calgodot wrote:The laws governing individuals are not the same as the laws governing business
No one said they were, Cal. You seem to miss the point entirely, which is that choice is a publically accepted two way street for everyone except you, it would seem. What the law states and how the governing bodies interpret the law are, fortunately, not up to you. A religious book store is not required to order books on Satanic Worship, even if a prospective client approaches them and demands that they do so. Yale posts their policy up front for all to see and, having done so, essentially says, "We carry only a certain kind of product", just as a Christian book store carries only Christian books and not books on Satanic Worship. Or, rather, Yale does not deal in products that contain Satanic Worship and no law can make them do so any more than a law can make a leather goods store deal in wool. You are stretching the meaning of the law to prop up a losing argument that attempts to justify why YOU can reject people for their beliefs but they can't do the same.
As much as it makes you feel comfortable to assert that my knowledge of the law is "laughable" or "Texan" (whatever that's supposed to mean), the fact is that I have a fairly extensive background in business law and can tell you that your interpretation of it is simply way off the mark. But if you feel otherwise, complaining to me is obviously a waste of time. Why not simply file your complaint with the state and get on with it? If you are confident that you're on the money, then it should be a cake walk. Otherwise, lighten up. They're no threat to you.
calgodot wrote:The division between "public" and "private" in this matter is moot
Really? To hear you talk, it's the underpinning of a neo-nazi state that is bubbling to the surface and will be the ruin of us all.
calgodot wrote:
Crack open a book sometime, boys.
Life isn't about books on punitive laws designed to punish those with beliefs different than yours, Cal. Try getting your nose out of your coveted books sometimes and enjoy life.
You guys are right: clearly, I'm wasting my breath on you here.
So I took my money and placed it in the area of my mouth.
Complaint filed with California Attorney General's office. Simple as 1-2-3-click. Ain't technology grand?
If you're right, nothing will come of it.
If I'm right, nothing will come of it. I harbor no illusion that fairness or justice are possible in a country run by a dry-drunk religious kook from Texas.
Thanks for goading me, fellas. Sometimes it takes a chorus of yahoos to remind me not to be one myself.
Please enlighten me so that I might learn and be qualified to take over Rush's show...
You presented as your written proof the following:
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.
Just what EXACTLY in Section 16721 did Yale Labs violate? Yale labs decided not to do business with a person based soley on the content of their project which was offensive to Yales' sensibilities and apparent religous beliefs, which the second quote of your posting protects. Read that quote and tell me where it says Yale personnel can not pratice their religous beliefs and keep from doing something ( transferring "Fuck" audio) they find offensive.
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.
Your lack of comprehension would be laughable except it prevents you from logical thought and condemns you to emotional outbursts against those who do not agree with you. Yale lab personnel operated fully within the laws established to protect EVERY citizen from persecution and abuse, including them. You restricting my freedom is no better than me restricting your freedom. No freedom was infringed by Yale, get over it.
If you think not, then do like Roger suggested and spend your hard earned dollars hiring a lawyer to sue Yale. Maybe you could learn something from the experience.
To line me up to replace Rush Limbaugh because I don't agree with your rantings, now that is laughable. 8)
What if Kodak got all religious and refused to process, or return even, anything vaugely smutty!
It'll never happen of course, but WOW! Those people at Yale are serious Christians, huh?......
.........except I don't remember Jesus acknowleding that profanity even existed.
(As an interesting asside, the bible also does not at any point deal with or discuss the issue of co-habitation either, as I heard on a religious program on Radio 4 last week. Living in sin? Well over 50% of the British population did so for hundreds of years as they couldn't afford marriage. Common-law marriage [living in sin] was also recognised by law)
I wonder how Christianity became what it is sometimes. Don't get me wrong - there's some really good, lovely Christians out there, and I have a certain respect for them, but saying "fuck" is not unchristian in any way as far as I can see. Well, they can do what they like and it's good that they can - go somewhere else and be happy!
Lucas Lightfeat wrote:
but saying "fuck" is not unchristian in any way as far as I can see.
Lucas
Exactly my point. I thought the whole thing was surreal, their attitude, the whininess of dork-boy...everything. Like I stated earlier it's as if Yale doesn't realize that the year is 2003, not 1953.
Cal Godot, defender of human rights, calling in the State to force the Mormons to become pornographers at gunpoint! I feel freer already!
Well, I guess you just can't let people go around doing what their conscience tells them now, can you? Pretty soon everybody will be doing it and then what; Tolerance? Peace? Understanding? The right to disagree and not wind up facing a judge for it? Nooo, can't let that happen.
I honestly hope the government out there disagrees with you and leaves these people alone to march to their own drummer. I always heard that California is the place to do exactly that. May it continue to be so.
Doesn't really matter too much if they are Mormons at the moment....
If the state decides to sink their teeth into them and they cave in, their church will excommunicate them. If they don't cave in they'll be out of business.
If you defend Yale's policy, then you defend discrimination. You can dress it up as their "business rights" all you want - the same argument was and is made by bigots to exclude blacks, Hispanics, and others from fair access to services.
Any of you watch movies? Remember the scene in GIANT where Rock gets his arse kicked because he's standing up for his RIGHT to sit downa nd eat with his family? And the bigot business owner ends the "discussion" with the sign? We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone. He's refusing service because the patrons are brown-skinned, but that's his God-given American right, yes?
The point is this: if you set up a business, you agree to treat everyone fairly. Yale does not treat everyone fairly. Their policy specifically excludes business on the bass of religious content, and this seems to me in violation of the laws of California.
Yale's policy specifically discriminates against "occultic" or "satanic" content: occult groups and Satanists are religious groups protected by the First Amendment. Because I am making a film that contains material that is likely to be viewed as "religiously blasphemous" this forces me to go elsewhere for film processing and transfer. Yale happens to be the ONLY place near me that does both. By having this policy, Yale excludes me from a possible business transaction on the basis of my religious beliefs. They create for me the additional hardship and risk of sending my film out of state for processing. They also force me to find another transfer house, which limits me as I'd like to supervise my transfer.
Don't atheists have as much right to make religious films as so-called Christians? The political content of my film is also likely to attract controversy. Should Yale have the right to refuse my business because I don't like war? Additionally, who knows how many other people Yale has turned away on the basis of objections to content? How many people have read their policy and decided not to even make a film? This is how oppressive laws and policies work, fellas: the majority of their harm is done indirectly and out of sight.
I don't care if you don't agree with me. Many people don't agree with me about many things. If I needed the approval of a bunch of strangers, I'd be in sore need of mental help. I grew up in the South during the civil rights movement, and thankfully was not raised by racists. But I was surrounded by them at school, and so I've got a lot of practice at having the crowd throw rocks at me. (Literally.) I've been tear gassed, shot at with rubber and real bullets, kicked down, trampled, and endured all sorts of other discomfort to defend my idea of liberty. The puny words of internet posters are like water in my ears: I just shake it out and go on thinking for myself. I've never found a bleating herd of American sheep a comfortable place to be.
Just as owners of restaurants in the South had to do business with black patrons, Yale has to do business with religiously blasphemous occultic Satanists to transfer their film. If they want to be a private club that does transfer only for like-minded people, then they need to reorganize and re-license. As long as they are offering services to the public, then they have to serve the public.
This is my opinion, of course. My interpretation of the law. If my interpretation were followed, then the only "unfair" thing that will happen to Yale is they will have the opportunity to make more money. Transferring objectionable content would not increa their liability or costs and will only increase their earnings. It will not harm their business reputation. They will not become known as the Satanist Transfer House. They will not be kicked out of the Mormon Church (or whatever church) for blasphemy. They will not be forced to do business with "unsavory characters" (as Roger put it, as if this is about credit ratings or character), nor will they become pornographers (they still cannot be forced to transfer porn, as porn is not religious content).
You can be angry and disagree with me all you want. Again, I don't need your approval.
In fact, given that I think those of you who stand against me on this are ignorant and sorely in need of a lesson in politics, law and free expression, then I CERTAINLY don't want your approval.
What if Yale are all aethiests who have decide not to deal with images and words that they and many other people find offensive.
Gratuitous use of naked persons and offensive language is regularly used by phoney artists (pharts) to shock. Usually it just bores. In fact it takes a real genius to use those elements effectively and it is unlikely they will be using Yale labs anyway.
If you really want to make a 'shocking' film in the USA make commie islamic militants the subject without any gratutitous sex or naughty words. Then watch the 'good' christians throw their stones at you.
New web site and this is cine page http://www.picsntech.co.uk/cine.html
To me there is a very fine line between "boycotting" and "extortion". If a business exhibits practices that are in violation of human rights, then I think that boycotting by anyone and everyone is certainly called for and I would join in a second. On the other hand, I think that calling for a boycott of a grocery store that doesn't stock, say, orange marmalade would be vindictive and quite petty, since access to orange marmalade is hardly a guaranteed human right and is not guaranteed by law. Likewise, film making is a totally voluntary process and is not something that is required for human survival in this world. It is the very definition of a frivolous amenity even though it is also a form of expression.
As such, there are those that would argue that Yale is suppressing that freedom of expression but I would disagree. While freedom of expression is certainly granted under law, access to the specific medium used is NOT guaranteed and it is left up to the individual to find the medium best suited for their physical and financial limitations. All some people can afford is to stand on a stump and shout at the top of their lungs. Others can afford to buy air time on commercial television. Others have enough money and clout to produce self indulgent items of expression such as Travolta's awful "Battlefield Earth". I don't know anyone that would like to really be associated with Battlefield Earth, and that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or Travolta's bizarre Scientology stance. Battlefield Earth is simply a piece of crap. In my business, I am offered chances to work on similar pieces of crap all the time and, if I have the forethought and smell a stinkeroo, I avoid it and tell the people offering the work "no". But, obviously, SOMEbody worked on Battlefield Earth and probably knew it was going to suck before they started.
So, here, we have an interesting situation: I see people all the time on this forum condemn Hollywood for crapola like Battlefield Earth and constantly ask why those in a position to make a difference don't take a stand and say "no". The common belief is that they do it purely for the money with no thought as to convictions or ethics or personal values. But, when faced with a business like Yale that, agree with them or not, actually takes a stand and says, "No", we get cries of foul and boycott.
Why?
Imagine that someone came to you and asked you to work on a film project that you found lacking, for whatever your personal reasons. You really don't have to give a reason. Hell, you may just be busy and don't want to do it so you say "no". Then they say,"If you don't work on our film, then we're going to a public forum and encourage others not to work with you on anything else and deprive you of your ability to make a living.
Sorry, but that's extortion and that's exactly what is happening with Yale.
Again, I do NOT agree with their beliefs or their values but nothing they are doing is debasing to the human spirit. It's silly, to be sure, but is not illegal nor does it violate human rights. If someone feels that they just don't like Yale for their views then, by all means, use a lab that you feel more comfortable with. But there are many film makers out there with projects that Yale could handle fine and the subject matter would not be a problem for anyone involved and everyone could be happy. To call on those same film makers to also boycott Yale based on you OWN set of principles is uncalled for. Let each person make up their mind about what lab they want to use and let Yale make up their own mind about the projects they want to be associated with. To force them to do something that they do not want to do is nothing short of extortion. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have an inalienable right to super 8 processing and lab services.
Beyond that, I find Cal's position despicable. I have read over and over how he hates the government, supports freedom of thought and supports independent film making but thinks nothing of trying to shut down one of the few super 8 labs left through the use of the very governing body he opposes simply because Yale's views are different than his. I personally know that nothing will come of his complaint and, considering that he doesn't use Yale, it will be interesting to see how he can prove any damages or unfair exclusion by Yale, but, at least we can see what Cal's real priorities are. Super 8 can go to hell, as far as Cal's concerned, as long as there's a chance he can be proved right and win an argument. Makes me tired.
If you stay mad all the time about things like this, you will never be happy! You are not going to win this one (nor should you) so perhaps you should just relax, take a deep breath, and let it go.
