Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Coyote]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Who decides whether it is or isn't freedom of speech or what is ethical or unethical? When is one person's protest "free speech" and another's "sociopoltical bullying"? When is one person's fundamental right labeled as little more than "political correctness"?

For instance Planned Parenthood is being bullied by the pro-birth crowd. Is that "sociopolitical bullying" or is that free speech? I may not like it but I would rather err on the side of free speech than attempt to strangle it.

Planned Parenthood is being protested for an activity that the protesters see as reprehensible and unjustifiable. Whether or not you agree with the protesters' point of view, they are protesting an action that they see as harmful to people.

That is a very different thing than Planned Parenthood expressing an opinion about abortion or selling baby parts or whatever. If they were being attacked for just expressing an opinion, I would be in their corner the whole way.

Words, ideas, beliefs, opinions are something quite different than an action or activity that harms people who have no practical defense against it. I myself have participated in protests against unethical business practices that harm people.

Should not liberty allow each of us to believe what is and is not moral? Why is it okay for any other person to have the power to dictate to you what you must believe or say or else you will be materially and/or physically punished?

 

[Foxfyre]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Question: If you have a right to picket and protest and try to shut down a business because the owner said something that offended you, what keeps anybody from trying to materially harm anybody that way just because they don't like their point of view?

 

[Coyote]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

 

[Coyote]

Question: If you have a right to picket and protest and try to shut down a business because the owner said something that offended you, what keeps anybody from trying to materially harm anybody that way just because they don't like their point of view?

Nothing really - it happens all the time. People picket, protest and boycott for all kinds of reasons. Unless they do something illegal - vandalize, assault, etc then it's allowable, however offensive. I don't necessarily *like* it - but if I start restricting it....where does it end and who decides when it's ok and when it's not?

 

[Coyote]

Planned Parenthood is being protested for an activity that the protesters see as reprehensible and unjustifiable. Whether or not you agree with the protesters' point of view, they are protesting an action that they see as harmful to people.

That is a very different thing than Planned Parenthood expressing an opinion about abortion or selling baby parts or whatever. If they were being attacked for just expressing an opinion, I would be in their corner the whole way.

Words, ideas, beliefs, opinions are something quite different than an action or activity that harms people.

Should not liberty allow each of us to believe what is and is not moral? Why is it okay for any other person to have the power to dictate to you what you must believe or say or else you will be materially and/or physically punished?

People protesting anti-gay discrimmination (refusing to provide cakes or pizza to a gay wedding) are doing it for the same reason - they see it as harmful and wrong.

What you are talking about is not just expressing an opinion - it is altering their normal business practices because of what the client is. If they just expressed an opinion - I'd agree with you, in principle but not in practice - free speech is to valuable to start restricting that way. Expressing an opinion is your right - responding to it is also a right.

 

[Ravi]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

 

[BULLDOG]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

 

[Foxfyre]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

 

[Coyote]

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

I didn't say that. But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion.

 

[Coyote]

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Then we have exactly that case with the baker and the pizza guy: it's an action, not an opinion that is being protested.

 

[Foxfyre]

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

No. It is not discriminating against who they are. It is choosing not to participate in an event that they disapprove of.

I might go to movies with you or shopping with you or attend a sporting event with you. But the day you ask me to go to a dog fight with you, I will decline. That is not discriminating against you. it is discriminating against an event which I cannot condone.

Further I would provide you with special orders for a movie premiere or a shopping sampler or a tailgate event without question. But if you wanted a product decorated for that dog fight? Nope. Not gonna happen. Again that is not discriminating against you but against an event that I cannot condone.

 

[Coyote]

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

I didn't say that. But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion.

Think about the can of worms that opens up Foxie...

Who decides and defines what would be "deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like"? How would that effect free speech?

 

[Ravi]

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

I didn't say that. But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion.

You say you didn't say that but you actually did. Or boycotts that you don't approve of should be illegal. That's actually worse.

 

[BULLDOG]

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

More likely, it's just your crucifixion complex. Keep your religion, believe what you want, but if you normally bake cakes and deliver them to weddings, bake the damn cake and deliver it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn my girls out if town so I'm
some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

I didn't say that. But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion.

You say you didn't say that but you actually did. Or boycotts that you don't approve of should be illegal. That's actually worse.

I will ask you to cite the precise statement in which I said boycotts should be illegal. Or that boycotts I don't approve of should be illegal. Otherwise I suggest you find something else to do because you are off topic for this thread.

 

[Coyote]

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

No. It is not discriminating against who they are. It is choosing not to participate in an event that they disapprove of.

I might go to movies with you or shopping with you or attend a sporting event with you. But the day you ask me to go to a dog fight with you, I will decline. That is not discriminating against you. it is discriminating against an event which I cannot condone.

They aren't participating. They aren't part of the wedding party. They aren't guests. They are providing a product - just like stationers do, or caterers, or the restaraunt that hosts the meal, the company that provides a wedding dress, etc. You have every right to go to a dog fight (except unlike a gay wedding, it's illegal) - but assuming it was legal - I'd have every right to refuse. However, if you wanted a picnic lunch and my business provided it - do I have the right to refuse to make you a lunch?

That is not really a good example though because going to a dog fight is an activity. A wedding is an event - if you provide services to a wedding as your business then the wedding is the event. If you decide you will not provide a cake for an interracial wedding because of what the couple is - not the fact that it is a wedding but because of the participants - then that is discrimminating against who they are.