Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Coyote]

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.

If your business happens to be one that provides service to a particular type of event, then choosing not to serve a black person and choosing not to "be a party to" that black person's event solely because it's a black person's event - IS the same thing.

You can not force acknowledgement when a person does not agree with you on this and I don't.

I agree - a business owner should not have to list every single event/activity he won't accommodate in order to exclude it. However - there are some big categories that should be listed. For example - restaurants will post that patrons must wear shirts and shoes in order to be served. That's a fair warning of what to expect. If they aren't going to serve people under certain conditions it's only fair and reasonable to give people a heads up. Same thing with signs stating payment expected at time of service. When it comes to something as deeply important and sensitive as a wedding, a customer has a right to know ahead of time if he or she will be refused before entering the shop and being humiliated.

Concerning this statement: 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.

My question (which is pertinent to the topic of tolerance):
What makes this any different than not wanting to accommodate an interracial wedding because the business owner doesn't believe in interracial marriage? Even though said business owner may have served individuals of both races in other activities?

I've answered you questions at least once if not more - at this point I'm awaiting some answers and am not feeling very responsive to demands

 

[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"

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?

Based on what?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The government or legal system was never involved in any way in that boycott. It was strictly a grass roots effort by concerned citizens.

But it is important to note the strong difference between that boycott of an ACTIVITY that was materially and physically harming people, and the politically correct mobs who try to destroy people for no other reason than they express a belief or opinion that the PC crowd doesn't like.

Just because the government says something is legal or illegal does not make something right or wrong. And only the weakest of us would allow the government and/or the courts dictate what is or is not right and wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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

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

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

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

"We are arguing existing law, only newer not yet laws are to be argued"

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure how you can compare catering, which does require servers who interact with guests etc., and setting up a cake which usually happens separately, in a different room while the ceremony is being performed somewhere else. Can you explain how those things are anywhere near the same?

So we are to make the distinction by how close they are to the event?

No. one is actually involved in the event. the other is not. They are setting up a cake in a separate area away from the event . They are gone before the event moves to the area they were at. Think of it in terms of the guy who mows the grass on a football field. Would you say he participated in the game played later?

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting example in the news today of how accomodation laws don't really have a huge effect on the underlying biases and judgement that drive intolerance..

Lowe's had a customer call to clarify a refrigerator delivery and the CUSTOMER requested that the delivery & installation man not be black.. Stupid mgr calls this 11 yr loyal black employee and informs him of the problem. Says the lady doesn't want a black man in her house.. Here's those atrophied judgement muscles I talked about. It's not ILLEGAL to make that customer happy -- so the dufus Mgr chooses to offend the loyal employee.

Dufus is fired --- Lowes did the right thing. Told the lady what she can do with her fridge. It's not always the BUSINESS making those poor judgements. Can even be YOUR CUSTOMERS.

And if you have the check the law to see how to handle those situations -- we are pretty much doomed to living amongst a ton of haters and a bunch of fellow citizens with no ability to deal with them...

 

[Coyote]

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

Yes...I think we can agree on this. Which makes me wonder why a new law would be needed.

 

[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"

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?

Based on what?

On your answer that you cannot discriminate based on religion with the Muslim misogynist

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very simple to grasp: The government should get out of the business of funding non profits like churches and out of funding married couples ... businesses are regulated by the government. If you are proposing unregulated business environments in cities, towns, counties please say so. Like the OP you have are already on record stating you do nut support 'public accommodation' laws.

Violate the 1st? What are you talking about?

Refusal of service based upon a person as representing a group or class is different than discriminating against an individual

Most any business in America can refuse service to anyone. Anyone who has been refused service can ask to see if they've been discriminated against as representing a class. ex: a black woman who is refused service should eb able to file a complaint. Of course when a complaint is filed...

there is NO way to reasonably discuss this without speaking about current law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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"

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?

Based on what?

On your answer that you cannot discriminate based on religion with the Muslim misogynist

you are arguing current discrimination law. yet again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

..

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"

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?

Based on what?

based on that which dares not mentions it's name: current law

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

If your business happens to be one that provides service to a particular type of event, then choosing not to serve a black person and choosing not to "be a party to" that black person's event solely because it's a black person's event - IS the same thing.

You can not force acknowledgement when a person does not agree with you on this and I don't.

I agree - a business owner should not have to list every single event/activity he won't accommodate in order to exclude it. However - there are some big categories that should be listed. For example - restaurants will post that patrons must wear shirts and shoes in order to be served. That's a fair warning of what to expect. If they aren't going to serve people under certain conditions it's only fair and reasonable to give people a heads up. Same thing with signs stating payment expected at time of service. When it comes to something as deeply important and sensitive as a wedding, a customer has a right to know ahead of time if he or she will be refused before entering the shop and being humiliated.

Concerning this statement: 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.

My question (which is pertinent to the topic of tolerance):
What makes this any different than not wanting to accommodate an interracial wedding because the business owner doesn't believe in interracial marriage? Even though said business owner may have served individuals of both races in other activities?

I've answered you questions at least once if not more - at this point I'm awaiting some answers and am not feeling very responsive to demands

See? In the very first paragraph you changed what I said and, though I don't believe you intended to be dishonest, that is dishonest. I did not say that I would not do the black person's event because the person was black. I said I would not do the black person's event. It was quite clear that it had nothing to do with the person being black. I would not do such an event if the person was white, Asian, Indian, gay, straight, or a saint straight from heaven either.

Also listing the expected dress and conduct is not the same thing as listing what you will not participate in as an activity.

And in answer to your question:
"What makes this any different than not wanting to accommodate an interracial wedding because the business owner doesn't believe in interracial marriage? Even though said business owner may have served individuals of both races in other activities?" Answer: there is no difference. A business owner should not have to be party to an interracial wedding or special order a black and white (or whatever) wedding cake topper if he has objections to participating in that. He won't interfere with the people's right to get married or have a wedding. He just won't be part of that.

The only acknowledgment I have requested of you is to address what I actually say as what I said instead of something that is maybe easier to argue against.

So I answered your question. Will you answer mine? Here it is again:

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?) (If I don't) That would be discriminating against you for who and what you are?​

 

[sakinago]

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

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

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

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

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

"We are arguing existing law, only newer not yet laws are to be argued"

Only using law to make an argument that is the problem

 

[sakinago]

sf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very simple to grasp: The government should get out of the business of funding non profits like churches and out of funding married couples ... businesses are regulated by the government. If you are proposing unregulated business environments in cities, towns, counties please say so. Like the OP you have are already on record stating you do nut support 'public accommodation' laws.

Violate the 1st? What are you talking about?

Refusal of service based upon a person as representing a group or class is different than discriminating against an individual

Most any business in America can refuse service to anyone. Anyone who has been refused service can ask to see if they've been discriminated against as representing a class. ex: a black woman who is refused service should eb able to file a complaint. Of course when a complaint is filed...

there is NO way to reasonably discuss this without speaking about current law.

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

The government or legal system was never involved in any way in that boycott. It was strictly a grass roots effort by concerned citizens.

But it is important to note the strong difference between that boycott of an ACTIVITY that was materially and physically harming people, and the politically correct mobs who try to destroy people for no other reason than they express a belief or opinion that the PC crowd doesn't like.

Just because the government says something is legal or illegal does not make something right or wrong. And only the weakest of us would allow the government and/or the courts dictate what is or is not right and wrong.

I don't think PC mobs are great at all, and they're nothing but neo-bullies. But they don't always win, look at the campaign against chic-fil-a. Chic-fil-a posted record sales for one day, and are still going strong. I think the other side of the PC aisle has become too apathetic, but that doesn't mean it becomes governments problem

 

[Coyote]

The government or legal system was never involved in any way in that boycott. It was strictly a grass roots effort by concerned citizens.

But it is important to note the strong difference between that boycott of an ACTIVITY that was materially and physically harming people, and the politically correct mobs who try to destroy people for no other reason than they express a belief or opinion that the PC crowd doesn't like.

Just because the government says something is legal or illegal does not make something right or wrong. And only the weakest of us would allow the government and/or the courts dictate what is or is not right and wrong.

What harms people and what constitutes harm is very subjective and there is a huge grey area to traverse. People have the right to protest or boycott any activity they feel is wrong. Sometimes it's materially or physically harming people, sometimes it's violating a deeply held ethic or moral principle. For example, anti-gay activists boycott and protest all kinds of companies they see as promoting the "homosexual agenda". Is that wrong? It might be offensive to some, but it's their right and they see it as defending a moral value.

Basic human rights and equality is one of those principles and same-sex marriage is part of that. By labeling it as "PC" and those who are trying to establish marriage as a right as "politically correct mobs" you demean that right. It's fighting for marriage equality - for the right to be treated equally and for their marriages to be recognized as legally valid.

If it were only for expressing an opinion, I'd agree with you. But it's not - it's an action and an action doesn't have to "materially and physically" harm someone to be damaging. When legal officials refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples - that is damaging. It's not physically or materially harming - but it is still harming. Marriage has long been considered a fundamental right.

Tolerance in my opinion - is about being professional. In my job I have to serve everyone, with professionalism and courtesy. I can't refuse to attend an event that caters to foreign students because I don't like Saudi Arabia's attitude towards women. Being professional means I may not agree, but I will do my job and treat people with the respect and dignity they deserve. Any business that opens it's doors to the public ought to be able to do that. Likewise, I think it's just as rude and intolerant for people to go to business' that they know might be uncomfortable about something just to force a confrontation.

 

[Coyote]

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"

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?

Based on what?

On your answer that you cannot discriminate based on religion with the Muslim misogynist

It's a grey because labeling something "misogyny" is pretty subjective - based on what you personally think. Religion isn't. If you're discrimminating against Muslim garb for women - she could well be wearing it by choice and it has nothing to do with misogyny. In the case of the baker - he was specific in that he would not provide a service for a gay wedding.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government or legal system was never involved in any way in that boycott. It was strictly a grass roots effort by concerned citizens.

But it is important to note the strong difference between that boycott of an ACTIVITY that was materially and physically harming people, and the politically correct mobs who try to destroy people for no other reason than they express a belief or opinion that the PC crowd doesn't like.

Just because the government says something is legal or illegal does not make something right or wrong. And only the weakest of us would allow the government and/or the courts dictate what is or is not right and wrong.

What harms people and what constitutes harm is very subjective and there is a huge grey area to traverse. People have the right to protest or boycott any activity they feel is wrong. Sometimes it's materially or physically harming people, sometimes it's violating a deeply held ethic or moral principle. For example, anti-gay activists boycott and protest all kinds of companies they see as promoting the "homosexual agenda". Is that wrong? It might be offensive to some, but it's their right and they see it as defending a moral value.

Basic human rights and equality is one of those principles and same-sex marriage is part of that. By labeling it as "PC" and those who are trying to establish marriage as a right as "politically correct mobs" you demean that right. It's fighting for marriage equality - for the right to be treated equally and for their marriages to be recognized as legally valid.

If it were only for expressing an opinion, I'd agree with you. But it's not - it's an action and an action doesn't have to "materially and physically" harm someone to be damaging. When legal officials refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples - that is damaging. It's not physically or materially harming - but it is still harming. Marriage has long been considered a fundamental right.

Tolerance in my opinion - is about being professional. In my job I have to serve everyone, with professionalism and courtesy. I can't refuse to attend an event that caters to foreign students because I don't like Saudi Arabia's attitude towards women. Being professional means I may not agree, but I will do my job and treat people with the respect and dignity they deserve. Any business that opens it's doors to the public ought to be able to do that. Likewise, I think it's just as rude and intolerant for people to go to business' that they know might be uncomfortable about something just to force a confrontation.

The issuance of a marriage license does have a physical and material impact on people which is why at least traditional marriage license come with a set of rules regarding the age of those getting married, whether they are closely related, whether they have any communicable diseases, etc. etc. etc. Every rule is designed to protect any children resulting from that marriage. Same sex marriage is quite different but the marriage license still has a material and physical effect on the couple. But this thread is not a debate on the pros and cons of same sex marriage and there are many threads that we can go to for that topic.

This thread is about whether a person is allowed to think and believe that same sex marriage is okay or that it is not okay with impunity. Or that anything else is okay or not okay with impunity. It is not an argument for infringement on anybody's rights. It is an argument for being allowed to think and believe what we think and believe without being punished for it.

If I interpreted your post accurately, your company has rules for tolerance of all people, even those who believe and practice things of which you don't condone. You don't have to practice what the others do or don't do, but you have to allow them to be who and what they are and don't require them to change because you don't like what they do or who they are.

I think that attitude and tolerance should be extended to a business owner who cannot condone same sex marriage.

 

[Foxfyre]

sf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very simple to grasp: The government should get out of the business of funding non profits like churches and out of funding married couples ... businesses are regulated by the government. If you are proposing unregulated business environments in cities, towns, counties please say so. Like the OP you have are already on record stating you do nut support 'public accommodation' laws.

Violate the 1st? What are you talking about?

Refusal of service based upon a person as representing a group or class is different than discriminating against an individual

Most any business in America can refuse service to anyone. Anyone who has been refused service can ask to see if they've been discriminated against as representing a class. ex: a black woman who is refused service should eb able to file a complaint. Of course when a complaint is filed...

there is NO way to reasonably discuss this without speaking about current law.

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

The government or legal system was never involved in any way in that boycott. It was strictly a grass roots effort by concerned citizens.

But it is important to note the strong difference between that boycott of an ACTIVITY that was materially and physically harming people, and the politically correct mobs who try to destroy people for no other reason than they express a belief or opinion that the PC crowd doesn't like.

Just because the government says something is legal or illegal does not make something right or wrong. And only the weakest of us would allow the government and/or the courts dictate what is or is not right and wrong.

I don't think PC mobs are great at all, and they're nothing but neo-bullies. But they don't always win, look at the campaign against chic-fil-a. Chic-fil-a posted record sales for one day, and are still going strong. I think the other side of the PC aisle has become too apathetic, but that doesn't mean it becomes governments problem

Doesn't it? Who then should protect me and mine when an angry mob descends upon my business, threatens my customers, threatens my employers, threatens my suppliers, threatens my advertisers, threatens my sponsors just because I said a word they consider verboten or express an opinion they don't like or have a personnel policy they want to make illegal?

Government does require at least some distance between protesters and abortion clinics. Can't the same principle apply to an honest business owner just trying to live his life and make a living?

 

[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).

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.

Hmm... I guess I'm not being clear. I'm fine with PC taboos and the shunning that goes with them. I'm just saying they represent discrimination as well, and if anti-discrimination laws continue to expand, there will be overlap. Some people probably already see it that way.

Let me ask you this - several businesses have discontinued their association with Donald Trump because they don't approve of the misogynistic statements he's been making in the press. I assume that you think that should be allowed. But what if he publicly converted to Islam? Should Jews or Christians, or anyone else for that matter, be allowed to refuse to do business with him based on that?

My point here is that in both cases, it's PC discrimination. The only difference is that one has majority support - most people look down on misogynists - and the other doesn't.

 

[dblack]

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.

Well, that's why I stipulated 'social', as in not private. I've never quite got the meaningful distinction between doing business with someone or any other type of associations we might have. I don't see why the exchange of cash makes bigotry any more or less repugnant.