Jump to content

Someday you may be forced to do film work you don't want to do.


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
8 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

Sorry Matthew, but that argument doesn't work. A Jewish catering business won't offer shellfish.

I see that you completely missed the point. The point isnt whether they offer shellfish or not. The point is that there is a difference between the person asking you to do something and the action they are asking you to perform.

Most of the "big three" religions in the world have things that are forbidden for the adherents to partake in; sometimes even being associated with the forbidden act is deemed as partly culpable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

Yeah, a Jewish catering business won’t offer shellfish to anybody. Just like I imagine there are vegan catering companies that don’t prepare meat dishes for anybody.

Cool...so does that means that photographers can take "gay wedding" off the menu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 minute ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

see that you completely missed the point. The point isnt whether they offer shellfish or not. The point is that there is a difference between the person asking you to do something and the action they are asking you to perform.

Matthew, taking photographs is not a forbidden action in anyone's religion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 minute ago, Uli Meyer said:

Matthew, taking photographs is not a forbidden action in anyone's religion.

 

Using that logic, it would not be against any religion to photograph pornographic images. That is not the prevailing opinion in most interpretations. Obviously, most religions predate modern photography so these philosophical questions are subject to some level of judgment.

I am not defending using religion as a crutch to not serve someone. I am more in the camp that, religion or not, people should have the freedom to work on projects that they feel like working on. I don't care if you refuse someone just because you think they look like a jerk, why would anyone have the right to force someone until penalty of law to work with people who they don't want to?

Imagine Hollywood studios being sued if they discriminated against certain body type, etc. It sets a bad precedent but I guess some people have to go down the rabbit hole to see where it leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 minute ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Using that logic, it would not be against any religion to photograph pornographic images.

You are digressing. Nobody has forced anyone to take pornographic pictures.

 

7 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I am not defending using religion as a crutch to not serve someone.

But that is exactly what is happening here. Not sure what your argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

You are digressing. Nobody has forced anyone to take pornographic pictures.

You were making a reductionist argument and I refuted it. Homosexual weddings are just as forbidden in some faiths as pornography is. You are making a qualitative judgment based on your ethics; not the beliefs of others.

4 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

But that is exactly what is happening here. Not sure what your argument is.

My argument is that people who offer services should have some level of autonomy to determine what they are comfortable with. Despite the fact that this case was photography, the law is broad and will affect all industries. If such a thing were at the federal level, can you imagine a woman in a brothel being compelled to have sex with a man she didn't feel comfortable sharing her body with? So much for my body, my choice. The law sounds far too broad and sweeping. That is my argument.

Edited by Matthew W. Phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

You are making a qualitative judgment based on your ethics; not the beliefs of others.

Not based on my ethics, the law of your country. Religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with the law. Some religious beliefs justify the hacking off of hands. According to you, that should be respected?

12 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

If such a thing were at the federal level, can you imagine a woman in a brothel being compelled to have sex with a man she didn't feel comfortable sharing her body with?

Ey? Look, there's a squirrel.

Edited by Uli Meyer
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

But it is fine if the independent caterer refuses to serve a gay man?

That would be mean. But refusing to cater to a same-sex wedding is a matter of principle. I would happily cater to a same-sex wedding, but I wouldn't expect you to.

Keep in mind that in the past, there were quite a few conventional weddings where one of the partners was gay, and it was usually the groom. Nowadays, maybe not so much. But, I'd like to know if any photographer then or now would refuse a job where only one of the couple was gay.

3 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Regardless, it’s easy enough to say “just hire a different photographer.” I just wonder at what point that approach puts an undue burden on people who want photos of their wedding. Probably not a big deal in a big city with hundreds of photographers. But maybe a problem in a small town with only a handful of photographers.

I really don't care. Nobody has a right to my labour. It is a human right to withhold labour, not to demand it. I'll repeat this, because it bears repeating: either take the cash or decline and say nothing. This specific problem then goes away.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

It is a human right to withhold labour, not to demand it.

Karim, it is a basic human right to work. Are you sure about that last part of your statement?

11 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

either take the cash or decline and say nothing. This specific problem then goes away.

Apparently there wasn't a law suit. It was the photographer who went out of his way to sue for something that hasn't happened. What does that tell you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My view on this is that I wouldn't necessarily want someone with those opinions photographing my wedding anyway.

I think the main issue here is that we'd prefer it if everyone was nice and tolerant to one another. Unfortunately you can't make someone tolerant by forcing them to do things they don't want to do - quite the opposite, probably. As such I find myself torn between the idea that people shouldn't be free to arbitrarily disadvantage people, and the equally valid and powerful reality that the result here probably doesn't really change anyone's view or meaningfully alter the situation long term. I have no idea what the right solution is, other than that religion in general is a bad idea that doesn't help anyone. In most first-world countries, people in general are becoming less religious, and that can only be a good thing.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

My view on this is that I wouldn't necessarily want someone with those opinions photographing my wedding anyway.

I think the main issue here is that we'd prefer it if everyone was nice and tolerant to one another. Unfortunately you can't make someone tolerant by forcing them to do things they don't want to do - quite the opposite, probably. As such I find myself torn between the idea that people shouldn't be free to arbitrarily disadvantage people, and the equally valid and powerful reality that the result here probably doesn't really change anyone's view or meaningfully alter the situation long term. I have no idea what the right solution is, other than that religion in general is a bad idea that doesn't help anyone. In most first-world countries, people in general are becoming less religious, and that can only be a good thing.

P

Agreed. I wouldn't expect that exchanges like the above one would alter opinions or change the situation, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs and ideologies. This shouldn't stop one from expressing ones opinion occasionally though. In which case you are running the risk of being called intolerant towards the beliefs of the intolerant for wishing that people were more tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Karim, it is a basic human right to work. Are you sure about that last part of your statement?

Apparently there wasn't a law suit. It was the photographer who went out of his way to sue for something that hasn't happened. What does that tell you?

It's a human right to be able to access a path to employment, not to demand a job. It's not relevant to me whether there was or wasn't a lawsuit. It's the principle of the matter, which is that nobody has a right to your labour.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

...other than that religion in general is a bad idea that doesn't help anyone. In most first-world countries, people in general are becoming less religious, and that can only be a good thing.

P

The first half of your comment was great and I agree completely. This part; not so much. Imagine taking all of the teachings of all world religions and reducing them to this ridiculous comment. It comes off as exceptionally arrogant but not surprising.

Edit: Most "first-world countries" wouldn't even be civilized the way they are today without the influence of religion over time. It is fashionable these days to talk about systems of oppression, intolerance, and injustice from the comfy confines of countries with due process and some level of freedom of speech. Do you think the non-religious regime in North Korea provides the same outlets?

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

In which case you are running the risk of being called intolerant towards the beliefs of the intolerant for wishing that people were more tolerant.

I imagine this line sounded better in your head.

Edited by Matthew W. Phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
53 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

It's a human right to be able to access a path to employment, not to demand a job. It's not relevant to me whether there was or wasn't a lawsuit. It's the principle of the matter, which is that nobody has a right to your labour.

This times one million. No one has given a compelling reason for why anyone is entitled to anything from another person. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
55 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

It's the principle of the matter, which is that nobody has a right to your labour.

 

1 minute ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

No one has given a compelling reason for why anyone is entitled to anything from another person. 

Woosh...

You have both fallen for Daniel's misleading headline. Nobody is forcing anyone to do work they don't want to do. This is about discrimnation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

This times one million. No one has given a compelling reason for why anyone is entitled to anything from another person. 

Except in modern-day America, at least, a customer is legally entitled to service from a business regardless of the customer’s race, religion, etc. So (again) a “whites-only” restaurant is not legal anymore.

So (again) what we are talking about is (1) whether a photographer is a business or a worker-for-hire and (2) whether discrimination against gay people is more legally acceptable than discrimination against non-white people.

I guess one could make a libertarian-ish argument that a business owner can discriminate against whoever they damn well please, but that’s one reason why libertarian-ish arguments are generally shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

Except in modern-day America, at least, a customer is legally entitled to service from a business regardless of the customer’s race, religion, etc. So (again) a “whites-only” restaurant is not legal anymore.

I propose that there is a difference between products offered and requests for special products. I don't have to make you a cake. But if I do make one that is offered to the public, I certainly should not have the right to refuse you that cake. Your $10 is as green as the next man's.

I have photos on Unsplash, for example. Anyone can use them. Private citizens or billion dollar corporations can take them and use them as they please. (In fact, one billion dollar corporation did use one of my photos, and it made my day!) It would be illegal and immoral to refuse someone that licence for any reason. However, if you asked me to take a photo of a cupcake with a candle on it, I could legally and morally refuse, and I don't have to give you a reason.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...