V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
There’s an obvious difference between the two examples.
Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."
- Status
S
sealabeag
Guest
It’s irrelevant in my opinion if society is decent or not, what I said still stands in my opinion, no business should be forced to provide a service to anyone. I just added that at the end because it’s how a free market should work - a business is evil, people don’t use it, it fails. If it doesn’t, so be it.
V
vsedriver
Guest
And that is why we are seeing cases brought before the Supreme Court. The Constitution states that the government can’t make laws that restrict freedom of religion. Therefore a law that restricts a person’s right to practice their religion in a public setting is unconstitutional.
V
vsedriver
Guest
your assumption that the refusal of a photographer to photograph a gay wedding is an exclusion of people. It is not. It is a right to practice personal conscious/religion.
The First Amendment lays out the law for the right to religious freedom. So much so, that the government can’t make laws that determine what your religious practices are. If your religious practices are that you can’t participate in a gay wedding then the government has no legal right to prohibit you from making a living just because there is one activity in that profession your are not able to participate in.
Your suggestion that people of conscience must exclude themselves from engaging in public life is an infringement on the First Amendment right.
I
Inquiry
Guest
Technically true, but the exceptions to it are rare and this is not one of them.Inquiry:
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
This, on the other hand, is utterly false and shows a complete lack of understanding of what rights are.
I seriously want to get into the rest of what you said, but I can’t because I’m not going to risk watering this point down.
Rights are not granted by men. Rights are inherent. We already have them. The laws you are thinking of do not give nor define rights, and changing the law does not alter our rights. Instead, those laws acknowledge and protect the rights that already exist. Changing the law just changes the protections we have for the rights that are already ours.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Does this define the first font of morality for this photographer?
Objective of the act: Photographically document an intrinsically evil event for the actors’ and unknown third parties celebratory purposes in the future.
I
Inquiry
Guest
Friendly heads up, when you shut things down like that it doesn’t come across like a rebuttal it comes across like you just said “Nuh uh” really loudly. I don’t think that’s what you were going for and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so could you expand on what you mean?Inquiry:
Your opinion is noted, but not accepted, because it is incorrect.
S
sealabeag
Guest
No, no. He/she is correct. Rights are “inalienable”, God-given. Governments do not define what is or is not a human right. They can legislate, but if something they declare as law is not a right, it has no effect on the reality of our God-given rights.Inquiry:
Your opinion is noted, but not accepted, because it is incorrect.
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
Why do you refer to them as “God-given rights”, in quotation marks? Whether or not governments aid or hinder them, they exist. They exist regardless of our freedom act on them. Thus, “inalienable”.
S
sealabeag
Guest
And? They exist, regardless.
S
sealabeag
Guest
No, it is not obvious, and I don’t mean to be patronising but don’t think you understand how a right works. True rights are innate to the fact of being a human being, they are God given. They can be suppressed, interfered with, and circumstances can make some incapable of practicing them, but they exist, regardless.
On the other hand, a government can tell us, for example, that homosexuals have a “right” to marriage, but that makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that they don’t.
A right simply is.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
So if you’re an artist then you can discriminate. Fair enough.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Calliope talked only about making things that celebrate what she doesn’t want to celebrate and you don’t even know what she thinks about gays.
Last edited:
I
Inquiry
Guest
No, if you are an artist then your art is covered under free speech.
F
Freddy
Guest
‘I’d like a portrait of my partner and myself’’
‘Are you gay? I don’t paint gays’.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
She didn’t say that on this thread.
That’s not accuarate either. What’s being talked about isn’t the person themselves just actions that someone doesn’t want to show support for so if that were to happen it wouldn’t be justified.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
If you support someone’s right not to ‘help celebrate’ a gay marriage then I think it’s reasonable to say that you disgree with the marriage taking place in the first instance.Freddy:
She didn’t say that on this thread.
That’s not accuarate either. What’s being talked about isn’t the person themselves just actions that someone doesn’t want to show support for so if that were to happen it wouldn’t be justified.
And is there a difference between taking a picture of the happy couple and painting their portrait? Isn’t it also (gasp!) ‘helping to celebrate’ them being together?
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Painting a potrait for a couple is different then refusing to paint someone who is gay.
F
Freddy
Guest
I thought it was obvious I was talking about a gay couple. So is there a difference between painting them and photographing them?Freddy:
Painting a potrait for a couple is different then refusing to paint someone who is gay.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I thought the tense was singular and the plural that came after was meant in a general sense.
Morally no.
Last edited:
- Status