Spyke

Replies

Comment on

The state of the discourse.

Reply in thread

Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;"

news

Comment on

DOJ sues eBay for selling ‘rolling coal’ devices; fines could hit $2 billion

Reply in thread

Sorry I wasn’t intending on implying that. Meant to make the homophobes the butt of the jokes (and a slight inspiration from Arrested Development’s “shoveling coal” although it doesn’t mention being gay at all, just an implication of a sex act). The people who roll coal don’t care about doing things for the right reasons, so maybe they’ll do the right thing for the wrong reason (don’t roll coal bc they don’t wanna be gay). Worked for roller blading (although ofc there wasn’t anything wrong with that)

news

Comment on

Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples

Reply in thread

No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.

Example:

Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal

Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal

Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal

Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)

But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself

news

Comment on

Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples

Reply in thread

You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.

At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know

news

Comment on

Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples

Reply in thread

I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the "create a website for same-sex weddings". I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it's a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn't be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don't know if I'm elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I'm coming from?