Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
So we are to make the distinction by how close they are to the event?I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.
But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.
No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event/activity that I cannot condone.
But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.
I'm not sure how you can compare catering, which does require servers who interact with guests etc., and setting up a cake which usually happens separately, in a different room while the ceremony is being performed somewhere else. Can you explain how those things are anywhere near the same?
What a person says or believes or thinks or expresses that does not violate anybody else's rights is off limits to government intervention. I do not know why you keep using terms like "PC Police" so loosely without naming this faceless menace. it takes away from any argument you are trying to make.Basically the concept in the examples I used in the OP is that what a person says or believes or thinks or expresses that does not violate anybody else's rights should be off limits to the PC police. It is only what a person does or specific actions that we have any right to control if such actions violate the rights of others. I don't have a right to be loud and disruptive and spoil the experience of others attending the movie, for instance, and the proprietor should be able to remove me if I insisted on behaving that way. But I should be able to express my opinion, in a proper setting, that movie goers are uptight pricks or whatever without worrying about some angry mob organizing to punish me because of my opinion. (I actually am one who doesn't want her movie experience spoiled by the way.)
And so far as action goes, I'll repeat the example used in the exchange with Nosmo. I should not as a business person deny movie tickets to people because of their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation, etc. But I should not be forced to show the movie at any of their events that I choose not to participate in.
I don't know why this is so difficult for some to understand and accept. The possible applications of that concept are endless and, as you say, cannot be specified or codified.
XXXX --- Moderation Edit..Third person douchebaggery.Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouthyet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking aboutWhat I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.
Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.
This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.
that said, time to move off of this
Careful dblack. I will be happy if you join the discussion, but no negative personal observations (personal insults or ad hominem) allowed please.
Maybe, but I'm not sure how such a law would be formulated. Equal protection seems to cover it all.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
But going back to what the law should be, would you support a law that would protect people with unpopular views or ideas or beliefs so long as they did not require anybody else to accept them and did not violate anybody's rights?
They have, but that does not mean you ignore the 1st one ever made, "and the exercise thereof." Fining the Oregon baker, the Jewish chef who refuses to do a pig roast, or the Muslim venue owner refusing to serve alcohol, directly conflicts with the first and, and is intolerant to their religious beliefs. Doing so is saying one set of beliefs trumps the other. People have expectations of what to encounter in public, that does not mean those ever changing expectations should be enforced by the government. E.g. DOMA.conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.Existing law is not a valid argument for the thread. Mentioning the existing law is not the same thing as arguing it. I have tried to get people to tell me what exact law the baker in question broke. Talking about a fine. Talking about rights. We need to know what law was broken in order to intelligently discuss the why of any fine or government action.THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.
Instead of getting all wrapped up in any PARTICULAR case and the legal proceedings associated with it, this is an opportunity to explore conflicting "rights" and how heavily codified that interaction should be.
I've lived in California where folks don't even READ all the signs for rules and regulations that appear on EVERY doorway. There is a point where CODIFYING everything can lead to atrophy of the judgement muscles. Do you have an expectation to never be offended by some intolerant hater? That kind of deal. Because if our JUDGEMENTS on fairness and tolerance are spelled out -- will anyone be capable or willing to give up their "social freedoms" in exchange for the security of legally prescribed correctness...
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
"We moved as the spirit listed, they never altered their pace, being neither cloud nor wind-born, like the gods of the marketplace. But the always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come, that a tribe had been wiped off it's ice field, or the lights had gone out in Rome"
Fining the Oregon baker, the Jewish chef who refuses to do a pig roast, or the Muslim venue owner refusing to serve alcohol, directly conflicts with the first and, and is intolerant to their religious beliefs. Doing so is saying one set of beliefs trumps the other. People have expectations of what to encounter in public, that does not mean those ever changing expectations should be enforced by the government. E.g. DOMA.
"We moved as the spirit listed, they never altered their pace, being neither cloud nor wind-born, like the gods of the marketplace. But the always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come, that a tribe had been wiped off it's ice field, or the lights had gone out in Rome"
Sorry, I can't abide. Dante is a troll.Third person douchebaggery.Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouthyet you stated somebody made valid arguments. It would be respectful and civil to answer what arguments YOU brought up in general. People do have an expectation or should, of what you are speaking about
Read his arguments and you will know what I am speaking about. I have.
This thread is about liberty, tolerance, and political correctness and not what I think about any member posting here.
that said, time to move off of this
Careful dblack. I will be happy if you join the discussion, but no negative personal observations (personal insults or ad hominem) allowed please.
Maybe, but I'm not sure how such a law would be formulated. Equal protection seems to cover it all.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
But going back to what the law should be, would you support a law that would protect people with unpopular views or ideas or beliefs so long as they did not require anybody else to accept them and did not violate anybody's rights?
Just put the one you can't abide on ignore and join the discussion and let the mods otherwise handle it. I have always appreciated your insights on things even when we have butted heads and would anticipate seeing some of those here.
PC when put into law makes bad law.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
Protect them how? Personal discrimination is not a violation of rights until I stop you from carrying out your rights. If I don't bake a cake for your wedding, I'm not stopping you from getting a cake baked at your wedding, I'm just not the one doing it.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
But going back to what the law should be, would you support a law that would protect people with unpopular views or ideas or beliefs so long as they did not require anybody else to accept them and did not violate anybody's rights?
I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.
But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.
No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.
But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.
Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.
Discrimination is about the Why.I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.
But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.
No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.
But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.
Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.
Even if that was the case, in the illustration used within its full context please, how are you discriminated against if I provide you services and products for all your events except the one event to which I object?
Going back to an earlier illustration I used, when I was contracting with folks to set up events, I used one particular printer who did custom posters, flyers, etc. for people. I once stood in line behind two people who placed their custom orders and when it was my turn, was informed that the project I was wanting would be too time consuming and the proprietor just couldn't accept the job at this time. I wasn't being discriminated against. He just didn't want to provide the product or service in my case.
Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....
People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.
The first sentence struggles to make sense.Personal discrimination is not a violation of rights until I stop you from carrying out your rights. If I don't bake a cake for your wedding, I'm not stopping you from getting a cake baked at your wedding, I'm just not the one doing it.
What about a black architect?Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....
People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.
We are getting close.. Only need a few dozen more protected classes. In some cases like of a black architect refusing to bid on a remodel for the Sons of Confederacy --- there will be "no protected class" -- which does not seem fair to me.. But when the unraveling of "sexual orientation" law starts to include polyamory or incestual relationships or changes in age of consent -- you will have removed a LOT of judgement and discretion from the interactions..
It's best if we DO NOT push all these to a legally prescribed resolution. It's best to realize that almost all corporations will bend to societal norms as they change. But the "closely held" business is NOT that far from removed from INDIVIDUAL discretion.. And that was recognized in the Hobby Lobby dustup. And you don't codify individual discretion. Individuals have a right to refuse association or accomodation. It's part of the judgement required to APPRECIATE what tolerance is really all about.. Why should a small biz be different?
You really want some Good ole boys seeking out black bakers to make Confederate Battle flag cakes?
Oh shucks -- it don't work that way --- does it?
What about a black architect?Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....
People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.
We are getting close.. Only need a few dozen more protected classes. In some cases like of a black architect refusing to bid on a remodel for the Sons of Confederacy --- there will be "no protected class" -- which does not seem fair to me.. But when the unraveling of "sexual orientation" law starts to include polyamory or incestual relationships or changes in age of consent -- you will have removed a LOT of judgement and discretion from the interactions..
It's best if we DO NOT push all these to a legally prescribed resolution. It's best to realize that almost all corporations will bend to societal norms as they change. But the "closely held" business is NOT that far from removed from INDIVIDUAL discretion.. And that was recognized in the Hobby Lobby dustup. And you don't codify individual discretion. Individuals have a right to refuse association or accomodation. It's part of the judgement required to APPRECIATE what tolerance is really all about.. Why should a small biz be different?
You really want some Good ole boys seeking out black bakers to make Confederate Battle flag cakes?
Oh shucks -- it don't work that way --- does it?
Equating polygamy and incest and age with same sex is a bit much. Attraction to same sex is a sexual orientation. The others?
People say because of gay marriage polygamists are next to demand a marriage right. But how? If a marriage contract is a contract between two persons, would they argue in that contract is an amendment stating they can have multiple spouses? It's a bit far fetched. There are people who cohabitate together and that is NOT against the law. Marriage arguments are about recognition by the state.
The state has a compelling interest in familial and age restrictions on marriage. Regarding polygamy, I believe the interests are there too, but if people want multiple spouses why not? Then again, child custody, pensions, and others issues get involved: state interests
I think you're misrepresenting what the Hobby Lobby decision was about or maybe you should be clarifying it. Hobby Lobby was not accused of discriminating against customers. and many public accommodation laws protect religious institutions. Hobby Lobby was and is an interesting case and it appears many (your excluded LOL) people purposefully misrepresent what it was about
Protect them how? Personal discrimination is not a violation of rights until I stop you from carrying out your rights. If I don't bake a cake for your wedding, I'm not stopping you from getting a cake baked at your wedding, I'm just not the one doing it.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
But going back to what the law should be, would you support a law that would protect people with unpopular views or ideas or beliefs so long as they did not require anybody else to accept them and did not violate anybody's rights?
Law dictated by govt. And based on what is popular at the time.The first sentence struggles to make sense.Personal discrimination is not a violation of rights until I stop you from carrying out your rights. If I don't bake a cake for your wedding, I'm not stopping you from getting a cake baked at your wedding, I'm just not the one doing it.
The 2nd: True. But when you refuse service based on the class of people one belongs to you step into discrimination as codified within the law.
One can personally discriminate against individuals as individuals and maybe as representative of people you do not like and get away with it.
Take the example of a homeless person who smells to high heaven. How would somebody justify not serving them?
Ok, my answer is no, and that's an un-enforceable law. But I know your trying to make a point for someone elseProtect them how? Personal discrimination is not a violation of rights until I stop you from carrying out your rights. If I don't bake a cake for your wedding, I'm not stopping you from getting a cake baked at your wedding, I'm just not the one doing it.I think PC is a good thing, as long as it doesn't extend into stupid laws.
But going back to what the law should be, would you support a law that would protect people with unpopular views or ideas or beliefs so long as they did not require anybody else to accept them and did not violate anybody's rights?
Meaning that it would be illegal and/or socially unacceptable to organize a boycott or protest intended to punish somebody for no other reason that the person expressed a point of view or opinion or used a phrase or word that others find offensive or wrong.
I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.
But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.
No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.
But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.
Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.
What about a black architect?Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....
People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.
We are getting close.. Only need a few dozen more protected classes. In some cases like of a black architect refusing to bid on a remodel for the Sons of Confederacy --- there will be "no protected class" -- which does not seem fair to me.. But when the unraveling of "sexual orientation" law starts to include polyamory or incestual relationships or changes in age of consent -- you will have removed a LOT of judgement and discretion from the interactions..
It's best if we DO NOT push all these to a legally prescribed resolution. It's best to realize that almost all corporations will bend to societal norms as they change. But the "closely held" business is NOT that far from removed from INDIVIDUAL discretion.. And that was recognized in the Hobby Lobby dustup. And you don't codify individual discretion. Individuals have a right to refuse association or accomodation. It's part of the judgement required to APPRECIATE what tolerance is really all about.. Why should a small biz be different?
You really want some Good ole boys seeking out black bakers to make Confederate Battle flag cakes?
Oh shucks -- it don't work that way --- does it?
Equating polygamy and incest and age with same sex is a bit much. Attraction to same sex is a sexual orientation. The others?
People say because of gay marriage polygamists are next to demand a marriage right. But how? If a marriage contract is a contract between two persons, would they argue in that contract is an amendment stating they can have multiple spouses? It's a bit far fetched. There are people who cohabitate together and that is NOT against the law. Marriage arguments are about recognition by the state.
The state has a compelling interest in familial and age restrictions on marriage. Regarding polygamy, I believe the interests are there too, but if people want multiple spouses why not? Then again, child custody, pensions, and others issues get involved: state interests
I think you're misrepresenting what the Hobby Lobby decision was about or maybe you should be clarifying it. Hobby Lobby was not accused of discriminating against customers. and many public accommodation laws protect religious institutions. Hobby Lobby was and is an interesting case and it appears many (your excluded LOL) people purposefully misrepresent what it was about
Where did you get the limit of 2 people? It's about caring and loving each other. If two couples want a polyamorous marraige -- would YOU tolerate that? What harm does it do to you? At least the issue of offspring and procreation is addressed in a "family" way..
Only point about Hobby Lobby was that it was recognized as a different type of discretion for a closely held biz to be "forced" to provide what it considers immoral for it's employees. No real skin off my back. Contraceptives are cheap. Ought to be over the counter with counseling from a registered pharmacist. PLENTY of ways to keep employees from "injury" because the boss nixes a "benefit" prescribed by a new untested law.. A benefit that was mandated BTW with a huge amount of political animous towards the exact people who might oppose it. It was a real "in your face" power play. No tolerance or respect involved.
REAL accomodation. is when we figure out how to resolve these conflicts WITHOUT major legal prescriptions.. Especially those DESIGNED to offend and FORCE compliance on certain classes.
