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 02-24-2014, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
11,236 posts, read 11,015,248 times
Reputation: 19700

Advertisements

I'm gonna look at this from another angle for just a moment.

Why in the world would a homosexual want to give their hard earned money to an individual or business that seeks to opress them? Of course, if it's just to push an agenda or to harass, I guess it makes sense.

Would a black man fight for the right to be able to spend his money at a business owned by a known clansman?

Both scenarios are based around "protected" statuses. I just don't get it. I must be a simpleton in this respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alec Bachlow View Post
Where is it carved in stone that it is illegal to say NO?
Right here:

The New Mexico Supreme Court Applies Anti-Discrimination Law to Wedding Photographer Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia


This is probably what the new Arizona law is trying to prevent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Downtown Raleigh
1,682 posts, read 3,446,794 times
Reputation: 2234
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
As I understand the law, the answer is No.

And your understanding of the law is correct. How is thinking a same-sex relationship is wrong any different from thinking and inter-race relationship is wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,892,143 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post
And your understanding of the law is correct. How is thinking a same-sex relationship is wrong any different from thinking and inter-race relationship is wrong?
In my opinion it is not different.

I believe a person operating a hotel should be willing to rent a room to both an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 12:38 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,663 posts, read 15,654,903 times
Reputation: 10916
How many of you read the article? By your posts, some of you showed that you did not. The photographer is a SHE. She said she didn't object to taking pictures of the same sex couple, but she objected to taking pictures of their wedding because she was opposed to same sex marriage.

I would think the question before the court is, or should have been, "Did she say too much before refusing to take the job?" Why didn't she just say that she didn't think this job was going to fit into her schedule. She's the one that brought same sex marriage into the discussion.

Most service tradesmen take or accept jobs for a wide range of reasons. A roofer might refuse to repair a tile roof due to inexperience. An HVAC guy might refuse to repair a furnace if he thinks it is so old that he can't warrant his labor. They may not tell you the reason. On the other hand, if a guy told you he wouldn't build you a fence because he doesn't like your "roommate," he's probably just opened himself up for a discrimination suit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,958 posts, read 13,450,937 times
Reputation: 9911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
How many of you read the article? By your posts, some of you showed that you did not. The photographer is a SHE. She said she didn't object to taking pictures of the same sex couple, but she objected to taking pictures of their wedding because she was opposed to same sex marriage.

I would think the question before the court is, or should have been, "Did she say too much before refusing to take the job?" Why didn't she just say that she didn't think this job was going to fit into her schedule. She's the one that brought same sex marriage into the discussion.

Most service tradesmen take or accept jobs for a wide range of reasons. A roofer might refuse to repair a tile roof due to inexperience. An HVAC guy might refuse to repair a furnace if he thinks it is so old that he can't warrant his labor. They may not tell you the reason. On the other hand, if a guy told you he wouldn't build you a fence because he doesn't like your "roommate," he's probably just opened himself up for a discrimination suit.
Yes, the photog was pretty clueless. You can refuse to do business with someone because you think they are a d-bag, or you don't like their hairstyle or how they smell or their taste in clothes. But they never need to know that is your reason.

Chances are she took the job and made her shock and disgust obvious when she discovered it was a same sex couple, such that there was no plausible excuse to back out of the deal without it being obvious that she was being a bigot. And in any case, one wonders if she felt NO ONE should photograph a same-sex couple's wedding and couldn't stand the idea that this would happen AND she'd cede the business to a competitor, if she bowed out as I'm suggesting above. It'd be just like someone like that to try to impose her bigoted ideas on society.

We'll probably never know the details, but it has "clueless and probably stupid" written all over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,663 posts, read 15,654,903 times
Reputation: 10916
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post

<snip>

We'll probably never know the details, but it has "clueless and probably stupid" written all over it.
Yep, and as you know, you can't fix stupid.

(Can't rep you yet.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,804,566 times
Reputation: 40166
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?
If the Native American photographer refuses, what is the protected class that is the subject of discrimination, and what is the religious justification for that refusal?

At any rate, no, religion should not be an blanket excuse to justify discrimination in commercial activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,804,566 times
Reputation: 40166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
State Bar of New Mexico

Under which of the above grounds would I qualify?

Suppose I am in a store and get into an argument with the cashier over what I believe is a preposterous store policy. I think I'm right and I stand my ground, but simultaneously I am holding up the line and creating a disturbance. The manager is called and rules that I am to leave or he will call the police.

Suppose the exact same scenario replacing me with a gay person. He or she has a right to challenge the eviction on the grounds that it was motivated by some anti gay impulse. The store owner is left in the position of having to try and establish that no such motivation existed, a difficult thing to do.

I enjoy no such special protection or the legal leverage which comes with it.

I think impulse behind this law is more or less congruent with the hate crimes law, another phenomena where rights are unequally distributed. It is a more serious crime with a more severe penalty if someone assaults a gay person because the attacker hates gays in general, than it is if I was attacked by someone who hated me because of my personality, because of jealousy, because of differing political views. Only one type of hate is being covered in the hate crimes law and only certain citizens are protected by it. I'm capable of generating all kinds of hate from others, I'd like some coverage as well.
Of course you do. You can claim it was motivated by an anti-straight impulse. Or, an anti-gender impulse. Or an impulse against your race, or religion, or national origin.

Is this a problem? Where is the rash of angry gays bringing lawsuits against innocent store-owners who have done nothing? There are jurisdictions which have prevented commercial discrimination based on sexual orientation (which covers the orientation of all of us, not just gays) for years. If this is really a problem, there should be myriad cases of poor victimized store-owners and gays who are victimizing them. But if there are, I've missed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 05:52 PM
 
1,114 posts, read 1,223,507 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
Would it be OK for a photographer to refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding because his religion teaches that homosexuals should not get married?
You have to wonder if this photographer also refuses to take photos for couples who are going on their second or third marriage. After all,(with few exceptions), getting remarried is committing adultery in god's eyes. I have a feeling since the majority of marriages end in divorce, that this photographer would not have much of a business if she refused to take photos for them. And we wonder why so many consider Christians to be hypocrites.....
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 06:57 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