Art Bites Liberals On The Butt

[gallantwarrior]

This personally is a tough one for me. I guess it is a choice between the rights of the individual vs the rights of the busniess owner. At the end of the day, I have to side with the individual.

Business owners aren't individuals?

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

That also should work both ways. So, your rights should end where they adversely impact my rights? I have the right to practice my religion, which just may find that eating pork is a violation of my religious dietary laws. You bring your ham sandwich onto my premises and commence chowing down on it. Does your right to "patronize" my establishment trump my right to not have pork or pork products in there?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

You never said "artistic services" and considering the original question I was responding to involved smoking, I didn't realize you talking about this specific situation.

As has already been brought up, artists are and should be, IMO, an exception to the rule.

Dear, please try to keep up. We're talking about a photographer, aka an artist. Although frankly, I don't think you should be able to force me to clean the house of a homosexual couple if I own a housekeeping service and don't want to accept them as clients, either. I personally earn extra money as a freelance concierge (ie. errand girl). I don't happen to care if my clientele is homosexual or not, but if I did, I don't think it's appropriate to force me to accept clients I don't want in that regard, either.

Honestly, I think the line should be drawn at "personal service", as opposed to "open to the general public". A restaurant or supermarket is open to the general public, intended to basically service anyone who walks through the door with money, but businesses that maintain a specific client roster (which are usually one-man sort of operations) are not.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

It's been mentioned before but here it is again... why would you insist on forcing someone to do business with you if they did not want to? There are numerous options available for any given circumstance, so why demand such commerce? I'd just courteously leave and then let everyone I knew know about this business.

 

[AmyNation]

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

You never said "artistic services" and considering the original question I was responding to involved smoking, I didn't realize you talking about this specific situation.

As has already been brought up, artists are and should be, IMO, an exception to the rule.

Dear, please try to keep up. We're talking about a photographer, aka an artist. Although frankly, I don't think you should be able to force me to clean the house of a homosexual couple if I own a housekeeping service and don't want to accept them as clients, either. I personally earn extra money as a freelance concierge (ie. errand girl). I don't happen to care if my clientele is homosexual or not, but if I did, I don't think it's appropriate to force me to accept clients I don't want in that regard, either.

Honestly, I think the line should be drawn at "personal service", as opposed to "open to the general public". A restaurant or supermarket is open to the general public, intended to basically service anyone who walks through the door with money, but businesses that maintain a specific client roster (which are usually one-man sort of operations) are not.

Actually tha wasn't the discussion PoliticChic and I were having. If you click the link she posted it goes into any business havig the right to deny anyone any service based on anything, including race gender and religion.

 

[AmyNation]

Business owners aren't individuals?

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

That also should work both ways. So, your rights should end where they adversely impact my rights? I have the right to practice my religion, which just may find that eating pork is a violation of my religious dietary laws. You bring your ham sandwich onto my premises and commence chowing down on it. Does your right to "patronize" my establishment trump my right to not have pork or pork products in there?

No one is arguing agaisnt religious freedom.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it.


My guy and I headed for Ashford and Simpson's club down the block from the Limelight once upon a time...and the doorperson says it's 'ladies night'....gay night....and sort of gave us the heads-up and the option....

...system seemed to work.....

Nobody is forced to do anything they choose not to.

I beg to differ on that point. While the NM photographer prevailed in this case, there are undoubtedly many cases where the business owner was either forced to provide their service or fined for not doing so. Let's not even get started on how government intrusion consistently forces many to do things they would otherwise find counter their own beliefs or personal/professional welfare.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You never said "artistic services" and considering the original question I was responding to involved smoking, I didn't realize you talking about this specific situation.

As has already been brought up, artists are and should be, IMO, an exception to the rule.

Dear, please try to keep up. We're talking about a photographer, aka an artist. Although frankly, I don't think you should be able to force me to clean the house of a homosexual couple if I own a housekeeping service and don't want to accept them as clients, either. I personally earn extra money as a freelance concierge (ie. errand girl). I don't happen to care if my clientele is homosexual or not, but if I did, I don't think it's appropriate to force me to accept clients I don't want in that regard, either.

Honestly, I think the line should be drawn at "personal service", as opposed to "open to the general public". A restaurant or supermarket is open to the general public, intended to basically service anyone who walks through the door with money, but businesses that maintain a specific client roster (which are usually one-man sort of operations) are not.

Actually tha wasn't the discussion PoliticChic and I were having. If you click the link she posted it goes into any business havig the right to deny anyone any service based on anything, including race gender and religion.

Frankly, I would much prefer to let the marketplace deal with bigots than ask the government to do it, particularly since I'm aware that much of the fabled discrimination of the "Civil Rights Era" was actually perpetuated by government entities.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of course they are , however your rights end where mine begin. You have, and should have, the right to do whatever the hell you want, until what you want starts negitively impacting me.

That also should work both ways. So, your rights should end where they adversely impact my rights? I have the right to practice my religion, which just may find that eating pork is a violation of my religious dietary laws. You bring your ham sandwich onto my premises and commence chowing down on it. Does your right to "patronize" my establishment trump my right to not have pork or pork products in there?

No one is arguing agaisnt religious freedom.

Ah, yes, but we did open the OP with a NM court finding that a photographer who advertised his business as "christian" was not bound by law to provide services to a couple whose lifestyle violated his christian principles. At some point, this couple had to file suit against a person exercising their religious freedom.

 

[AmyNation]

That also should work both ways. So, your rights should end where they adversely impact my rights? I have the right to practice my religion, which just may find that eating pork is a violation of my religious dietary laws. You bring your ham sandwich onto my premises and commence chowing down on it. Does your right to "patronize" my establishment trump my right to not have pork or pork products in there?

No one is arguing agaisnt religious freedom.

Ah, yes, but we did open the OP with a NM court finding that a photographer who advertised his business as "christian" was not bound by law to provide services to a couple whose lifestyle violated his christian principles. At some point, this couple had to file suit against a person exercising their religious freedom.

That's true, I should have said no one in this thread.

I can understand and sympathize with the need the gay community has to fight discrimination, however I do believe when it comes to fighting agaisnt Christain organizations, they will always( and should) lose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

Does seem to be the case, doesn't it.


My guy and I headed for Ashford and Simpson's club down the block from the Limelight once upon a time...and the doorperson says it's 'ladies night'....gay night....and sort of gave us the heads-up and the option....

...system seemed to work.....

Nobody is forced to do anything they choose not to.

I beg to differ on that point. While the NM photographer prevailed in this case, there are undoubtedly many cases where the business owner was either forced to provide their service or fined for not doing so. Let's not even get started on how government intrusion consistently forces many to do things they would otherwise find counter their own beliefs or personal/professional welfare.

The last sentence was a reference to the situation in the post.

 

[daveman]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

The First Amendment guarantees liberals instant, unthinking acceptance, agreement, and endorsement. Anything less and you're oppressing them and violating their civil rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand your interests, here...but what would be the result of allowing any individual to run his or her business as they see fit...as long as they advertised as such.

Then, folks who believe as you do could patronize one, and folks with a differing belief, another.

How would that work for you?

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

The First Amendment guarantees liberals instant, unthinking acceptance, agreement, and endorsement. Anything less and you're oppressing them and violating their civil rights.

Wait. Let me get the world's smallest violin and play, "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss For Them".

 

[daveman]

May I ask how your right to decide who to do business with trumps my right to the exact same thing, simply because you're a customer and I'm a business owner?

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

If a wedding photographer is forced to shoot someone's wedding against their will, the couple runs the risk of a lot of pictures like this one:

And frankly, they deserve it.

 

[daveman]

Lousy, because liberals do not like living in a world where people are allowed to disagree with them and not affirm them with their every action.

The First Amendment guarantees liberals instant, unthinking acceptance, agreement, and endorsement. Anything less and you're oppressing them and violating their civil rights.

Wait. Let me get the world's smallest violin and play, "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss For Them".

Racist.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As I said, I'm personally torn on the issue. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they wish, however I also firmly believe individuals should have the right shop or eat anywhere they wish without fear of discrimination. Discrimnation against homosexuals falls into a loophole, because you can claim religious conflicts.

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

If a wedding photographer is forced to shoot someone's wedding against their will, the couple runs the risk of a lot of pictures like this one:

And frankly, they deserve it.

for which they would sue the photographer for ruining their "special day". It's a lose-lose for the photographer, isn't it?

 

[daveman]

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

If a wedding photographer is forced to shoot someone's wedding against their will, the couple runs the risk of a lot of pictures like this one:

And frankly, they deserve it.

for which they would sue the photographer for ruining their "special day". It's a lose-lose for the photographer, isn't it?

Yup. Some people are just simply unable to let others live their lives in peace.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

If a wedding photographer is forced to shoot someone's wedding against their will, the couple runs the risk of a lot of pictures like this one:

And frankly, they deserve it.

for which they would sue the photographer for ruining their "special day". It's a lose-lose for the photographer, isn't it?

Any competent photographer would be able to take perfectly normal wedding pictures that nevertheless are unflattering to the subjects. If they sue, he can plausibly say, "I can't help it. They're just ugly. I'm not a miracle worker."

 

[Katzndogz]

We're not really talking about "shopping" or "eating", though, are we? We're not talking about any sort of volume business to the public. We're talking about personal artistic services.

And, again, why in the hell would you WANT to force someone to come to your wedding and take pictures of it if they didn't want to be there? That's really the question you have to ask yourself. What the hell is the motivation here?

You never said "artistic services" and considering the original question I was responding to involved smoking, I didn't realize you talking about this specific situation.

As has already been brought up, artists are and should be, IMO, an exception to the rule.

Dear, please try to keep up. We're talking about a photographer, aka an artist. Although frankly, I don't think you should be able to force me to clean the house of a homosexual couple if I own a housekeeping service and don't want to accept them as clients, either. I personally earn extra money as a freelance concierge (ie. errand girl). I don't happen to care if my clientele is homosexual or not, but if I did, I don't think it's appropriate to force me to accept clients I don't want in that regard, either.

Honestly, I think the line should be drawn at "personal service", as opposed to "open to the general public". A restaurant or supermarket is open to the general public, intended to basically service anyone who walks through the door with money, but businesses that maintain a specific client roster (which are usually one-man sort of operations) are not.

Exactly, the line should be drawn at any personal service. This includes psychological counseling, photography, artist.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE

George Will makes some terrific points. I especially like the final paragraph:

The tangled web of conflicting rights
By: George Will
9/15/2012 08:00 PM

Will: The tangled web of conflicting rights - Conservative News

 

[Katzndogz]

As we see, the assault on freedom of religion has expanded to freedom of expression.