Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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.

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

And that is relevant to the argument how?

 

[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!

And that is relevant to the argument how?

Your entire argument seemed to be that someone could see you servicing a gay wedding.

 

[Foxfyre]

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..

And the argument in the video made a particular pertinent point paraphrased here as: the PC crowd would say to the business owner that you must agree with us and do business according to what we believe to be right, virtuous, pure, noble, etc. or else you should not be allowed to do business. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the dangerous slippery slope there, and when they also control what the law reads and/or what the courts rule, everybody's liberties are at risk.

 

[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.

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

And that is relevant to the argument how?

Your entire argument seemed to be that someone could see you servicing a gay wedding.

Your observations suggest that you have not read what my entire argument is.

 

[sakinago]

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..

This has been my point for a long time now. What we see as hateful, and intolerant is liquid and ever-changing. Do we want government making laws based on these ever changing views? We like to look back and point at nazi germany, and talk about how evil they were. But forget that they were people just like us, and very much like people of the US were at the time. They were people just going through a hard time looking for someone to blame, and someone in government to do something about it. And that person did do something about it. (Very good book about this called ordinary people, I think, it's been a while since I read it) We also seem to forget that this country at the same time, while they didn't take it as far, also rounded up people and put them into concentration camps. The idea that government should fix the things we do not like about other people and their beliefs is not the answer. Which is why we had LAWS against sodomy. If you see a business that believes something that you don't like, and exercises those beliefs in their business in some way, do not shop at that business. Tell your friends they shouldn't shop there. Don't go running to government to make a law

 

[Coyote]

..

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
you're trolling, but you're part of a protected class

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

Oh really so it is ok for the government to create second class citizens with the use of law? As an Asian I am held to a higher standard than both whites and blacks when trying to get into Harvard.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

Political correctness is a very arbritrary term. What you are calling "political correctness" is someone else's fundamental right.

 

[sakinago]

..

Not when there is a quota and Asians on average have higher test scores, therefore I have to score higher than both whites and blacks.

you're free to start your own thread on this subject

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

Political correctness is a very arbritrary term. What you are calling "political correctness" is someone else's fundamental right.

The right to not be offended?

 

[Coyote]

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..

This has been my point for a long time now. What we see as hateful, and intolerant is liquid and ever-changing. Do we want government making laws based on these ever changing views? We like to look back and point at nazi germany, and talk about how evil they were. But forget that they were people just like us, and very much like people of the US were at the time. They were people just going through a hard time looking for someone to blame, and someone in government to do something about it. And that person did do something about it. (Very good book about this called ordinary people, I think, it's been a while since I read it) We also seem to forget that this country at the same time, while they didn't take it as far, also rounded up people and put them into concentration camps. The idea that government should fix the things we do not like about other people and their beliefs is not the answer. Which is why we had LAWS against sodomy. If you see a business that believes something that you don't like, and exercises those beliefs in their business in some way, do not shop at that business. Tell your friends they shouldn't shop there. Don't go running to government to make a law

In theory- I agree with that, except:

What if the group suffering discrimmination is a small minority, the group imosing the discrimmination is a large majority. Is that minority's protest going to mean anything? The history of discrimmination was pretty ugly prior to government intervention. Tolerance was certainly not a two-way street.

 

[Coyote]

..

This is on subject, according to you government is to make the decision on what is tolerant and intolerant, even though they've gotten it wrong too many times in history (Obama circa 2008 was intolerant of gay marriage). And also allowed to participate in discrimination, infringing on citizens equal rights. You also believe that, going against the 1st amendment, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs if you are in the public setting.

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

Political correctness is a very arbritrary term. What you are calling "political correctness" is someone else's fundamental right.

The right to not be offended?

Nope. The right not to be discrimminated against - to be treated the same as any other customer. You minimize those rights by referring to it as "political correctness" instead of discrimmination.

 

[Foxfyre]

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..

This has been my point for a long time now. What we see as hateful, and intolerant is liquid and ever-changing. Do we want government making laws based on these ever changing views? We like to look back and point at nazi germany, and talk about how evil they were. But forget that they were people just like us, and very much like people of the US were at the time. They were people just going through a hard time looking for someone to blame, and someone in government to do something about it. And that person did do something about it. (Very good book about this called ordinary people, I think, it's been a while since I read it) We also seem to forget that this country at the same time, while they didn't take it as far, also rounded up people and put them into concentration camps. The idea that government should fix the things we do not like about other people and their beliefs is not the answer. Which is why we had LAWS against sodomy. If you see a business that believes something that you don't like, and exercises those beliefs in their business in some way, do not shop at that business. Tell your friends they shouldn't shop there. Don't go running to government to make a law

Again I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws attached to a business license--I do believe it is reasonable to expect to be able to walk into a bakery or flower shop or grocery store or movie theater etc. and purchase a product or service offered for sale there regardless of my gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

I do not see it as reasonable that I should be able to force that business to produce a product the business owner does not want to produce or provide services for my event/activity that the the business owner does not want to produce and/or provide services for.

The only reason I can think of for refusal to acknowledge the difference between those two things is that it destroys their justification for accusing targeted people of being illegally discriminatory. And again it becomes a dangerous, even evil, concept when those targeting certain people for "PC" punishment can use the law and/or courts to enforce their own discriminatory attitudes re certain people.

Where you and I have disagreed is that I think it should be illegal to maliciously target a person or business and attempt to destroy his/her business, livelihood, options, opportunities etc. for no other reason than that person expresses an opinion the PC crowd doesn't like. You said earlier, I believe, that you don't see how such a law could be enforced. I see such a law being enforceable just as libel and slander laws are enforceable.

 

[Valerie]

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

And that is relevant to the argument how?

your fears are imaginary and have nothing to do with religious liberty...

the law requires the business must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened”

[URL="http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/12036986/"]Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty[/URL]


that bakery failed to meet that ^ legal threshold, no matter how many other scenarios you may fabricate here and project yourself into, just because you feel the law seems ambiguous to you...


btw that bakery did not bake that cake, that bakery did not deliver that unbaked cake, thus no one actually forced them...

no one forced them to go into bakery catering business either...but as a public proprietor they have a legal and moral obligation to the public which in FACT does not require their religious liberty to be unduly substantially burdened.

the customer of a public establishment felt mistreated and upon further review, the court examined all of the facts and determined these baker's actions, or lack there of, constituted a violation of this customer's public accommodation rights.

you'd like to ignore those FACTS and go off into hypothetical la la land...in order to meet your agenda to spread irrational fear, AS IF your religious liberty was threatened by that case...in fact it was not.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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...

I think you're likely hitting on some key elements of the concept Flacal, but I'm not understanding exactly the point you are making here. Are you saying we cannot define what tolerance is? Or that we cannot spell out every example of it?

I'm saying we never spell out the exact structure of EVERY issue of tolerance and accomodation as legally enforced laws. Folks need to EXCERSIZE judgement and tolerance. Not obey prescribed limits of such things. When faced with a barrage laws that SPELL OUT common sense, and tolerance -- folks will just ignore them..

Like they do all the ridiculous 20 pages of caution in the ChainSaw manual that came with my new tool this weekend. Do not NEED to show a picture of a guy in a tree cutting off the limb he is sitting on with a big X thru it.


The "sides" will never understand and respect each other --- if it's the LAW that dictates their every interaction..

Okay. I do now understand where you were going with that and thank you. That is precisely why I specified not to use existing law in our arguments in this discussion because I wanted people to focus on a concept instead of the laws that currently control some applications of that concept. (I think in your earlier post you expressed that you understood that too.)

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.

Ok. What is the difference between that scenario or this one:

As a business person my religious beliefs don't believe in the mixing of races (and yes, that was used to justify many things). I have a restaurant. I serve both blacks and whites - however, because of my beliefs, I don't want to serve blacks in my dining room. I'm perfectly happy to fix them up a meal and bring it to them in their car but I don't want them in my dining room or to be associated with an event that shows two races doing something together?

What if a whole lot of people feel this way?

Where do you draw the line?

When does tolerance=intolerance?

I'm talking about actions - not opinions. People have the right to express any sort of opinion they want

 

[Foxfyre]

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..

This has been my point for a long time now. What we see as hateful, and intolerant is liquid and ever-changing. Do we want government making laws based on these ever changing views? We like to look back and point at nazi germany, and talk about how evil they were. But forget that they were people just like us, and very much like people of the US were at the time. They were people just going through a hard time looking for someone to blame, and someone in government to do something about it. And that person did do something about it. (Very good book about this called ordinary people, I think, it's been a while since I read it) We also seem to forget that this country at the same time, while they didn't take it as far, also rounded up people and put them into concentration camps. The idea that government should fix the things we do not like about other people and their beliefs is not the answer. Which is why we had LAWS against sodomy. If you see a business that believes something that you don't like, and exercises those beliefs in their business in some way, do not shop at that business. Tell your friends they shouldn't shop there. Don't go running to government to make a law

In theory- I agree with that, except:

What if the group suffering discrimmination is a small minority, the group imosing the discrimmination is a large majority. Is that minority's protest going to mean anything? The history of discrimmination was pretty ugly prior to government intervention. Tolerance was certainly not a two-way street.

He is talking about an expressed belief by a business owner. Whatever that expressed belief is, how does that discriminate against anybody in any way?

Again if I provide products and services for your birthday party and wedding and class reunion and fund raising event but refuse to provide products and services for your anti-gay rally, am I discriminating against you? Or am I choosing not to be party to an anti-gay rally?

Please answer that question exactly as it is asked.

 

[dblack]

I'm talking about actions - not opinions. People have the right to express any sort of opinion they want.

This actions/opinion distinction is a bit of a ruse. The actions themselves, divorced from the opinions, aren't considered harmful and are not illegal. It's not illegal to refuse service to someone. It's illegal to do it for the wrong reason.

 

[Coyote]

Where you and I have disagreed is that I think it should be illegal to maliciously target a person or business and attempt to destroy his/her business, livelihood, options, opportunities etc. for no other reason than that person expresses an opinion the PC crowd doesn't like. You said earlier, I believe, that you don't see how such a law could be enforced. I see such a law being enforceable just as libel and slander laws are enforceable.

That would be extremely difficult to inforce and worse - it would be arbritrary. Just what is the "PC crowd"? Who defines whether it's "malicious targeting" or free speech?

Back to PP - those targeting PP are clearly maliciously doing so and attempting to destroy their business. Should that be illegal?

What happens to Free Speech because all of a sudden we have a subjective standard as to whether it's legal or illegal.

Slander and libel are actually hard to enforce - the bar is set very very high and you have to prove some is lying about you etc. How would you prove a law you are proposing?

 

[dblack]

When does tolerance=intolerance?

When it comes to laws, the only tolerance that should matter is that of government. The government is obligated to apply the law equally to everyone. Citizens are under no obligation to treat each other equally. That's the distinction eluding so many people in these debates.

 

[Coyote]

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..

This has been my point for a long time now. What we see as hateful, and intolerant is liquid and ever-changing. Do we want government making laws based on these ever changing views? We like to look back and point at nazi germany, and talk about how evil they were. But forget that they were people just like us, and very much like people of the US were at the time. They were people just going through a hard time looking for someone to blame, and someone in government to do something about it. And that person did do something about it. (Very good book about this called ordinary people, I think, it's been a while since I read it) We also seem to forget that this country at the same time, while they didn't take it as far, also rounded up people and put them into concentration camps. The idea that government should fix the things we do not like about other people and their beliefs is not the answer. Which is why we had LAWS against sodomy. If you see a business that believes something that you don't like, and exercises those beliefs in their business in some way, do not shop at that business. Tell your friends they shouldn't shop there. Don't go running to government to make a law

In theory- I agree with that, except:

What if the group suffering discrimmination is a small minority, the group imosing the discrimmination is a large majority. Is that minority's protest going to mean anything? The history of discrimmination was pretty ugly prior to government intervention. Tolerance was certainly not a two-way street.

He is talking about an expressed belief by a business owner. Whatever that expressed belief is, how does that discriminate against anybody in any way?

Again if I provide products and services for your birthday party and wedding and class reunion and fund raising event but refuse to provide products and services for your anti-gay rally, am I discriminating against you? Or am I choosing not to be party to an anti-gay rally?

Please answer that question exactly as it is asked.

I will. It would be nice, however, if you would answer some of mine since you are making this demand.

Your question:
Again if I provide products and services for your birthday party and wedding and class reunion and fund raising event but refuse to provide products and services for your anti-gay rally, am I discriminating against you? Or am I choosing not to be party to an anti-gay rally?

No.


Now - let me ask you the same question:

If I provide products and services for Johnny's wedding and refuse to provide it for yours, because of what you are - am I discrimminating?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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...

I think you're likely hitting on some key elements of the concept Flacal, but I'm not understanding exactly the point you are making here. Are you saying we cannot define what tolerance is? Or that we cannot spell out every example of it?

I'm saying we never spell out the exact structure of EVERY issue of tolerance and accomodation as legally enforced laws. Folks need to EXCERSIZE judgement and tolerance. Not obey prescribed limits of such things. When faced with a barrage laws that SPELL OUT common sense, and tolerance -- folks will just ignore them..

Like they do all the ridiculous 20 pages of caution in the ChainSaw manual that came with my new tool this weekend. Do not NEED to show a picture of a guy in a tree cutting off the limb he is sitting on with a big X thru it.


The "sides" will never understand and respect each other --- if it's the LAW that dictates their every interaction..

Okay. I do now understand where you were going with that and thank you. That is precisely why I specified not to use existing law in our arguments in this discussion because I wanted people to focus on a concept instead of the laws that currently control some applications of that concept. (I think in your earlier post you expressed that you understood that too.)

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.

Ok. What is the difference between that scenario or this one:

As a business person my religious beliefs don't believe in the mixing of races (and yes, that was used to justify many things). I have a restaurant. I serve both blacks and whites - however, because of my beliefs, I don't want to serve blacks in my dining room. I'm perfectly happy to fix them up a meal and bring it to them in their car but I don't want them in my dining room or to be associated with an event that shows two races doing something together?

What if a whole lot of people feel this way?

Where do you draw the line?

When does tolerance=intolerance?

I'm talking about actions - not opinions. People have the right to express any sort of opinion they want

I have been talking about actions too. I have no problem with anti-discrimination laws being attached to a business license. I have no problem with requiring a business owner to provide the products and services he has for sale to all who come to his place of business regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. so long as those customer follow reasonable expectations of proper dress and conduct.

But nobody should be able to force that business owner to produce a special ordered product he finds offense, immoral, unethical or for any reason does not want to produce. Nobody should be able to force that business owner to be party in ANY respect to an activity or event he does not wish to contribute to or participate in. Nobody's rights are violated when a business owner says no to a product he finds offense or an activity he cannot condone. That is not discrimination against any person. That is what should be our unalienable right to exercise our choice in what we will and will not participate in or contribute to.

Tolerance requires allowing others to be intolerant so long as they do not violate another person's rights. Intolerance of intolerance is okay so long as it is expressed as opinion. It is not okay when we demand that others see it like we see it or else be punished. We all are intolerant of many things and we all probably do not agree on everything that we tolerate.

I am arguing for everybody to allow everybody else to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating anybody's rights. We don't have to agree with them and we have every right to express that, but we should not have a right to demand that they change their opinions, beliefs, attitudes to conform to what we think those opinions, beliefs, attitudes should be.

 

[Coyote]

I'm talking about actions - not opinions. People have the right to express any sort of opinion they want.

This actions/opinion distinction is a bit of a ruse. The actions themselves, divorced from the opinions, aren't considered harmful and are not illegal. It's not illegal to refuse service to someone. It's illegal to do it for the wrong reason.

No. It is not a bit of a ruse. It's a very important distinction. Opinions are just that - everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it. Opinions may hurt feelings but they don't hurt people. Actions do and it's actions that infringe on the rights of others.

It's illegal to do it for the wrong reason -- I agree.

 

[sakinago]

..

Perhaps on subject but includes ad hominem expressly forbidden in the OP. Let's keep personal observations out of it Sak because otherwise you are making some valid arguments for the thread.

post two of these arguments you consider valid

What I consider valid is not the topic of this thread. The thread is about tolerance, liberty, and political correctness.

Political correctness is a very arbritrary term. What you are calling "political correctness" is someone else's fundamental right.

The right to not be offended?

Nope. The right not to be discrimminated against - to be treated the same as any other customer. You minimize those rights by referring to it as "political correctness" instead of discrimmination.

Discrimination is a very arbitrary term as well. A men's big and tall shop discriminates against the short, thin, and females. A men's or Women's bathroom discriminates against a transgendered person. Air conditioning discriminates to women who wear less clothes. Affirmative action discriminates against whites. A pulled pork BBQ restaurant discriminates to the Muslim and Jew. A store clerk discriminates and can't serve a person who they cannot communicate with bc of language barriers. A traditional bar and bar stool discriminates to little people. Fining the Oregon baker discriminates against religious liberty. Me saying I do not want a democrat, or republican discriminates to either party. A business that donates to one candidate or the other based on political views of that candidate is discrimination