[cort]

I am tired of all the discrimination, hate and bigotry in the name of religion.

[The Old Man]

Hate and bigotry in the name of progress is better?

[photobuggie]

cort, on 14 January 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

I am tired of all the discrimination, hate and bigotry in the name of religion.

Religion isn't an excuse for bigotry. It is just a transparent excuse for hatred and discrimination.

[raider]

i quit.

[raider]

solved.

[Sharky]

m&m, on 12 January 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Money is one thing, morals is another. I wouldn't shoot it as I believe that should be reserved for a man and a woman. But at the same time I am not going to try to stop those who wish to go that route and certainly wouldn't blame any photographers for increasing their income. In a way I think it would be a major challenge to shoot a wedding like that.

And how would this be a challenge to shoot "a wedding like that?" What possible challenges does that hold? I promise you, the g a y genes do not rub off, nor infect, anyone with whom they are in contact. Promise! If you think they are a challenge, I assure you that they are only the mental obstacles that lie within your own mind that make it a challenge. The cake, rings, dresses, etc. are all the same stuff you'd find anywhere else. You know, we shop at the same stores as the straights! Yikes! And let's not forget the rest of the LGBTQ community; do you even KNOW what BTQ stands for? Now, those people would probably really be a challenge!

If the couple chooses to do something completely off the wall and unique, it is because as a PERSON (you know, human being), they wanted a unique wedding. Perhaps they saw a themed wedding on TLC or some other channel that inspired them on their "g a y" TV, because, you know, we don't watch "normal" TV.

Aye, aye, aye, I wouldn't even want someone shooting my wedding or commitment ceremony who opposed it.

"‘It’s very dear to me, the issue of g a y marriage. Or as I like to call it: “Marriage.” You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not g a y lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t g a y park it." -Liz Feldman

[Sharky]

As a side note, if MPix does not change "g a y" to not be asterisked out, I will be hot on their heels to change this and q u e e r. They are only propagating an idea that g a y is a bad word. Not cool, Mpix, not cool.

[tlzimmerman]

Sharky, on 16 January 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

As a side note, if MPix does not change "g a y" to not be asterisked out, I will be hot on their heels to change this and q u e e r. They are only propagating an idea that g a y is a bad word. Not cool, Mpix, not cool.

To defend them, they probably just installed a bulk word filter that had it in there, I doubt they made the conscious choice to ban it. I could be wrong, but that would be my guess. Now if they are made aware of it and don't change it, then you could have a gripe.

[Sharky]

tlzimmerman, on 16 January 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

To defend them, they probably just installed a bulk word filter that had it in there, I doubt they made the conscious choice to ban it. I could be wrong, but that would be my guess. Now if they are made aware of it and don't change it, then you could have a gripe.

Ah- good point.

[OneMoreShot]

Wow. I'm reading this thread with my jaw hitting the keyboard.

Sharky, Amen sista!

Back to the OP, Gary that is funny!

[tlzimmerman]

All I will say to the issue of this is the hate and bigotry goes both ways, and really at the end of the day when the courts get involved each side gets short changed, and gets angrier, and the wheels on the bus go round and round. I can't imagine the feeling of being told that I could not marry the person I love, or that a photographer wouldn't photograph it because of who we were (I am straight, so things are easy for me). The other side will never know that type of pain, because all they see is standing up for their beliefs. I also cannot imagine being sued essentially having to close my business and file bankruptcy because I tried to take a stand in something that I truly believe in to the core. The minority will never understand how that feels either, because they feel vindicated and like they deserved it. You can't bring yourself up by tearing others down, and that goes for both sides.

The only thing I have to say is truly, 98% of people on both sides of this argument are good, caring, and loving people. Time brings understanding and acceptance. At some point both sides have to accept that the other side isn't changing their views no matter how much they scream or sue or hate. At the end of the day, neither side is necessarily wrong except for in the eyes of the people across the line, and we have to come to a compromised solution that has some understanding in it to be able to move forward, threads like these show just how far we have to come to get to that point.

[Sharky]

Human rights win. Period. One side IS wrong. Happy MLK Day!

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King Jr.

[tlzimmerman]

Sharky, on 16 January 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Human rights win. Period. One side IS wrong. Happy MLK Day!

***sigh*** shoulda known that was wasted time. Your quote proves my point. Injustice...anywhere....to anyone....no matter what side of any argument they are on, is wrong. Until both sides start caring, even just a little bit, about the way the other side feels, its a moot point. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them wrong, and that goes both ways. This isn't math, and its not black and white, yet people fight like it is.

My opinion? Realize that this whole entire issue is much bigger than someone being right, and someone being wrong. I say find love for yourself, and find love for your fellow man, whoever they are, and whatever their flaws or differences are.

Hell, Martin Luther King himself said something in a magazine interview that I don't agree with at all....why would anyone choose to be *** or let themselves be taught to be ***? He was a religious man. Here is a CNN article about it, and a quote.



(CNN)– Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

“I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

We know what King thought about race, poverty and war. But what was his attitude toward *** people, and if he was alive today would he see the *** rights movement as another stage of the civil rights movement?

[Sharky]

Since his right-hand man was an openly *** activist, I think he would be proud to stand alongside the movement.

What is the injustice to those opposing marriage for same-s e x couples? There is none. We are not forcing anything; we are wanting equal rights. That is all. That does not harm you on the conservative side. I really do not understand what you mean now by "caring about the other side?" I have no hate for you, only sadness that you have not a full heart. Equal rights for human kind is black and white in my book. Your opinion is that equality only extends to some people. Sad day for you.

[tlzimmerman]

Sharky, on 16 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Since his right-hand man was an openly *** activist, I think he would be proud to stand alongside the movement.

What is the injustice to those opposing marriage for same-s e x couples? There is none. We are not forcing anything; we are wanting equal rights. That is all. That does not harm you on the conservative side. I really do not understand what you mean now by "caring about the other side?" I have no hate for you, only sadness that you have not a full heart. Equal rights for human kind is black and white in my book. Your opinion is that equality only extends to some people. Sad day for you.

I don't claim a side, I am switzerland. I have family on both sides of this issue, so please don't make it personal and say you are sad for me, I am a happy guy trust me. Its tearing families and people apart, thats whats sad. I just truly try to see things from both sides, because its all I know to do to try to hold things together. I have friends that are ***, and friends that are devout catholic.

Just to try to explain the conservative side though, you don't see any injustice because you plainly don't understand how some people in our world feel about marriage and s e x. They truly feel, with all their heart and soul, that sex should only happen within the confines of a marriage. They believe thats how God wanted it, and the reason that he wanted it that way was that a major component, or in many peoples views the most important component, is to bring children into the world. You take people who have dedicated their entire life to their husband or wife and family, bypassing countless opportunities to cheat, or people who have spent their entire lives being chaste in the absence of a husband or wife, and they do it happily because they feel thats what is right and they do it because they value and hold marriage sacred. Coming from that perspective, can you see where people are coming from when their opinion is that homosexuals cannot partake in Marriage? In their mind, Marriage is what they have with their their significant other, and homosexuals, whatever they have, is different, if for no other reason than it cannot procreate. You take any person in the world, find the one thing that is most important to them, something they have dedicated their life to, and then tell them with one fell swoop of legal action in a day you are going to change what it means to them and the world. That causes hurt and harm, you may not see it, or want to see it, or understand it, but its there. I think its harder to understand because the vast majority of the world anymore doesn't hold marriage, relationships, or sex to that level anymore, but that word, that act, that way of life, still means something very real and very special to a subset of people in the world.

Hope that answers your questions. Like I said, I truly believe neither side is wrong. Its black and white to you, but there is just as many people in the world who its black and white in the exact opposite way than you. What do you get when you mash that together? One big ole hairy pile of grey!

[Sharky]

I have friends who are g a y AND devout Catholic. Just because you are g a y does not mean you are without God or religion. To be so unwelcomed by the church, the same as Jesus was by His own people, one must see how devout and loving g a y Catholics are to continue their faith. (just wanted to clear that up.)

I hold marriage at a very high level. You are saying I know nothing about marriage. Good for you that you feel g a y people being able to marry hurts your marriage. I am sorry your marriage is not strong enough to hold up to the extreme desecration that we will do to it. That is something you can hopefully help through therapy. Marriage is not about procreation to everyone. It may be to you, but countless people are not ABLE to have children. They deserve to be in a marriage if they want to! Your comments are cruel and ignorant.

Peace, dude.

[tlzimmerman]

Ok at this point you are just putting words in my mouth, I shoulda never started. Sharky I respect you and your work enough to walk away from the conversation at this point, I hope you can do the same and we can move on. Its obvious that I have offended you in some way, and for that I apologize.

And you are right in saying that comparing ***, to devout catholic above was not correct, as I to have homosexual friends who regularly attend mass.

[Sharky]

Thank you, and, yes, let's shake on it and walk away. Cheers!

[cloudnine]

Hey Sharky , if you find yourself in Asbury Park /nj for any odd reason in June , come to Pride At The Pony . I do photography at it and I often do the promo poster before hand and band photography for the flyers( don't know if I'll get it this year or not ) . It is a hopping event ..it is not unheard of for Bruce to show up out of nowhere

I'll buy ya a few beers

^Off topic , in way

Anyway , since this is the business section , I'll address this in a business perspective. If you service the public , you can't turn down business because the people are g a y no matter how big or small your company is. Well , you can , but if you do you can be sued by the people who will have all of their costs covered by attorneys who work for the State's Human Rights Commission or the ACLU. If you work within your church , or a church , you are insulated. But , if you provide to the public and say "no" to a minority ( which , g a y s are. They are protected by anti discrimination laws ) , you really better make sure you do have something booked or to do that day , and don't book it for anyone else. And if I did have the view that I did not photograph same sex or g a y anything ( I don't ) , I certainly would not be shoutin ' it out on a forum. Lawyers are AWESOME at web forensics when it comes to gathering material for a case.Especially ones on retainer for a huge outfit like the ACLU

Look up Elana Photography in New Mexico.

Nothing to do with my views for this part ..just saying that "we reserve the right to deny service to any customer" is a plastic sign you buy at the store , right next to the " participate at your own risk" signs.

If you don't believe me , I won't debate it. Look it up for yourself , ask an attorney , check with the PPA. When you serve the public you have to be wary of ALL anti discrimination regulations.

[monicab28]

m&m, on 13 January 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

nobody, I tell you, nobody can make you do work that would violate your freedom of religion, I guarantee to you that there is no way I would photograph a g a y wedding. There is no federal law that could order my company to work, when it is already "booked for another client, or simply not interested in doing the work"! If you are not pre-qualifying your clients right now, then I highly doubt you are a wedding/portrait photographer for a living. How you are pre-qualifying them is only up to you. Our clients always sign contract first, if I don't sign it, I would like to know what exactly would convince the court to say I was somehow obligated to do the job.

Ultimately, this situation will not happen, and it is a waste of time to argue with you to begin with. My religious and moral beliefs will always mean the most to me. As a business I would not enter into such work, just like I wouldn't into other things in life that I may find immoral or somehow wrong.

In the state of Colorado, Same sex marriages are not legal BUT....if I refuse to photograph one---doesn't matter why I wouldn't---I could be sued for discrimination. Of course, if I already have something booked, or can't do it on that day for another reason, they couldn't just sue me, but if I stated "I don't shoot same sex weddings", on those words alone, they could sue me and would most likely win in court here in Colorado. That's why I was so careful about my answer when the g a y couple kept pressing me for an answer.