456
Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
456 points (94.0% liked)
News
23409 readers
1821 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Holy charged headline batman!
Is it inaccurate?
It could be more accurate. How is he discriminating against them? Oh, he's refusing service. Let me try the non-biased headline:
"Photographer wins right to refuse service to LGBTQ+ couples"
This way, instead of the vague term 'discrimination', we can focus on the specifics so people have a more accurate idea of what's going on.
He's refusing service... because they're LGBTQ+. That sounds fairly discriminatory to me.
I think they point he's trying to articulate is that he assumed it had to do with workforce discrimination and not refusing service.
They're different kinds of discrimination, and it like like both are legal in religious grounds in certain circumstances.
An example of legal religious employment discrimination is churches. They are allowed to require those in religious leadership and religious education positions to be professing members of the faith. But they CAN'T discriminate based on religion for non-religous positions.
So a Baptist Church can require that a pastor be a Christian, but can't fire the janitor for being Buddhist.
Ok so hear me out. I get what you're saying and your example also makes sense however I think one thing is being glossed over.
In drawing the equivalence to religious beliefs we are stating that those part of the LGBTQ2+ABC123 community are also simply pretending who they are.
That's not an equivalence I'm comfortable with. It's frankly demeaning to say that a trans person can just "stop thinking they're trans and be done with it".
One is discrimination based on what you believe and another is discrimination on who you are.
So to your example, I think it's better if you're a Baptist Church you can't require that a pastor be white just like you can't fire a janitor for being black.
They're not the same thing from a human perspective. But religious belief has the same protection under the law as other protected classes.
Many churches also ban gay or female clergy. Do I find that abhorrent? Absolutely. But it's reasonable for organizations to expect their leadership to represent their beliefs.
Look at it from the other direction. What if the GLAAD CEO were to join the Westboro Baptist Church, claim she'd been converted? Legally, her religion and religious speech is just as protected as race or sex, but GLAAD would certainly have cause to fire her for being a member of the WBC.
I never said it wasn't discriminatory.
Is English not your first language? Or are you just trolling at this point?
Then the original headline was valid was it not?
Re-read my initial comment until it makes sense.
I'm gonna block you now.
I don't agree with you. Now I'll wait to be blocked. Hahahah
Seriously dude accuses someone of being a troll and then behaves like a massive troll not to mention a child. Then when someone talks levelheaded back "imma block you now"
Fragile indeed.
Your wish is my command!
Your initial comment is pedantic and you're being a dick.
When people outside the conversation are saying "you're being a dick" it might be time to step back and reflect on why that is.
Immediate accusations of trolling because I pointed out your needless pedantry? Yeah thats a block.
Lol, okay.
The headline already gives the most accurate picture of what is going on than just saying "refusing service" because it includes why.
No it doesn't, for the reasons I explained.
If you think saying 'discrimination' is more accurate than saying what that discrimination is, then you simply don't have a firm grasp of the English language.
Awesome. I can finally refuse to hire Republicans.
I think it'd be more accurate to say you can refuse service to republicans, which you already could do.
You seem to be conflating hiring with serving.
I'd argue I have a way bigger legitimate interest in keeping conservatives out my workplace compared to this photographer's interest in refusing clients. We employ many LGBT people, and have had a handful of issues where regressive assholes cannot handle working with such people and cause problems.
I can demonstrate not only direct financial impacts of hiring Republicans, but a whole host of less tangible impacts of allowing such conflict into the workplace. It's actually striking how inevitable it is. The moment a person comes out as a Republican, it's basically a ticking clock until they will make their hate everyone's problem. As it stands we have to be extremely careful about firing these folks because of the conservative outrage machine, so if we could just be direct about not employing them that would honestly save me a lot of time.
Finally, unlike one's sexuality or gender, nobody is born conservative. If somebody reads a platform of hate and chooses to identify with that platform, then I should have a choice to marginalize such people to protect my family and business.
I never said you were right or wrong, just that your conclusion wasn't an accurate representation of this specific case.
Pretty sure you can also refuse to hire someone based on their political beliefs.
Hey, I'm trying to figure out something in my Lemmy app. Do you see this comment?