Timothy Auld
Forum Replies Created
-
Agreed, but are you now including the florist with the aforementioned services of food, shelter, health, etc?
And I also agree equality before the law is the answer. Sadly it does not exist at present. If God forbid a loved one of mine is in the hospital I am granted the right to visit said loved one, not to mention many other rights that I see as just a matter of course but are denied to other couples I know just a few hundred miles away from here. So, when folks get pissed and sue when they are treated in a way that others would not be treated I cut them a little slack. I think there are smarter ways to handle it and it’s not the way I would handle it. But, then again, I’m not the one who is being discriminated against here. And I haven’t had to put up with it all of my life. I can see that kind of thing making you a little bit cranky.Tim
-
Having grown up seeing so many people I cared about being denied, as you say, flowers, wedding videos, birthday cakes – and basic human rights, I have to disagree with you here. As for the employee/employer vs provider/client relationship – when push comes to shove it is always the one who has enough money to outlast the other who comes out on top. And, sadly, if anyone wants to be bigoted in any relationship, all one needs to do is choose one set of words over another.
Tim
-
Free speech is about just that: Speech. Not actions. The NM photographer in question is free to oppose – with speech – whatever she thinks is wrong. She is not free to take an action based on that speech to deny services to anyone. She is free to tell the couple in question that she thinks they are immoral, ungodly, or whatever. And then the client (and that word is crucial here) is free to use her services or not. What that businessperson may not do is tell the potential client that she simply will not do the job based only on her belief that the lifestyle of that potential client is goes against her moral view. In these terms this is nothing more than a business transaction. No “Art” is taking place here.
The nonsense in the Times article about artists being forced to accept commissions that they do not agree with is just the worst sort of obfuscation and nonsense. Cite me one time in the last 100 years that anyone has been able to force an artist who is the originator and owner of said art, to toe to any line whatever.
If am am making my own film, I am an artist. If I am working on someone else’s film, I am an employee.
Tim
-
And, the Lord forgive me – one more thing. Is there any evidence whatever that there was any kind of “deal” between Apple and Azteca. Or did Azteca just buy off the shelf and Apple got wind of it and the “deal” that was struck only had to to with featuring Azteca on the FCPX page?
I looked in vain on that very page for any quote that said, or even implied such as “Apple has been very responsive to our needs” or “we worked closely with Apple to make this transition happen” or anything even remotely expressing such a sentiment. If you are using this example to Apple is talking – to anyone – I just don’t see that evidence here.
Tim
-
And, also what about Azteca? How many seats? How much invested? Is it even remotely in the CNN ballpark?
Tim
-
Apple (or Avid or Adobe or Autodesk or Sony or Panasonic or Canon, et al) listening to their customers too much? This is an argument with which I am unfamiliar.
Tim
-
Agreed. Apple doesn’t seem to even want to talk about this to larger operations. Which leads me to believe they are just not interested in that business any longer. And why should they be, really? They make a fortune without it.
Tim
-
Photography is not protected as speech as I understand it. The right to photograph events that are public is a protected activity. Someone paying someone else to take a private picture of them or someone or something else is not protected as speech in any way. It is to my understanding a simple business transaction.
One thing is sure though. If I am wrong about this and anyone ever tried to force me to create media to present a political agenda – liberal, conservative, or not of this earth – I would stand against that as strongly as I stand against anyone who would marginalize a group because it did not fit their personal definition as “moral.”
Tim
-
Not the first time I have been given up as a lost cause. But I will say that what I was describing is not my opinion, but the law. Yes, in this case I agree with it. However, there are all manner of other laws that I do not agree with. But I do not try to bypass them because I don’t agree with them.
Tim
-
They are exactly the same. If a business provides a service then they may not refuse that service to anyone on what the law calls an arbitrary basis. Refusing a service to someone because one does not like or approve of how they live their lives outside the confines of your business seems to me to be the very definition of “arbitrary.”
Tim