Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 113302 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15747
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2015, 11:40:43 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.
We? Please speak only for yourself. If you don't want to discuss politics, leave the post.
IMHO, this location is still an excellent site about Photography.
Don't like the tone or topic? Most know the way out the door, no one if forcing this on anyone who doesn't want to be involved.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3152
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2015, 11:41:39 am »

The forum is called Rantatorals so anything goes and if Kevin has a good recipe for anything, I'm game

The question is not whether Kevin has the "right" to post what he wants, the question is whether he SHOULD be posting these political things.  As others have noted, it's a PHOTOGRAPHY website. I tend to agree with Kevin's opinions on this matter, but they just don't belong here, IMO. Or, maybe we can start a recipe forum, or a lawnmower repair forum, or knitting?
Logged
Peter
"Science does not care what you believe" - unknown

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2015, 11:44:22 am »

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?
That's a good question.
In fact, is not even hypotetical: IBM sold computers to the nazi regime to allow for faster census of the jews.

I say B&H should sell the cameras: I do prefer make my own judgement of Goebbels' action rather that let B&H do it for me.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15747
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2015, 11:46:11 am »

As others have noted, it's a PHOTOGRAPHY website. I tend to agree with Kevin's opinions on this matter, but they just don't belong here, IMO.
It's the people who object to the original piece that don't belong here. None of you have paid to be here. Kevin has. You are all invited guests. This is Kevin's domain. You don't like his posts, don't read em. Had he written the article under the guise of it having to do with photography, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on but you'd still appear a pushy guest in Kevin's home. He didn't do that. Nor did this original post appear in a forum that is specific to any photographic subject. So, you don't like the free content? Start your own web site, good luck.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1340
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2015, 11:46:51 am »

Thanks Nick, Michael and others.  Luminous-Landscape is our site.  All of us are very much about photography but we are also about what we feel is right.  While the law mentioned may be about Indiana it is getting worldwide attention on a topic that deserves it.  Many other well know companies have used their websites as platforms on this topic also.  Today, for example, APPLE announced that it is bringing back the Rainbow logo to celebrate it's belief in diversity.  Salesforce.com, Angies List, NCCA, and many others have also used their sites as a platform for letting their readers know how they feel. We added the Ranatorial section of this site as a place where we could share the latest news but also our feelings on certain topics.  Normally I'd stay focused on photography, but this topic really hit a nerve. Thus I shared my feelings.  So once in a while you may get something that is non-photographic in the Rant. 

Kevin Raber
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2015, 12:02:10 pm »

I have no idea about the ideology of that Indiana lawyer and his blog. There's a bunch of nuts-and-bolts law on the site.  But the lawyer did highlight differences between the IN law and the US law and miscellaneous other state RF laws. I was looking for technical details, not commentary on Pence, religion, gay marriage. Note that the IN law is more loosely specified - broader coverage - than the US law. US law covered government-citizen interactions. IN law covers "person"-person interactions, with "person" being defined within this law as a corporation, business, or actual  human being. That's a HUGE difference.



Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2015, 12:17:28 pm »

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?

why oldies - recent example : Charlie Hebdo ?
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3152
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2015, 12:44:59 pm »

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

You really don't know who the respected NYT (and somewhat conservative) columnist David Brooks is?!?! Really?!?! Don't you have Google?

Logged
Peter
"Science does not care what you believe" - unknown

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15230
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2015, 12:54:24 pm »

... That's a HUGE difference.

It well might be, but perhaps justifiable? Because it is nowadays "persons" (being defined as corporations, businesses, or actual  human beings), not government, that are destroying small businesses whose worldview they do not like by litigation.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15747
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #69 on: April 01, 2015, 01:03:45 pm »

You really don't know who the respected NYT (and somewhat conservative) columnist David Brooks is?!?! Really?!?!
Right, he's the only columnist named David Brooks. Wrong again. I'm aware of both (and more).
You'd serve your arguments more weight if you actually outlined who you're talking about instead of just lazily writing:
Quote
FWIW, David Brooks' most recent column provides food for thought regarding this issue.
Your inability at reading posts is also being called out as I clearly wrote with emphasis:
IF this is the Shutterbug magazine guy...
Got Google? Use it to find the definition of the word IF.
Really!!
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 01:07:39 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

mkihne

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #70 on: April 01, 2015, 01:15:25 pm »

Maybe this thread should be reposted in the Camera, Lenses, etc topic under "Bullying as a substitute for Argument". If this is a microcosm of what the world will be like with group think as the norm, I'll volunteer for that one way trip to Mars. I guess beating someone over the head for their intolerance with your intolerance is some how noble or at least permissible.  NFM  ::)
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #71 on: April 01, 2015, 01:25:07 pm »

But it does allow them to turn away any customer on days their religion tells them not to work, even when their customers do.
Come on, SB, that's just plain stupid.  They do not turn away customers, they close.  They do not discriminate against any class of people, even orthodox Jews, they just close their doors to everyone, just as many Christian-owned businesses do on Sunday.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #72 on: April 01, 2015, 01:26:54 pm »

I disagree.

Firstly, Kevin is now the publisher here, and is free to write what he sees fit. And though not a primary consequence of this stupid law (remember when America was the champion of all forms of freedom, and enshrined them in its constitution?) it has huge consequences for business, and for many photographers this is a business.

This highly discriminatory law is simply an end-run around gays and other visible minorities, and allows those preaching a perverted form of religiosity to act in a legally- sanctioned bigoted manner.

What's next. Jews? Blacks? Hispantics?

There are no "official" religions in the U.S. Indeed its outlawed in the constitution. Therefore anyone who wants to say that providing service to Jews is against their religion now has the legal right to do so in Indiana, and I understand eventually in as many as more than half the U.S. states.

No. This is a dumb, even an evil law being used by the the anti-gay marriage crowd to foster their particular form of hatred on everyone else. It is making the USA a sad and despised country among those of us who value both freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

In my opinion Kevin should be shouting this from the rooftops, not just the pages of this site.

As someone who has known Kevin for many years I can say that his bona fides are unquestionable. In many political debates I'm on the left and he's on the right, but in this instances there is no division between us. The Indiana law and its clones in other states are simply wrong-headed at best, and frankly nakedly homophobic. They offer a chance for legally supported racial, sexual and religious intolerance.

Michael

+1, or can I say +100?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15230
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #73 on: April 01, 2015, 01:27:22 pm »

...I guess beating someone over the head for their intolerance with your intolerance is some how noble or at least permissible.  NFM  ::)

Indeed. The irony is that the group which has been pleading  for years for tolerance and acceptance is now militantly intolerant to any differing views.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15747
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #74 on: April 01, 2015, 01:31:37 pm »

Indeed. The irony is that the group which has been pleading  for years for tolerance and acceptance is now militantly intolerant to any differing views.
IF that view is discrimination, there's no reason to be at all tolerant to that differing view.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #75 on: April 01, 2015, 01:32:07 pm »

We? Please speak only for yourself. If you don't want to discuss politics, leave the post.
IMHO, this location is still an excellent site about Photography.
Don't like the tone or topic? Most know the way out the door, no one if forcing this on anyone who doesn't want to be involved.

Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.

Here is my take...

You want to be queer...be a queer. You want to be a holy roller...be a holy roller.

But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.

If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting, why force it on him or her.  I grew up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.

So...in summation.

I am for the freedom act. And my advice to the queers is go to queer friendly business. Even if you force feed queerness on someone that hates you, it wont work out. They will be resentful for being forced to deal with you.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 01:36:37 pm by Iluvmycam »
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #76 on: April 01, 2015, 01:35:19 pm »

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.
Then I encourage, even urge you to run to one of those other sites, and let the grown-ups here discuss something of real importance in the real world.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15230
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #77 on: April 01, 2015, 01:35:37 pm »

IF that view is discrimination, there's no reason to be at all tolerant to that differing view.

Since you are so enamored with "ifs," then if indeed. It is the subject of the debate, if it is a discrimination. The problem is, certain groups have already decided it is, and are now showing it down everyone else's throats.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15230
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #78 on: April 01, 2015, 01:37:35 pm »

Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.

Here is my take...

You want to be queer...be a queer. You want to be a holy roller...be a holy roller.

But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.

If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting, why force it on him or her.  I grew up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.

So...in summation.

I am for the freedom act. And my advice to the queers is go to queer friendly business. Even if you force feed queerness on someone that hates you, it wont work out. They will be resentful for being forced to deal with you.

I never thought I'd agree with you 100% Iluvmycam  :)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 04:02:56 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15747
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #79 on: April 01, 2015, 01:39:36 pm »

Talk of politics can ruin things, just as religion, just as some sex topics like homosexuality.
IF you don't want to talk the talk or walk the walk, you know where the door is.
Quote
But queerness should not be force feed to the holy roller, nor should the holy roller force their views on the queers.
If someone find two guys swapping spit disgusting why force it on him or her.  I grow up in Hollywood, been around queers all my life. Some of my best friends were queer. But, don't try to force fed queerness or religion on anyone.
No one is forcing this on anyone (so called queerness, or guys swapping spit)! A law has been introduced to allow discrimination. It's no different from a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone based on the color of their skin. I too grew up in the same area not that it has any bearing at all! You may have, as you write: been around queers all your life but got any that are actually STILL good friends (anyone else notice the past tense)? I wonder if you did how they would feel about your writings here, referring to them a queers.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17   Go Up