Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Being asked not to take photos in a private swim club isn’t discrimination though, and the right to ask someone not to is protected by free speech.

So since no laws are broken, OP has no reason to be at all upset or feel victimized. Guess we solved your problem after all!

Have you ever gone to a swim meet at a public swimming venue? What an inability to understand to try to make your point.

Try telling a BiPOC they can’t go to a private swim club. Free speeCh and all. Let me know how that works for you.

Nothing you are going to say is going to justify a man being told he cannot photograph his daughter when a woman isn’t told that same thing.

But I don’t need to justify it, and it’s irrelevant if it’s in a public venue because the act of asking (which is all anyone ever did) is not illegal and is protected by the same first amendment rights that allow him to take photographs with his telephoto lens of other people’s children in a public park without consideration for how they feel about it.

The person asking him to stop doesn’t have to have any more consideration for how HE feels, because their right to ask is protected. Happy to report that since there are no crimes, we have no victims.

You are truly a man’s hating wench.

The OP never got into the legality of any of it. So your comment is also invalid. Stop justifying discrimination against stay at home dads. Got it? Good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Being asked not to take photos in a private swim club isn’t discrimination though, and the right to ask someone not to is protected by free speech.

So since no laws are broken, OP has no reason to be at all upset or feel victimized. Guess we solved your problem after all!

Have you ever gone to a swim meet at a public swimming venue? What an inability to understand to try to make your point.

Try telling a BiPOC they can’t go to a private swim club. Free speeCh and all. Let me know how that works for you.

Nothing you are going to say is going to justify a man being told he cannot photograph his daughter when a woman isn’t told that same thing.

But I don’t need to justify it, and it’s irrelevant if it’s in a public venue because the act of asking (which is all anyone ever did) is not illegal and is protected by the same first amendment rights that allow him to take photographs with his telephoto lens of other people’s children in a public park without consideration for how they feel about it.

The person asking him to stop doesn’t have to have any more consideration for how HE feels, because their right to ask is protected. Happy to report that since there are no crimes, we have no victims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Being asked not to take photos in a private swim club isn’t discrimination though, and the right to ask someone not to is protected by free speech.

So since no laws are broken, OP has no reason to be at all upset or feel victimized. Guess we solved your problem after all!

Have you ever gone to a swim meet at a public swimming venue? What an inability to understand to try to make your point.

Try telling a BiPOC they can’t go to a private swim club. Free speeCh and all. Let me know how that works for you.

Nothing you are going to say is going to justify a man being told he cannot photograph his daughter when a woman isn’t told that same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21 pages. I’ve already said my piece (OP is a creep or creep advocate), so won’t rehash. But I think it’s clear this could all be avoided if OP would just get a job and stop leeching off his wife.

“I’ve already said my piece. *drops a whole new line of insulting BS that insults men and women both*

You’re a real piece of work huh? Good thing you don’t speak for all women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Being asked not to take photos in a private swim club isn’t discrimination though, and the right to ask someone not to is protected by free speech.

So since no laws are broken, OP has no reason to be at all upset or feel victimized. Guess we solved your problem after all!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

When you don’t ask women to stop taking photos you are discriminating. Try not allowing BiPOC people into a private swim club.

And you truly are unable to understand the concept swim meets are held in PUBLIC swimming venues not always private clubs.

You argument is invalid.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Being asked not to take photos in a private swim club isn’t discrimination though, and the right to ask someone not to is protected by free speech.

So since no laws are broken, OP has no reason to be at all upset or feel victimized. Guess we solved your problem after all!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

“Individual I find creepy” is not a protected class, and asking someone not to photograph a swim meet in a private club does not break any laws. Free speech! The guy doesn’t like the speech (and maybe doesn’t comply with the request) but no laws have been broken so no victims here! Congrats OP your problem is solved.



But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Discrimination is illegal.

Anonymous wrote:21 pages. I’ve already said my piece (OP is a creep or creep advocate), so won’t rehash. But I think it’s clear this could all be avoided if OP would just get a job and stop leeching off his wife.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

But it’s not illegal to ask him. So, since it’s not illegal, it’s fine right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

OP is a victim because WOMEN are not asked to stop photographing his own child at a swim meet.

Anonymous wrote:21 pages. I’ve already said my piece (OP is a creep or creep advocate), so won’t rehash. But I think it’s clear this could all be avoided if OP would just get a job and stop leeching off his wife.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!

You’re very fixated on the idea that the OP isn’t doing anything illegal.

Neither are the parents who won’t sit with him, neither are the people asking him to stop photographing swim meets (asking him to stop is covered by the first amendment).

So why is OP a victim again?

Anonymous wrote:Once again a poster uses an out of context irrelevant “law” to try to make her point the OP was wrong. Just typical!

And yet thousands of minors are being photographed by moms and dads this week at school holiday parties and pageants!