at several different levels. Here he is a petulant man who is loosing some power over others that he may have once held that was supported and reinforced by like-minded folks. The seeds of hatred.
The photographer is not in the wrong, just to be clear, however, if there was a remote possibility that this photographer's BUSINESS could place another photographer into position that was not "religiously bound" and still refused to do so only then would she not have a defensible position. As it was, the couple is demanding this very photographer which makes them the hateful bigots here. Morally indefensible on their part. In this I think we agree.
And, yes, I believe that discrimination is not moral. Using religion to defend discrimination is not moral. Lashing out at these observations is petty and a loosing proposition. Those actions are not made of "free will" but rather introduced by indoctrination and as such are learned behaviors,
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
I admit that I was taken a little back by the firm determination of morality, however, with regards to discrimination it is, in fact, not a moral thing.
And, for the record, you called Mr. Karl skewed and clumsy, sure he weighted his views with his beliefs in the matter but you just sort of fired off like an angry fucking lunatic (and yes, I'm quite sure they procreate because I, typically, am one). Karl made me think, you made me type this batch of nonsense.
Since you clearly did try to respond how about a little something something about why you seem to think that discrimination is a moral thing. Or did that particular church pamphlet not make it to the printer?
Are you not your living God? Step it up a little bit.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re:
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Love is not Marriage
Clearly America is much more complex that you've allowed yourself to believe.
You are your own tribe in your own tribal war.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the II..?
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the II..?
Maybe a masseuse? I will rub you even if you're gay but I'm not going to rub you and your partner together. ? Yeah?
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Contract Differences?
I think the argument, at the basest level, is that if one offers services, photography in this case, than one must offer any and all services to homosexual persons that would, normally, be offered to heterosexual persons. My first impression was "of course you have to offer the same services" until I realized that, wait, that means they'd have to observe and document what they're seeing and what they're seeing is not "a gay person" but "a gay person's life choices". I cannot quite see how they are one and the same and that there is, perhaps, a delicate line here between tolerance and acceptance.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: What is Art and Authorship?
I saw no clear distinction separating art from wedding photography, at all. All rocking chairs are not created equally.
The photog needs to insert himself, observe his subjects and facilitate the execution of his trade. He can not "unsee" gay intimacy.
In this case she will need to observe, intimately, exactly that thing that she finds objectionable. That is she'll not be simply observing gay people but gay people expressing their love for each other. That would apply to not only the couple but I would surmise that other gay couples would be in attendance as well. Something for everybody - Combat photography. The situation will by no means be under her control and she can not simply look away.
The essence of this case, for me, is that an individual stands the chance of being told what they can and cannot see as it pertains to their own human experience. There is no inherent opportunity for the individual to simply "pass by" the "crime scene" as they will have been forced to take part in it - Combat photography.
This is not, necessarily, discrimination of gay people so much as discrimination of gay "lifestyle". She would need to insert herself into a position that consists of observing other people's life choices, vis-a-vis intimacy.
This photographer's position is, given the circumstances, a rather respectable one in that she seems to be tolerant of the existence of gay people and will take their portraits willingly. The argument that consists of "She's a photographer therefore she must take pictures of gay weddings." seems, frankly, authoritarian. i.e. "Not only must you provide service to these people but you must provide service to these people in their intimate settings."
I hold that one can, indeed, discriminate against lifestyle while at the same time not discriminate against individuals. It seems a clear difference between tolerance and acceptance. The former can be legislated the latter will forever be a choice.
If the court ultimately decides to go your way I'll be pretty comfortable with the knowledge that they will not have chosen wisely and this solely due to the fact that the "goods" are produced through the eye of the observer. Photography is not a rocking chair and photography is not lunch.
Behold! Forthwith you shall see what I have seen! ... yeah, still no.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: RE: -- what about the cake bakers
Photography is the service. The photographs? Those say a thousand words. :O) No?
A photograph of marriage is the photographer speaking, yes. The expression of speech of the people being married is the marriage. The photographer, obviously, has no bearing on the speech of the marriage. The couple would like the photographer to speak so that they, the couple, may reminisce over the beginning of their marriage, with the photographer's photographs.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at?
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Open question to the non-religious here
I am all religions and I am none.
I am the dark and I am the light.
I am the wrong and I am the right.
What are you? You are your life.
The decisions are your own.
The decisions are mine.
God has never told me what to do nor how to do it. The best that he has come up with is "I am not a wizard." (which is pretty good if you ask me). Everything else has to be written off to mild psychosis or was lost in the cacophony of reality.
I'm confident that death will bring change. I'm also confident that causing death is deranged. Forcing this photographer to accept and photograph something that he or she doesn't want to photograph falls somewhere in the middle between death and religion.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Freedom of religion is a constitutional right...
Is this speech vs religion? Well, being that religion is, in essence, a form of speech (and in some speech it is religious) wouldn't speech set the igher bar here?
Christians fight gay marriage because they are intolerant bigots and do not, in fact, live the tolerance that their lord would have them preach. Isn't there something like . .. something like "Judge not lest ye be judged."? I'm pretty sure that's an important aspect of life much less religion.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: What the II..?
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: RE: -- what about the cake bakers
The dress maker need not watch the clothing of the bride.
The decorator need not attend the party.
The singers do not need to observe the listeners.
The photographer must see.
Next >>