Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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

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..

True and actually I didn't think that fine was appropriate either. But - establishments that don't serve kids say so up front.

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.

Well said! I agree with that

 

[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.

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

Social settings? No...I think that is different from business' that serve the public. What people do in the their private lives is up to them.

 

[Coyote]

This thread is rocking - just had to say that, I can't keep up

 

[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 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?

In this case, the question actually is do we have a right to say that because somebody else's event/activity was accommodated by the business proprietor, he should be required to accommodate my similar but different event/activity that he finds offensive and/or unethical and/or whatever?

Example: If he catered the pro-gay rights rally, should he then be required to cater the anti-gay rally?

 

[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"

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.

so it's ok for said company to refuse to do business with trump or a trump-esque person because you believe they're misogynistic, but not ok to do it to a Muslim you believe of being misogynistic by covering his wife in clothes?

 

[sakinago]

This thread is rocking - just had to say that, I can't keep up

Agreed, it's almost nothing but thought provoking solid debate

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No, I strongly support all of our rights to do business with whom we choose to do business regardless of our reasons to do so. If I have a bad experience in a business, I won't go back and I won't be shy about telling others of my experience and why I won't go back. I usually take advantage of rating various businesses and products as good, so-so, bad or whatever when I am offered opportunity to do that.

It would be strongly suspect that there were ulterior motives or a specific agenda at work for a 'protected group' to choose to ask a particular person or business to provide a product or service that the group KNOWS would have a problem with that. Most especially if the retribution and punishment for refusal was swift in coming.

What I think should be illegal are the organized efforts to destroy somebody for a politically incorrect point of view--not because the person acted illegally on that point of view or harmed or threatened anybody but just because they expressed an unpopular point of view. People who deliberately organize to threaten such a business's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, contractors, etc. for the purpose of damaging that business should be held accountable for violating that business owner's legal, civil, and unalienable right to hold whatever beliefs or opinions that he holds.

 

[Coyote]

..

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"

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.

so it's ok for said company to refuse to do business with trump or a trump-esque person because you believe they're misogynistic, but not ok to do it to a Muslim you believe of being misogynistic by covering his wife in clothes?

I think with the Muslim example you would be discrimminating on the basis of religion - if she was dressing according to the beliefs of her religion then that is religious discrimmination - it might have nothing to do with misogyny.

 

[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

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.

I agree - but isn't that where libel and slander laws are involved?

 

[sakinago]

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.

No, I strongly support all of our rights to do business with whom we choose to do business regardless of our reasons to do so. If I have a bad experience in a business, I won't go back and I won't be shy about telling others of my experience and why I won't go back. I usually take advantage of rating various businesses and products as good, so-so, bad or whatever when I am offered opportunity to do that.

It would be strongly suspect that there were ulterior motives or a specific agenda at work for a 'protected group' to choose to ask a particular person or business to provide a product or service that the group KNOWS would have a problem with that. Most especially if the retribution and punishment for refusal was swift in coming.

What I think should be illegal are the organized efforts to destroy somebody for a politically incorrect point of view--not because the person acted illegally on that point of view or harmed or threatened anybody but just because they expressed an unpopular point of view. People who deliberately organize to threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, contractors, etc. for the purpose of damaging that business should be held accountable for violating that business owner's legal, civil, and unalienable right to hold whatever beliefs or opinions that he holds.

I think that you and I would like that law if we were the ones to write it. But I believe we would also loose our own voice to say and tell others (not based on bad service) but based on the organizations beliefs and practices. If I am fundamentally opposed to an organizations products from china using child labor, or they had a gay bashing parade, or selling fetal body parts, then I should be able to tell my friends to not shop there and start a campaign to stop them. I think America does have a values problem, but the answer is not to pass another law. It's to uphold the constitution and BOR

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Choosing not to serve a black person and choosing not to be party to that black person's event are two separate things however. I have repeatedly requested that this be acknowledged, but so far without receiving a response.

Going back to a point Flacal made earlier, a business owner should not have to list every single event/activity he won't accommodate in order to exclude it. All the possible exceptions would be impossible to list as the possibilities are limitless.

In the case of a business owner not wanting to accommodate a gay wedding, the business owner did not believe in gay marriage and therefore could not justify participation in any respect in a gay wedding. Again I personally have participated in gay weddings so the issue is not personal with me. But the business owner should also be allowed his point of view. Most especially when he was obviously not discriminating against gays--he cheerfully provided products and services to those same gay people all the time--but he was discriminating against an activity he believed to be wrong.

So again as hypothetical illustration only: If I provide products and services for your pro animal rights rally, your pep rally for the Friday night's game, your pro science rally, etc., I should have to provide products and services for your anti-gay rally that I cannot condone just because I accomodate other kinds of rallies? (Or to expand to the new point, because I didn't specifically exclude anti-gay rallies in my advertising?) That would be discriminating against you for who and what you are?

I've asked this several times now and still am waiting for an answer.

 

[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"

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.

so it's ok for said company to refuse to do business with trump or a trump-esque person because you believe they're misogynistic, but not ok to do it to a Muslim you believe of being misogynistic by covering his wife in clothes?

I think with the Muslim example you would be discrimminating on the basis of religion - if she was dressing according to the beliefs of her religion then that is religious discrimmination - it might have nothing to do with misogyny.

So the Oregon baker should not have to bake the cake?

 

[sakinago]

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.

I agree - but isn't that where libel and slander laws are involved?

What part specifically? I'm confused. If I say something that isn't true, then you have a case for libel and slander, judged by a jury of peers

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No, I strongly support all of our rights to do business with whom we choose to do business regardless of our reasons to do so. If I have a bad experience in a business, I won't go back and I won't be shy about telling others of my experience and why I won't go back. I usually take advantage of rating various businesses and products as good, so-so, bad or whatever when I am offered opportunity to do that.

It would be strongly suspect that there were ulterior motives or a specific agenda at work for a 'protected group' to choose to ask a particular person or business to provide a product or service that the group KNOWS would have a problem with that. Most especially if the retribution and punishment for refusal was swift in coming.

What I think should be illegal are the organized efforts to destroy somebody for a politically incorrect point of view--not because the person acted illegally on that point of view or harmed or threatened anybody but just because they expressed an unpopular point of view. People who deliberately organize to threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, contractors, etc. for the purpose of damaging that business should be held accountable for violating that business owner's legal, civil, and unalienable right to hold whatever beliefs or opinions that he holds.

I think that you and I would like that law if we were the ones to write it. But I believe we would also loose our own voice to say and tell others (not based on bad service) but based on the organizations beliefs and practices. If I am fundamentally opposed to an organizations products from china using child labor, or they had a gay bashing parade, or selling fetal body parts, then I should be able to tell my friends to not shop there and start a campaign to stop them. I think America does have a values problem, but the answer is not to pass another law. It's to uphold the constitution and BOR

Back in the 1970's I participated in and helped organize boycotts of all Nestle products. This was because of Nestle's unjustifiable sales tactic of encouraging third world mothers to use Nestle's 'free' formula instead of mother's milk. Then once mother's milk dried up, the company started charging for their formula and, because most of those mother's could not afford it, widespread malnutrition, sickness, and deaths of babies were the result.

Our boycott was nationwide and difficult--you can't imagine how many Nestle products there actually are, many of which are not immediately obvious as Nestle products. And it was effective. Nestle ceased and desisted from that evil practice and were rewarded when we all started buying Nestle products again.

But that was a protest against an activity that was harming people in a very real and material and identifiable way. It was not an effort to materially punish a business just because the CEO or proprietor expressed a politically incorrect view or hurt somebody's feelings.

None of us should live in fear that we will have an angry mob or political opportunist organize and go after our customers, advertisers, suppliers etc. and call in the ACLU to sue and otherwise destroy our business and livelihood just because we express an opinion that somebody doesn't like. And there should be protections against that sort of thing.

 

[candycorn]

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?

It isn't. If you support one form of discrimination, you support the other by default.

 

[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...

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).

not really, only when you think about it, apparently...

the government is not involved with holding misogynists particularly accountable unless a law is broken, but people are free to have opinions and spend their attention or entertainment dollars elsewhere as a matter of free enterprise... the culprits can cry about the nebulous "PC" 'til the cows come home but their public accommodations have not been denied by public opinion. to 'deal with' bigotry resulting in discrimination of public accommodations is an entirely separate issue which is getting conveniently convoluted here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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!

The dead give away would be...
The local branch of Westboro would be outside -- all 5 of them Christians

 

[sakinago]

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.

No, I strongly support all of our rights to do business with whom we choose to do business regardless of our reasons to do so. If I have a bad experience in a business, I won't go back and I won't be shy about telling others of my experience and why I won't go back. I usually take advantage of rating various businesses and products as good, so-so, bad or whatever when I am offered opportunity to do that.

It would be strongly suspect that there were ulterior motives or a specific agenda at work for a 'protected group' to choose to ask a particular person or business to provide a product or service that the group KNOWS would have a problem with that. Most especially if the retribution and punishment for refusal was swift in coming.

What I think should be illegal are the organized efforts to destroy somebody for a politically incorrect point of view--not because the person acted illegally on that point of view or harmed or threatened anybody but just because they expressed an unpopular point of view. People who deliberately organize to threaten a business's customers, suppliers, advertisers, contractors, etc. for the purpose of damaging that business should be held accountable for violating that business owner's legal, civil, and unalienable right to hold whatever beliefs or opinions that he holds.

I think that you and I would like that law if we were the ones to write it. But I believe we would also loose our own voice to say and tell others (not based on bad service) but based on the organizations beliefs and practices. If I am fundamentally opposed to an organizations products from china using child labor, or they had a gay bashing parade, or selling fetal body parts, then I should be able to tell my friends to not shop there and start a campaign to stop them. I think America does have a values problem, but the answer is not to pass another law. It's to uphold the constitution and BOR

Back in the 1970's I participated in and helped organize boycotts of all Nestle products. This was because of Nestle's unjustifiable sales tactic of encouraging third world mothers to use Nestle's 'free' formula instead of mother's milk. Then once mother's milk dried up, the company started charging for their formula and, because most of those mother's could not afford it, widespread malnutrition, sickness, and deaths of babies were the result.

Our boycott was nationwide and difficult--you can't imagine how many Nestle products there actually are, many of which are not immediately obvious as Nestle products. And it was effective. Nestle ceased and desisted from that evil practice and were rewarded when we all started buying Nestle products again.

But that was a protest against an activity that was harming people in a very real and material and identifiable way. It was not an effort to materially punish a business just because the CEO or proprietor expressed a politically incorrect view.

None of us should live in fear that we will have an angry mob organize and go after our customers, advertisers, suppliers etc. and call in the ACLU to sue and otherwise destroy our business and livelihood just because we express an opinion that somebody doesn't like. And there should be protections against that sort of thing.

See I think it's too hard for government to make that distinction, and gives too much power to people like nestle, who can try to turn it around and claim that they personally believe formula is healthier for the nipples, so stop your boycott campaign

 

[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...

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).

not really, only when you think about it, apparently...

the government is not involved with holding misogynists particularly accountable unless a law is broken, but people are free to have opinions and spend their attention or entertainment dollars elsewhere as a matter of free enterprise... the culprits can cry about the nebulous "PC" 'til the cows come home but their public accommodations have not been denied by public opinion. to 'deal with' bigotry resulting in discrimination of public accommodations is an entirely separate issue which is getting conveniently convoluted here.

Well PC is to combat bigotry, which is being offensive, which people do not have the right to not be offensive. And PC is getting out of hand when it conflicts with reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

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!

The dead give away would be...
The local branch of Westboro would be outside -- all 5 of them Christians

I would hope the idiots outside were stupid enough to identify themselves so that I could take a note of their actions..