Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 140707 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #160 on: April 02, 2015, 10:41:39 am »

Right now there's an interesting law case in Northern Ireland where an equal rights NGO has taken a bakers to court for cancelling an order for a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage". The bakers were apparently perfectly polite with the customer and happy to supply the cake - they just wouldn't decorate it with a slogan with which they disagreed. Was this discrimination? If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #161 on: April 02, 2015, 11:00:57 am »

Right now there's an interesting law case in Northern Ireland where an equal rights NGO has taken a bakers to court for cancelling an order for a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage". The bakers were apparently perfectly polite with the customer and happy to supply the cake - they just wouldn't decorate it with a slogan with which they disagreed. Was this discrimination? If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.

Yes, it is discrimination.
As an atheist myself I find your examples very convincing but I think they are so convincing just because they are based on emotional foundations.
On a rational basis, instead, I'm utterly convinced that becoming a businessman also means accepting the role of "service provider" to the all the people around you and therefore it is wrong to deny such service to someone (on non-economical basis, that is).

So yes: a muslim printer should not be allowed to refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon and a jewish photographer should not decline to cover a neo nazi wedding.
If someone don't want to provide its services to choose your preferred bad guy that that someone should not go into business.


The same is true for employee: the employer sign a contract for photographing the nazi wedding but the employee refuses to do the job and get fired for that refusal.
Does the employer had the right to fire him?

Whose opinions wins in this situation? The employer's or employee's?

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

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #162 on: April 02, 2015, 11:16:06 am »

... Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.

+1

From the article I quoted earlier:

Josh Blackman, professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston (emphasis mine):

Quote
"It's a speech issue," Mr. Blackman said. "When you're requiring someone to engage in an act of creativity — creating a flower bouquet, photographing a wedding, baking and designing a cake — those are acts of art. In fact, if you ask bakers and photographers, they'll call themselves artists."

Mr. Blackman said the federal precedents appear to line up in favor of the religious business owners.

"There's a long-standing list of [U.S.] Supreme Court cases saying you can't compel people to speak, and these are cases going way back," Mr. Blackman said. "And I think those cover the baker and the florist. These are issues of speech, not religion."

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #163 on: April 02, 2015, 11:20:14 am »

+1

From the article I quoted earlier:


In the meantime, anti-gay bigots don't want the law amended to forbid gay discrimination.

You're absolutly right: it's a freedom of speech issue: nothing to do with discriminating gay people. NOOOOTHING at all.  :)


Bigot's hiding time is getting lower and lower....


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

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #164 on: April 02, 2015, 11:26:12 am »

In the meantime, anti-gay bigots don't want the law amended to forbid gay discrimination.

You're absolutly right: it's a freedom of speech issue: nothing to do with discriminating gay people. NOOOOTHING at all.  :)

Bigot's hiding time is getting lower and lower....

I am not sure why somebody ("gays", genuine or "for profit") must get an exemption ?
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #165 on: April 02, 2015, 11:27:30 am »

I am not sure why somebody ("gays", genuine or "for profit") must get an exemption ?

I'm sorry, I really don't undestand what you mean.
Can you clarify?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #166 on: April 02, 2015, 11:32:13 am »

I'm sorry, I really don't undestand what you mean.
Can you clarify?

what is to clarify - I am against that law to be amended to specifically protect some group no matter who they are - existing laws provide enough protection already
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #167 on: April 02, 2015, 11:34:53 am »

what is to clarify - I am against that law to be amended to specifically protect some group no matter who they are - existing laws provide enough protection already
Now I understand.

I am against the law as a whole.
The amendment just show who really are the people pushing it and why they don't want it amended.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #168 on: April 02, 2015, 11:37:49 am »

So by your logic, Diego, you should be forced to say/do something that damages your own reputation?
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #169 on: April 02, 2015, 11:40:59 am »

So by your logic, Diego, you should be forced to say/do something that damages your own reputation?
Yes, if I choose to be in some business.
Don't I want to get my reputation damaged? I quit the job.

What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

Don't you agree?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #170 on: April 02, 2015, 11:53:38 am »

Perhaps so, but more on the grounds that the creationist teacher is insufficiently educated to be at the front of the classroom.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2015, 11:56:04 am »

Perhaps so, but more on the grounds that the creationist teacher is insufficiently educated to be at the front of the classroom.
That's not always the case: I'm sure Kurt Wise is not the only educated creationist out there.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #172 on: April 02, 2015, 11:59:31 am »

Was this discrimination?
Yes it is. I'd have stuck the bakery with the cost of the cake thus far and then done all I could to embarrass them.  
Quote
If so, can a Muslim-owned printer no longer refuse a contract for a Muhammed cartoon or, less ludicrously, can a Jewish photographer decline to cover a neo Nazi wedding? Even as an atheist, I feel that surely there has to be a distinction between prejudicial acts that do actually harm the other person, and making you do something contrary to whatever you believe.
It isn't discrimination for a Jew to turn down a neo Nazi wedding, we can all freely decide what assignments we wish to take. It would be discrimination to decline the job by telling the potential customer you wouldn't do it solely because the weeding is for neo Nazi's. Or to take a deposit, show up at the wedding, see that it's a neo Nazi wedding and refuse to do the work. There's a big difference between refusing to do the work, without discrimination and refusing the work and making the discrimination obvious. If a black couple go to restaurant and are refused service because they are black and told so, this is clear discrimination. If the restaurant owner closes early and tells the couple the chef was ill, even if that's untrue, it's not discrimination. Discrimination is something one person or persons applies to others, their actions towards the other side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
Quote
Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 12:02:38 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #173 on: April 02, 2015, 12:00:09 pm »

What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

Don't you agree?
Absolutely!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #174 on: April 02, 2015, 12:05:12 pm »

It isn't discrimination for a Jew to turn down a neo Nazi wedding
it that exactly wording - it actually is... it isn't discrimination for a photog to turn down a wedding, but for a "jew" to turn down, as you specifically wrote, "neo nazi wedding" clearly spells an intent of the said "jew" to discriminate the said "neo nazi" based on it just being "neo nazi"... watch what you say.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #175 on: April 02, 2015, 12:08:50 pm »

What if I was a creationist teacher who resuses to teach evolution (as required by my employer) because "doing that would damage my reputation"?
I quite cleary think that my employer have all the right to fire me.

to fire a teacher here with unions and seniority  :D

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #176 on: April 02, 2015, 12:11:53 pm »

it that exactly wording - it actually is... it isn't discrimination for a photog to turn down a wedding, but for a "jew" to turn down, as you specifically wrote, "neo nazi wedding" clearly spells an intent of the said "jew" to discriminate the said "neo nazi" based on it just being "neo nazi"... watch what you say.
No it's not. The client doesn't know anything about me being a Jew or not wishing to take the job because the client is a Nazi because I didn't tell them. I simply did the smart thing and refused to accept the job (I have another booking, I'm out of town that day going to a Passover dinner etc).
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #177 on: April 02, 2015, 12:12:34 pm »

Wildlight and markadams99, ALL physicians are government regulated, and have been for a very long time.
There's also the matter of professional pride. You don't like your patient of the moment? Suck it up, put on a professional manner, treat the patient, move on. The quality of your work should not depend on your personal feelings about a patient.

Refusal of service to customers is hardly a new matter. Some pharmacists refuse to fill any birth control pill prescriptions, and in many red states, they are protected by law even if no other pharmacist is available to serve the patient. The pharmacist's claim is generally "birth control pills cause abortion", which not only is factually INCORRECT, but widely known to be so in the medical and pharmacist professions.

Let the thread now explode.
Hey, at least it is a change from the endless DRone debates   ::)
Seriously, I do learn something from some of the DR posts.

I live in a big city (well, biggish) and I could deal just fine with getting turned away by a baker or florist or photographer because there are lots of them around, and because I am a well-to-do white woman who doesn't get the same sort of crap that my black counterparts get on a regular basis - a rare encounter with an *sshole over a non-essential service is not a huge stressor. As I explained in a post about Ferguson a few pages ago, we the people don't need any additional religious excuses to behave badly. Yep, there are plenty of people in MO that would claim religious objection to serving blacks. I would like to kick the camel's nose back out of the tent, and keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #178 on: April 02, 2015, 12:20:50 pm »

I would like to kick the camel's nose back out of the tent, and keep the legal principle of non-discrimination in public accommodations (including businesses) intact.
I would like, too.
But, apparently, some think that discrimination and free speech are equivalent.
Web they discriminate, of course, not when they are discriminated.

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

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #179 on: April 02, 2015, 12:33:57 pm »

No it's not. The client doesn't know anything about me being a Jew or not wishing to take the job because the client is a Nazi because I didn't tell them.

yes, you lied then but you disclosed your true intent to discriminate for the record now... so by the same logic it is ok for a white photog to do the same to negro wedding or anti-gay photog to a gay wedding.... it is very clear that you like to discriminate when it suits you and cry wolf when it doesn't ...
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 12:35:44 pm by AlterEgo »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17   Go Up