Legislation for gay marriage

tiler65 said:
Ok...................
Click to expand...

It's true. If you use your free speech to agree with the majority then that's fine if you use your free speech to disagree with the majority then your seen as argumentative or bigoted in some way so free speech is only available to those who agree with everyone else so it's not free at all is it?
 
Last edited:
pepi1967 said:
It's true. If you use your free speech to agree with the majority then that's fine if you use your free speech to disagree with the majority then your seen as argumentative or bigoted in some way so free speech is only available to those who agree with everyone else so it's not free at all is it?
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow.
 
what about luis suarez then tom? was he only exercising his free speech when he had his to do with patrice evra

surely racism cannot exist under a mantra of "free speech for all" where speaking your opinion of race in a derogatory way in public is deemed to come under free speech?

the same rule apply to homophobes - surely then there is no such thing? isn't it just free speech?

I don't think so, personally
 
joescrivens said:
what about luis suarez then tom? was he only exercising his free speech when he had his to do with patrice evra

surely racism cannot exist under a mantra of "free speech for all" where speaking your opinion of race in a derogatory way in public is deemed to come under free speech?
Click to expand...

You thought it was OK as it was a misunderstanding so if that is what you believe then fine...if you go through my many posts you will notice I am an advocate of the sticks and stones method of free speech....nothing has changed.
 
Last edited:
well, its your opinon and you are entitled to it.

I wonder if ade agrees?

I have to disagree, I think that you can have your opinon but if you go publically declaring that opinion in a way that discriminates then you do deserve to be punched in the face (figruatively speaking) as BSM so elegantly put it.

and since you can be arrested for doing so I guess the law also disagrees - the laws version of a punch in the face being a fine, community service or a prison sentence
 
joescrivens said:
well, its your opinon and you are entitled to it.

I wonder if ade agrees?

I have to disagree, I think that you can have your opinon but if you go publically declaring that opinion in a way that discriminates then you do deserve to be punched in the face (figruatively speaking) as BSM so elegantly put it.

and since you can be arrested for doing so I guess the law also disagrees - the laws version of a punch in the face being a fine, community service or a prison sentence
Click to expand...

What is my opinion Joe?
 
" having that opinion doesnt lead him to discriminate by for example refusing to photograph gay weddings" - hang on a cotton picking minute - the term "homophobe" was used in this context as well - when it is actually far from the truth.......

To use the following is in itself bigoted and discriminatory - "makes them a biggoted, backward halfwit who is still living in the past"

Let me explain - I dared to say that I am of the generation that finds the sight of two men snogging a complete turn off, and that in all conscience I could not make a good job of photographing a gay wedding if I was throwing up in the shrubbery, therefore it would be reasonable to allow me the right to be honest, and politely decline to do the wedding on the grounds that it is "outside my comfort zone", or even a simple "I don't do same sex weddings" - I dislike football intensely, nobody is going to try to insist that I photograph a football match......

If I'm be inference going to be called all sorts of names for daring to hold my views I'll extrapolate a little what I actually do feel on the matter. As a lad, I grew up at a time when homosexual acts were illegal, in the interim period, social mores and views have changed. I accept that it is absolutely fine for people of the same sex to be in love, to have the same legal property rights etc as "straight" couples, and have no problem whatsoever with civil partnerships, or even blessings in church, BUT (and it's a big but) I'm firmly of the view that a church wedding is by definition, between a man and a woman, and view this present legislation as a bit of early electioneering by a deeply unpopular party - it really is a daft fudge - it allows gay weddings in church, then says they will be protected from refusing to carry them out - as several have noted, it won't be long before that right is challenged.

I find the venom directed at those who don't feel comfortable photographing gay weddings as somewhat akin to the fact that if you criticise the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians, some will say you are anti-semitic - the fact I'm deeply uncomfortable with seeing men snogging does not make me homophobic............ If that's what they want to do, then absolutely fine, just please don't try to force me to take pictures of it!
 
Last edited:
what is it about two men kissing that would make you throw up in a bush martin?

would you throw up in a bush if you saw two women kissing too?
 
Some churches will be happy to let gay people marry in them, and marriage isn't always in church anyway, so the whole church issue is a bit of a red herring.
It has been stated that churches won't be forced to marry gay people. So where lies the issue with church? They do not 'own' the word marriage. And they don't get to make the laws in this country.
 
Martin, being uncomfortable about something is understandable. Lots of people are. Extrapolating that out to state that gay people shouldn't have the right to have children, not so much. That is how I read you post, I apologise if somehow i got the wrong end of the stick.
Your view of surrogacy also seems to be somewhat misplaced.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I completely respect that the religions can decide for themselves whether they want to allow same sex marriage within their faith.

The way I see it is that it's a win-win situation whichever way they decide. If they decide that same sex couples are OK then that's fantastic; they're showing that they can move with the times, adjust their moral compass to match the general feeling of the population and be completely accepting of people. If they choose to deny same sex couples marriage under the name of their religion then they prove the critics right, which can only damage their following as new generations of people (who are probably more tolerant of homosexuality) come through and in time perhaps the intolerant values upheld by said religion will kill itself off.
Click to expand...

Christianity is based upon the principles given by an unchanging God - it's not appropriate for them to move with the times or adjust their moral compass. The church is supposed to be lead by God not by the general feeling of the population.
True Christianity also involves loving all people - loving people and loving their actions are 2 different things.

I can't help but notice the excessive use of the word homophobia in this thread. Disagreeing with gay marriage and homophobia are not the same thing (although those who are the latter will probably do the former).
 
TopBanana said:
Christianity is based upon the principles given by an unchanging God - it's not appropriate for them to move with the times or adjust their moral compass. The church is supposed to be lead by God not by the general feeling of the population.
Click to expand...
Which church? Because many have a long history of adapting and changing, surely the Church of England was borne out of this?
 
Organnyx said:
If that's what they want to do, then absolutely fine, just please don't try to force me to take pictures of it!
Click to expand...

no one is forcing you nto take pictures of anything though - but if you choose to offer a service photographings weddings it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexuality

I'd also note that the other comments were general, not aimed at you specifically.
 
TopBanana said:
I can't help but notice the excessive use of the word homophobia in this thread. Disagreeing with gay marriage and homophobia are not the same thing (although those who are the latter will probably do the former).
Click to expand...

But for what other reasons could you be against gay marriage? In order to not think they should marry aren't you being homophobic?

also wasn't it man who wrote these principles - not an actual god - he didn't use a pen, that was a man (or men) interpreting what he decided.
 
Last edited:
TopBanana said:
I can't help but notice the excessive use of the word homophobia in this thread. Disagreeing with gay marriage and homophobia are not the same thing (although those who are the latter will probably do the former).
Click to expand...

but refusing to accord gay people the same rights as heterosexuals is a homophobic action.

which is the key point everyone has freedom of opinion, but actions are confined by laws.

so it is perfectly acceptable for a wedding photographer to be opposed to gay marriage [opinion] but not for him to discriminate based on his beliefs [action]

equally it is perfectly legal for a publican to dislike people whose skin colour differs from his own, but illegal for him to bar them enmasse from his pub.
 
"what is it about two men kissing that would make you throw up in a bush martin" - for the simple fact I am revolted by the sight..... as I've said, I grew up at a time when attitudes were very different - perhaps it was because in my teens I was cursed with a baby face, and suffered the attentions of and was molested by predatory homosexuals (at that time, you took your life in your hands using a public loo) - I think I'm allowed to be a touch "twitchy" about the subject - as I've said before, if we are to be tolerant, then it should extend to all of us, not just a vociferous minority - I'm not homophobic, I am just not "comfortable" with it's physical manifestation...and as I said, would be unable to do a good job of photographing a gay wedding, so why try to force me to do so - I presume I'm allowed to say "I don't do kiddy portraits"
Another good example - I'm comfortable shooting female nudes, but find shooting "boudoir" to be deeply uncomfortable, as to me it has sleazy connotations - noone's going to call me names for saying "I don't do boudoir"
 
Headless Lois said:
Which church? Because many have a long history of adapting and changing, surely the Church of England was borne out of this?
Click to expand...

quite - the Church of England was born out of an adaptation of religious principle regarding divorce - specifically that Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Arragon and marry Anne Boleyn.

also before that the synod of whitby, in 836 (I think) made a decision on whether england should follow the principals of the celtic church or the saxon church, they chose the latter which is why there was a bar on women preists for so long (The celtic church prior to that allowed women to be ordained, it also allowed monastrys to be mixed and monks to marry)

The church may be based on the word of god, but is policies are based on the interpretation of men, and since only God is infallible, it is not reasonable for those men to claim that they are uniformly right in every decree
 
Organnyx said:
"what is it about two men kissing that would make you throw up in a bush martin" - for the simple fact I am revolted by the sight..... as I've said, I grew up at a time when attitudes were very different - perhaps it was because in my teens I was cursed with a baby face, and suffered the attentions of and was molested by predatory homosexuals (at that time, you took your life in your hands using a public loo) - I think I'm allowed to be a touch "twitchy" about the subject - as I've said before, if we are to be tolerant, then it should extend to all of us, not just a vociferous minority - I'm not homophobic, I am just not "comfortable" with it's physical manifestation
Click to expand...

do you feel the same way about two women kissing?
 
big soft moose said:
but refusing to accord gay people the same rights as heterosexuals is a homophobic action.

which is the key point everyone has freedom of opinion, but actions are confined by laws.

so it is perfectly acceptable for a wedding photographer to be opposed to gay marriage [opinion] but not for him to discriminate based on his beliefs [action]

equally it is perfectly legal for a publican to dislike people whose skin colour differs from his own, but illegal for him to bar them enmasse from his pub.
Click to expand...

Isn't homophobia an irrational fear or hatred? Surely you can disagree with a principle without fearing or hating gay people.
 
Organnyx said:
if we are to be tolerant, then it should extend to all of us, not just a vociferous minority
Click to expand...

but if you wish to be intollerant why would you expect tollerance in return - if you wish people to be tollerant of your views and behaviours surely you should extend that tollerance to others

As I said earlier if you are unable to shoot a particular subject for a physical reason - like for example you don't offer a boudoir service period then thats fine, equally you could decline a flambouyantly alternative service ( Gay or Straight) because its not what you have experience of shooting.

But if you are going to offer a straight forward marriage service featuring traditional shots etc only then you have to offer that service regardless of the sexuality (or race, disability etc) of the participants - to do otherwise is discriminatory and thus illegal.
 
Yes I do feel the same about two women snogging - not quite as stomach-churning as men, but I'm still not comfortable with it - as I said, there's lots of things we're not "comfortable" with, but for some reason I can refuse to shoot kids, football or boudoir, but not a gay wedding..........
PS I'm now retired, and very relieved I can choose what/who I shoot
 
TopBanana said:
Isn't homophobia an irrational fear or hatred? Surely you can disagree with a principle without fearing or hating gay people.
Click to expand...

in its litteral sense yes it means an unreasoning or irrational fear of homosexuals - but words change meanings and a homophobe in an everyday sense is someone who discriminates against gay people based on predjudices against them.

(another example of this change of meaning would be paedophile - litterally that means someone who likes or loves children "phile" being the antonym of "phobe" - but there are many people who love children who would not appreciate that description due to its every day meaning differing from its litteral one)
 
big soft moose said:
but refusing to accord gay people the same rights as heterosexuals is a homophobic action.

which is the key point everyone has freedom of opinion, but actions are confined by laws.

so it is perfectly acceptable for a wedding photographer to be opposed to gay marriage [opinion] but not for him to discriminate based on his beliefs [action]

equally it is perfectly legal for a publican to dislike people whose skin colour differs from his own, but illegal for him to bar them enmasse from his pub.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that telling a gay joke could be homophobic?

You yourself said in an earlier thread you would not do a Jewish wedding again, how is that not racist?
 
Moose is absolutely correct. Being gay is classed as a protected characteristic, and as such, a person can't be discriminated against, as a consumer, based on thier sexual orientation. So if you, as a professional wedding photographer, refuse to cover the marriage of a same sex couple simply because thier sexual preference makes you uncomfortable, you are breaking the law under the Equality act 2010. You might not like that fact, but fact it is.
 
Organnyx said:
but for some reason I can refuse to shoot kids, football or boudoir, but not a gay wedding..........
Click to expand...

you can indeed chose not to shoot a gay wedding - you simply say "Sorry I am not a wedding photographer"

which is the sailent difference the others are genres - but the genre here is "wedding "not "gay wedding" or "straight wedding".

equally someone who chooses to shoot kids cant say " i'll only shoot white kids"

If you chose to offer a service in a certain genre , you must offer it equally regardless of race, sex, orientation, disability etc to do otherwise is discrimination
 
Organnyx said:
Yes I do feel the same about two women snogging - not quite as stomach-churning as men, but I'm still not comfortable with it - as I said, there's lots of things we're not "comfortable" with, but for some reason I can refuse to shoot kids, football or boudoir, but not a gay wedding..........
PS I'm now retired, and very relieved I can choose what/who I shoot
Click to expand...

but football, boudoir and children photography are genres of photography. Gay couples getting married is no different in genre to straight couples getting married.
 
woah, pete and I making the exact same point at the exact same time. it beggars belief!
 
I'd argue that retaining the right to be honest, and saying "sorry, I don't do gay weddings" is not discriminating against them at all (possibly discriminating towards them), but in fact bending over backwards to ensure they get the very best on their big day as I wouldn't be able to do a very good job of it - I'd far sooner send them to my gay friend (yes, I do have them!) who's rather good at them......

That's not hating anybody, just being straight and honest, but with people screaming "homophobe" I'd just have to be a lying hypocrite and say "sorry, I'm already booked" like many do.......
 
take yourself out of the situation thats personal to you for a moment martin and consider a different example.

Would you think it was ok to refuse a wedding based on the couple being black? Does your same rationale apply or would you think the photographer was in the wrong
 
Organnyx said:
I'd argue that retaining the right to be honest, and saying "sorry, I don't do gay weddings" is not discriminating against them at all (possibly discriminating towards them), but in fact bending over backwards to ensure they get the very best on their big day as I wouldn't be able to do a very good job of it - I'd far sooner send them to my gay friend (yes, I do have them!) who's rather good at them......

That's not hating anybody, just being straight and honest, but with people screaming "homophobe" I'd just have to be a lying hypocrite and say "sorry, I'm already booked" like many do.......
Click to expand...

It's a right that doesn't exist, and so cannot be retained.
 
Turning it on its head... if you were a gay couple would you want someone who was not comfortable shooting it? If i was choosing a tog I would want to feel a rapport.

What if Nick Griffin wanted a wedding tog and approached you? Would you turn it down as you dont like his views? How is that different to turning down a gay wedding as you dont like their views?
 
cambsno said:
You yourself said in an earlier thread you would not do a Jewish wedding again, how is that not racist?
Click to expand...

No I said I would not do a mass traditional jewish wedding as first shooter - because that requires abilities and scale of service that i'm not able to deliver.

I have no problem offering the same service (ie a simple straight forward shoot with a limited number of participants) to a jewish couple as i would to those of any other religion or race.

Likewise someone who only shoots traditional weddings would be fine declining to shoot a massively alternative LGBT wedding (Like the one i did a couple of years ago where everyone was in fancy dress, and the reception was a softball match) because that style isnt what they do , but if they offer a package that covers a simple service, and straight forward group shots etc up to first dance then they can't not offer that to a LGBT couple who want that style of service/coverage
 
viv1969 said:
Moose is absolutely correct. Being gay is classed as a protected characteristic, and as such, a person can't be discriminated against, as a consumer, based on thier sexual orientation. So if you, as a professional wedding photographer, refuse to cover the marriage of a same sex couple simply because thier sexual preference makes you uncomfortable, you are breaking the law under the Equality act 2010. You might not like that fact, but fact it is.
Click to expand...

Ruth, has this latest legislation changed this, or was it true with being asked to cover a civil partnership? Could a tog legitimately say "I don't cover civil partnerships" without breaking the equality act?
 
Organnyx said:
I'
That's not hating anybody, just being straight and honest,
Click to expand...

but its discriminatory - its not straight and honest to refuse to offer a service to someone because of their orientation
 
cambsno said:
Turning it on its head... if you were a gay couple would you want someone who was not comfortable shooting it? If i was choosing a tog I would want to feel a rapport.

What if Nick Griffin wanted a wedding tog and approached you? Would you turn it down as you dont like his views? How is that different to turning down a gay wedding as you dont like their views?
Click to expand...

it is different.

having a view and being gay arent the same thing. Sexuality is a protected characteristic:

http://www.fpb.org/hottips/601/The_...aracteristics_and_types_of_discrimination.htm

as is age, disability, gender, race, religion etc
 
TopBanana said:
Ruth, has this latest legislation changed this, or was it true with being asked to cover a civil partnership? Could a tog legitimately say "I don't cover civil partnerships" without breaking the equality act?
Click to expand...

Yes, they could, because Civil Partnerships exist only between same sex couples. Heterosexual couples cannot enter into such a partnership. If you do not wish to shoot CV's, then you can simply not offer that service to anyone. It then falls under the same purview as, say, I don't shoot portraits of kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top