Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Valerie]

..

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

exactly, "PC" is the trendy buzz-word boogieman used to excuse discrimination...

 

[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.

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.

Ok, so, that's the question. How is not baking someone a cake violating their rights? In particular, how is not baking it for the wrong reasons violating their rights? Can you state what universal rights are being violated by not serving someone as they wish?

 

[Coyote]

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.

What if the product/service is weddings?

I agree - tolerance requires allowing others to be intolerant so long as they do not violate another persons rights. A person has a right to expect to be treated the same as any other customer as long as they behave appropriatly. That means that they should be able to go to a place that provides services for weddings and be able to plan their wedding with regard to who are what they are. Providing those services is not participating in the wedding. It's being a vender. We have venders at our dog shows and agility trials - they sell stuff. They are not participating in or endorsing anything - they are providing a product.

I agree with you in principle except that I think your example (the baker) DOES violate someone's rights and I've asked before - how is it any different than examples involving racial discrimmination?

 

[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.

Ok, so, that's the question. How is not baking someone a cake violating their rights? In particular, how is not baking it for the wrong reasons violating their rights? Can you state what universal rights are being violated?

The right to be treated like any other customer.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

No what? Are you saying that no, I am not discriminating against you? Or are you saying no, that I am not choosing not to be party to an anti-gay rally?

And in answer to your question for maybe the dozenth time, yes. You would be discriminating against me as a person. And in answer to your question, if you refused to provide products or services for my wedding because of who I am, yes, that would be discriminating against me because of who I am. But if you provided products and services for my activities and events with no question EXCEPT for my wedding that you could not condone, that would not be discrimination against me for who I am. It would be discriminating against an activity/event that you objected to.

And in my view that is not the same thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

What if the product/service is weddings?

I agree - tolerance requires allowing others to be intolerant so long as they do not violate another persons rights. A person has a right to expect to be treated the same as any other customer as long as they behave appropriatly. That means that they should be able to go to a place that provides services for weddings and be able to plan their wedding with regard to who are what they are. Providing those services is not participating in the wedding. It's being a vender. We have venders at our dog shows and agility trials - they sell stuff. They are not participating in or endorsing anything - they are providing a product.

I agree with you in principle except that I think your example (the baker) DOES violate someone's rights and I've asked before - how is it any different than examples involving racial discrimmination?

Why is a wedding a more protected event than an anti-gay rally? What difference does it make if the business owner cannot condone the wedding and does not wish to be party to it any more than if the business owner cannot condone an anti-gay rally and does not wish to be party to it?

How is anybody's rights violated because I don't want to be party to their event/activity? Please explain precisely how anybody's rights are violated because I don't want to put that swastika on that cupcake?

And explain how the business owner's rights are not violated when he is forced to provide products and services for somebody's activity/event that the business owner believes is immoral, unethical or otherwise just wrong or otherwise be fined or subject to losing his business license?

 

[dblack]

..

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

exactly, "PC" is the trendy buzz-word boogieman used to excuse discrimination...

Which is deeply ironic when you think about it. The entire concept of "PC" involves people censuring others publicly. It's people saying things like, "I won't deal with Donald Trump because he's a misogynist". And the core concept of anti-discrimination law is to take this power away from people and have it managed by government. To tell them that they can only express themselves this way for approved reasons (ie - you can refuse to deal with someone because they're a misogynist, but not because they're Muslim, or for any of the traits covered by the current protected classes list).

 

[Coyote]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph because you are still framing rebuttal to an argument I have not made. I have not said I should be able to refuse to sell tickets to a Latino or whatever. That would be unjustifiable discrimination against people because of who or what they are. I am saying that I should not have to show the movie at a convention or activity or gathering or event that I did not wish to participate in.

But it's the same thing with the baker - unjustifiable discrimmination because of who or what they are.

No. Choosing not to attend an activity or event does not have to involve who or what anybody is. As I used as illustration in an earlier comment, I would cater your birthday party. I would cater your wedding. I would cater your fund raising event for the Ladies' Aid Society. All the while enjoying your company and inviting you to my dinner party. But if you want me to cater your scheduled cock fight, nope. Not gonna do it. Won't do it no matter how seriously the ACLU threatens to sue me. And that is not discriminating against you in any way shape or form. It is choosing to not participate in or contribute to or be party to an event that I cannot condone.

But the very next day I might cater your class reunion or whatever.

Except - you're making the wrong comparisons. If your business specialized in catering, and you were willing to cater to my neighbors cockfight but refused to cater my cockfight - then that does involve who or what someone is.

Even if that was the case, in the illustration used within its full context please, how are you discriminated against if I provide you services and products for all your events except the one event to which I object?

Going back to an earlier illustration I used, when I was contracting with folks to set up events, I used one particular printer who did custom posters, flyers, etc. for people. I once stood in line behind two people who placed their custom orders and when it was my turn, was informed that the project I was wanting would be too time consuming and the proprietor just couldn't accept the job at this time. I wasn't being discriminated against. He just didn't want to provide the product or service in my case.

Except that your example does not equate with the cake baker's example that you are basing this on - they are not equivalent.

A business offers services and products for weddings.
They decline to provide those services for a wedding where the partners are same sex.
There is nothing else different about that wedding.
Why are they refusing? They don't believe gay people should marry.
Now how is that different from those who believed people of two different races shouldn't marry?

In your illustration - you are not being discrimminated against. His reasons for not doing it had noting to do with who or what you were.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

That would repugnant.. But some establishment don't serve KIDS of either color. They are not a protected class. An alternative to fining the hater bastards would be to bring them to court to "show cause" for refusing service..

Have that whole discussion under the public eye. It's a lot like encounters with the haters on a message board. You can swear at them and ignore them (not legal in all forums -- legal disclaimer ) or you can publicly destroy their weak excuses and "evidence". I think society gets MORE out of the latter -- than just fining ONE AT A TIME... If you truly believe there's no justification in the world for "not serving XYZs" -- mock 'em.. Don't let them get out of it with a mere fine..

THAT'S how a society builds consensus on tolerance and diversity.

 

[sakinago]

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.

See I believe there is a difference in being purposefully dishonest in order to in a sense take money from a person or business. If I want to tell all my friends to not shop somewhere bc of something then I have every right to choose not to do business there and encourage others to do the same. I think it's a shame that people like the CEO of Firefox get bullied out of business, but how will you force people to buy their product going against whatever normal or crazy beliefs they might have? The difference is in people's values, if I don't value a person who I perceive as hateful to gays, you can't tell me and my fellow travelers we have to do business with that person. But there is a line crossed when in say something about someone that isn't true and it cause damage to them or their business, then I should be held responsible.

 

[Ravi]

..

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

exactly, "PC" is the trendy buzz-word boogieman used to excuse discrimination...

Bingo.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Not so sure about that. When you write prescriptions for accepted actions (or prohibited actions) you are not really having a maximum impact on defeating opinions and attitudes that should not stand in your society.
Any alternative that attacks intolerant opinions based on biases that grow from ignorance or misinformation need to be lanced and opened.. THAT'S where you GET to a society that can apply their judgement muscles to issues of tolerance and fairness. It's the OPINIONS that need to get disinfected to make progress..

 

[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.

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.

Ok, so, that's the question. How is not baking someone a cake violating their rights? In particular, how is not baking it for the wrong reasons violating their rights? Can you state what universal rights are being violated?

The right to be treated like any other customer.

I don't see how you can possibly consider it your right to demand that anyone "treat" you with anything. Do you consider this a general principle, or is it narrowly constrained to customers of certain kinds of businesses?

 

[sakinago]

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 don't think action should be taken from the government as long as the minorities rights are not being infringed. Just like government should not enforce the popular views held at the time, like segregation. That's how we keep getting into these messes. Action should be taken by the people, if I'm one of those minorities, I go out and make my own resteraunt that serves both races together in the dining room, and government should not be allowed to tell me I can't do that.

 

[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.

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.

Ok, so, that's the question. How is not baking someone a cake violating their rights? In particular, how is not baking it for the wrong reasons violating their rights? Can you state what universal rights are being violated?

The right to be treated like any other customer.

Do you think everyone has a right to be treated equally in general? In all social settings?

 

[Coyote]

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..

I know of no one, planning an event who would deliberately choose a provider that has not desire to do the service - for what is the most important event of their lives. There are always a few that are trying to stir trouble (and this is on all sides of the spectrum) but the majority of people just want a wonderful event.

They should be able to walk into a store that openly advertises the service, and expect to be treated the same as any other customer. If they specialize in certain types of weddings - that should be stated: ie particular religions, ethnic weddings. If they don't serve certain classes that should be stated up front.

I will be going to a same-sex wedding of a good friend (Cowboy's physical therapist) at the end of the month. It took them a long time to find a church and minister that would do it, and I have no idea what they encountered in other aspects of the wedding. To complicate things it's an interracial marriage. They had no desire to have someone who disliked them doing it. What I imagine they did is talk with the service providers or perhaps used word-of-mouth to get information on gay-friendly business so as not to be rebuffed or humiliated.

My question is this: earlier in the thread I brought up a memoir I read by Condaleeza Rice about growing up black under Jim Crowe and what her family faced in finding accommodations when traveling, restaurants they could eat at etc. How is a wedding planner refusing to provide wedding services to a gay couple any different than a restaurant refusing to seat a black couple?

What happens when the majority feel that this kind of discrimmination is ok?

 

[dblack]

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 don't think action should be taken from the government as long as the minorities rights are not being infringed.

Exactly. And then the question becomes, do we have a right be treated equally?

 

[sakinago]

..

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

exactly, "PC" is the trendy buzz-word boogieman used to excuse discrimination...

No it's not, government schooling has asked me to specifically "only use PC words in this paper you write." Political correctness is just being called out recently for doing exactly what it's name implies

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Not so sure about that. When you write prescriptions for accepted actions (or prohibited actions) you are not really having a maximum impact on defeating opinions and attitudes that should not stand in your society.
Any alternative that attacks intolerant opinions based on biases that grow from ignorance or misinformation need to be lanced and opened.. THAT'S where you GET to a society that can apply their judgement muscles to issues of tolerance and fairness. It's the OPINIONS that need to get disinfected to make progress..

Apologies to DBlack.. I think I should have expanded the quote box a bit. Guess that reply should have gone to Coyote..

 

[dblack]

They should be able to walk into a store that openly advertises the service, and expect to be treated the same as any other customer. If they specialize in certain types of weddings - that should be stated: ie particular religions, ethnic weddings. If they don't serve certain classes that should be stated up front.

This makes perfect sense.