(04-08-2014 12:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:32 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  someone's sexuality has as much to do with their character as a person as their skin color. the sad part is that in 2014 people still believe otherwise. ==> aka the people who are mentally blind to reality.

What? People are born with their skin color. I've never heard of a black guy going to prison and leaving as a white guy, but I have heard of straight guys going to prison and walking out gay. Sexuality is a choice.

yeah.....

cuz obviously one day you decided to flip a switch in your brain where you decided "from this day forward I will always be attracted to women"

sorry dumb*** it doesn't work that way.

and even if it was a choice I still don't see how it defines someones character negatively. but then again I am not a homophobic prick.

so...

No, I pointed out that one day you decided to flip a switch in your brain where you decided "from this day forward I will always be attracted to men even though before I got this life sentence I used to like women." But then again I'm not a liberal apologist prick with zero knowledge of anything and don't need it as long as my mom's basement is available.

no your are the type who thinks the media, academic,

That's your excuse? Then why were academia and the media saying it was a problem even into the 1980s?

Oh, and how's that AGW consensus working out?

Quote:but have fun living in that delusional world of yours.

Have fun trying to find a job in the real world.

(04-07-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they're not getting discriminated because they are straight. they are getting discriminated because of the content of their character.

only a dumb hick thinks it has anything to do with their hetrosexuality.

You're right, it doesn't have to do with their heterosexuality.

But you understand that "content of their character" pretty much covers everything under the sun: You did something I politically or morally disagree with, so no soup for you! If you back a business banning entry to people based on their favoring an ideological topic that may 'damage' you (either economically or socially or whatnot), then you'll have to prepare for the big can of worms that'd be opened.

I'm not even necessarily against the gay bar's actions here (and it's a symbolic/self-promotion gesture anyhow... I'm sure politicians who are against gay-friendly legislation don't go within a mile of this place). I'm not sure what to think about all this. But you could use this line of thinking to "ban" pretty much anyone.

Content of character.. Must've learned it at school.

I love how John can't talk with the adults so he goes right to insults and talking about character.

So service can be refused due to character but not sexuality. Sounds like both were due to sexuality.

(04-08-2014 12:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  no your are the type who thinks the media, academic, & basically reality all has it wrong.....

but have fun living in that delusional world of yours.

And there are some of us who support gay rights but think that a world of suing someone over not taking pictures at your wedding is going to do nothing but build angst against your crusade. It is idiocy, and the exact opposite of common sense.

If someone doesn't want your money, go to someone else! That simple. There are tons of photographers out there who can't get enough business to support themselves that would have loved the opportunity to film their wedding.

(04-08-2014 09:30 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 12:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  no your are the type who thinks the media, academic, & basically reality all has it wrong.....

but have fun living in that delusional world of yours.

And there are some of us who support gay rights but think that a world of suing someone over not taking pictures at your wedding is going to do nothing but build angst against your crusade. It is idiocy, and the exact opposite of common sense.

If someone doesn't want your money, go to someone else! That simple. There are tons of photographers out there who can't get enough business to support themselves that would have loved the opportunity to film their wedding.

Thank you. John doesn't understand that. He thinks we should sue if we don't get a trophy for sucking at soccer.

(04-07-2014 11:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:06 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Well John, remember this when you're working at McDonald's after college and a rude customer comes up, you don't get to refuse service to them.

LOL at that ^^^^^

and FYI being rude is a reflection of character. someones sexuality is not.

wut?

(04-07-2014 11:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  dumb*** should have just said he was booked.

That or just made sure all the photos were out of focus. "Oops, man, I though I had everything down just right. Sorry, my bad."

But you're right - I'm booked that day would have been the best choice.

I thought you could refuse service to anyone you wanted to.

(04-08-2014 09:51 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  dumb*** should have just said he was booked.

That or just made sure all the photos were out of focus. "Oops, man, I though I had everything down just right. Sorry, my bad."

But you're right - I'm booked that day would have been the best choice.

I thought you could refuse service to anyone you wanted to.

Nope... It's harsh but that's the way it is.

(04-07-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 08:55 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 08:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Or the gay bar that refused to serve politicians who back anti gay laws?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/2...gislation/

I hear crickets.

sorry. i don't answer to redneck logic.

oh sorry....someone refused to serve politicians?????? http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bo...to_se.html

^^^^
tell them welcome to the club.

You're a f***ing hypocrite!!! It's not okay to discriminate against gays, but it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against straights? Don't bother answering, I already know your answer.

they're not getting discriminated because they are straight. they are getting discriminated because of the content of their character.

only a dumb hick thinks it has anything to do with their hetrosexuality.

Anybody hard up enough to sue a photo company for not taking wedding pictures is/was certainly only asking because they know they'll get denied, therefore further driving the case of gay marriage or equality nationwide. These people look for things like this. I'm shocked that anyone would even call the appeal denial common sense. The case from the gay couple was simply a plea for attention.

(04-08-2014 10:04 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 08:55 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I hear crickets.

sorry. i don't answer to redneck logic.

oh sorry....someone refused to serve politicians?????? http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bo...to_se.html

^^^^
tell them welcome to the club.

You're a f***ing hypocrite!!! It's not okay to discriminate against gays, but it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against straights? Don't bother answering, I already know your answer.

they're not getting discriminated because they are straight. they are getting discriminated because of the content of their character.

only a dumb hick thinks it has anything to do with their hetrosexuality.

Anybody hard up enough to sue a photo company for not taking wedding pictures is/was certainly only asking because they know they'll get denied, therefore further driving the case of gay marriage or equality nationwide. These people look for things like this. I'm shocked that anyone would even call the appeal denial common sense. The case from the gay couple was simply a plea for attention.

That's why - as HOD stated earlier - they should have just said "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day"

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 10:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they're not getting discriminated because they are straight. they are getting discriminated because of the content of their character.

only a dumb hick thinks it has anything to do with their hetrosexuality.

Holy crap, did you just say that with a straight face? That's exactly what the anti gay marriage folks. You're mentally blind to reality.

someone's sexuality has as much to do with their character as a person as their skin color. the sad part is that in 2014 people still believe otherwise. ==> aka the people who are mentally blind to reality.

What? People are born with their skin color. I've never heard of a black guy going to prison and leaving as a white guy, but I have heard of straight guys going to prison and walking out gay. Sexuality is a choice.

yeah.....

cuz obviously one day you decided to flip a switch in your brain where you decided "from this day forward I will always be attracted to women"

sorry dumb*** it doesn't work that way.

and even if it was a choice I still don't see how it defines someones character negatively. but then again I am not a homophobic prick.

so...

Phobia - an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation.

Common symptoms associated with phobias include:

Dizziness

Breathlessness

Nausea

A sense of unreality

Fear of dying

In some cases, these symptoms can escalate into a full-scale anxiety attack. As a consequence of these symptoms, some individuals begin to isolate themselves, leading to severe difficulties in daily life. In other cases, the individual may seek out medical care due to a constant concern with imagined illnesses or imminent death.


Perhaps someone here on this forum, that likes to call us homophobes, can point out to me where this says anything about phobia symptoms including disagreements about things.


I'll wait.

(04-08-2014 10:21 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 10:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Holy crap, did you just say that with a straight face? That's exactly what the anti gay marriage folks. You're mentally blind to reality.

someone's sexuality has as much to do with their character as a person as their skin color. the sad part is that in 2014 people still believe otherwise. ==> aka the people who are mentally blind to reality.

What? People are born with their skin color. I've never heard of a black guy going to prison and leaving as a white guy, but I have heard of straight guys going to prison and walking out gay. Sexuality is a choice.

yeah.....

cuz obviously one day you decided to flip a switch in your brain where you decided "from this day forward I will always be attracted to women"

sorry dumb*** it doesn't work that way.

and even if it was a choice I still don't see how it defines someones character negatively. but then again I am not a homophobic prick.

so...

Phobia - an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation.

Common symptoms associated with phobias include:

Dizziness

Breathlessness

Nausea

A sense of unreality

Fear of dying

In some cases, these symptoms can escalate into a full-scale anxiety attack. As a consequence of these symptoms, some individuals begin to isolate themselves, leading to severe difficulties in daily life. In other cases, the individual may seek out medical care due to a constant concern with imagined illnesses or imminent death.


Perhaps someone here on this forum, that likes to call us homophobes, can point out to me where this says anything about phobia symptoms including disagreements about things.


I'll wait.

It's vacuous liberal language.

(04-08-2014 10:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  That's why - as HOD stated earlier - they should have just said "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day"

Wouldn't have guaranteed that they wouldn't have sued. What if they didn't make the content clear up front?

I agree that these people are LOOKING for fights (why would you WANT to hire someone with whom you disagreed so much to do something as artistic and important as photograph your wedding or make your wedding cake?)

It's just all silly. Obviously there aren't enough gay-friendly photographers and pastry chefs around. We're not talking gun manufacturers or football coaches, but pastry chefs and photographers.

Put them out of business by NOT GOING TO THEM.

(04-08-2014 10:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  That's why - as HOD stated earlier - they should have just said "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day"

Wouldn't have guaranteed that they wouldn't have sued. What if they didn't make the content clear up front?I agree that these people are LOOKING for fights (why would you WANT to hire someone with whom you disagreed so much to do something as artistic and important as photograph your wedding or make your wedding cake?)

It's just all silly. Obviously there aren't enough gay-friendly photographers and pastry chefs around. We're not talking gun manufacturers or football coaches, but pastry chefs and photographers.

Put them out of business by NOT GOING TO THEM.

That thought crossed my mind. Maybe they could have just stated, "I'll be so upset at doing this that the pictures may come out blurry, but, you know, I'll try my best - but no guarantees"

In a nice way - tell them "You want sh!tty photos, force me to do this".

(04-08-2014 10:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:04 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry. i don't answer to redneck logic.

oh sorry....someone refused to serve politicians?????? http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bo...to_se.html

^^^^
tell them welcome to the club.

You're a f***ing hypocrite!!! It's not okay to discriminate against gays, but it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against straights? Don't bother answering, I already know your answer.

they're not getting discriminated because they are straight. they are getting discriminated because of the content of their character.

only a dumb hick thinks it has anything to do with their hetrosexuality.

Anybody hard up enough to sue a photo company for not taking wedding pictures is/was certainly only asking because they know they'll get denied, therefore further driving the case of gay marriage or equality nationwide. These people look for things like this. I'm shocked that anyone would even call the appeal denial common sense. The case from the gay couple was simply a plea for attention.

That's why - as HOD stated earlier - they should have just said "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day"

I'm sure they would have if they knew they were being baited... Bet it never happens again though.

(04-08-2014 10:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  That's why - as HOD stated earlier - they should have just said "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day"

Wouldn't have guaranteed that they wouldn't have sued. What if they didn't make the content clear up front?

I agree that these people are LOOKING for fights (why would you WANT to hire someone with whom you disagreed so much to do something as artistic and important as photograph your wedding or make your wedding cake?)

It's just all silly. Obviously there aren't enough gay-friendly photographers and pastry chefs around. We're not talking gun manufacturers or football coaches, but pastry chefs and photographers.

Put them out of business by NOT GOING TO THEM.

I've noticed that no supporter has responded to your post a few pages back, or the first one, and they both made perfect sense... Funny isn't it.

(04-08-2014 10:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  That thought crossed my mind. Maybe they could have just stated, "I'll be so upset at doing this that the pictures may come out blurry, but, you know, I'll try my best - but no guarantees"

In a nice way - tell them "You want sh!tty photos, force me to do this".

That should be obvious that someone who 'doesn't want to be there' isn't going to take good pictures... but it would STILL result in this lawsuit.

Would you want a devout Muslim to be the photographer for a bikini shoot? No. You want someone who 'buys' what you are selling. Who will enjoy the activities going on and anticipate joy or beauty as the participants would and capture those moments. If you find two men kissing to be 'ugly', you aren't going to get a very good picture of it.

Leftists on this issue want to basically argue that we should use the power of government to FORCE people to accept things that they don't like. I'd honestly ask them... Do ANY of them think that they are going to change these people's minds by suing them? No. If anything, you're only going to serve to make them accept the job and then do an intentionally poor job of it.... which ultimately only hurts, and not helps the couple. I mean, they don't think they can PROVE that the photographer intentionally wasn't ready at the key moment or didn't quite focus it just right. They'll take good pictures of things they find interesting... like children dancing on the dance floor and intimate moments of patrons, and just somehow 'miss' the great moments of the ceremony.

The better solution is to simply recognize these businesses as ones that don't do 'this sort of job', whether it be gay weddings or bachelor parties or bikini models or kids party's well... and send ALL of their business to those that EMBRACE those themes.

(04-08-2014 10:40 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I've noticed that no supporter has responded to your post a few pages back, or the first one, and they both made perfect sense... Funny isn't it.

I know you didn't mean it this way... but it's neither amusing nor surprising... because as you know, despite what they say... they KNOW what this is really about.

You don't have a Constitutional right to wedding photographs by the photographer of your choice.... and you certainly shouldn't have the right to SEEK OUT people who disagree with your vision of the world and then use the threat of law to make them do something that so many others would willingly and happily do.

I can't walk into my grocery store and DEMAND that the bakery decorate me a 'human torso' cake. There are bakeries who actually specialize in that genre, and I certainly wouldn't ask the 'erotic bakery' to do a Barbie cake for by 6 year old's party.

But Ham, what about "content of character"?

(04-08-2014 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:40 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I've noticed that no supporter has responded to your post a few pages back, or the first one, and they both made perfect sense... Funny isn't it.

I know you didn't mean it this way... but it's neither amusing nor surprising... because as you know, despite what they say... they KNOW what this is really about.

You don't have a Constitutional right to wedding photographs by the photographer of your choice.... and you certainly shouldn't have the right to SEEK OUT people who disagree with your vision of the world and then use the threat of law to make them do something that so many others would willingly and happily do.

Just like calling out famous people to question their thoughts... Chick-Fil-A, Phil Robertson... These people KNEW what they were going to say, that's why they were asked.