Taking pictures of people without permission.

[raven1114]

A photographer is one thing but this guy was obviously no professional. Thanks for the comments though.

As long as you and he were out in public, it doesn't matter whether he was a professional photographer or not.  And, you're welcome - hopefully these comments helped your perceptions out some.

As for starting trouble, It is never anyones intention to start trouble when they practice their freedom of religion.

I disagree.  There are several instances of evidence to the contrary.  These range from the fundamentalist Westburo Baptist Church members "protesting" at the funerals of U.S. military casualties, (being a U.S. too, you'd probably be unlikely to appreciate that one), to Saudi muslims practicing their "freedom of religion" by killing around 3,000 U.S. civilians not engaged in war.

However i do agree that I would not want a nudest at my BBQ

Depending upon the nudist, I might agree or, disagree with that one.

Yup history is full of people 'starting trouble' all in the name of  their 'religion'

[falcon9]

Some people are very ignorant in their dealings with others ...

Yes, especially when dealing with pictures taken in public, (which isn't illegal in the U.S.).

and what has happened to you was not only inappropriate, it was a violation of your civil rights.

Which civil rights were violated by taking a picture of someone in public?  Please refer to an actual civil right, (rather than a personal sense of inappropriateness).
 

Too bad you didn't get that license number you could have sued that person.

No doubt such a frivolous litigation could be initiated however, if one were to check with an candid attorney, they may discover that there'd be a degree of futility to such a suit, (and an unnecessary exposure to a potential counter-suit), unless it such a photo was used for monetary gain.
 

I believe no one has the right to take your picture without your permission.

Beliefs are not the equivalent of laws and the picture was apparently taken in public, which does not require permission.

I can see why it is sometimes necessary to have that male there to protect you. I guarantee that person would not have tried that if you had a man with you.

You guarantee that, do you?  What do you estimate might happen if the protecting male tried to interfere physically with a photographer taking a public photo in the U.S.?  If he's not aware of laws concerning physical assault, he soon will be.

[falcon9]

As for starting trouble, It is never anyones intention to start trouble when they practice their freedom of religion.

I disagree.  There are several instances of evidence to the contrary.  These range from the fundamentalist Westburo Baptist Church members "protesting" at the funerals of U.S. military casualties, (being a U.S. too, you'd probably be unlikely to appreciate that one), to Saudi muslims practicing their "freedom of religion" by killing around 3,000 U.S. civilians not engaged in war.

Yup history is full of people 'starting trouble' all in the name of  their 'religion'

I'm pretty sure the Crusades, (all of them), would qualify as "starting trouble".

[raven1114]

As for starting trouble, It is never anyones intention to start trouble when they practice their freedom of religion.

I disagree.  There are several instances of evidence to the contrary.  These range from the fundamentalist Westburo Baptist Church members "protesting" at the funerals of U.S. military casualties, (being a U.S. too, you'd probably be unlikely to appreciate that one), to Saudi muslims practicing their "freedom of religion" by killing around 3,000 U.S. civilians not engaged in war.

Yup history is full of people 'starting trouble' all in the name of  their 'religion'

I'm pretty sure the Crusades, (all of them), would qualify as "starting trouble".

I bet it seemed pretty troubling for the untold numbers of people killed. There's also things like the Salem Witch trials. I'd consider it troubling if someone hung me because they decided I was a witch all because of their religion.

[falcon9]

I bet it seemed pretty troubling for the untold numbers of people killed. There's also things like the Salem Witch trials.

It seems odd that practicing their freedom of religion means some adherents killing other people for practicing _their_ freedom of religion.

I'd consider it troubling if someone hung me because they decided I was a witch all because of their religion.

They did have that whole 'not suffering a witch/sorceror to live' thing; but nowadays, they want 'religious tolerance', (mainly for their particular religion).

[raven1114]

I bet it seemed pretty troubling for the untold numbers of people killed. There's also things like the Salem Witch trials.

It seems odd that practicing their freedom of religion means some adherents killing other people for practicing _their_ freedom of religion.

I'd consider it troubling if someone hung me because they decided I was a witch all because of their religion.

They did have that whole 'not suffering a witch/sorceror to live' thing; but nowadays, they want 'religious tolerance', (mainly for their particular religion).

I read somewhere before that the original meaning of that was "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner of wells to live." meaning a person who poisoned the water supply. It was later switched to 'witch or sorcerer. Don't know if it's true or not. a lot of people are all for religious tolerance when it involves their religion but tolerance goes out the window when it's about another belief.   

[falcon9]

I read somewhere before that the original meaning of that was "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner of wells to live." meaning a person who poisoned the water supply. It was later switched to 'witch or sorcerer. Don't know if it's true or not.

If the pre-translated word was ""chasaph", that's roughly hebrew for "poisoner" however, if the word was "kashaph," that would be "sorceress" in hebrew.  There are numerous such translation 'errors'/interpretations in that collection of dubious documents.

a lot of people are all for religious tolerance when it involves their religion but tolerance goes out the window when it's about another belief.   

I concur; even with some superficial lip-service, their intolerance for other religious or non-religious philosophies can soon become apparent.  This assertion has been clearly demonstrated to be accurate in at least three other threads & forums here. Some aspects of that range from characterizing any questioning of another's "faith" as 'rude/impolite/intolerant' while overlooking their own intolerance/rudeness/impoliteness for dissenting points of view from those not of their particular religious beliefs, (and in fact, alluding to silencing/censoring such dissenting views).

 

[candyterrius]

It’s always best to ask the person permission first if it’s okay to have his/her picture taken. Is it legal? Well, I can say the paparrazzis do this all the time. They frequently stalk celebrities and do this sort of thing. Maybe the person who took your picture out of wonder because there aren’t many people who dress like the way you do. So it was a rare sight. America is a melting pot.

[mgint]

It''s bad but everyone has a phone that takes pictures so unless you change constitution not much can be done.

[EvonneDean]

 

[donnainky]

I know that people take those pictures and post them on "people of walmart" Surely all those people didn't know they were having there pictures taken and being posted. i don't think there is anyway to stop people from taking pictures of others. look at all the people that get their pictures taken at sporting events or even walking the streets.

[tashamjoy]

I personally think that was so rude of that person i do take a ton of pictures but not like that!!! I would tell the person or take of someone I know. And I have no problem of people wearing whatever they like, I hate the people will have such a problem with muslims covering up and being modest but are ok with people wearing a bra and underwear as bathing suits and thats ok? Wear what you want its your body as I feel !!!