There is only conflict here because you're insisting that your definitions trump someone else's. Everyone has a right to couple up and be recognized. Marriage, i in the eyes of the state, is between two people. In other words religion(s) are no longer the defining characteristic of matrimony, people are.
I can't make you see that and don't mind if you don't see that but that is root.
Yeah, wait a minute. I was under the impression that gay couples wanted their nuptials to be recognized by the state. You're of the party that doesn't want the state to do so because of your religious(moral) beliefs, no? So, in effect, you want to force your views on the state elevating your views above those of other individuals.
This country is supposedly about the freedom of the individual and yet... here you are trying to wave the stick of "the majority". You're being a bully and using a religious majority to help swing your stick.
The point of all this is the not you nor your religious majority should ever, ever be allowed to steer much less dictate the fates and choices of individuals.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
This seems a lot like the proverbial shoe being on the other foot.
So, after eons of kicking, spitting, killing, maiming and discriminating against gays or those perceived as gay, folks are pissy? Where "folks" equates to anyone who may have had the tendency to use the term "those gays"? Folks that have been comfortable because they were "protected" in their bigotry and now... yeah, step it up.
I hear you, loud and clear, so yes, "really". Defend yourself. Not everyone can be a grown up, clearly, and there are strides to be made in every direction.
Ken is not right and he's not wrong, he's lashing out against what was once a very acceptable position at several different levels. Here he is a petulant man who is loosing some power over others that he may have once held that was supported and reinforced by like-minded folks. The seeds of hatred.
The photographer is not in the wrong, just to be clear, however, if there was a remote possibility that this photographer's BUSINESS could place another photographer into position that was not "religiously bound" and still refused to do so only then would she not have a defensible position. As it was, the couple is demanding this very photographer which makes them the hateful bigots here. Morally indefensible on their part. In this I think we agree.
And, yes, I believe that discrimination is not moral. Using religion to defend discrimination is not moral. Lashing out at these observations is petty and a loosing proposition. Those actions are not made of "free will" but rather introduced by indoctrination and as such are learned behaviors,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Batshit! Open up, you're allowed. Self-censorship is half overrated anyway and I can see you're only half-way there.
I admit that I was taken a little back by the firm determination of morality, however, with regards to discrimination it is, in fact, not a moral thing.
And, for the record, you called Mr. Karl skewed and clumsy, sure he weighted his views with his beliefs in the matter but you just sort of fired off like an angry fucking lunatic (and yes, I'm quite sure they procreate because I, typically, am one). Karl made me think, you made me type this batch of nonsense.
Since you clearly did try to respond how about a little something something about why you seem to think that discrimination is a moral thing. Or did that particular church pamphlet not make it to the printer?
Are you not your living God? Step it up a little bit.
Whoa, whoa, easy there big guy. You played your hand and gave the ace you were holding to the guy sitting across the table that you were playing with. You brought your position and debunked it in the same, short post.
Clearly America is much more complex that you've allowed yourself to believe.
Ah, yes, however the chef's art as a service is not contingent upon an interaction with the eater. That's why I inserted cooking homosexuals as the chef would, definitely, be required to interact at that point. "I refuse to cook gay people." is quite different than "I refuse to cook for gay people.". This type of analogy seems a clear misrepresentation/misdirection away from the type of service we're trying to refer to which is an interactive service with little to no control over the setting. And so on.
mhrm.. I thought that was the actual cooking & plating part. No? I would think that it's out of the norm for an establishment's cook to know who, exactly, his dish is for anyway. And nobody here is cooking homosexuals for that matter. I don't think this entire thread has a single applicable analogy. Everyone seems oddly stuck on the service perspective. ... Perhaps with good reason but I'm not seeing it.
Maybe a masseuse? I will rub you even if you're gay but I'm not going to rub you and your partner together. ? Yeah?
I think, and I may have this wrong, that because the photographer did not take the work AND stated why that the argument is that the photographer MUST take the work or be held to account for their apparent discrimination against gay people. I, personally, think that the photographer is not, in fact, discriminating against gay people but against gay people being, somewhat intimately, gay.
I think the argument, at the basest level, is that if one offers services, photography in this case, than one must offer any and all services to homosexual persons that would, normally, be offered to heterosexual persons. My first impression was "of course you have to offer the same services" until I realized that, wait, that means they'd have to observe and document what they're seeing and what they're seeing is not "a gay person" but "a gay person's life choices". I cannot quite see how they are one and the same and that there is, perhaps, a delicate line here between tolerance and acceptance.
I saw no clear distinction separating art from wedding photography, at all. All rocking chairs are not created equally.
The photog needs to insert himself, observe his subjects and facilitate the execution of his trade. He can not "unsee" gay intimacy.
In this case she will need to observe, intimately, exactly that thing that she finds objectionable. That is she'll not be simply observing gay people but gay people expressing their love for each other. That would apply to not only the couple but I would surmise that other gay couples would be in attendance as well. Something for everybody - Combat photography. The situation will by no means be under her control and she can not simply look away.
The essence of this case, for me, is that an individual stands the chance of being told what they can and cannot see as it pertains to their own human experience. There is no inherent opportunity for the individual to simply "pass by" the "crime scene" as they will have been forced to take part in it - Combat photography.
This is not, necessarily, discrimination of gay people so much as discrimination of gay "lifestyle". She would need to insert herself into a position that consists of observing other people's life choices, vis-a-vis intimacy.
This photographer's position is, given the circumstances, a rather respectable one in that she seems to be tolerant of the existence of gay people and will take their portraits willingly. The argument that consists of "She's a photographer therefore she must take pictures of gay weddings." seems, frankly, authoritarian. i.e. "Not only must you provide service to these people but you must provide service to these people in their intimate settings."
I hold that one can, indeed, discriminate against lifestyle while at the same time not discriminate against individuals. It seems a clear difference between tolerance and acceptance. The former can be legislated the latter will forever be a choice.
If the court ultimately decides to go your way I'll be pretty comfortable with the knowledge that they will not have chosen wisely and this solely due to the fact that the "goods" are produced through the eye of the observer. Photography is not a rocking chair and photography is not lunch.
Behold! Forthwith you shall see what I have seen! ... yeah, still no.
The photographer, to produce a photograph, must see the objects being pictured. What the photographer sees results in photographs so in this sense yes, seeing is saying.
Photography is the service. The photographs? Those say a thousand words. :O) No?
A photograph of marriage is the photographer speaking, yes. The expression of speech of the people being married is the marriage. The photographer, obviously, has no bearing on the speech of the marriage. The couple would like the photographer to speak so that they, the couple, may reminisce over the beginning of their marriage, with the photographer's photographs.