Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

sf

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.

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sf

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.

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tolerance is not defined as me discriminating against people. It is allowing me to choose not to attend or be part of or participate in an event or activity even as I do not interfere with that event or activity in any way.

I would be soooooo happy if anybody on your side of the argument could tell me that they understood that simple concept.

You, as an individual, are NOT attending the event. You, as an individual, did NOT receive an invitation to the event.

Your corporation is SUPPLYING A SERVICE to the event in exchange for being PAID to provide that service. Something that your corporation does as a normal everyday part of business in order to remain a viable corporation.

Still waiting for the OP to describe how this "new law" won't be de facto discrimination based upon religious bigotry against a certain class of people and violating their individual rights.

 

[Ravi]

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.

cock fights are illegal. SSM ceremonies are not. Either way, you aren't attending the event you are simply making a delivery.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Dante never asked you about what you THOUGHT. So please do not put words in my mouth

that said, time to move off of this

Third person douchebaggery.

Careful dblack. I will be happy if you join the discussion, but no negative personal observations (personal insults or ad hominem) allowed please.

Sorry, I can't abide. Dante is a troll.

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?

Maybe, but I'm not sure how such a law would be formulated. Equal protection seems to cover it all.

It's a thread on tolerance dblack. 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.

Ha, it is okay to be intolerant of those you disagree with after all. Thanks for that.

 

[sakinago]

sf

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.

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

 

[sakinago]

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.

cock fights are illegal. SSM ceremonies are not. Either way, you aren't attending the event you are simply making a delivery.

SSM marriage was illegal in Oregon at the time the bakers refused the cake. Is it ok to enforce new laws on violations committed prior to the making of the law

 

[Statistikhengst]

I did not vote for #1 because it requires clarifying, that being the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

I am more interested in whether you voted for #2. In today's PC and 'dictated tolerance' world, many Americans would easily vote for #1 but would not vote for #2. The thesis of the thread suggests that tolerance would allow both points of view.

I voted for no. 2.

I am pro-life.

 

[Ravi]

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.

cock fights are illegal. SSM ceremonies are not. Either way, you aren't attending the event you are simply making a delivery.

SSM marriage was illegal in Oregon at the time the bakers refused the cake. Is it ok to enforce new laws on violations committed prior to the making of the law

Okay, pretend SSM was not illegal at the time.

 

[sakinago]

Tolerance is not defined as me discriminating against people. It is allowing me to choose not to attend or be part of or participate in an event or activity even as I do not interfere with that event or activity in any way.

I would be soooooo happy if anybody on your side of the argument could tell me that they understood that simple concept.

You, as an individual, are NOT attending the event. You, as an individual, did NOT receive an invitation to the event.

Your corporation is SUPPLYING A SERVICE to the event in exchange for being PAID to provide that service. Something that your corporation does as a normal everyday part of business in order to remain a viable corporation.

Still waiting for the OP to describe how this "new law" won't be de facto discrimination based upon religious bigotry against a certain class of people and violating their individual rights.

Big difference between attending and participation. If I am a pro-life video maker, and I am asked to set up a camera filming an abortion to raise pro-choice awareness, I don't have to attend, just set up. Should I be forced to do that, even though I am fundamentally opposed to it? And is that not participating in that event?

 

[flacaltenn]

[QUOWhat about a black architect?TE="Dante, post: 12037560, member: 15512"]

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? [/QUOTE]

You asked me to clarify that example last night about a black architect refusing to contract with Sons of the Confederacy for a remodeling job. Seems like you don't understand the underlying issue of "protected classes". Since you also wanted to dismiss polyamory as not a "sexual orientation"..

Both of these examples illustrate the danger of resolving all these discretionary interactions between folks by law. In the first case, the black Lawyer could take a dump on the contract and hand it back to the Sons without ANY legal repercussions. And YET -- he is discriminating against them as a biz BECAUSE OF THEIR HERITAGE and HISTORY. The same architect might equally loath gays or Jews,, but is restrained from excersizing his intolerance on them because of "protected status". Thus you haven't FIXED his intolerance, you're redirected it. And his discretion is never truly excersized and resolved.

Polyamory marriage is just a logical extension of the claim that marriage is between consenting loving people. And it DOES have a contorted connection to "sexual orientation" in that bisexual love IS an accepted as an "orientation". It's a short step to finding that "loophole". Because as you create the "protected" classes, they will expand to their max capacity under the law and NOT be resolved thru individual discretion and tolerance. No doubt in my mind that polyamory and possibly polygamy and incest will find those loopholes and crawl right in...

Preferred method of "equality" is to write law that applies to EVERYONE. Tax and Medical privacy laws ought to COVER gay folks and any imaginable sexual hookup called "marriage". Business ought to conducted under "show cause" litigation rather than "public accomodation" just for certain enumerated classes. That way ANYONE who has been denied service or product has the SAME right to force the biz denying them -- to ADMIT the reason in a court of law.

THAT -- is more powerful as a social motivator -- than criminalizing intolerance on a case by case basis. Because there is a FINANCIAL incentive right now to seek out the "intolerant" and make them pay.. Like all those current event stories of getting punishing FINANCIAL settlements for denial of baking or shooting wedding vids. But what REALLY works -- is to have the intolerant EXPLAIN their discrimination publicly and attempt to DEFEND it. THen we ALL learn how this tolerance and freedom of discretion should work...

 

[sakinago]

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.

cock fights are illegal. SSM ceremonies are not. Either way, you aren't attending the event you are simply making a delivery.

SSM marriage was illegal in Oregon at the time the bakers refused the cake. Is it ok to enforce new laws on violations committed prior to the making of the law

Okay, pretend SSM was not illegal at the time.

It's tough to pretend when those bakers are being fined 150,000 dollars, for Complying with law at the time. And my main question is, why do we want government to determine what is tolerant and intolerant, marriage and not marriage, when DOMA was law of the land up until two years ago? What is seen as intolerant and offensive changes as much as the seasons. Hiring based on merit is seen as micro-aggression in progressive universities now. A white person should recognize that they have white privelage or face being seen as intolerant. What if theres an Isis terrorist attack on the same scale as 9/11, and the country swings to the right. Should government have the power to be intolerant to Muslims who have praised Isis acts In the past, or to round up Muslims who do not speak out against Isis?

 

[Foxfyre]

sf

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.

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread. But the argument can include why government should not be involved in some of these things so long as you relate that to the subject of tolerance, liberty, and political correctness. For instance, if the government tells me that I MUST participate in an event or activity that I find unethical or immoral or offensive, I have no right to exercise my own convictions about that. And that infringes on the concept of liberty as I understand it.

It requires nothing of me that I have not chosen to do in order to provide a product or service to ANYBODY regardless of their race, politics, sexual orientation or whatever, who comes into my store to buy what I offer for sale. So I have no problem with non discriminatory laws that says I accommodate all who abide by my rules who enter my place of business.

But if I have to provide a product I would not normally offer for sale to a person or go to a venue I would otherwise choose not to go to, that goes beyond simply selling my regular products and services. And that we should not be forced to do under penalty of law and we should not be subject to organized mob punishment because somebody doesn't like our choices.

 

[sakinago]

sf

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.

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread. But the argument can include why government should not be involved in some of these things so long as you relate that to the subject of tolerance, liberty, and political correctness. For instance, if the government tells me that I MUST participate in an event or activity that I find unethical or immoral or offensive, I have no right to exercise my own convictions about that. And that infringes on the concept of liberty as I understand it.

It requires nothing of me that I have not chosen to do in order to provide a product or service to ANYBODY regardless of their race, politics, sexual orientation or whatever, who comes into my store to buy what I offer for sale. So I have no problem with non discriminatory laws that says I accommodate all who abide by my rules who enter my place of business.

But if I have to provide a product I would not normally offer for sale to a person or go to a venue I would otherwise choose not to go to, that goes beyond simply selling my regular products and services. And that we should not be forced to do under penalty of law and we should not be subject or organized mob punishment because somebody doesn't like our choices.

What kind of rules are you allowed to make in that store. Can I make a rule in my t-shirt printing shop that says I will not make anti-gay t-shirts?

 

[Foxfyre]

Tolerance is not defined as me discriminating against people. It is allowing me to choose not to attend or be part of or participate in an event or activity even as I do not interfere with that event or activity in any way.

I would be soooooo happy if anybody on your side of the argument could tell me that they understood that simple concept.

You, as an individual, are NOT attending the event. You, as an individual, did NOT receive an invitation to the event.

Your corporation is SUPPLYING A SERVICE to the event in exchange for being PAID to provide that service. Something that your corporation does as a normal everyday part of business in order to remain a viable corporation.

Still waiting for the OP to describe how this "new law" won't be de facto discrimination based upon religious bigotry against a certain class of people and violating their individual rights.

I am present at the event venue. I am forced to be there. I am forced to have my delivery truck advertising my business there and therefore am forced to be seen as associating with that event or activity. I am forced to participate in and contribute to the event/activity.

So if refusing to decorate a cake specifically for a gay wedding or not wanting to be present (participate in any capacity) at the wedding hall even to set up and finish the cake is seen as discrimination against gay people because they are gay. . . .even though I provide products and services to the same gay people for many other occasions. . .

. . .then if I refuse to provide a product decorated for an anti-gay rally and/or deliver and/or set up a service at that rally, that should be seen as illegal discrimination against the person organizing the rally and should be equally punished even though I provide products and services to the same person for many other occasions.

Liberty says a business owner should be able to refuse with impunity to participate in either activity/event.

Again tolerance has to be a two way street and must be evenly applied. If we do not have the ability to determine what we will contribute to or participate in, we have no liberty. No business person should be forced to give up what he chooses to contribute to or participate in just because he opens a business. We have to allow those choices to even those with whom we disagree.

 

[flacaltenn]

sf

Whoa.. Cockfights are illegal. I MIGHT want to cater the one held by the Chief of Police and boycott the others.

The better example would be forcing a Muslim photographer to document a gay wedding. Using whatever tools are generally used. Involves rounding up all the subjects, posing them, capturing the right moments, showing a sense of reverence is almost REQUIRED of that task. And that WOULD be being FORCED to PARTICIPATE in the ceremony.. When you KNOW -- your work would be less than might be expected..

Doesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread. But the argument can include why government should not be involved in some of these things so long as you relate that to the subject of tolerance, liberty, and political correctness. For instance, if the government tells me that I MUST participate in an event or activity that I find unethical or immoral or offensive, I have no right to exercise my own convictions about that. And that infringes on the concept of liberty as I understand it.

It requires nothing of me that I have not chosen to do in order to provide a product or service to ANYBODY regardless of their race, politics, sexual orientation or whatever, who comes into my store to buy what I offer for sale. So I have no problem with non discriminatory laws that says I accommodate all who abide by my rules who enter my place of business.

But if I have to provide a product I would not normally offer for sale to a person or go to a venue I would otherwise choose not to go to, that goes beyond simply selling my regular products and services. And that we should not be forced to do under penalty of law and we should not be subject or organized mob punishment because somebody doesn't like our choices.

What kind of rules are you allowed to make in that store. Can I make a rule in my t-shirt printing shop that says I will not make anti-gay t-shirts?

Having had jobs involving the public in my past -- you could NEVER list ALL of the possible random weirdness that might appear at your door. That is WHY this kind of judgement and discretion needs to be excersized EVERY DAY. And not -- appear as some kind of list or legal prescription.

You're gonna get more consistency from a sole proprietor or small biz than you will from a WalMart for instance that has to GROVEL in the media because some employee agreed to make a Confed Battle Flag cake during the wrong week of a news cycle..

 

[Ravi]

Tolerance is not defined as me discriminating against people. It is allowing me to choose not to attend or be part of or participate in an event or activity even as I do not interfere with that event or activity in any way.

I would be soooooo happy if anybody on your side of the argument could tell me that they understood that simple concept.

You, as an individual, are NOT attending the event. You, as an individual, did NOT receive an invitation to the event.

Your corporation is SUPPLYING A SERVICE to the event in exchange for being PAID to provide that service. Something that your corporation does as a normal everyday part of business in order to remain a viable corporation.

Still waiting for the OP to describe how this "new law" won't be de facto discrimination based upon religious bigotry against a certain class of people and violating their individual rights.

I am present at the event venue. I am forced to be there. I am forced to have my delivery truck advertising my business there and therefore am forced to be seen as associating with that event or activity. I am forced to participate in and contribute to the event/activity.

So if refusing to decorate a cake specifically for a gay wedding or not wanting to be present (participate in any capacity) at the wedding hall even to set up and finish the cake is seen as discrimination against gay people because they are gay. . . .even though I provide products and services to the same gay people for many other occasions. . .

. . .then if I refuse to provide a product decorated for an anti-gay rally and/or deliver and/or set up a service at that rally, that should be seen as illegal discrimination against the person organizing the rally and should be equally punished even though I provide products and services to the same person for many other occasions.

Liberty says a business owner should be able to refuse with impunity to participate in either activity/event.

Again tolerance has to be a two way street and must be evenly applied. If we do not have the ability to determine what we will contribute to or participate in, we have no liberty. No business person should be forced to give up what he chooses to contribute to or participate in just because he opens a business. We have to allow those choices to even those with whom we disagree.

Is there a big sign out front saying GAY WEDDING INSIDE! PAY ATTENTION TO WHO IS CATERING!

 

[Valerie]

Is there a big sign out front saying GAY WEDDING INSIDE! PAY ATTENTION TO WHO IS CATERING!

the boogieman is watching!

 

[Foxfyre]

sfDoesn't matter whether they are illegal since we are setting aside existing law for purposes of this discussion.

But okay let's use a different example. I sell Coyote whatever products or services that I have in stock when she comes into the store and I accept orders for stuff I normally take special orders for. And I would cater her wedding, her birthday party, her fund raising event, and her tailgate party. But if she wanted me to produce products specifically for her anti-gay rally or deliver there, I would decline. So am I discriminating against her? Or an activity/event to which I do not wish to be a part of in any respect?

Disclaimer: This is hypothetical example only as I have no belief that Coyote would organize or attend an anti-gay rally.

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread. But the argument can include why government should not be involved in some of these things so long as you relate that to the subject of tolerance, liberty, and political correctness. For instance, if the government tells me that I MUST participate in an event or activity that I find unethical or immoral or offensive, I have no right to exercise my own convictions about that. And that infringes on the concept of liberty as I understand it.

It requires nothing of me that I have not chosen to do in order to provide a product or service to ANYBODY regardless of their race, politics, sexual orientation or whatever, who comes into my store to buy what I offer for sale. So I have no problem with non discriminatory laws that says I accommodate all who abide by my rules who enter my place of business.

But if I have to provide a product I would not normally offer for sale to a person or go to a venue I would otherwise choose not to go to, that goes beyond simply selling my regular products and services. And that we should not be forced to do under penalty of law and we should not be subject or organized mob punishment because somebody doesn't like our choices.

What kind of rules are you allowed to make in that store. Can I make a rule in my t-shirt printing shop that says I will not make anti-gay t-shirts?

Having had jobs involving the public in my past -- you could NEVER list ALL of the possible random weirdness that might appear at your door. That is WHY this kind of judgement and discretion needs to be excersized EVERY DAY. And not -- appear as some kind of list or legal prescription.

You're gonna get more consistency from a sole proprietor or small biz than you will from a WalMart for instance that has to GROVEL in the media because some employee agreed to make a Confed Battle Flag cake during the wrong week of a news cycle..

Good point. And it becomes even more pertinent when outrage and indignation and application of PC 'discipline' is so unevenly applied. For instance, this video expresses my argument beautifully and also shows how unevenly the selective indignation and 'discrimination' is often applied. I have never heard of anybody going after a Muslim owned business for refusal to accommodate a gay wedding:



When the law is equally ambiguous or selectively applied, it magnifies the assault on our choices and options re what we are forced to contribute to/participate in and violates our liberties even more.

 

[flacaltenn]

Refusing to sell stuff for an anti-gay rally would lose a customer or two. You keep appearing to use the term 'discrimination' outside of a legal context.

Discrimination is not a word that always has negative connotations. "I am discriminating in whom I make friends with"

Gays are often the clerks at stores where people buy stuff to make signs at anti-gay rallies. How would they know what the equipment or stuff is for? Being a smaller store one might know, but then again one would know the person is anti-gay. Why not sell the stuff? One would NOT be condoning the anti-gay rally.

The example fails tests of credibility and validity to name a few

So you agree that govt. Should stay out of marriage as well as religion, except when it comes to a business that you own.

Explain how this does not violate the 1st amendment, or how refusal of service is infringing on another persons or groups liberties? (I'm arguing that the 1st is not current law op).

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread. But the argument can include why government should not be involved in some of these things so long as you relate that to the subject of tolerance, liberty, and political correctness. For instance, if the government tells me that I MUST participate in an event or activity that I find unethical or immoral or offensive, I have no right to exercise my own convictions about that. And that infringes on the concept of liberty as I understand it.

It requires nothing of me that I have not chosen to do in order to provide a product or service to ANYBODY regardless of their race, politics, sexual orientation or whatever, who comes into my store to buy what I offer for sale. So I have no problem with non discriminatory laws that says I accommodate all who abide by my rules who enter my place of business.

But if I have to provide a product I would not normally offer for sale to a person or go to a venue I would otherwise choose not to go to, that goes beyond simply selling my regular products and services. And that we should not be forced to do under penalty of law and we should not be subject or organized mob punishment because somebody doesn't like our choices.

What kind of rules are you allowed to make in that store. Can I make a rule in my t-shirt printing shop that says I will not make anti-gay t-shirts?

Having had jobs involving the public in my past -- you could NEVER list ALL of the possible random weirdness that might appear at your door. That is WHY this kind of judgement and discretion needs to be excersized EVERY DAY. And not -- appear as some kind of list or legal prescription.

You're gonna get more consistency from a sole proprietor or small biz than you will from a WalMart for instance that has to GROVEL in the media because some employee agreed to make a Confed Battle Flag cake during the wrong week of a news cycle..

Good point. And it becomes even more pertinent when outrage and indignation and application of PC 'discipline' is so unevenly applied. For instance, this video expresses my argument beautifully and also shows how unevenly the selective indignation and 'discrimination' is often applied. I have never heard of anybody going after a Muslim owned business for refusal to accommodate a gay wedding:



When the law is equally ambiguous or selectively applied, it magnifies the assault on our choices and options re what we are forced to contribute to/participate in and violates our liberties even more.

Correct -- enumerating "protected classes" by law opens up the revenge gates. And the guilt money starts to flow. And THAT process is never guaranteed to impose FAIRNESS on who gets gored..