Well, as Roger said: Oops! That was me not logged in.
Kjell
Pro 8mm and Yale - Death Valley
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Typical and predictable
As demonstrated by your own actions of discriminating against Yale because they have a belief system different than yours, even IF they could handle the job you need done.calgodot wrote: Discrimination is usually a "non-issue" with those who are not being discriminated against.
Not surprising, actually. Basically, this is the same logic that you used before when you claimed you would never buy anything from me because I had views different than yours. Ultimately, you take the veneered position that everyone should be treated equally and that everyone should be free from repression or making decisions under duress but, under the surface, we find that you expect everyone to agree with your philosophies and politics or they will be punished by you in some way. In this particular case, you reserve the right to not do business with Yale because you don't agree with their belief system but they don't have the right to refuse your business for the very same reason? Frankly, I just don't get it and never will.
In the end, we all make discriminating choices every day, all day long. If you buy one person's apples over another's, then you are the discriminating apple buyer. The law doesn't require you to give a reason nor are you required to buy everyone's apples just so all is treated fairly. We each only have so many hours and resources to spread around and I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that I MUST do business with someone that I find unsavory or has a project that I feel is not worth my investment of time and resources.
Again, I don't agree with Yale's beliefs system but I would not hesitate to do business with them if I felt they could handle my project and do a good job. Punishing them because you don't agree with their belief system and then preaching tolerance and understanding is the height of hypocrisy, IMHO.
Roger
-
CHAS
- Senior member
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:38 pm
- Real name: Charles Doran
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to start yet another anti-Yale drama, I was just making an observation about lame crap in the Valley over the past week, both with Yale and Pro 8mm.
And David, if I offended you by using the term "albino-boy" I apologize, I simply couldn't recall his name. He's the guy who seems to handle most of the rank transfers (I know it's not Keith). Your defense of him, however, is a bit odd. His whimpering and crying (and that was an exact quote, I might add, of what he said) makes me wonder why these guys are in this business at all...rather than the church bake sale business. This is 2003, for chrissakes, not 1953.
And David, if I offended you by using the term "albino-boy" I apologize, I simply couldn't recall his name. He's the guy who seems to handle most of the rank transfers (I know it's not Keith). Your defense of him, however, is a bit odd. His whimpering and crying (and that was an exact quote, I might add, of what he said) makes me wonder why these guys are in this business at all...rather than the church bake sale business. This is 2003, for chrissakes, not 1953.
-
David M. Leugers
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 12:42 am
- Contact:
To Chas: apology accepted. It is always better to focus on the issue
rather than the individual as they say. If my defense of him
seems odd to you, well then maybe I'm odd, but for someone to "whimper
and cry" over a business issue does seem strange and making fun of someone with a handicap (or was it a racial slur?) I'll always protest.
To Roger: Well said! I can only add that the world according to Calgodot would be one bland, homogonized, spineless, politically-correct, and repressed society. All freedoms, wether of choice or expression, are a double-edged sword. You can't have it one way.
David M. Leugers
rather than the individual as they say. If my defense of him
seems odd to you, well then maybe I'm odd, but for someone to "whimper
and cry" over a business issue does seem strange and making fun of someone with a handicap (or was it a racial slur?) I'll always protest.
To Roger: Well said! I can only add that the world according to Calgodot would be one bland, homogonized, spineless, politically-correct, and repressed society. All freedoms, wether of choice or expression, are a double-edged sword. You can't have it one way.
David M. Leugers
That's exactly the world that Yale would love...I can only add that the world according to Calgodot would be one bland, homogonized, spineless, politically-correct, and repressed society.
As I said before, is their bussines and they can direct it as they want, but I will never give one cent to them. I prefer an open-minded lab.
Marc
I do not know about US law in detail except that is based, for obvious reasons, on English common law which probably came from the Saxons, Vikings or both.
Anyhow a basic element of common law is the contract. A contract requires two parties. One party invites the other party to make a contract with them. The second party then has the right to refuse. The only refusal the first party can object to is when the refusal is criminally based, racism and possibly sexism being the most common.
I am sure therefore that the US Constitution gives Yale the right to refuse on the grounds that the material contains pictures or works they do not like. Otherwise it would be a totlitarian state (I know, I know, plenty of weirdos think it is already, same over here!!).
This thread about Yale seems to be a hardy annual. Always good for a laugh.
Anyhow a basic element of common law is the contract. A contract requires two parties. One party invites the other party to make a contract with them. The second party then has the right to refuse. The only refusal the first party can object to is when the refusal is criminally based, racism and possibly sexism being the most common.
I am sure therefore that the US Constitution gives Yale the right to refuse on the grounds that the material contains pictures or works they do not like. Otherwise it would be a totlitarian state (I know, I know, plenty of weirdos think it is already, same over here!!).
This thread about Yale seems to be a hardy annual. Always good for a laugh.
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
And, no doubt, Yale would prefer open-minded customers. I don't think anyone wants a conflict. All labs have their standards. There are some things I won't transfer in my shop, as well, and certain people I won't do business with. Choice is not unique to the customer.avortex wrote: As I said before, is their bussines and they can direct it as they want, but I will never give one cent to them. I prefer an open-minded lab.
Roger
-
BolexPlusX
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:00 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- Contact:
I think that the Lab becomes a co-expressor of the ideas on the films they handle, and therefore their freedom of speech would be violated if they are forced to cooperate on projects they find offensive. I also think that anybody that finds their policies offensive has the absolute right to boycott and denounce them. Sometimes taking a stand means you have to accept the flack that comes with it. As long as the criticism stays within the bounds of truth and fairness and even a little tolerance for differing value systems then it's OK.
Other than the fact that I'd hate to see any business catering to Super-8 stop doing it, if enough customers not using Yale puts them out of business, that's OK by me. That's just the democracy of the marketplace at work. We don't have a right to their services, and they don't have a right to our business.
My major gripe with them is their user friendliness. Whenever I've corresponded with them I get the feeling I just interrupted something a lot more important than my silly question. I find their business terms a little stiff as well (No out of state checks for example). I think they could learn a lot from other businesses like Dwayne's along these lines.
As far as the results of their work, It's usually a quick turnaround and always of good quality.
When I find somebody who does the quality of their work and isn't such a pain to do business with, I'll not use them either.
Other than the fact that I'd hate to see any business catering to Super-8 stop doing it, if enough customers not using Yale puts them out of business, that's OK by me. That's just the democracy of the marketplace at work. We don't have a right to their services, and they don't have a right to our business.
My major gripe with them is their user friendliness. Whenever I've corresponded with them I get the feeling I just interrupted something a lot more important than my silly question. I find their business terms a little stiff as well (No out of state checks for example). I think they could learn a lot from other businesses like Dwayne's along these lines.
As far as the results of their work, It's usually a quick turnaround and always of good quality.
When I find somebody who does the quality of their work and isn't such a pain to do business with, I'll not use them either.
-
CHAS
- Senior member
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:38 pm
- Real name: Charles Doran
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
David: I wasn't making fun of him because of his alleged handicap. I wasn't aware that being an albino was a handicap. I used the phrase "albino-boy" to describe who he was simply because I couldn't recall his name. If it was a dude with a 'fro who "whimpered and cried" (and I don't think whimpering and crying is reserved for albinos -- correct me if I'm wrong) and I couldn't recall his name, I'd probably refer to him as "'FRO BOY." It makes no difference what he looked like. The point I was trying (and failing miserably) to make in my original post was that there seems to be an aura of loserness in the valley exemplified by the actions of the IDIOTS at Pro 8mm for not doing their job correctly and the PINK-FACED FELLOW (how's that for ya?) at Yale for acting like a dope. Whimpering and crying over a four-letter word? Come on! Racial slur? What race of men do the albinos come from? Gee, I don't seem to recall, when filling out forms the "albino race" being listed...Perhaps I need to brush up on my history...David M. Leugers wrote:To Chas: apology accepted. It is always better to focus on the issue
rather than the individual as they say. If my defense of him
seems odd to you, well then maybe I'm odd, but for someone to "whimper
and cry" over a business issue does seem strange and making fun of someone with a handicap (or was it a racial slur?) I'll always protest.
David M. Leugers
Try learning the law, fellas
A business is licensed by the state and agrees to abide by the laws of that state. Under the state laws of California, it is illegal to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
In my view, Yale's policy admits that they discriminate on the basis of religious content. Therefore, in my view, they are in violation of state law. If I cared more about politics than art, I'd file a complaint with the attorney general's office. However, I think it is more important that even narrow-minded Christian asswipes like Yale stay in business to provide the dwindling resources for the possibly undeserving Super 8 community. (I also have absolutely no faith in the government of this state or this nation any more, and I harbor no illusion that most of my fellow Americans care about liberty.)
Any of you who think a business has a right to do whatever it wants need a history lesson. It was this "right to refuse service to anyone" attitude that was (and is) used to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, political opinion, and religious belief. If you think religious bigotry is okay, then by all means give your money to Yale.
Roger, your ignorance of the law is overwhelming and laughable, and your concept of "liberty" is typically American. As an individual consumer, I am not licensed by the state to provide a service for profit without violating staet and federal laws. Your comparison is, as usual, remarkably thin and adequate to the reasoning abilities of a junior high student. Or a Texan.
Leugers, you must surely be some kind of seriously deluded half-wit to conclude that my interest in ensuring a diversity of views have access to film tranfers facilities will lead to a bland world! When Rush Limbaugh retires, you ought to apply. You can list me as a reference if you want.
(There now. You insult me personally, you get the same back. It's a revealing aspect of ths argument that neither of you can contest a point of law with arguemnt, but rather fly back with baseless insults. Touche, et touche-vous.)
Yale discriminates on the basis of religion. This is illegal. It is immoral. If you like it, you must not be someone who is suffering under the discrimination. Most white people didn't have a problem with segregation. Most Nazis had no problem with private businesses painting "Juden Raus" on the store windows. After all, it was their right as businesses!
Sieg Yale!!!!
In my view, Yale's policy admits that they discriminate on the basis of religious content. Therefore, in my view, they are in violation of state law. If I cared more about politics than art, I'd file a complaint with the attorney general's office. However, I think it is more important that even narrow-minded Christian asswipes like Yale stay in business to provide the dwindling resources for the possibly undeserving Super 8 community. (I also have absolutely no faith in the government of this state or this nation any more, and I harbor no illusion that most of my fellow Americans care about liberty.)
Any of you who think a business has a right to do whatever it wants need a history lesson. It was this "right to refuse service to anyone" attitude that was (and is) used to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, political opinion, and religious belief. If you think religious bigotry is okay, then by all means give your money to Yale.
Roger, your ignorance of the law is overwhelming and laughable, and your concept of "liberty" is typically American. As an individual consumer, I am not licensed by the state to provide a service for profit without violating staet and federal laws. Your comparison is, as usual, remarkably thin and adequate to the reasoning abilities of a junior high student. Or a Texan.
Leugers, you must surely be some kind of seriously deluded half-wit to conclude that my interest in ensuring a diversity of views have access to film tranfers facilities will lead to a bland world! When Rush Limbaugh retires, you ought to apply. You can list me as a reference if you want.
(There now. You insult me personally, you get the same back. It's a revealing aspect of ths argument that neither of you can contest a point of law with arguemnt, but rather fly back with baseless insults. Touche, et touche-vous.)
Yale discriminates on the basis of religion. This is illegal. It is immoral. If you like it, you must not be someone who is suffering under the discrimination. Most white people didn't have a problem with segregation. Most Nazis had no problem with private businesses painting "Juden Raus" on the store windows. After all, it was their right as businesses!
Sieg Yale!!!!
-
BolexPlusX
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:00 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- Contact:
OK,
Wait a minute here. I can't imagine in a legal system as old as in the US there has never, ever been a case where someone has been asked to publish/process/transmit/recite/archive material they have rejected based on their own moral convictions, and then sued/arrested.
I would hope that the courts upheld the right of a privately held media outlet not to be forced to participate in something they find abhorent!
As I said: Boycott 'em till they're out of business if you want to when they violate YOUR sensibities (It's within your rights as a consumer), but respect their freedom of expression as much as your own by keeping the government out of it.
It's like a year from now, Barbara Streissand is askedto sing the GW Bush reelection song, doesn't she have a right to refuse based on her political principals?
It's like a local contractor is asked to build the new Bund Hall, don't they get to turn down the job because they don't want any part of it?
It's like a Catholic publishing house is sent a manuscript about things that really suck about the papacy, should they be forced to print it?
Taking freedoms is easy, giving them back to people you disagree with is the hard part. You can't have it both ways.
Besides, Isn't there anybody else that can do the work? If not I think you've discovered a market niche.
Also, I believe that discrimination laws are basically limited to housing, employment, and PUBLIC accomodations. I don't think they cover services offered by private entities.
Finally, the constitution is binding upon the Government, and only to prevent the government from impeding your freedoms (including speech). It poses no obligation on anyone else to violate their freedoms to facilitate yours.
Wait a minute here. I can't imagine in a legal system as old as in the US there has never, ever been a case where someone has been asked to publish/process/transmit/recite/archive material they have rejected based on their own moral convictions, and then sued/arrested.
I would hope that the courts upheld the right of a privately held media outlet not to be forced to participate in something they find abhorent!
As I said: Boycott 'em till they're out of business if you want to when they violate YOUR sensibities (It's within your rights as a consumer), but respect their freedom of expression as much as your own by keeping the government out of it.
It's like a year from now, Barbara Streissand is askedto sing the GW Bush reelection song, doesn't she have a right to refuse based on her political principals?
It's like a local contractor is asked to build the new Bund Hall, don't they get to turn down the job because they don't want any part of it?
It's like a Catholic publishing house is sent a manuscript about things that really suck about the papacy, should they be forced to print it?
Taking freedoms is easy, giving them back to people you disagree with is the hard part. You can't have it both ways.
Besides, Isn't there anybody else that can do the work? If not I think you've discovered a market niche.
Also, I believe that discrimination laws are basically limited to housing, employment, and PUBLIC accomodations. I don't think they cover services offered by private entities.
Finally, the constitution is binding upon the Government, and only to prevent the government from impeding your freedoms (including speech). It poses no obligation on anyone else to violate their freedoms to facilitate yours.
My Vow
Very simply: Barbara Streisand is not a business entity licensed by the state of California. As an individual, she can exercise any number of rights that are not guaranteed a business.
A contractor refusing to build the Bund hall has every right to do so as long as the reasons for refusal do not violate the anti-discrimination laws of the state of California.
The laws governing individuals are not the same as the laws governing business. Businesses do not enjoy the same rights as individuals (and vice-versa).
The division between "public" and "private" in this matter is moot, as the courts have long held that private entities enjoy public services (like water and garbage) and are therefore subject to the same laws regarding access of facilities and services.
Crack open a book sometime, boys.
A contractor refusing to build the Bund hall has every right to do so as long as the reasons for refusal do not violate the anti-discrimination laws of the state of California.
The laws governing individuals are not the same as the laws governing business. Businesses do not enjoy the same rights as individuals (and vice-versa).
The division between "public" and "private" in this matter is moot, as the courts have long held that private entities enjoy public services (like water and garbage) and are therefore subject to the same laws regarding access of facilities and services.
Crack open a book sometime, boys.
-
BolexPlusX
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:00 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- Contact:
Ah!,
But is it truly discrimination when the bone of contention is not what group the customer is a member of but rather the nature of the work?
Example: Someone won't transfer a nature film for a Jewish/Christian/Moslem/Budhist/Atheist/Black/White/Asian/Latino/Gay/Straight/Male/Female (whatever, choose one or several) filmmaker
If in the case of any alternative customer from a group they accept they would transfer that same film, now that's discrimination.
If the transfer house in question refuses to transfer the film because they have some bizarre hatred of nature films and wouldn't do it regardless of the customer, then that's not discrimination. You and I may not agree with the criteria, but they are within their rights.
(Don't get me wrong here, I love nature films)
I brought a movie camera to a local camera shop for clean and lube recently, they refused the job by saying they no longer service Super-8 cameras. Were my rights to express myself in the medium I choose infringed? Are they obligated to sevice the camera to support my freedom of expression?
But is it truly discrimination when the bone of contention is not what group the customer is a member of but rather the nature of the work?
Example: Someone won't transfer a nature film for a Jewish/Christian/Moslem/Budhist/Atheist/Black/White/Asian/Latino/Gay/Straight/Male/Female (whatever, choose one or several) filmmaker
If in the case of any alternative customer from a group they accept they would transfer that same film, now that's discrimination.
If the transfer house in question refuses to transfer the film because they have some bizarre hatred of nature films and wouldn't do it regardless of the customer, then that's not discrimination. You and I may not agree with the criteria, but they are within their rights.
(Don't get me wrong here, I love nature films)
I brought a movie camera to a local camera shop for clean and lube recently, they refused the job by saying they no longer service Super-8 cameras. Were my rights to express myself in the medium I choose infringed? Are they obligated to sevice the camera to support my freedom of expression?
The Law
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
Section 16721(a) No person within the jurisdiction of this state shall be
excluded from a business transaction on the basis of a policy
expressed in any document or writing and imposed by a third party
where such policy requires discrimination against that person on the
basis of the person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or
national origin or on the basis that the person conducts or has
conducted business in a particular location.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Article 1, Section 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
Section 16721(a) No person within the jurisdiction of this state shall be
excluded from a business transaction on the basis of a policy
expressed in any document or writing and imposed by a third party
where such policy requires discrimination against that person on the
basis of the person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or
national origin or on the basis that the person conducts or has
conducted business in a particular location.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Article 1, Section 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
-
Guest
Ok, Thanks!
I don't have access to this material, I can use it here:
Section 16721(a) Says that a person cannot be precluded from a business transaction based on their race creed color etc. Yale's policy defines the business they will allow themsleves to participate in, not the groups they will service or not.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Article 1, Section 4. Is basically saying that people are free to pursue their religious beliefs without the inteference of the government. I think this is what the folks at Yale are trying to do.
Now, let's flip this argument on it's head and assume you are completely in the right. By saying you are reluctant to pursue the matter with the authorities because you think the world needs Super-8 services you are basically putting the availability of film transfer services above human rights. I think your stance obligates you to loose the hounds on them. Why not get on with it rather than bitch to us? Aren't you complicit by not doing this?
I don't have access to this material, I can use it here:
Section 16721(a) Says that a person cannot be precluded from a business transaction based on their race creed color etc. Yale's policy defines the business they will allow themsleves to participate in, not the groups they will service or not.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Article 1, Section 4. Is basically saying that people are free to pursue their religious beliefs without the inteference of the government. I think this is what the folks at Yale are trying to do.
Now, let's flip this argument on it's head and assume you are completely in the right. By saying you are reluctant to pursue the matter with the authorities because you think the world needs Super-8 services you are basically putting the availability of film transfer services above human rights. I think your stance obligates you to loose the hounds on them. Why not get on with it rather than bitch to us? Aren't you complicit by not doing this?