a question about gay weddings:

[Grapesoda]

have you guys seen this story:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...-weddings.html

I wonder how this would have played out had the refusing photographer been a Muslim.... thoughts on that? discuss...

[Stephen]

"Your heart can belong to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!"

The government has always drawn a line between beliefs and practices, but as a guy that's shot on the order of 1,400 weddings over the years, I would not want to be in a position to shoot something "whether I like it or not."

Someone will be "forced" to do this work under the law.
Let them do an uncharacteristically shitty job, then sue because of the harm these bad pics did to their business and the emotional and financial damage they suffered as a result.

This isn't a story about gay rights or religious freedom, it's pure insanity.

[Grapesoda]

to me this is like going to a museum restaurant and ordering pork chops.... get refused and sue..

[suesheboy]

Your racism and prejudice is showing again.

You would think being exposed to people of all kinda of preferences here would have mellowed you out.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

to me this is like going to a museum restaurant and ordering pork chops.... get refused and sue..

Why would you go to "a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited" and attempt to order food?








.

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Why would you go to "a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited" and attempt to order food?

The MOMA in NY has great food.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by suesheboy

Your racism and prejudice is showing again.

You would think being exposed to people of all kinda of preferences here would have mellowed you out.

I didn't go to collage... is that a yes or a no?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Why would you go to "a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited" and attempt to order food?








.

spell check: Muslim

[Fetish Gimp]

The photographer has the business savvy of a brick.

Instead of simply saying "sorry, we're already booked and can't do your wedding" they said "sorry, we don't do gay weddings because same-sex marriage is wrong".

Originally Posted by article

Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn't shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage.

Now change "gay/same sex" for "interracial".

As the court stated:

Originally Posted by article

In the court's view, saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers.

And lastly, see where the story is being posted: christianitytoday.com which would indicate a bias is at work.

Reading comprehension is a skill sadly in decline.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

The photographer has the business savvy of a brick.

Instead of simply saying "sorry, we're already booked and can't do your wedding" they said "sorry, we don't do gay weddings because same-sex marriage is wrong".



Now change "gay/same sex" for "interracial".

As the court stated:


And lastly, see where the story is being posted: christianitytoday.com which would indicate a bias is at work.

Reading comprehension is a skill sadly in decline.

the story began in 2004 and is available at many news sources, and yes she didn't play it correctly... quote a high price or booked up would have been the way to go... however you didn't address the question I asked: had this be a Muslim photographer would the results have been different? I think yes myself

[Tofu]

Christianity Today, eh?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Tofu

Christianity Today, eh?

feel better now??

http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/5537

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/ela...anessa-willock

[_Richard_]

yea, those bigots should totally pick and choose who they do business with.

if they can leave all their business details, along with their extended families, we can deal with this the hard way.

[JFK]

"Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage."

splitting hairs

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

yea, those bigots should totally pick and choose who they do business with.

if they can leave all their business details, along with their extended families, we can deal with this the hard way.

what are you talking about? the question is would the outcome had been different, had it been a Muslim photographer... are you able to formulate any thoughts along that line?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JFK

"Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage."

splitting hairs

my feeling is the couple targeted a Christian photographer to start a media firestorm... so are you able to comment on the question: would it had been different with as Muslim photographer turning the couple down?

I think the case would have been dumped due to 'cultural sensitivity' i.e. all religions are equal except Christianity

[Fetish Gimp]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

the story began in 2004 and is available at many news sources, and yes she didn't play it correctly... quote a high price or booked up would have been the way to go... however you didn't address the question I asked: had this be a Muslim photographer would the results have been different? I think yes myself

You mean that if the photographer had been Muslim in this case the court would have ruled that he/she had the right to refuse shooting a gay wedding?

Sure.

And maybe the Rapture could have happened right then and all pure Christians would have gone to Heaven leaving the degenerate sodomites and pornographers and other unworthy scum to battle it out against the Hordes of Satan.

Or Jesus Christ may have come back and said "listen assholes, I said love one no matter what, not behave like selfish fuckwits intolerant cunts" and damned all false Christians to Hell.

Or the court would have ruled the exact same way it did if the photographer would have been Muslin, Black, Chinese, Buddhist, Atheist.

Since we're talking about "ifs" here

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

my feeling is the couple targeted a Christian photographer to start a media firestorm... so are you able to comment on the question: would it had been different with as Muslim photographer turning the couple down?

I think the case would have been dumped due to 'cultural sensitivity' i.e. all religions are equal except Christianity

Would the Muslim photographer be wearing an outfit in keeping with his religious beliefs ? I would say the decision would of been different, he would have been allowed to say hell NO

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

You mean that if the photographer had been Muslim in this case the court would have ruled that he/she had the right to refuse shooting a gay wedding?

Sure.

And maybe the Rapture could have happened right then and all pure Christians would have gone to Heaven leaving the degenerate sodomites and pornographers and other unworthy scum to battle it out against the Hordes of Satan.

Or Jesus Christ may have come back and said "listen assholes, I said love one no matter what, not behave like selfish fuckwits intolerant cunts" and damned all false Christians to Hell.

Or the court would have ruled the exact same way it did if the photographer would have been Muslin, Black, Chinese, Buddhist, Atheist.

Since we're talking about "ifs" here

trying to insult a non Christian with Christian mythology
FAIL

I do believe with the courts the way there are today, a Muslim photographer would have gotten a walk

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JFK

Would the Muslim photographer be wearing an outfit in keeping with his religious beliefs ? I would say the decision would of been different, he would have been allowed to say hell NO

yes and if a gay photographer had passed on a shoot doing a Nazi or KKK wedding they would get a walk as well... BUT I'm sure all the haters here at GFY would agree with that BECAUSE those people are bigots and do NOT have equal rights under the law

how you liking the d800? I went back to my d3x... what a Cadillac of cameras that baby is, not for low light though for sure...

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

yes and if a gay photographer had passed on a shoot doing a Nazi or KKK wedding they would get a walk as well... BUT I'm sure all the haters here at GFY would agree with that BECAUSE those people are bigots and do NOT have equal rights under the law

how you liking the d800? I went back to my d3x... what a Cadillac of cameras that baby is, not for low light though for sure...

still like the 800, but....... winking at the D4 , not that I really need it.. BUT

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by JFK

still like the 800, but....... winking at the D4 , not that I really need it.. BUT

I sold my d4 and recommend not getting the d4... 18 MP doesn't get it after the d800. wait on the d4x

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I sold my d4 and recommend not getting the d4... 18 MP doesn't get it after the d800. wait on the d4x

THANKS, for the advice, I wasnt sure what was new on the horizon. Shot the airshow this past weekend, just wanted something a bit faster

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

what are you talking about? the question is would the outcome had been different, had it been a Muslim photographer... are you able to formulate any thoughts along that line?

i am.

however, why would i bother, when the creed of the person running the wedding photograph business.. would be irrelevant?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i am.

however, why would i bother, when the creed of the person running the wedding photograph business.. would be irrelevant?

wow that's confusing... how about this, say you were a wedding photographer, would photography a Nazi wedding?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

wow that's confusing... how about this, say you were a wedding photographer, would photography a Nazi wedding?

what is confusing?

if you own a business, that caters to the public, but only 'parts of the public you agree with', that's discrimination.

and very much illegal.

So you can create scenarios till your blue in the face, but the result isn't going to change

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Sad that a photographer's religious belief compels them to refuse to take wedding photos for a gay couple. I probably would have simply gone to another photographer. Zillions of great wedding photographers out there...













80 year old Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, officiating at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.

The music and decorations are usually better at gay weddings...



ADG

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what is confusing?

if you own a business, that caters to the public, but only 'parts of the public you agree with', that's discrimination.

and very much illegal.

So you can create scenarios till your blue in the face, but the result isn't going to change

that's makes sense in some ways I guess. I just remember seeing the sign at places 'we reserve the right to refuse service' you ever see one of those before? personally my feeling is that the shooter said no as a political statement and was punished for that... not sure if that's really the right way to go and I'm very sure had the photographer been Muslim the Judge would have sided with the photographer on the 'cultural sensitivity'... you don't see it that way?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Sad that a photographer's religious belief compels them to refuse to take wedding photos for a gay couple. I probably would have simply gone to another photographer. Zillions of great wedding photographers out there...

80 year old Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, officiating at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.[/SIZE]

The music and decorations are usually better at gay weddings...



ADG

I agree and also think even Christians have the rights to their way of life and beliefs, which is VERY unpopular here at GFY, had the photographer been Muslim this would not have happened or had the photographer been asked to shoot a KKK wedding this would not have happened. we have equal rights however some have more equal rights than others

a gay couple lives in the guest house on the estate I live on, however you would never know they are gay unless you knew them and where they lived... and they think Obama sucks BTW and also BTW it's sad that a person is punished for their religious beliefs here in the land of the free

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

that's makes sense in some ways I guess. I just remember seeing the sign at places 'we reserve the right to refuse service' you ever see one of those before? personally my feeling is that the shooter said no as a political statement and was punished for that... not sure if that's really the right way to go and I'm very sure had the photographer been Muslim the Judge would have sided with the photographer on the 'cultural sensitivity'... you don't see it that way?

no, i don't

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I agree and also think even Christians have the rights to their way of life and beliefs, which is VERY unpopular here at GFY, had the photographer been Muslim this would not have happened or had the photographer been asked to shoot a KKK wedding this would not have happened. we have equal rights however some have more equal rights than others

Cheer up Buttercup!

At least you got to live most of your life while there was a conservative white majority in America.



ADG

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

At least you got to live most of your life while there was a conservative white majority in America.



ADG

yes, right on track. no sympathy for anything other than you opinion I see... I'm going with bigot

[slapass]

Why pretend to be booked up or quote a high price? It is work. Some work you like and that is cool and some sucks shit. That is why you get paid. I do not like ginger's and wouldn't be a fan of shooting a ginger wedding but should i quote them a higher price? That is against the law in most places.

Folks put whatever you like in there for gay. Get used to it, you can no longer discriminate against gays. So what? Suck it up.

[Jel]

no idea what the law is in the UK for this, but I sure as fuck hope it isn't the same as the usa.

outlawing bigotry - wtf next lol. thought police in action, yo!

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Sad that a photographer's religious belief compels them to refuse to take wedding photos for a gay couple. I probably would have simply gone to another photographer. Zillions of great wedding photographers out there...

ADG

Whats so sad about it? Does everyone has to embrace gay stuff and its some sort of rule now? The whole gay shit is getting ridiculous. People who look for tolerance forgot how to tolerate other beliefs. Some bitch goes to play Basketball for Baptist University with strict rules and then bitches about not being able to walk around in her rainbow flag. 10 year old "gender confused" kid wants to start using girls bathroom and everyone should be OK with it. What about 200 other girls in that school who will be confused and asking mommy why its ok for a boy in the wig to piss there?
What happened to god old "no shoes, no shirt, no service" principle? She doesn't want to take pictures of gay dudes kissing each other and its her right. Go find yourself gay photographer and move on with your life. Noooo, instead they put on their drama queen outfit and scream discrimination. Now in addition to race cards we have gay cards to play.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Now in addition to race cards we have gay cards to play.

Collect them all!









ADG

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Collect them all!









ADG

you missed out 'white idiot majority card'

'this is the group that will chop its nose off, to spite their faces, in support of people they don't even like!'

[Fetish Gimp]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

She doesn't want to take pictures of gay dudes kissing each other and its her right.

No it isn't. She's running a business, which means that like all other businesses it must abide and follow rules and regulations set forth, one of which is the anti-discrimination law which was at the center of the lawsuit.

Playing by rules and regulations is part of the social contract, same as paying taxes which fund shared services like firemen, policemen, aqueducts which bring running water to your home, etc.

On the other hand, if she was invited to the wedding she would be free to refuse. But as a BUSINESS she can't refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation.

As for the straw-man argument of the "no shirt-no service", that's a dress code. Difference is that you CAN get service, you simply have to wear a shirt, something which you have power over, and why "you black - no service" is not because you can't change your skin cool.

Unless you're Michael Jackson of course

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I sold my d4 and recommend not getting the d4... 18 MP doesn't get it after the d800. wait on the d4x

No man, I have a D4 and it kicks ass

MP isn't everything: the sensors are the same (full) size, but squeezing more pixels into the same size chip makes each pixel "less than" what it could otherwise be.

I just spent some time photographing wolves in the full moonlight at Yellowstone (pics on another board) and I couldn't have gotten many of my shots without the D4's low light capability.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by slapass

Why pretend to be booked up or quote a high price? It is work. Some work you like and that is cool and some sucks shit. That is why you get paid. I do not like ginger's and wouldn't be a fan of shooting a ginger wedding but should i quote them a higher price? That is against the law in most places.

Folks put whatever you like in there for gay. Get used to it, you can no longer discriminate against gays. So what? Suck it up.

I shoot gay, straight, tranny and in-between so I'm in total agreement with you, work is work... HOWEVER not many straight producers will shoot gay, if any... other than me

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

definite gay bashing your posted the word fag, hate filled bigot

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Jel

no idea what the law is in the UK for this, but I sure as fuck hope it isn't the same as the usa.

outlawing bigotry - wtf next lol. thought police in action, yo!

new speak... 1984!!!!

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Wha People who look for tolerance forgot how to tolerate other beliefs. .

this is what I keep pointing out... over and over and over... these guys are total creeps for sure... only who they decide have rights, only the groups they pick have rights, tolerate everyone except who they decide don't deserve it.... they are so fucking bigoted it's a joke. and they refuse to see it

[epitome]

I am just wondering why these people wanted that photographer so bad. Is the photographer great and in high demand?

If I were getting married I would want a photographer that does want to work for me in hopes that they will put more effort into their work.

I can think of probably a half dozen professional photographers that I know peripherally that would love to shoot my wedding.

Wondering how this ever became a case. Are they trying to prove a point?

I just want the right to get married. I do not demand the right to be able to get married in a Catholic church and I do not want to hire people that despise me when the majority doesn't.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

No it isn't. She's running a business, which means that like all other businesses it must abide and follow rules and regulations set forth, one of which is the anti-discrimination law which was at the center of the lawsuit.

Playing by rules and regulations is part of the social contract, same as paying taxes which fund shared services like firemen, policemen, aqueducts which bring running water to your home, etc.

On the other hand, if she was invited to the wedding she would be free to refuse. But as a BUSINESS she can't refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation.

As for the straw-man argument of the "no shirt-no service", that's a dress code. Difference is that you CAN get service, you simply have to wear a shirt, something which you have power over, and why "you black - no service" is not because you can't change your skin cool.

Unless you're Michael Jackson of course

good points EXCEPT had the photographer been Muslim, the gays would have been tossed out of court, I guarantee that...

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

No it isn't. She's running a business, which means that like all other businesses it must abide and follow rules and regulations set forth, one of which is the anti-discrimination law which was at the center of the lawsuit.

Playing by rules and regulations is part of the social contract, same as paying taxes which fund shared services like firemen, policemen, aqueducts which bring running water to your home, etc.

On the other hand, if she was invited to the wedding she would be free to refuse. But as a BUSINESS she can't refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation.

As for the straw-man argument of the "no shirt-no service", that's a dress code. Difference is that you CAN get service, you simply have to wear a shirt, something which you have power over, and why "you black - no service" is not because you can't change your skin cool.

Unless you're Michael Jackson of course

Bullshit. She is running PRIVATE venture and reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Ever see that on the door of 7-11 or a restaurant? Imagine some porn star in see thru shirt and ass hanging out of her daisy dukes in Chucke-E-Chees? She'll be shown where the door is pretty damn fast. Why stop at gay wedding? How about some swinger shit where every guest comes naked and bangs the bride later on.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

good points EXCEPT had the photographer been Muslim, the gays would have been tossed out of court, I guarantee that...

Or if it was gay photographer refusing to attend Christian Coalition's "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" convention. But no, we all have to accept this whole "look at me, Im gay" bullshit.

[mineistaken]

I don't get it. Its private business, they can refuse any work they want. I mean how do you make someone take the job? Endless stupidity.
Lets say I am freelancer programmer. I can refuse any work I want. Whats the problem with that?
Fucking joke.

PS: how stupid you must be to want a photographer that does not want to photograph you?
I I was a photographer and someone made me photograph I would not do my best at taking the bast captures..

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

definite gay bashing your posted the word fag, hate filled bigot

Yeah, I saw the word "fag" in the tagline when I first Googled "The Gay Card", but quickly figured out that it was meant in a whimsical sense, and not in a mean-spirited manner (as you took it):



I checked the source of the Gay Card image (a gay guy's blog), and knowing that many gay people use the "F--" word in various ways, I quickly deduced that he meant it in a non-offensive way.

The funniest part is that I thought if you could read the small print, that you might get your panties in a bunch...and you did!

Thanks for playing (again)!

Here's the link:

http://bosguy.com/2011/06/22/get-your-gay-card/

See, lots of gay people have a wicked sense of humor. If you didn't have such a stick up your butt about gay rights, civil rights, etc., you might have got a chuckle out of it, instead of being the usual incessant racist gay bashing whiner that you are on GFY.

Just so you know, we love you anyway...

You try so desperately to bait people endlessly about race and sexual orientation issues, that it's fun teasing you back a little every once in awhile.



ADG

[DBS.US]

Why wouldn't a gay couple want to use a gay photographer?