Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 70234 times)

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2015, 10:20:49 AM »

I admit my defeat...it is hard to argue with your imagination.
It's more hard to argue with reality, isn't it?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12187
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2015, 10:21:08 AM »

BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.
Beautifully stated! Someone asked, what's the big deal? Discrimination is the big deal.

FWIW, as someone born a Jew (I call myself Jew-lite and love, love, love pork), my dad once told me as a young boy that the biggest anti semantics were Jews. I think he may have been right and not just about Jews discriminating their own. This 'law' is another perfect example.

Now, where's the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I need some comedy about religion.

Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2663
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2015, 10:22:19 AM »


Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit.


Yes, Kevin is the publisher and is free to write what he sees fit - but I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether he SHOULD be writing about politics on a photography web site. He could also post cupcake recipes, investment schemes, and advice for husbands, but he doesn't. Why? Because they are not appropriate for this site.

I am very involved in politics and am always shooting off letters to the editor, to politicians, to corporations. But, none of this goes on my web sites because they are not related to politics.

Yes, it's a very important topic, but that does not mean it must be discussed everywhere.

FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12187
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2015, 10:23:20 AM »

First, the slander: "Here we go again, religion, the word that has caused more wars and conflicts than anything else and we just allowed it to be the grounds for a way to say no to people." Do the names Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind as deeply religious people?
No, but lightweights in terms of responsibility for deaths in the name of religion.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10075
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2015, 10:24:07 AM »

It's more hard to argue with reality, isn't it?

So show me that "reality," show me those signs.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12187
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2015, 10:25:51 AM »

The issue is whether he SHOULD be writing about politics on a photography web site. He could also post cupcake recipes, investment schemes, and advice for husbands, but he doesn't. Why? Because they are not appropriate for this site.
The forum is called Rantatorals so anything goes and if Kevin has a good recipe for anything, I'm game (got a few of my own). If this isn't a conversation you wish to partake, you can leave or better, stay away from the Rantatorals forums, it might have zero to do with photography. And that's fine with me, I suspect others and certainly Kevin!
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2015, 10:27:10 AM »

So show me that "reality," show me those signs.
Show me that a store with a "we don't serve jews" on its front door is not engaging in discrimination.
It could even be an hypotetical: is enough for you to say "EVEN IF a store would put such a thing on its front door it would not be engaging in discrimination".

So, let's hear it, then.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12187
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2015, 10:29:26 AM »

FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy and the basis of his article is as non factual about his ideas of why people have issues with dark prints, I'll pass. Guy is completely in the dark about that subject  ;D
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10075
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2015, 10:32:30 AM »

... It could even be an hypotetical:...

Now you want me to argue with your hypothetical imagination? As I said, I'll pass.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2015, 10:36:25 AM »

Now you want me to argue with your hypothetical imagination? As I said, I'll pass.

You're not passing: you're feeing.
But let's see if that's just my hypotetical imagination or someone indefensible argument.

Let's say that tomorrow a store put a "we don't serve jews" on its front door.
Is this store engaging in discrimination?

It's not that hard of a question to answer.



Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2015, 10:53:59 AM »

It's Kevin's state and Kevin's blog - he has every right to publish the rantatorial. If he wanted to lock or delete any thread on the subject, he be within his rights as well. If I ran my own blog, I'd be mocking my own state's legislative output. You don't want to read it? Then don't!

I don't get my legal analysis from the Washington Times, or Fox. Those are bought-and-paid-for by the Rev. Moon / Unification Church (Washington Times, which has NEVER made a profit -a hint that the owners have some other reason to hang onto it) and Murdoch (Fox - but at least Fox makes money).

Try this - written by an actual INDIANA LAWYER who blogs. Summary: INRFA too broadly written
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

Missouri just produces people who go on shooting sprees at synagogues or Jewish Community Centers.

Slobodan, you likely live on one of the coasts? With due respect, you are a white guy who doesn't live in the area being discussed. Things are different out here. I have read local news and heard complaints from a fair number of students and medical residents who happen to be noticeably brown. A business doesn't have to put a sign out, it can just serve customers out of order so they never get around to taking the brown customer's order. That's not the only issue. Employment is a huge potential issue in IN law, which is very loosely worded to allow wide and shieldable discretion to owners and employers.
Logged

danvsjr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2015, 10:56:25 AM »

This used to be a good site about Photography. If we wanted politically based rhetoric, from either side, there are thousands of other sites to visit.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10075
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2015, 11:00:15 AM »

You're not passing: you're f[l]eeing...

Of course I am. No point arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, "plain and simple," in advance. "When you argue with a fool, there are two," as someone said.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #54 on: April 01, 2015, 11:09:26 AM »

Of course I am. No point arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, "plain and simple," in advance. "When you argue with a fool, there are two," as someone said.

From Kevin's rantatorial:
Quote
Host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked the Republican governor whether the state’s newly passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow a scenario in which “a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment.”

Each time, Pence did not answer with yes or no.
...
This is exactly why I have issues with politicians because they can’t answer simple questions.


But you know what? Silence sometimes gives me hope, because it means that those who don't speak their mind are ashamed of what they thought.
Guess what Fred Phelps would have answered to my question?
Something like "of course is discrimination and a rightful one, since jews killed jesus".




PS: By the way, that's not about discriminating gay at all. Noooooone at all.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10075
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #55 on: April 01, 2015, 11:19:15 AM »

...I don't get my legal analysis from the Washington Times, or Fox...

Nancy, with equally due respect, if your only source of information are your ideological brethren, you are almost certainly bound to be biased. I pointed to that article because I believe it has little editorial bias, and a lot of quotes from legal scholars, some of which actually argued pro-gay in the past. It also has some interesting (legal) thoughts about a different angle for photographers, e.g., to use a free speech argument insteed of the religious one. I am driven by intellectual curiosity in controversial debates, and I found facts and legal opinions in that article quite interesting. I am not interested in mudslinging from ideological tranches (though that can be fun occasionally).

I actually leave in the Midwest, Chicagoland.

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 681
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #56 on: April 01, 2015, 11:27:13 AM »

Because they are not appropriate for this site.

This site is the private property of the people who run it.  It also happens to be a powerful public forum.  If they be moral men, which they are, it is an imperative that they use it to decry acts of immorality which undermine the sorts of fundamental freedoms which we, the creative class (and if ye be not one of those, what the hell are you doing here?) rely on for the things which give our lives meaning.

The American religious right is a force of evil, in the same sense and mechanism as any other religious fundamentalist movement bent on the subversion of pluralistic democracy to the tenets of their chosen metaphysical nonsense (usually, not coincidentally, linked inseparably to the economic enrichment of its leadership and chief oligarchic allies).   Watching your once-great country eat itself alive in this way is sad beyond words.

- N.


 
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        www.nickdevlin.com

jfirneno

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #57 on: April 01, 2015, 11:28:49 AM »

I know that's interesting.
But I'm not a government, so what I think it's not a law all the citizen are subjected to.

These state laws were in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling that the national religious freedom law (signed by Bill Clinton by the way) needed to be enacted on the state level.  So these laws have been more or less pre-approved by the Supreme Court to be legal and in accord with the states' jurisdiction.  If the elected officials of the states follow the ruling of the Supreme Court then I believe they have covered the legal requirements of the United States.  If that's not good enough for you then you'll have to win an election to get other legislators elected and write a different law (or just get good old Obama to just use an executive order and send in the storm troopers).  But either way it's really all meant to allow people to follow their religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights used to be a sacrosanct item for liberals (when it was their ox getting gored).  Now they seem to think it's a matter of freedom for me but not for thee.  Very interesting.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2015, 11:36:41 AM »

So these laws have been more or less pre-approved by the Supreme Court to be legal and in accord with the states' jurisdiction.

Did I ever questioned the legality of the law?
Not that I'm aware of.
What I said is that any law (legal or not) that allows discrimination is unworthy of a civil nation.



The Bill of Rights used to be a sacrosanct item for liberals (when it was their ox getting gored).  Now they seem to think it's a matter of freedom for me but not for thee.  Very interesting.

Did I ever said that the bigots don't have the right to discriminate?
Not that I'm aware of.
Does the right to discriminate make discrimination right?
Not in a civil nation.

What I said is that I'd like those bigots pay big money for their discrimination lust.


Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3272
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2015, 11:38:14 AM »

BH Photo in New York City is owned and run by orthodox Jews whose religion does not allow them to eat pork, shrimp, etc. Would it be OK for them to turn away any customer who does? I see the Indiana law the same way - freedom of religion means you are free to practice YOUR religion the way YOU see fit. It does not mean you are free to discriminate against people who practice THEIR religion differently than you do.

North Carolina is considering a similar law and I am glad to say that the furor over Indiana has at least some of the bill's sponsors saying "more study is needed."
Beautifully stated! Someone asked, what's the big deal? Discrimination is the big deal.

FWIW, as someone born a Jew (I call myself Jew-lite and love, love, love pork), my dad once told me as a young boy that the biggest anti semantics were Jews. I think he may have been right and not just about Jews discriminating their own. This 'law' is another perfect example.

Now, where's the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I need some comedy about religion.

I hesitate to become involved in political discourse on a photography forum, but Kevin's rant does have something to do with photography.

To use an analogy from another time, what would or should B&H do if Joseph Goebbels placed a large order for Leica cameras to be used in his propaganda machine depicting Jews as monkeys and pigs?

Bill

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17   Go Up