Ok so I'm confused. If the photographer refuses to take the picture purely for the reason that they are gay, why shouldn't people get "bothered"?
Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination
by SadElder 112 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
SadElder
Viviane - Why in the world would it mean that?
If a JW refuses to work for a church because he does not want to be associated with them, isn't he discriminating because of religion?
While I haven't read the case law and I'm for certain no attorney, it makes me pause to consider all the ramifications this could possibly have.
-
Band on the Run
She argued that photography was not a rote business. I don't believe she could do an Ansel Adams photograph. She had very commercial work. This was always a weak case. If she had a business of doing mostly religious photography, her case would be stronger.
-
humbled
The photographer was not being forced to publish or to endorse the ceremony, so why feel compromised? The prints if not the negatives become the property of the persons hiring the photographer. Is this a problem? I do not send a message if I am paid to photograph a subject. I am simply recording an event. If I do it for free then I might be seen to be tacitly endorsing it.
That said, I would not want someone taking photos for me of a personal nature who had such a visceral disgust for the subject.
That's how I see it at this moment. It's an interesting problem--a sticky one.
-
Viviane
Apples and Oranges - Jim Crow laws were laws originating with the state and local government, legislating the segregation.
So are the laws that were ruled on. Same thing.
If a JW refuses to work for a church because he does not want to be associated with them, isn't he discriminating because of religion?
Of course he is, but's not the same as having a business that is open to the public.
-
hybridous
Meh...either a person has freedom of association to exersice as they choose, or they don't.
I don't agree with discriminating against gays, but I do rather like the right to exclude toxic cultists from my life.
I don't see that applying the violence of government against someone with a shitty opinion is the best way to change minds.
Not to mention the dangerous notion that your right to your property merely hinges on popular opinion... -
Viviane
I don't agree with discriminating against gays, but I do rather like the right to exclude toxic cultists from my life.
This isn't about who your friends are, this is about having a business that is open to the public.
I don't see that applying the violence of government against someone with a shitty opinion is the best way to chamge minds.
No violence was involved.
-
hybridous
No business is 'open to the public'. It is a private and case-by-case undertaking.
No violence? Just what do you think is the bottom line when the government is involved? That is what the government is - organized violence. -
DJS
For a long time, many used religion as the basis for discriminating against blacks, and courts and judges for a while upheld such discriumination. So from what some of you are saying using religion to descriminate based on race is now un-acceptable but it is still acceptable to use relgion to discriminate based on sexual persuasion??? Or do you believe using relgion to discriminate against blacks, for example, is also still acceptable?
-
wearewatchingyouman
Hey, just make your job description your religion and you can do whatever you want.
No violence was involved
Anytime the government involves itself violence is involved. Violence is use, or the threat of, physical force or power. This is the business of government. make people fall in line under the threat of violence for not falling in line.