Yes, there is. I could cite a dozen instances of violence against the right within the last month without effort. The reverse only happens, well, in inner city Chicago at 2am when it's 0 degrees. Right?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
’A punch in the gut’: Wedding videographer refuses business to same-sex couple in Colorado(article)
- Thread starter lbuclk=
- Start date
Now you've created some entirely arbitrary situation completely divorced from reality. There is zero (actually, negative) evidence to suggest such a scenario has ever occurred. Your hypothetical situation is nonsensical.
I asked you for SPECIFIC groups. You did not provide an answer. I'm forced to assume it's because providing specifics would allow for easy refutations of your position.
Let's hope not.
Good point. That's why one side has to stage attacks against itself to look credible. It's afraid of being exposed.
Who said it was? So far as I'm aware, no one here as given an opinion on marriage.
Being forced to do something = slavery.
Curtailing individual rights because someone feels bad isn't acceptable.
Another Goebbels. Bake that KKK cake.
(Please note: KKK members are idiots.)
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
I was trying a hypothetical because I find that to be a good way to examine individual aspects of an issue.
We start by examining a simple case. This gives us an idea of what we should consider and what factors are important.
Once we have looked at these, then we can see how it applies to real world situations.
I didn't specify a particular minority or group, because I don't think it should be a factor in the result.
This is an absurd conversation. The right is equally guilty of trying to silence their opponents.
And that's the entire problem in this country right now. The conversation is being run by the extremists on both sides and somewhere in the middle is the rest of the country trying to survive.
I really wish the far right and the far left would go away form the media, the internet, and forums like this.
Hypothetical is pointless. Name a specific situation and we can talk. Anybody can make up bizarro situations
Is that why you see Bernie Sanders supporters attacked everyday for wearing a Bernie hat? Oh, wait...
On this, we agree.
Wow. That's all Folks! nothing more to discuss.
Facts hurt, Jussie.
If you bring some, perhaps we'll know.
At least he didn't run over several people and kill one.
This is a debate about how society should operate. Few facts are available.
A situation decried by all and prosecuted. No one came to that person's defense.
This hate crime , however, got essentially zero news coverage. Wonder why?
ANYWAY.
I'm really trying to keep on topic. Hard. And this stuff has nothing to do with photography. Because we ALL agree (right?) that assault is wrong? Right?
This is the last reply to you. Assault is wrong; left, right or centre.
But your posts are still mental.
Of course my posts seem crazy to someone with little or no desire for individualism. That's not a surprise. Your inability to relate to my position is no reflection on the position itself, however.
No one deserves my labor. Free markets build the world.
I did some minor pruning to this thread. The topic necessarily involves politics, so I kept most of the posts. Where the conversation drifted to politics without relevance to photography or the original post, if there was a complaint, I deleted the post. Because of the way the software is written, any posts that were descendants of deleted posts are also deleted (or else they would be orphan posts).
It's silly that religion/marriage or one's personal beliefs even get a concession or consideration in the U.S. in the first place; if it did not, there wouldn't be an issue.
The Fed/State/local government shouldn't give your personal beliefs or marital status a consideration when it comes to policy, codes or law.
Marriage: That's your personal business until it crosses biological boundaries that are proven to give rise to genetic issues, such as marrying and having kids with your parent or sibling. Otherwise, if you want to marry your 2nd cousin, a blue person, or same-sex... that's your personal prerogative, and you should be able to do so without government interference. We have enough laws on the books that deal with divisions of property and child welfare/custody... "marriage" as a matter of law isn't of any consequence in reforming states to get out of the marriage game.
Taxes: Married or Single? So what... your tax exposure should be the same.
Military: No concessions on marriage or consideration on your personal preferences.
Agents of the Court: Wouldn't have to marry anyone because "marriage" would be relegated to being a "personal and private concept/union not recognized by any official U.S. regulatory agency or court".
Business License: ((pay attention here...)) If you're open to the general public, you either you serve the public or you lose your license. However, if you put yourself out there to serve only entities (such as other businesses) then that's ok as well (and common).
Photography, cake baking, etc.: No one can force you to make compelling "art", nor should they be able to however, there is a distinct difference between simply shooting a wedding or baking a cake, from designing a wedding/bridal-shoot or cake and that demarkation line is relatively simple to discern.
--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
The Fed/State/local government shouldn't give your personal beliefs or marital status a consideration when it comes to policy, codes or law.
Marriage: That's your personal business until it crosses biological boundaries that are proven to give rise to genetic issues, such as marrying and having kids with your parent or sibling. Otherwise, if you want to marry your 2nd cousin, a blue person, or same-sex... that's your personal prerogative, and you should be able to do so without government interference. We have enough laws on the books that deal with divisions of property and child welfare/custody... "marriage" as a matter of law isn't of any consequence in reforming states to get out of the marriage game.
Taxes: Married or Single? So what... your tax exposure should be the same.
Military: No concessions on marriage or consideration on your personal preferences.
Agents of the Court: Wouldn't have to marry anyone because "marriage" would be relegated to being a "personal and private concept/union not recognized by any official U.S. regulatory agency or court".
Business License: ((pay attention here...)) If you're open to the general public, you either you serve the public or you lose your license. However, if you put yourself out there to serve only entities (such as other businesses) then that's ok as well (and common).
Photography, cake baking, etc.: No one can force you to make compelling "art", nor should they be able to however, there is a distinct difference between simply shooting a wedding or baking a cake, from designing a wedding/bridal-shoot or cake and that demarkation line is relatively simple to discern.
--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
If you don't want to regulate marriage, then brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry.
If your concern is genetics then regulate fertilizing eggs. A brother and sister who are married can adapt, or use a sperm/egg donor to avoid genetic concerns.
Clearly there are no genetic concerns if two brothers marry each other.
The issue is households, and sharing of income. If one person is making $100K and the other zero, should their total tax burden be the same as two people making $50K each?
Currently we allow married people to pool their income. We don't allow two fiends to do the same.
If a married soldier is re-deployed to a different city, should the military help pay to move the spouse? If the soldier is not married, should the military pay to move a friend?
What about children of the soldier?
There are noticeable legal benefits to recognizing marriage. Suppose you get hurt, and are unable to make needed medical decisions. If the courts don't recognize marriage, then your spouse has no more right to take control than a neighbor.
Yes, these can issues can be handled via multiple legal documents, Power of Attorney. Living Wills, trust agreements, wills, etc. However that puts a burden on every married couple. It's far easier to have a standard set of rules, and to call it "marriage"
I'm not sure how this would work. Perhaps a racist wants to open a restaurant. Instead of serving the "general public", he decides he wants to serve only white people. Would that be allowed? If not, why not? He's not open to the general public.
Why would any business want to be open to the "general public" if that entails additional regulations.
How would you apply that demarcation to birthday cakes from the local grocery store? I doubt they are generally considered "compelling art", but there is certainly some level of creativity and skill involved. Even if it's as simple as what style/color/location to write "happy birthday", or where to plop down the little plastic Avengers, and how to pose them.
Should the local grocery store be able to refuse to use pink lettering on a birthday cake for a young boy? (perhaps they are worried that "pink" will encourage the boy to be a homosexual?)
I plainly and very distinctly covered that already, "until it crosses biological boundaries that are proven to give rise to genetic issues."
My concern isn't genetics, it's a concern of the government. If you want to marry your mom and have kids- knock yourself out. . . again.. I covered that already; plainly in fact.
There isn't. Again, I covered that already "... and having kids with your parent or sibling"
That tax burden is simple. If you make 0 (just like right now) then you get taxed 0. If you make $100k then you're taxed accordingly. Who cares who you're living with.. a piece of paper (marriage license) doesn't all the sudden throw common sense on its ear. Our existing laws cover such already.
If you're shagging your unemployed girlfriend, she doesn't pay taxes on monies she doesn't earn. Likewise if your spouse doesn't have income, then he or she doesn't pay tax on monies not earned. Too simple.
((sigh)) ... what has what to do with the price of tea? I plainly stated that there should be no concession for marriage or religion... which plainly means that if you can't pool income with your friend, then you wouldn't be able to pool income with a spouse that the U.S. doesn't even recognize as your spouse.. .he or she would be just another person just as a church would be just another income earning entity which would be generally taxed at the same rate, the same way, as other entities.
This is a text book example of why so many people need to see an attorney for things that have been spelled out in print or in contracts. I'm not being snarky but I've plainly answered your question before you asked it.
What about them? What about the children of employees that work in the oil fields, UPS, traveling salesmen, or over-the-road truckers? Your kids are your problem. If you can't have reasonable contingencies for your kids, then don't have them if you're in the military; so in plain English that = Be responsible or find another job which the military needs to enforce on several fronts but that's another thread.
That's what medical directives are for and responsible people use them. Non responsible people would be at the mercy of the physician, family or court... like so many medically related cases are today. Again, we already have law governing such so let's not make this harder than it is-not in the first place
Just because your married... that doesn't solidify economic safety when you have kids, own property, and or a business, etc.. a prudent person will DEFINITELY see an attorney and have other supporting paperwork. Marriage on its face alone isn't a guarantee for much of anything when it comes to having your ducks-in-a-row upon your death. Textbook false sense of security that has many families tangled in turmoil when a death occurs.
You DO know that such eateries, medical boutiques, etc.. forego being open to the general public and service a niche or particular demographic. I've done that (mostly) for years (I couldn't care less if you're blue, green or pink or married to three women or men); there are scores of physicians that are foregoing dealing with the typical public as well.
There are many professional photographers who won't think of shooting a wedding with a fat bride in a $400 dress, in a church with old musky, awfully lit interior.... but they don't extend an invitation to the public either.
Addition regulations? Where are you getting "additional" from? If you're a PRIVATE baby-sitter or in home day care who takes jobs via referrals, neither advertises publicly, nor has an open invitation to the public, then you have more latitude when it comes to being discriminant. Having a business license isn't the same as being open to the general public... just like having a law or medical license doesn't by default mean you do business with the public as a rule.
Deciding what colour, style, or location to write something isn't a skill and is something generally expected of anyone working in the bakery who has been trained in the cake section. Let's not get ridiculous; most of us know the difference between an artisan cake designer from the typical store girl making "designer" cakes.
See this at your local grocery? Most don't.
See this at your local grocery? Again.. most people do not.
... or this?
Cute, but not something I'd expect from an artisan cake maker's boutique ... would you?
Already answered several times: The local grocery serves the general public and offers a standing invitation to that public. A private, licensed (or unlicensed for that matter) business does not.
Regards
--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
Last edited:
Wedding photographers and cake makers operate public businesses, regardless of the level of their art. A private business would be one that is internal to another entity and therefore unlikely to run into this situation.
Unlicensed is illegal to begin with, so...
BTW, the reason marriage is differentiated is that it is an easily traceable relationship. There is literally a record of it.
So... same with kids making thousands who do not filing taxes for mowing lawns and babysitting, but that has no bearing on the relationship between a business extending an invitation to the public in contrast to those that do not.
There is no reason for the government to have a record of private relationships, especially since they don't keep a. "record" of the many unmarried unions and subsequent births from those unions that are common today..
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Actually they do track births from unmarried unions. Birth certificates list both a mother and a father.
A couple down the street never married, and had two children. The state was well aware of who the father was, his name was on the birth certificates. When the couple split up, the state was very concerned that the children would be properly taken care of. The courts became involved over the issue of child support, even though the couple was never married.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum