This will continue to get murkier in the future.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Downhill fast, people. Time for closing statements...

+1

It's been generally informative and mostly civilized - good times.
Thanks for the chance to share ideas.

maybe I should dust-off my camera and go outside.........

Originally Posted by DavidTO Pedophiles are not a protected class. It is a totally different kettle of fish. And yes, bringing up pedophilia in the same breath as same sex marriage is offensive. To me, at least.

And to me.

Originally Posted by Demian Seriously Sam? Firing a parting shot at someone bowing out of the thread? That's really lame dude.

WHAT PARTING SHOT!!!! I wanted her to stay. She voiced her reasons for leaving and I respect that.

[QUOYE]Re the pedophile thing, that is a weak comparison on many levels. First, it's a different country and culture. We don't worry about apostasy becoming a capital offense here just because it is in iran. Second, homosexuality is not a disability, it does not hurt anyone, so comparing it to a crime against children is (unsurprisingly) inaccurate and offensive.[/QUOTE]

Please.....I had nothing to do with that post!!

To Sam and the others saying this is just a respectful debate - it is not. How often is a christian photographer troubled by gay marriages? Not very often. LGBT face everything from minor discrimination to physical abuse on a daily basis. While you guys rage on forums about theoretical rights, these couples are trying to make it work with handicaps you never imagined.

I and others have said this has been respectful debate, and I stand by that 100% You misunderstand what disagreement is and don't seem to believe a different view can be voiced while being polite and respectful.

It's easy to "agree to disagree" when the situation heaps a host of injustices on your opposition and only one inconvenience on yourself. And yes, potentially having to work someday for a client you disagree with is an inconvenience.

NO! This is not an easy subject for those who are trying to be honest and forthcoming. Attempts to maximize equal rights, is damn hard.

[QUOTE}And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.[/QUOTE]

LOL, Many feel just like Glort and I do understand your feelings. Personally if he and I ever met and had a couple of bears I think it could easily end with fists. That said I'm not all that politically correct or Mr. sensitive although I do try to be polite and nice especially on line I really do despise tough talk behind the keyboard. All that said let me tell you what I do like about Glort..............there is NO question about where he is or what his views are. No Politically correct namby pamby stuff.

I also understand those who object to how he presents his argument and understand if you want to tune him out.

Forgive me if this comes out garbled - I typed it on my phone

I think the garbled part is....................ah.....forget it.

Sam

Sorry Sam, I did not mean to imply you had anything to do with that post. I was trying to address several people, but am having a hard time multi quoting on my phone.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[

Originally Posted by Demian And finally, I'm sick of glort's inane, homophobic rants. I know y'all probably are too, but somebody had to say it.

Tough.
I'm as entitled to my opinion and position as you are.
But like I said, I'm a bigot or racist or a homophobe or whatever it is that the perpetually offended choose to label anyone that disagrees with their Point of view which of course is always the only right one anybody can have. Never fails.

Funny you haven't been able to put forward a single point to address or refute what I have said though.


Ironically, I got an application for a model job I advertised this afternoon from a very overtly gay ( or whatever the hell they are) Lesbian. Makes quite a fuss about her proclivities in her portfolio. Why she even applied for the role is beyond me but I certainly have my gaurd up ATM.

First thing I thought of is this thread. For all the bleeding hearts, don't worry, I'll respect her rights and won't be getting myself into the chitfight the shooter at the centre of this story got herself into.
I'll be careful not to say anything like I am not interested in working with people that have a demonstrated history of making life hard for others or where one has to watch every word they say around them in case they say the wrong thing.
I won't comment on the fact she looks more like a bloke than a girl nor anything else that could get me in trouble.

Unfortunately the role has already been filled and I am no longer looking for anyone.
Sorry.

Originally Posted by Eia Although the ruling on this appeal was unanimous, Judge James J. Wechsler wrote separately to point out that Elane had failed to raise a potentially valid argument under a different sentence in the New Mexico Constitution. Elane had focused its defense on the provision banning compelled participation in religious ceremonies, but, wrote Judge Wechsler, "the language of Article II, Section 11 that to me captures Elane Photography's religious freedom position is the first sentence, stating that 'every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience' and prohibiting the denial of any 'privilege on account of his religious opinion. This language, which focuses on a person's freedom to act in accordance with one's conscience concerning one's religious opinion or worship, seems broader than the First Amendment alnguage that focuses on preventing federal laws that 'prohibit' a person's free exercise of religion," he continued. However, since Elane had not expressly raised this at trial, and it would be presenting a question of "first impression" for New Mexico courts, Judge Wechsler pointed out that it was appropriate for the court to refrain from considering it on this appeal, commenting that "determination of its cope remains for another day."

At least the Judge recognized the photog's rights for something! It's as if to say we will save this for a rainy day!

Let's see -- we have a few Muslims suing a Catholic University because they cannot find a place to pray due to all the crosses hanging every where (human rights violation) -- and then there is the Christian wedding cake decorator in the same situation as this photographer...but she was kind and had a long discussion with the homosexual couple so they are 'thinking' about suing her, or not... might be harder in a different state though... (another human rights violation). I don't think it's over... And I'm not about bashing another religion or lifestyle just because one's conscience is not in agreement with another.

My parting shot

I am a Christian I try hard to live my life daily as a Christian. I personally thing that Homosexuality is wrong (hence I will never participate) BUT!!! it is not my place to make a judgement against them or anyone(with the exception of serving on a jury), I do have friends that are in same sex relationships they are my friends because they are good people.

I do have a same sex ceremony to shoot in November and I will do the same job that I would do for anyone.

No matter how hard we as Photographers try to be inconspicuous at a weeding we are participants and I don't think we should be forced to participate in something we don't believe in.

If I am approached by a couple that is abusive to each other I will not participate.

I do find one thing sad is the way some take opinions to far and label others because of their beliefs.

Parting words

I will apologize again for people taking offense to the new roll-play I introduced to the thread. It was meant to be for the sake of the argument not comparing the two lifestyles.

Who would have thought that 85 years ago we would ride on the same bus today, or drink from the same water fountain or women could vote today. Who would have thought 25 years ago we would be arguing about same sex marraige. So what about another 25 or 50 years from now, what will the argument be for that generation? That was my point to the disability argument.

I have my on own core beliefs and will stand by them but I do not judge someone elses lifestyle. I truly do not want anyone judging mine. It would not end well for me.

Thank you for the insight and great topic.

Originally Posted by williaes Before long a photographer will not be able to turn away a pedophilia shoot because it will be a disability and that will be discrimination. O'wait it is a disability in Greece. Dont believe me....look it up. The Government has ruled it as a disability and subject to disability pay. So in a few years dont say no or you could be in trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/furor-greece-o...174002476.html

What happens in Greece stays in Greece. This here, pard, is the good ole' U-S-of-A.

And here in the USA, there is a difference between "homosexual" and "pedophile". Allow me to try to explain it to you:

One is a person whose sexual proclivities are legal and harm no-one, so long as they are practiced between consenting adults.

The other is a person whose sexual proclivites are illegal, because they are violent, and devastatingly harmful to the persons on whom they are performed, by force. Said practices can NOT, by definition, be performed between consenting adults, since they involve minor children who cannot legally give consent to such practices. In point of fact, said practices are, at there heart, violent crimes against children.

So, how is it that you see them as even remotely similar enough to compare them?

Originally Posted by WillCAD So, how is it that you see them as even remotely similar enough to compare them?

Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal.

I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal.

If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.

Originally Posted by Glort Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal. I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal. If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.

I think you misunderstand the conversation, Glort. Williaes was not talking about discriminating against people who may have been accused or convicted of pedophilia, he was talking about pedophilia shoots, which is quite a different thing and is highly illegal in the US. It's called child pornography, and will send you to prison for a very long time. Hence, the mere suggestion that US laws protecting homosexual people from discrimination and abuse might be extended to force photographers to unwillingly engage in pedophilia shoots is ludicrous on its face

Originally Posted by Glort Because in some parts of the world those that participate in either practice have legal rights even if the practice itself is illegal. I believe even in the land of the perfect, burglars and even murderers have legal rights even if what they do is Illegal. If you can't or more over, don't want to get your head round that, Then I guess your position will be correct and everyone else's wrong.

I think you are out of context here. We're talking about whether or not a small business can deny you service. That's the main point of discussion here.

Walk into a business and say "I indulged in homosexuality the other day". ...Then walk into another and say "I indulged in pedophilia the other day".

One will get you some weird looks but CANNOT get you denied service, ...the other will get your ass in prison hopefully.

=Matt=

Sheesh! You guys stopped discussing the original content about 5 pages ago.

Too many people here just don't know when to zip it and move on.

Originally Posted by Jamesbjenkins Sheesh! You guys stopped discussing the original content about 5 pages ago. Too many people here just don't know when to zip it and move on.

Nice bump! It had been 10, count 'em, 10 days since the last post.


"The man who can't dance thinks the band is no good"
European proverb

Originally Posted by Earache Nice bump! It had been 10, count 'em, 10 days since the last post. "The man who can't dance thinks the band is no good" European proverb

I wouldn't post except it's already at the top. It is time this was put to sleep. It be done! Over! Finesse! Kaput! Everybody has chosen a side and are hunkered down. No one left in the middle between the trenches.

Let's go for a record, say at least a year.

Sam

Originally Posted by Sam I wouldn't post except it's already at the top. It is time this was put to sleep. It be done! Over! Finesse! Kaput! Everybody has chosen a side and are hunkered down. No one left in the middle between the trenches. Let's go for a record, say at least a year. Sam

That was my point.

wow - kind of weird

I think it's mostly due to the fact that it's in the United States of America, the land of free that has more lawyers than doctors.

More often than not, people are in other strangers' business quite too frequently (just like US international affairs), and people will not hesistate for a nanosecond before suing one another.

Gay, lesbian, colored, or disabled... its usually the generation(s) of the past that stirs up ruckus about these silly issues.
As for pedophiles, they're criminals much like a bank robber or a terrorist, therefore should be put away.
Or better yet, unlike the current judicial system that's concerned with the moral issues of punishment by death, implement a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy.
That'll weed out the habitual criminals, real quick.

Originally Posted by babowc I think it's mostly due to the fact that it's in the United States of America, the land of free that has more lawyers than doctors. More often than not, people are in other strangers' business quite too frequently (just like US international affairs), and people will not hesistate for a nanosecond before suing one another. Gay, lesbian, colored, or disabled... its usually the generation(s) of the past that stirs up ruckus about these silly issues. As for pedophiles, they're criminals much like a bank robber or a terrorist, therefore should be put away. Or better yet, unlike the current judicial system that's concerned with the moral issues of punishment by death, implement a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy. That'll weed out the habitual criminals, real quick.

A lot of states have the 3 strike laws...and it has not slowed down the habitual criminals at all... ... ...