Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,501 posts, read 17,066,949 times
Reputation: 7539

Advertisements

It does not seem to be wise to hire a photographer that is opposed to what he is asked to photograph. Unless you want some pretty messed up pictures.

Some things can not be legislated, no matter how strong the law is. Artistic skill falls into that category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Suppose we are having a big party to celebrate our English ancestors landing at Jamestown VA in 1607. To be inclusive, we want to hire a professional Native American photographer to document our re-enactment of the landing.

Should the Native American photographer be allowed to refuse to take the pictures we want or is he discriminating against us unfairly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker View Post
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the above illustration holds water.

Are you going to answer the question I posed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
It does not seem to be wise to hire a photographer that is opposed to what he is asked to photograph. Unless you want some pretty messed up pictures.
Tell that to the gay people who filed charges against the photographer in New Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,390 posts, read 11,597,224 times
Reputation: 7544
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Tell that to the gay people who filed charges against the photographer in New Mexico.
Did the photographer advertise that he wouldn't work for gays specifically first? Did he have a "no gay" photo policy? Or did he decide that when he figured out they were gay after the day was already planned and arranged? Costing said "gay people" time and money when he bailed?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case, please fill me in.

Oh, and nice sister thread hiker45!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Did the photographer advertise that he wouldn't work for gays specifically first? Did he have a "no gay" photo policy? Or did he decide that when he figured out they were gay after the day was already planned and arranged? Costing said "gay people" time and money when he bailed?
I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,501 posts, read 17,066,949 times
Reputation: 7539
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Tell that to the gay people who filed charges against the photographer in New Mexico.
I think the photographer should counter sue for emotional trauma and terrorist threats. They were attempting to force him to do something he was incapable of doing.

A photographer is not providing a necessary service, he is providing a luxury that the refusal of is not going to cause hardship, public discrimination or financial loss. The quality of the work is also very much dependent upon the photographer's state of mind. The photographer was giving full disclosure that he would not be able to satisfy the customers request. Out of fairness to the customer it was best he disclosed he would not be able to do a satisfactory job and it is best for all he declines.

Now if he had accepted a retaining fee or led the couple to believe he would do it and declined before an alternative could be found, that would be a different issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:41 PM
 
Location: New Jersey, USA
618 posts, read 540,664 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Are you going to answer the question I posed?
Hello again hiker 45.

As an aside, our similar usernames and mutual involvement on opposite sides of this issue seems to be creating some confusion. Just a review for everyone:

hiker 45 - approves of proposed Arizona law
Hyker - does NOT approve of proposed Arizona law

As for your question, my honest opinion is "I don't know." As pressing an issue in society as it may be, I have never given serious consideration to the artistic and expressive rights of Native American photographers. As indicated in my earlier post, I would need to know a lot more information than what you presented, starting with the reason why this photographer is refusing the contract.

As I also said in my earlier post, I see no parallel between this and the situation in Arizona. Would you care to explain the relationship?

Thanks.

Last edited by Hyker; 02-23-2014 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
9,455 posts, read 12,538,654 times
Reputation: 16453
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Tell that to the gay people who filed charges against the photographer in New Mexico.
Tell that to the atheist who refused to do a photo shoot of a religious ceremony.

Or the Muslim who refused to do a photo shoot of a bacon festival.

Maybe we should force Christians to do porn films?

Better yet! Let's force everyone to go to Church!

Happy happy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,390 posts, read 11,597,224 times
Reputation: 7544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
I think the photographer should counter sue for emotional trauma and terrorist threats. They were attempting to force him to do something he was incapable of doing.

A photographer is not providing a necessary service, he is providing a luxury that the refusal of is not going to cause hardship, public discrimination or financial loss. The quality of the work is also very much dependent upon the photographer's state of mind. The photographer was giving full disclosure that he would not be able to satisfy the customers request. Out of fairness to the customer it was best he disclosed he would not be able to do a satisfactory job and it is best for all he declines.

Now if he had accepted a retaining fee or led the couple to believe he would do it and declined before an alternative could be found, that would be a different issue.
Yes, a definite difference. I agree. If his advertising stated he does portraits but only of straight people then he wasn't misleading in any way.

This isn't whats going on in Arizona though. It's the freedom for any religious business owner to refuse anyone based on his belief that his God doesn't allow it. That's pretty wide and there is plenty of room there for all. At what point would we find it discrimination? Say a sub shop owner said his religious beliefs prevented him from serving Muslims, homosexuals and atheists. Would that still be the America we want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,390 posts, read 11,597,224 times
Reputation: 7544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Tell that to the atheist who refused to do a photo shoot of a religious ceremony.

Or the Muslim who refused to do a photo shoot of a bacon festival.

Maybe we should force Christians to do porn films?

Better yet! Let's force everyone to go to Church!

Happy happy!
Why in the world would they do business at all if they were so limited by God? By the way no atheist I know would refuse to do a photo shoot of a religious ceremony based on religious beliefs they don't have. No God will punish me if I serve a Christian, a homosexual or anyone else for that matter.

I might add, if I had so many limitations it probably wouldn't be wise of me to do business with the general public. Religiously held beliefs and practices are personal. Why make them law?

Last edited by PoppySead; 02-23-2014 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top