Reading mode: Light Dark

Gay Weddings

Go to last post
I understand what you mean.

But for example somene come in your office and ask to make a photos of slaughterhouse. Or as an "religious" example - muslim feast where they kill animals (I don't know how it is called in english, but there is one).

And you say: "I am sorry,I don'd want to. I don't like blood. I lose consciousness when I see a lot of blood".

And than they sue you, because of intoleranse/discrimination to butchers or to muslims.

I hope you understand how ridiculous this is.

It is very stupid to ask someone to do something (creative) againt his will. You can never get good results such way.

It is stupid to ask a photograph to make pictures in the plane or shots of parashute jumpers if he has aerophobia. It is better to ask ex-pilot or a parashute jumper.

This situation just shows, that gays are more intolerant to nongays as it is vice cersa.

So I am sure, that the whole situation was a 100% provocation from the very beginning.

They can forse christian to push the shutter button on the gay wedding, but I am 100% sure, that he (or she) will never make good shots.

And what is the next? Gays will sue photographers just because they think, that your photos of non-gay couple are better than what they got?
 
I am really sorry, that you have such customers in States.

There are a lot of a##holes in Russia to, but it is hard to believe that someone will spy you, to check if you really did not schedule anything on that date, and come with the lawer if you did.

For me all this lawer-based money wheedling out of everybody is almost the same sinful as murder.
 
ZAnton said:
I am really sorry, that you have such customers in States.

There are a lot of a##holes in Russia to, but it is hard to believe that someone will spy you, to check if you really did not schedule anything on that date, and come with the lawer if you did.

For me all this lawer-based money wheedling out of everybody is almost the same sinful as murder.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit that I am speaking of, some people are saying that the studio got set up and walked right into it, that is why I was wondering if anyone knows anthing else about it.
 
RDKirk said:
RDKirk said:
I always thought that you Yankie boyz cherished a democratic system that protected the individual (and minority) against a dictatoral majority.
Click to expand...
A. You read my reply 180 degrees wrong.

B. If I'm not mistaken, Britain also has laws, courts, and sheriffs with guns.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
re B -you are mistaken, we have courts & laws but our Sheriff's are only armed when hunting Pheasant etc.
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page29.asp
http://www.highsheriffs.com/Duties.htm
 
MrPhotoBob said:
ZAnton said:
... You also have to be careful telling them you are already booked that day when you are not. If you tell them that you are booked and then the bride finds out that you booked someone after them you better have a reason for it if she comes back on you with a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How would they know? Do the wedding announcements specify who the photographer is? I would say it would be highly unlikely unless you're in a very small town.

Or am I missing something obvious?
 
Hi RD,
RDKirk said:
Are you in Belgium also discussing whether a bank should be able to refuse service to Protestants or the Irish? Or, for that matter, homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Obviously, it's not allowed for a large organisation like a bank to discriminate like this. Very good point.

I don't know about the particular photographer. If he was a freelancer who works on his own (or with an assistant or even two), can you force him to do assignments that go against his principles ? Suppose there's an Indian product photographer and a restaurant asks him to make photos of a beef dish and he refuses because it's against his beliefs ? Could it also not be claimed that a devout Christian would refuse to work at a gay wedding, not because he dislikes the people or condemns them for their orientation (after all, everybody is free to do what they want), but because he considers a wedding to be a sacred agreement between a man and a woman ?

I realise that possibly, the photographer did it because he does discriminate against gays.

I also have to say that I have several gays as acquaintances and in my family and my liking of them is determined by their personality, not based on their orientation. I'm just trying to find out if, even with a valid argument, the photographer could still be forced to do work that goes against his principles, or to be fined in case he refuses. We should definitely enforce against discrimination, but not at the cost of forcing people to do things that go against their beliefs.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be
 
That has had issues with mr. sensitive.

He seems to make a lot of enemies, in his picture it appears not even his dog likes him. :)
MrPhotoBob said:
My fault, they deleted that page that had that thread that he posted on it, but you have to be very careful with him...
Click to expand...
 
Nurd50 said:
MrPhotoBob said:
ZAnton said:
... You also have to be careful telling them you are already booked that day when you are not. If you tell them that you are booked and then the bride finds out that you booked someone after them you better have a reason for it if she comes back on you with a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How would they know? Do the wedding announcements specify who the photographer is? I would say it would be highly unlikely unless you're in a very small town.

Or am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
In that situation, sometimes the way that it gets discovered is by a bride showing her pictures and talking about her wedding day with somoene else even at work and that someone says, "nice pictures, who photographed your wedding"? Then that person is telling somoene else how nice your pictures are and who the photographer was and all about the day of your wedding. And then that third person listens with her eyes wide open and her jaw dropped and puts two and two together. Now you have a problem.
 
Richard,

In bold type below is an exact quote from a personal message you sent to me. . How hypocritical can one be? Now I'm glad I never responded. Hmmm? Is that why you are posting this now? What a joke.

Have you ever seen someone and automaticly like them? I like you. No, I am not gay or in some perverted way. I think many people like people on sight because they had someone in their past that looked like them and have good memories of the relationship. So you may not like me but that doesn't mean we have to be enemies.
Richard said:
He seems to make a lot of enemies, in his picture it appears not even his dog likes him. :)
MrPhotoBob said:
My fault, they deleted that page that had that thread that he posted on it, but you have to be very careful with him...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
brent collins said:
Richard,

In bold type below is an exact quote from a personal message you sent to me. . How hypocritical can one be? Now I'm glad I never responded. Hmmm? Is that why you are posting this now? What a joke.

Have you ever seen someone and automaticly like them? I like you. No, I am not gay or in some perverted way. I think many people like people on sight because they had someone in their past that looked like them and have good memories of the relationship. So you may not like me but that doesn't mean we have to be enemies.
Click to expand...
I stand by my statement. I was trying to see if I could break through, maybe be able to have a dialog or maybe have you act in a friendly manner to me or anyone. But you continued down a path where you were just nasty to me and it appears to just about everyone else. I was just trying to be friendly to you and see if I could get you to open up but you would have none of it.

You make it impossible for me (or anyone else it appears) to have a reasonable let alone a friendly dialog with you.

You always lash out. You even post a private message I sent to you to try in someone make me look bad and then call me a hypocrite. I said we don't have to be enemies, I tried but again you make it impossible. I won't ignore you either because I believe we learn from others, but what you are teaching me right now is how not to treat others. I trully have tried, but as the other poster said, you are always defensive. Shields up, red alert, fire photon torpedo. I feel bad for you, I don't know what you went through as a child or are going through right now that might cause you to react this way to everyone but it is a pitty. You placed well in some challenges, you probably can add to the forum, but instead you always are in attack mode. I love a good debate, it causes you to think and it can get heated sometime but you always turn it to personal insults. Too bad too.
 
He was refering to law enforcment, and there was a time when bobbys didn't carry guns but that time is gone.
paul_kew said:
RDKirk said:
paul_kew said:
I always thought that you Yankie boyz cherished a democratic system that protected the individual (and minority) against a dictatoral majority.
Click to expand...
A. You read my reply 180 degrees wrong.

B. If I'm not mistaken, Britain also has laws, courts, and sheriffs with guns.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Click to expand...
re B -you are mistaken, we have courts & laws but our Sheriff's are only armed when hunting Pheasant etc.
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page29.asp
http://www.highsheriffs.com/Duties.htm
Click to expand...
 
Nurd50 said:
MrPhotoBob said:
ZAnton said:
... You also have to be careful telling them you are already booked that day when you are not. If you tell them that you are booked and then the bride finds out that you booked someone after them you better have a reason for it if she comes back on you with a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How would they know? Do the wedding announcements specify who the photographer is? I would say it would be highly unlikely unless you're in a very small town.

Or am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
Well, if you suspected that this person was refusing you on religious grounds, you might ask a straight couple to go in and inquire about that same date. If the photographer seemed eager for that business after turning down yous - well, you now know that you have been discriminated against.
 
Zeppo_marx said:
Nurd50 said:
MrPhotoBob said:
ZAnton said:
... You also have to be careful telling them you are already booked that day when you are not. If you tell them that you are booked and then the bride finds out that you booked someone after them you better have a reason for it if she comes back on you with a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How would they know? Do the wedding announcements specify who the photographer is? I would say it would be highly unlikely unless you're in a very small town.

Or am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
Well, if you suspected that this person was refusing you on religious grounds, you might ask a straight couple to go in and inquire about that same date. If the photographer seemed eager for that business after turning down yous - well, you now know that you have been discriminated against.
Click to expand...
From what I read on that lawsuit, the studeo actually told them that was the reason they were refusing to photograph them.
 
KEVZPHOTOS said:
RDKirk wrote:

I always thought that you Yankie boyz cherished a democratic system that protected the individual (and minority) against a dictatoral majority.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one of the reasons our founding fathers came to America, to get away from religious persicution. That included to have beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong and that we do not have to be around those people if we don't want to be. Now the Gov is dictating morality, just as England did before America wanted out from under her wing.
Member said:
Unfortunately, it seems that a large number of the right-wing religious Tea Bagger crowd...only want it to protect 'their' own religous ideology-freedoms, and nobody elses.
Click to expand...
Thats right, founding fathers came to protect "thier" religious freedoms, not those of the government. Now the government is dictating that religious people who think homosexuality is immoral are now being forced to accept it. That is a dictatorship if you ask me.
Member said:
Once again, it just clearly demonstrates a rigid, unflexible mindset... "If you don't agree with us...you are wrong" attitude...with no tolerance for anything that falls outside the bully-group ideology.
Click to expand...
The bully is the gov trying to dictate morality. They try to give minority status to a group of people because of the way they act in bed. If they did not tell people what they did in bed, then there would be no discriminations.
Member said:
In English we have a term for that - a thug ;)
Click to expand...
Liberals say they are tolerant but they are not tolerent to the religious beliefs of others if it goes againt their belief. Liberals are militant in their persuit of their agenda. It is self evident that if you do not agree with them, they will sue you. If someone does not want to serve me in a coffee shop or shoot my picture. That is fine, I give my money to someone else but if I were a liberal, I would be ready to attach to promote my agenda, who is the real thug?

If the tea party is defined by the way they act, should they not also be a minority and should be given minority status to make sure their free speech is also heardc even if it goes against the beliefs of the liberals?
 
brent collins said:
Richard,

In bold type below is an exact quote from a personal message you sent to me. . How hypocritical can one be? Now I'm glad I never responded. Hmmm? Is that why you are posting this now? What a joke.
Click to expand...
Brent, why do you have to waste the thread time dealing with your private message dispute? I really do not think that the people in here are interested in your private problems with others, but rather the subject matter. Personally, I feel that you should keep your private disputes just as they are....Private....
brent collins said:
Have you ever seen someone and automaticly like them? I like you. No, I am not gay or in some perverted way. I think many people like people on sight because they had someone in their past that looked like them and have good memories of the relationship. So you may not like me but that doesn't mean we have to be enemies.
Richard said:
He seems to make a lot of enemies, in his picture it appears not even his dog likes him. :)
MrPhotoBob said:
My fault, they deleted that page that had that thread that he posted on it, but you have to be very careful with him...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
so let me understand...you send me a private message asking if we can not be enemies and the you post a comment of criticism? How would you expect a person to reply. Actually I don't hate you or have a heated temper. You would have no clue since you only go by what you read and HOW YOU read it. Fact is you made a hypocritical statement and I called you on it. Why not just man up and admit it. Funny How Chato and I were once at such odds and then we were able to somehow become civil. Dave may recall the facts differently, but what did it for me was his ability to admit he was out of line on a certain accusation. I don't expect us to be pals, but we have since crossed paths without such animosity. You sent me a message and I chose not to reply, but I did refrain from commenting on ANY of your posts since reading you message. Without any clue of the respect I gave you, you lash out at me?

I'm a **** at times and I know it and will never change. Too bad the rest of you can't be as introspective and admit where you all fall short. That's the hypocrisy I see on these forums everyday. Does it make me mad like some THINK or ASSUME? Heck no, it either makes me sad or pushes me to get you all up in arms. Ultimately none of it matters since this is .00000000000001% of my life where some if not most sit at home and post all day or worse they use company time and do it from work.
 
Damn you Richard, now you go and make me agree with you. Go figure.
Richard said:
KEVZPHOTOS said:
RDKirk wrote:

I always thought that you Yankie boyz cherished a democratic system that protected the individual (and minority) against a dictatoral majority.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one of the reasons our founding fathers came to America, to get away from religious persicution. That included to have beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong and that we do not have to be around those people if we don't want to be. Now the Gov is dictating morality, just as England did before America wanted out from under her wing.
Richard said:
Unfortunately, it seems that a large number of the right-wing religious Tea Bagger crowd...only want it to protect 'their' own religous ideology-freedoms, and nobody elses.
Click to expand...
Thats right, founding fathers came to protect "thier" religious freedoms, not those of the government. Now the government is dictating that religious people who think homosexuality is immoral are now being forced to accept it. That is a dictatorship if you ask me.
Richard said:
Once again, it just clearly demonstrates a rigid, unflexible mindset... "If you don't agree with us...you are wrong" attitude...with no tolerance for anything that falls outside the bully-group ideology.
Click to expand...
The bully is the gov trying to dictate morality. They try to give minority status to a group of people because of the way they act in bed. If they did not tell people what they did in bed, then there would be no discriminations.
Richard said:
In English we have a term for that - a thug ;)
Click to expand...
Liberals say they are tolerant but they are not tolerent to the religious beliefs of others if it goes againt their belief. Liberals are militant in their persuit of their agenda. It is self evident that if you do not agree with them, they will sue you. If someone does not want to serve me in a coffee shop or shoot my picture. That is fine, I give my money to someone else but if I were a liberal, I would be ready to attach to promote my agenda, who is the real thug?

If the tea party is defined by the way they act, should they not also be a minority and should be given minority status to make sure their free speech is also heardc even if it goes against the beliefs of the liberals?
Click to expand...
 
Once again Brent, are you trying to kill this thread with your war of personal messages, please take your disputres back to instant messages so that it will not kill the thread. People may get tired of your private fight and leave the discussion.
 
Those who holler and preach tolerance are they themselves very intolerant..they don't practice what they preach. If you notice, all the lawsuits are those liberals who are suing those who do not agree with them. What if I was asked to shoot a gay couple marriage and I sued them for asking me because I disagree with them??? Toleration means to be tolerant no matter what the beliefs. Something the liberals and gay community fail to practice greatly. Yes I would give up my business license if I was sued to shoot a gay wedding that I refused. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for your principles. If you don't believe in something then that means you will fall for anything. In WV gay marriages are illegal and not recognized so I can't be sued for not doing something illegal.
 
Richard said:
Richard said:
I always thought that you Yankie boyz cherished a democratic system that protected the individual (and minority) against a dictatoral majority.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one of the reasons our founding fathers came to America, to get away from religious persicution. That included to have beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong and that we do not have to be around those people if we don't want to be. Now the Gov is dictating morality, just as England did before America wanted out from under her wing.
Click to expand...
All governments have a duty to uphold international law and human rights...which take precident over any local/domestic rules. You don't seem to have grasped the fact that WE (ie humans) are a collective global society...and that "human rights" as a whole apply to everyone across the board....these rules are decided by the international community together, and not by individual nations to act just how they want alone.

You seem to be living in a bygone era of right-wing sovereignty and all that associated stuff. One again, it's that old archaic "us versus them"...."right and wrong", "black or white" type mentality.

Sorry Richard, but we've had this conversation before. I don't want to live in your old fashioned, kind of world. I don't want your style of intolerant majority mob-rule.

WE need more GOVT, to prevent people like you from getting out of line, and ultimately creating an ultra right-wing, fascist based system.

KEV
--
http://kvincentphotography.ca/stackedimages
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top