First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Anti gay client royally owned
14755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

Tenken1989 wrote:He isnt acting like a child hes treating bigots how they should be treated.


Y'see, that's the problem here, and it already started with Omega's post:
Vindictiveness, and "punishing the bad people" is SO rooted in gays' attempt to "escape persecution", it's blurring the ethical lines.
Right or wrong, legal or illegal, someone is a hero if they told a Bad Person where to go or how to think, and we can laugh at their failure if he was "Fking owned" by the Good People.
The Cause MUST come before acceptable conducts of business or human behavior, if we're to reach that enlightened society, and martyrs are just waiting to have their statues raised....

That's the sort of mentality that gets out of control very easily, in countries, for example, where a hit-and-run car-bombing is considered "heroic" if it got the Bad People whose fault it all was.
There's a few things you lose when you hand over your identity to your "ideals" hoping that A Million Marching Souls will solve all your personal problems for you--One of them is being able to microcosm the issue enough to understand the little subtleties of the right ways of how to act between one or two of them.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
Non-refundable fees, restocking fees, and non-refundable deposits are legal in many jurisdictions. They all require this information to be offered up front though, and it was in this case. This couple is well within their rights and well within the bounds of appropriate conduct to do as they did except for one part: ask for a refund. If you sign a contract that tells you up front something is not refundable, you can ask for that back, but it is inappropriate to do so unless the business relationship has been damaged by failure to perform (intentionally or not). When you ask the photographer not to do the agreed service that is not failure to perform. The request for a refund was not appropriate.

It is also fine for the photographer to keep the deposit. The rest of the reply is unprofessional, but it is not really actionable. Personally, while I support marriage equality, I would not do business with this photographer or this couple.
32137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Ejanss wrote:
That's the sort of mentality that gets out of control very easily, in countries, for example, where a bombing is considered "heroic" if it got the Bad People whose fault it all was.

You'll forgive me if I don't take the moral philosophy of someone who compares marriage equality to a suicide bombing very seriously.

Or maybe you won't forgive me, but either way jfc
660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Greensboro North...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
Well the photographer is a dick but he is in the right of doing this
14755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

Rangpur wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
That's the sort of mentality that gets out of control very easily, in countries, for example, where a bombing is considered "heroic" if it got the Bad People whose fault it all was.

You'll forgive me if I don't take the moral philosophy of someone who compares marriage equality to a suicide bombing very seriously.


Not "marriage equality", but the idea that you can do anything to your business customers and get away with it, if you believe they "deserve" not to be treated like human beings because they don't happen to agree with your private personal-button political cause that all Good People should think from now on.

Go ahead and hate your client, go ahead and cheat your customer; do it in the name of heaven, you'll be justified in the end...
32137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
That, uh, isn't really much better as an analogy.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Ejanss wrote:


Rangpur wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
That's the sort of mentality that gets out of control very easily, in countries, for example, where a bombing is considered "heroic" if it got the Bad People whose fault it all was.

You'll forgive me if I don't take the moral philosophy of someone who compares marriage equality to a suicide bombing very seriously.


Not "marriage equality", but the idea that you can do anything to your business customers and get away with it, if you believe they "deserve" not to be treated like human beings because they don't agree with your private political cause.
Go ahead and hate your client, go ahead and cheat your customer; do it in the name of heaven, you'll be justified in the end...


The customer however was not cheated. therefore you're inventing a transgression at which to rail.

66221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
107
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

Khaltazar wrote:

Florida law allows a company to accept payment and sign a contract and then don't offer the service nor the refund? Thanks, I know one state I don't want to visit.


Deposits, retainer fees, and the like prevent "clients" or "customers" from double- or triple-booking for the same service because they can't or won't decide who to use, then backing out of their reservations to all except the one company they decide to use at a late date using some excuse, thus screwing one or more companies that had done legitimate planning and prep work.

The photographer may have been prevented from another job because they scheduled these clients. Not sure why a photographer should lose out on fees when they planned or did show up. A caterer could be in the middle of hiring extra hands for a large job or have food on order that they would no longer need or in turn have to pay a restocking fees or order cancellation fee to stop delivery. Lawyers use retainer fees so they have enough hands and materials on deck if a case hits the fan. These retainer fees are legit and useful in practice and, in this situation, sounds like it was spelled out up front, signed/agreed to, and even paid for (a second verification the customers/client agreed to the terms).

In this case, seems the customer/client broke the agreement. It wasn't the job that was being performed as inadequate; the people being married found _and stated_ some other reason to back out. It just so happened they made it a political one. If the persons being married cancelled their marriage ceremony the day of, and no pictures were taken, I'd doubt you'd have the same objections about service not being rendered but the retainer fee being kept.

Also, it seems to me the clients/customers then wanted an exception granted in violation of the contract due to their political beliefs Not sure why a traditional marriage supporter thinks they deserve special exception to contract law that you, me, and everyone else has to abide by.
21606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

Rujikin wrote:

He should be professional and return their money. The photographer is acting like a child.

Imagine if a photographer that supports traditional marriage agreed to do a wedding for a gay couple and then the gays learned that the photographer is against gay weddings. The gay couple no longer wanted to use that photographer and the photographer refused to give them a refund and donated it to a christian organization. You gays would be up in arms.


Exactly, he's a moron, he chose to bring his personal "feelings" in to a professional environment where he serves a diverse clientele, the sad thing is, he just possibly lost more costumers as a result.

I've had a similar discussion on another thread, and I tried to explain why it's bad business for a company to choose a stance on social, political, and religious issues.

A larger company can afford to act stupidly and alienate some of their clients, but this Photographer runs a small business, he can not afford to be mouthy and preachy.

All he did was get a headline, and it's not as good as people here think it is.

Of course some rainbow flag flying jackass is going to come along and explain to us "homophobes" as to why this fool is a hero.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:

DISCLAIMER: Not going to get into a discussion on homosexuality, their community, their rights, etc. I am not saying that either side of the homosexual marriage argument is right, wrong, or the opinion I hold... I am only saying that people have the right to follow individual religious beliefs, that affords the opportunity to support traditional concepts of marriage in the US, just as NOW, homosexual couples are free to follow their personal beliefs and get married. I am only examining this as what how I think things could have been handled with more respect, dignity, and professionalism.

I think the photographer should not have returned the money, and I think he was completely justified in doing what he liked with it.

I don't think that the couple should have expected the money back. I fully support the couple in their decision to not support something they don't believe in, but that is not grounds to nullify a contract. Point blank.

However, the way the photographer handled the situation was completely unprofessional and disgustingly disrespectful. To rub it in the couple's face that the money was going to a cause they felt against, that's a terrible thing.

Yeah, you want to keep the retainer? Fine, you have every right to do that. You also have every right to do what you want with that money, because it is now yours. Just don't make it a point to be disrespectful and unprofessional because you disagree, by telling them you are sending the money they spent to a cause they are firmly against.

Those that want to believe it was handled properly, look at the situation in the inverse. If the photographer was against gay marriage, and supported groups that supported THAT cause, and the couple was a homosexual couple.... well you should get the point.

And it all goes back to that golden rule, treat people how you want to be treated.


This is the only "Professional" argument I actually buy. As far as I'm concerned Yes the rest of you are just using professionalism as mask and wouldn't care if it had been for a cause you liked.

Edit:

Woohoo I'm flying a rainbow.

27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
I can only repeat that there are things we are not told in this article which may have a bearing on the matter.

Something quiteva few here might want to consider before tossing around words like "bigot."
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/29/15
He was in his right to keep the retainer, but that stupid smug response....With social media, people forgot what being a professional is about. Being a professional means keeping a certain decorum even when dealing with people you don't like or agree with. What the photographer pretty much did is put his personal opinion over being professional. Also, trying to shame someone for not supporting gay marriage is ridiculous. Also, I've seen a disturbing trend of people allowing there sexuality define who they are. I have no problem whatsoever with gay people, but it is annoying as hell when someone who is constantly brings it up for no reason whatsoever.
21606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:
^^^^
THIS.
The word "traditional" is often used by bigots who are trying to justify their bigotry, anyway.




Not at all disagreeing that bigots exist. However, I think that a lot of times, the word "bigot" is used when the person honestly feels no hate or judgement, but is only following a certain set of religious teachings (which they have a right to do).

I'm split on the issue.

I do support traditional marriage, and disagree with homosexual marriage, from a religious standpoint. I'm a Christian, and the bible is fairly clear on the issue. I would not attend or officiate a homosexual marriage.

However, my religious beliefs should not (and thankfully no longer do) impose on the rights of homosexual couples to follow what they believe. Most Christians want to say that our nation should be a Christian nation. OKAY, so which version of Christianity do you want to follow? Catholic? Protestant? Which denomination? Not to mention, a government established by religion is not a democracy at all. They fail to see that by protecting the rights of everyone, they themselves are being protected.

That's not hate, though. Just ignorance.

So, in short, I FULLY support the rights of homosexual individuals to marry who they want, I just do not believe that the marriage is acknowledged by God. Of course, I don't believe in divorce, either. Because divorce does not exist in "traditional" marriage. At the end of the day, though, I also believe that only God can judge.

And if you disagree, that's cool. Just don't accuse me of having hate in my heart, because I don't.

We've foolishly come into to this belief that tolerance and love are the same thing as support and agreement. Not so. I love you and tolerate your beliefs. I do this by supporting your right to have those beliefs, make your choices, and not judging for it. On the same token, many Christians fall short of that mark because they think they must impose their beliefs on those they feel are "misguided." They do not understand that supporting someone's rights is not the same as supporting what they do with them. God granted mankind freewill, who are we to take it away, even in his name?


lol, Christianity? Traditional Marriage?

You do know you're on Crunchyroll right? this website is swarming with liberals, they will eat you alive on here.

You best keep that kind of stuff to your self, or a small group of people.

The tolerant left wingers on here are only "tolerant" when you agree with their kumbaya view of the world.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15 , edited 6/29/15

DarkFrostX wrote:


lol, Christianity? Traditional Marriage?

You do know you're on Crunchyroll right? this website is swarming with liberals, they will eat you alive on here.

You best keep that kind of stuff to your self, or a small group of people.

The tolerant left wingers on here are only "tolerant" when you agree with their kumbaya view of the world.


But it appears the left has no monopoly on vitriol

21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 6/29/15

ishe5555 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

No they don't have to it is in the contract that they don't have to this is why when you sign a contract you really should read it first. The problem with your example is the photographer wouldn't even let them through the door if it was a gay couple so they wouldn't need to worry about the money in the first place they would just need to find someone willing.



Yes, that would make sense that they would be able to refuse service. Of course, as things currently stand, if they were to refuse service then they would get sued, harassed, and fined by the government, possibly loosing the ability to continue their line of work. So, I could see why some with less conviction might go ahead and agree even when they don't support gay marriage.


Only because they don't have valid grounds to refuse service. Valid grounds to refuse service no shirt no shoes, being belligerent towards the employees, threatening customers and employees, performing acts that are not publicly acceptable.

There are perfectly good grounds to refuse service because you dislike same sex marriage which really does boil down to the fact you just can't stand the fact that to people of the same sex are getting it on no lets be honest here thats what it means despite what others have said isn't grounds to refuse service.

After all if I had to provide service to the redneck beer swilling deer hunter fan who doesn't understand his cheap ass video card can't support the game others need to support the gay couple that wants to tie the knot. Boils down to this question how does this negatively impact you as a straight person in a marriage? You have to come up with something other than my religion says it is evil that isn't personal harm how does this personally harm you.

That is how the law looks at it are you harmed personally.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.