They Say They Have the "Right to Limit Participation"

raya said:

My point is, instead of battling them by complaining and dragging this into the media spotlight (which will piss them off and at best only make them accept Tarot readers grudgingly), maybe it would be better to take the high road and reason with them, address their fears.

Click to expand...

Exactly why the Press Release was issued. The reporter at the Seattle Weekly is who "dragged" the issue into the media spotlight by writing an article about it.

valeria said:

ROFLMAO!

Click to expand...

Well, I am glad you found my "diatribe" humourous although, I was quite serious and I wasn't trying to be funny at all. (I know, reputation precedes and all that).

Anyway, I'll try this again.

The organization in question made a judgement call based on associating their name with a possible fundraiser. The tarot reader, recipient of the judgement call, suggested that the judgement call against her wasn't as fitting as HER judgement call: that pornographers are understandably unwelcome, but dissing Tarot Readers doesn't make sense.

I believe that stance tarnishes the tarot readers position and strengthens that of the organization.

That it was tarot vs pornography is essentially moot.

As a member of several organizations, I would champion the rights of those organizations to choose to not have their name associated with someone because they think that association with that someone's profession will do harm to their efforts. I belong to the local Businessperson's association, in fact, I am one of the directors... Would I accept the local tarot reader as a participant, absolutely, would I accept the owner of the local strip club? I would, but many wouldn't.

As I originally stated, I took my opinion on the basis of the fact that the woman in question clearly stated; (paraphrasing) "After all, I'm not a pornographer".

On that note, I'm curious as to why the judgement call against pornographers is OK to make, but not one against Tarot Readers. I don't agree with the judgement as I said, but what gives the org. the right to the one judgement call but not the other? That is what doesn't makes sense to me.

They either have the right to deny associating their name with certain professions or they don't. And if they do have that right, then it is their judgement call to make; not ours.

valeria said:

Exactly why the Press Release was issued. The reporter at the Seattle Weekly is who "dragged" the issue into the media spotlight by writing an article about it.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your first post didn't you encourage people to write to the newspapers and even news tv shows? Isn't that dragging it further in?

EarthShod.com

I only wish the article had included my business name, EarthShod.com Tarot & Tea Leaf Readings!

~ Alexandra Chauran

If you want to advertise your business, you have to put it in the advertising forum - you can also link to your site in your profile through the website link (it will show up under your posts), but you're not allowed to promote it in threads like this one, so you might want to edit your post accordingly.

Cheers.