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
24-10-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: Is this fair?
Where do you draw the line? If you support a gay photographer in not meeting his obligations, or selectively discriminating against potential customers, were does it stop?

Do you want to support a gay land-lord the refuses fundamentalist Christian tenants?

Would your support change if it was a Christian land-lord refusing to house a gay couple?

Or a white land-lord refusing to house black tenants?

Or an Jewish land-lord refusing Muslim tenants?

The the photographer is a private business owner, but that doesn't make it okay for him to discriminate. In the same way that if the Christian group scheduled the photographer, then learned he is gay, then refused his services and his payment after he arrives on the spot? Would you support the Christian group in their discrimination? How is this ethically different from the gay photographer refusing his services?


They're both cases of discrimination, and whoever does the discriminating, is in the wrong. So in this scenario, I believe the photographer would be wrong. Lawsuit worthy? Debatable. One would hope that the two groups could come to some amendable agreement (after all, if they're that anti-gay, do they really want a gay photographer anyways?).

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 12:00 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where do you draw the line? If you support a gay photographer in not meeting his obligations, or selectively discriminating against potential customers, were does it stop?

Do you want to support a gay land-lord the refuses fundamentalist Christian tenants?

Would your support change if it was a Christian land-lord refusing to house a gay couple?

Or a white land-lord refusing to house black tenants?

Or an Jewish land-lord refusing Muslim tenants?

The the photographer is a private business owner, but that doesn't make it okay for him to discriminate. In the same way that if the Christian group scheduled the photographer, then learned he is gay, then refused his services and his payment after he arrives on the spot? Would you support the Christian group in their discrimination? How is this ethically different from the gay photographer refusing his services?


They're both cases of discrimination, and whoever does the discriminating, is in the wrong. So in this scenario, I believe the photographer would be wrong. Lawsuit worthy? Debatable. One would hope that the two groups could come to some amendable agreement (after all, if they're that anti-gay, do they really want a gay photographer anyways?).

I disagree. I would support all of those. Not their positions, but their right to serve whoever they wish, and for whatever reason they wish.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Is this fair?
A note to my vote. When I said "no" they shouldn't face legal action, I meant that it shouldn't be illegal, not that the situation didn't warrant legal action given current laws. I think this is a fault in the poll and certainly affected the poll.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
24-10-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 12:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  A note to my vote. When I said "no" they shouldn't face legal action, I meant that it shouldn't be illegal, not that the situation didn't warrant legal action given current laws. I think this is a fault in the poll and certainly affected the poll.

I felt the same way.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Is this fair?
This is a classic slippery slope issue.

Where do we draw a line? Do we except certain businesses? Certain classes of people? Where does that lead?

The law is clear and simple. There are no exceptions.

If you are a business, you are open to the public. All of it. Don't like it? Don't open a business.

There is no other workable solution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-10-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is a classic slippery slope issue.

Where do we draw a line? Do we except certain businesses? Certain classes of people? Where does that lead?

The law is clear and simple. There are no exceptions.

If you are a business, you are open to the public. All of it. Don't like it? Don't open a business.

There is no other workable solution.

It's not clear and simple thought in both cases the only reason it was illegal is the fact that the person refusing service admitting to thinking the wrong thoughts. Had they not said why they where refusing it would not be illegal. I am against criminalising thoughts.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is a classic slippery slope issue.

Where do we draw a line? Do we except certain businesses? Certain classes of people? Where does that lead?

The law is clear and simple. There are no exceptions.

If you are a business, you are open to the public. All of it. Don't like it? Don't open a business.

There is no other workable solution.

That's rather narrow-minded. Disappointingly so I must say.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 01:08 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is a classic slippery slope issue.

Where do we draw a line? Do we except certain businesses? Certain classes of people? Where does that lead?

The law is clear and simple. There are no exceptions.

If you are a business, you are open to the public. All of it. Don't like it? Don't open a business.

There is no other workable solution.

That's rather narrow-minded. Disappointingly so I must say.

That's the law. The reason for it is to combat institutionalized discrimination.

You tell me where the broad-minded place to draw the line is. Let us have your definition of open-minded discrimination.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:08 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  That's rather narrow-minded. Disappointingly so I must say.

That's the law. The reason for it is to combat institutionalized discrimination.

You tell me where the broad-minded place to draw the line is. Let us have your definition of open-minded discrimination.

I've already stated my opinion in the thread. I would consider my position to be open-minded.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2013 12:16 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is this fair?
(24-10-2013 02:00 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's the law. The reason for it is to combat institutionalized discrimination.

You tell me where the broad-minded place to draw the line is. Let us have your definition of open-minded discrimination.

I've already stated my opinion in the thread. I would consider my position to be open-minded.

Do you mean this?

(24-10-2013 09:29 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

I think it's a HUGE deal. It was kind of one of the major points of the Civil Rights movement here in the United States. Because 'separate but equal' was never equal.

Now remember that believers far outnumber non-believers. If you were to allow public businesses to legally discriminate against people, how long would it be before you started seeing 'Christian Only' signs pop up along with the 'White Only' signs back from the Jim Crow era southern United States? That is were your logic follows, and if applied equally, would allow to proliferate; and you would be far worse off for it.

Fuck that. The same law that would bite this gay photographer in the ass is also preventing fundamentalist business from denying services to people who don't share their beliefs. I'd rather have everyone be treated equally, rather than have to dance around a jigsaw puzzle of discriminatory business. So suck it up and provide the service equally, because their money is just as good, and he had better do his job just as good. He's free not to agree with them, to spend his earnings (or donate them) to a cause opposing the Christians who payed him for the gig. That is how you lawfully and ethically deal with that situation. You may not like it, but you suck it up, knowing full well that everyone else is expected to follow suite under penalty of law.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: