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

2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

I can't say it ever occurred to me to instruct a solicitor, for the very good reason that doing so is not likely to change anyone's views and quite likely to entrench them.

I’m not going to file a lawsuit against somebody who refuses to do business with me. But I’m a straight white male, and as such my civil rights have been well established in the U.S. for many years.

One of the big reasons that a member of a marginalized group (gay people in this case) might file a lawsuit in a situation like this is to improve the civil rights of other people in that marginalized group in the future. For example, a gay couple successfully won a Supreme Court case (in the U.S.) that affirmed their right to marry — this happened just a few years ago. But that court victory also affirmed the rights of millions of other gay Americans to get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Uh... I’m not sure how a victimized group is supposed to change that without first explaining “we are victims of injustice.”

And I don’t recall the free market doing much to solve social injustices of the past. One could argue that the big injustices (slavery, obviously, plus segregation later on) were caused by the free market. But hey, maybe I’m forgetting some example where the free market rushed in and saved the day.

Slavery is what happens when the free market is not allowed to operate. In any case, the side effect of this deprivation of liberty is that slavery only gets the slave owner so far. Even if you agreed with slavery, it isn't very useful.

Segregation was allowed by the Supreme Court under the pretext of "separate but equal". Well, the "equal" part of that didn't last very long. But, involuntary segregation is antithetical to a free market.

Sometimes, producers interfere too much in the practical choices of a DP or a director, and in some cases, the end result is not optimal. The free market is not a force that can rush in and save the day if it isn't allowed to function. If it were a force, there would have been no Soviet Union, no Nazi Germany, no Cultural Revolution, etc, etc, etc.

If your primary focus is your victimhood, you will be a victim forever. We have all been on the receiving end of injustice. We can either complain and sulk, or we can rise above it. Pick one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
1 hour ago, Chance Shirley said:

One of the big reasons that a member of a marginalized group (gay people in this case) might file a lawsuit in a situation like this is to improve the civil rights of other people in that marginalized group in the future.

That's sort of the point; I suspect it won't actually have that effect. The problem is fairly easy to understand if you posit whacking someone over the head with a club in the hope they'll wake up agreeing with you.

I incline toward Karim's approach on this. You can't make people like you and you can't legislate opinion, and I think there are a lot of situations where that makes it worse.

Unfortunately the assumption that this stuff is simple is a large part of why it's so hard to solve.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
7 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Look, dude. I am not here to abolish your religion, whatever it might be.

I’m just saying if a religion discriminates against gay people or women or people of color or whatever, then it is a bullshit religion.

And the laws in a country (that prides itself on separation of church and state) should protect people from being discriminated against by bullshit religions.

Surely adding expletives to your statement makes it much more persuasive. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not gathering how this became such a political debate on religion when the photog's stupidity of not reading the societal room is what caused this, not even so much the homophobia itself. Like it's 2021 you really think being so boastful on that oldschool religious stance will just be okay? They're either seriously dumb or wanted any and all attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

That's sort of the point; I suspect it won't actually have that effect.

This is just nonsense. I cited a recent example where a gay couple sued so they could get married. They won and now gay people in America can get married.

Now, does this mean people are less bigoted toward gay people than they were before? I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter because that’s not the point. The point is that gay people’s legal right to marry was codified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Max Field said:

Not gathering how this became such a political debate on religion when the photog's stupidity of not reading the societal room is what caused this, not even so much the homophobia itself. Like it's 2021 you really think being so boastful on that oldschool religious stance will just be okay? They're either seriously dumb or wanted any and all attention.

The more we discuss this, the more I think this is the important point.

The photographer could have politely and professionally turned down the job. They did not.

Because the photographer was not interested in being polite and professional.

The photographer just wanted to use “religion” as an excuse to bully a marginalized group of people.

And there ain’t much I hate more than a bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Well, yeah. But that injustice is distributed very unevenly based on people’s race, religion, gender, and sexuality.

I don't agree with that. I would go so far as to say that some groups of people are actually celebrated more than others. That's not a bad thing as long as you aren't taking anything away from me. Celebrate all you like, it's all good. All I know for a fact is that I do my best to treat all persons fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Well, yeah. But that injustice is distributed very unevenly based on people’s race, religion, gender, and sexuality.

 

2 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I don't agree with that. I would go so far as to say that some groups of people are actually celebrated more than others.

Isn't that exactly the same thing? Saying some are more "celebrated" than others still makes things uneven for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
4 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Reminder: when you’re USING expletives, you’ve lost the argument.

Fixed this for you. 😉

You already lost the debate because you are making it emotional. Logic is not predicated on emotion; it is based on a system of reasoning that must be consistent whether it makes you feel comfortable or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
4 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

And there ain’t much I hate more than a bully.

This right here shows that you have lost the argument. You are far too emotionally invested. I prefer to look at the reasoning of arguments when assessing things instead of feelings. I would never say I "hate" anyone; even someone who disagrees with me. You sound like one of those people who thinks that someone is a bigot just because they see the world differently than you. 

Regarding religion, I do agree with the Golden Rule "Do unto others." So I am consistent in saying that I couldn't care less if some photographer didn't want to take pictures of my wedding. It wouldn't matter why they didn't want to. If they don't want to do it, I would prefer they didn't. I am sure you will counter with some "straight white male privilege" nonsense and that I don't understand oppression (because you can obvious sum up my entire life knowing nearly nothing about me because reasons) but I am consistent. I would not personally refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding if I did weddings but I support the right of service people to only take work they want to take. If you don't like that, it is your problem. And I will not apologize for feeling that way. So you can begin the retaliatory -isms that I am sure you will call me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
4 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Well, yeah. But that injustice is distributed very unevenly based on people’s race, religion, gender, and sexuality.

I would like to know how you can generalize this point? I have known black people from two parent households where both parents had PhDs and I have known white people from single mother homes where their mom had a boyfriend that beat them and locked them in a closet. It must be great to generalize people based on stereotypes. Are you sure it isn't you that has bias?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Matthew has managed to tell most everyone here that they “lost” the argument and are “illogical” while continuously contradicting his own arguments. Seriously, you ought to read through this thread and see if you can spot the inconsistencies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
5 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

This is just nonsense. I cited a recent example where a gay couple sued so they could get married. They won and now gay people in America can get married.

I regret the need to continue this rather sordid discussion any further than has already been continued, but this subject deserves clearer thinking than this.

Gay people in America (at least, in New York) can already get married. This is not about some grand moral crusade. This is about wedding photos. I'm not saying don't enforce the law; enforce it, as a matter of general principle. This photographer sounds massively unpleasant, and far from the bastion of kindness and forgiveness religions often claim to push for. Still, let's not pretend this makes any very large difference to the grand scheme of things.

It also, as Matthew says, is not, or certainly should not, be about generalising about which group is worst-off. Based on the results of this court case it's hard to claim that anyone, beyond this photographer, is supporting the marginalisation of anyone else. The state appears to have acted entirely properly and precisely as any reasonable lawyer would have expected it to; this is no evidence of a grand conspiracy against gay people or anyone else. Quite the opposite. If this was an attempt to bully anyone it failed spectacularly.

These things vary internationally, but considering how poorly young white working-class boys, most of whom are either not gay or will turn out not to be gay, do in some parts of the world, it's clear that basing our thinking on what we might call traditional victim groups is no longer adequate - as if group membership should affect anyone's right to anything anyway.

I would point out also that the case in question was actually brought by the photographer against the jurisdiction in order to avoid being fined, not any potential client of the photographer against her.

P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Isn't that exactly the same thing? Saying some are more "celebrated" than others still makes things uneven for others.

No, not at all. If gays are more celebrated than straight people, it doesn't take anything away from straight people. If women are celebrated, it doesn't take away anything from men. It might be pointless but if people are having fun doing it, it's fine.

However, if you start issuing quotas, like how many women must be present on film sets, or how many female DPs must be nominated at awards ceremonies, then we are going to have a very real problem.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
6 hours ago, Raaf Sundquist said:

Which ones are the "big three"?

I could be outdated on this but it used to be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism were the three largest religions in the world by affiliation. Has this changed?

59 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

Matthew has managed to tell most everyone here that they “lost” the argument and are “illogical” while continuously contradicting his own arguments. Seriously, you ought to read through this thread and see if you can spot the inconsistencies. 

I haven't "told most everyone here". I told Chance directly. 

If you have contradictions to bring up then go for it. But a blanket statement like above has no value if you don't point out specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I don't agree with that. I would go so far as to say that some groups of people are actually celebrated more than others. That's not a bad thing as long as you aren't taking anything away from me. Celebrate all you like, it's all good. All I know for a fact is that I do my best to treat all persons fairly.

In fairness, I’m looking more at American history, so I can’t speak for the whole world.

But agree or not, justice in the U.S. is definitely not distributed evenly among all races, religions, genders, and sexualities. There have been several examples of such targeted injustice in this thread already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

This right here shows that you have lost the argument. You are far too emotionally invested.

To just pick a random example... I guess drunk driving is fine because all of those mothers who were campaigning against it were too emotionally invested?

Or women shouldn’t be able to vote because the women who fought for that right were too emotionally invested?

Pretty sure the reason a lot of people get involved in social causes is emotional investment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Regarding religion, I do agree with the Golden Rule "Do unto others." 

And for the tenth time, I am not concerned about your religion.

I am concerned about the people who are bullying marginalized people and using their “religion” to justify that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I would like to know how you can generalize this point? I have known black people from two parent households where both parents had PhDs and I have known white people from single mother homes where their mom had a boyfriend that beat them and locked them in a closet. It must be great to generalize people based on stereotypes. Are you sure it isn't you that has bias?

Dude. There are literally a bunch of new anti-trans laws on the books as of last year.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html

And of course, this thread was started because people are trying to use a legal “religion” loophole to deny service to gay people.

These aren’t generalizations.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Gay people in America (at least, in New York) can already get married.

This is a relatively recent development, but yes they can.

And yet people are still using, or at least trying to use, legal “religious” loopholes to further marginalize gay people.

I know that not being able to get a cake from your local baker isn’t as egregious as not being able to get married, but it is still someone using the power of the state to bully a marginalized group of people.

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...