Poll: Should this photographer face legal action?
Yes
No
I'm undecided
I have no idea, I'm only voting so I don't feel left out
[Show Results]
 
Is this fair?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Indeed but in cases where it is not a universal truth I believe it is best to leave government out of the equation.

Nothing's a universal truth. Tongue

The real issue is what threshold should be in place. How to establish and promulgate an equitable social contract without veering into tyranny of the majority but also without permitting minoritarian obstructionism...

But I don't pretend to have the answer to that.
(hey, don't look at me like that...)

(21-10-2013 02:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And that level of hypocrisy and double standard is the problem. If something is not a crime in the action but only a thoughtcrime (his crime was not refusing service but the internal reason for doing so) then it should not be up to the government to enforce.

Motive, if not stated, can reasonably be inferred given a large enough data set...

It isn't hypocrisy, though. It's a tragedy of the commons. Very different.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(18-10-2013 01:02 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I heard an account recently of a homosexual photographer somewhere in America who was contacted by a Christian organisation to cover an event they were holding (I'm not sure what the event was but it was something benign I think). After realising he had been contacted by a Christian organisation (and one that was opposed to gay rights) he refused the job on moral grounds because of their views on homosexuality.

He is now facing a discrimination lawsuit for his actions.

What is anyone's view of this, and where does your opinion stem from?

I only read the OP. Didn't feel like skimming through 7 pages.

If anything, HE shouldn't be attacked by a lawsuit on discriminating, when the church itself is discriminating against homosexuals. That is backwards as bullshit, and it makes me furious. He can refuse to cover the event if he wants to, and for his own reasons, regardless of whatever those reasons may be. And he has a pretty good reason. Fuck them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  That's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do though.

... No? Not here.
(or anywhere I'm aware of...)

(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  Even in cases where there was no crime committed, or the crime was independent of the minority status of the victim, there's so much consideration given to those statuses that that's all anyone sees. Look at the Trayvon Martin case (I know, I know. Not again...)... it really didn't matter much what did or didn't happen that night. All anyone cared about was that a white guy killed a black kid.

Motive is part of any criminal case. If it can't be demonstrated there's no conviction. There was enough reasonable doubt that a jury of his peers chose not to convict Zimmerman of murder. It mattered rather a lot what did or didn't happen that night, so far as the legal system was concerned.

Random observers' opinions (be they media figures or not) aren't relevant. That said, my random observer's opinion is that a case built around manslaughter would have been a sure conviction (since, y'know, a man died).

You seem to be making a much stronger claim than is warranted. All anyone sees? All anyone cared about? It smacks of sensationalism. Hell, it's the same tactic dog-whistling reactionaries use:
"This specific law/case/ruling/etc goes to far, therefore any move in this direction at all is wrong".
You're way too cool for that ( Thumbsup ) and I'm totally not saying that's what you're doing, but you're painting with much too broad a stroke!

(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  The goal of anything claiming to be "anti-discrimination" should be the removal of arbitrary labels based on class, gender, creed, etc, to put everyone on n even playing field. What it actually does is make people even more sensitive to these things, so that's all they see when a case comes up that appears to have maybe been possibly been a little bit remotely motivated by these labels.

But that's untenable - what good does it do for you and I to ignore distinctions when other people nonetheless act prejudicially on them?

You're right of course, but surely you can see my point without splitting hairs on my terminology. Not everyone sees things this way, but there is a truth to it nonetheless. I heard, like, 2 people comment on how they felt bad for this kids family, and about a hundred comment on the race issue when it wasn't immediately known whether that was even a factor. It was the first thing brought up. And yes, in a criminal court the evidence will (usually) win out. My point was that there's more to it than a court verdict. It's the impact that these laws have made on social opinion that I find potentially harmful. Any kid can get in a scuffle in the schoolyard and get suspended for a day, but if the kid happens to be black, he may be expelled and charged with a hate crime that will follow him around even without a conviction. See what I mean? It really gets past the point of fairness and becomes divisive all over again. I'm probably not wording this right or making my point completely clear, and I apologize. I'm just throwing out thoughts, not trying to make a definitive or absolute point.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 04:10 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  You're right of course, but surely you can see my point without splitting hairs on my terminology. Not everyone sees things this way, but there is a truth to it nonetheless. I heard, like, 2 people comment on how they felt bad for this kids family, and about a hundred comment on the race issue when it wasn't immediately known whether that was even a factor. It was the first thing brought up. And yes, in a criminal court the evidence will (usually) win out. My point was that there's more to it than a court verdict. It's the impact that these laws have made on social opinion that I find potentially harmful. Any kid can get in a scuffle in the schoolyard and get suspended for a day, but if the kid happens to be black, he may be expelled and charged with a hate crime that will follow him around even without a conviction. See what I mean? It really gets past the point of fairness and becomes divisive all over again. I'm probably not wording this right or making my point completely clear, and I apologize. I'm just throwing out thoughts, not trying to make a definitive or absolute point.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. (I think Tongue )

And it is a very valid point. BUT! Two things - first, you're couching your statements as general assertions - "everyone says, everyone thinks, x happens, y can happen" - without substantiating; the things you bring up are far from universal.

And second, that's the methodology of the reactionary, wherein a flawed response to a real problem is used to justify making no response or even to deny the problem exists (though I stress that this isn't a thing I'm actually accusing you of). "There was once a false accusation of racism, therefore all accusations of racism are specious; there was once a false accusation of rape, therefore all accusations of rape are specious". I expect you've run into such "reasoning" yourself.

I reiterate that there's some truth in what you're saying (though I may think you overstate things), and the objections are of course valid ("don't take it too far" is always a fair enough comment Big Grin ). S'just that it's very much not the whole story (since it does not address the situation prompting the laws); it isn't even in line with the intent of any anti-hate-crime laws I'm aware of (but I concede ignorance of the specifics of whatever you might have on the books down there in America).

And of course such hypersensitivity and overcorrection is absurd. That's the insane mindset which gives us such gems as "Richard Dawkins once criticised fundamentalist Muslims, therefore he is a racist", which is such a profoundly dumb statement that I still can't believe people said it with a straight face.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 07:44 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Well, I guess it's time for me to come clean here.

The reason I was quite vague on the situation in the OP is that I completely fabricated it (though similar events may well have happened for all I know).

The reason for my deception is that I wanted to test something. Just before I made this poll I was reading a Christian article on gay rights. It mentioned a Christian photographer who was being sued for refusing to photograph a gay marriage and the article asked whether the people behind the lawsuit (and gay rights proponents in general) would condemn a gay photographer refusing to cover an anti gay marriage rally just as strongly (or think he should face a lawsuit at all). This got me thinking about my own position and that of the atheist community. I decided to test the suggestion that gay rights proponents (such as the general atheist community) would apply their views selectively by posting this poll here and an identical one (but with the situation reversed) here on AF.org. I figured that if both polls were consistent with each other and either supported or did not support the photographer then that would demonstrate reasonable objectivity across our communities as a whole. If the polls returned conflicting answers both supporting the homosexual person then it would demonstrate a bias in our communities towards supporting the homosexual over the Christian, regardless of the situation.

I'm pleased to say that our communities passed my experiment. Both polls were consistent with each other and supported the photographer. TTA voted that it was the right of a homosexual photographer to refuse a religious organisation's event and AF voted that it was the right of the Christian photographer to refuse a gay organisation's event.

You're a slut who toys with my emotions. Don't fucking do that again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Is this fair?
You really don't think he could get out if this KC? Religious organizations are protected groups. Hate groups are not. He denied services not because they are Christian but because they are an active hate group against homosexuals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 01:54 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.

Had this been a real case though, I think it has an interesting twist. It's not just a case of discrimination against a Christian group. The photographer's reason for doing so is because Christians typically discriminate against homosexuals. So the court could possibly find the discrimination in either direction. The Christian lawsuit could actually backfire.

Yeah, I had alluded to this earlier.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(22-10-2013 12:13 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  You really don't think he could get out if this KC? Religious organizations are protected groups. Hate groups are not. He denied services not because they are Christian but because they are an active hate group against homosexuals.

Nah. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court. I'm just looking at it objectively... truth is... even the courts aren't 100% objective.

But that wasn't the question. The questions was whether or not the group had a right to sue. According to the law, they very much had one and were objectively right to do so (if this was true).

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Is this fair?
If he was under contract, than he is in breach on contract.

If he wasn't under contract, then he can refuse service. Same as I have a right not to patronize hobby lobby because of their stance on refusing birth control to non-religious employees

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Is this fair?
This seems rather 'fuzzy'. You heard? From where? Citation? Link?

Whatever. I don't think it's a big deal. If people want to discriminate who they will serve that should be their prerogative. Frankly, I don't want anyone serving me who doesn't want to anyway. That's how you get substandard service. If if the service would be unaffected I don't think it is the government's business.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: