Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Valerie]

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.

i assume you meant to say people do not have a right to not be offended...?

your concept of 'PC' as it relates to public accommodation law is what conflicts with reality...


i understand celebrity bigots get upset when called-out publicly, but why does that offend you so?

the entertainment industry depends upon having a receptive audience who are viola FREE to boo folks off the stage.

oh pity the punishment of it all!? it's getting out of hand! (someone ought to write a law?)

 

[Valerie]

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.

again, you and the OP are confusing two separate issues...

 

[Valerie]

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.


More generally, this case is one of many recent instances in which organizations and businesses have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT customers in a variety of goods and services. In Vermont, the meeting and events director at the Wildflower Inn told a same-sex couple that they could not have “gay receptions” at the resort. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple.


In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.


We do not let photography businesses – or any other business – turn away customers because of the their race, or because they are divorced, or because they use birth control. The same principles apply when the customer is a same-sex couple.Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business in the public sphere those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.


Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Valerie]

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

• Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;
• Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
• Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;
• Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;
• Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.


Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.


Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.


Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

Using Religion to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Coyote]

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.

It doesn't. But it's private. What do you mean then by "social settings"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The printer lacking the capacity to fulfill your order has nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance and/or discrimination which is the OP topic.

On the other hand if the printer refused to print the invitations for a gay wedding that would be intolerance and discrimination and unacceptable to society because it is a violation of the rights of gays to receive equal treatment from the printer.

The printer cannot claim that his religious beliefs would be violated because printing the invitations to a gay wedding would be tantamount to participating in the event which is the argument the OP alleges should be protected by her "new law".

Once again the OP is requested to provide what this "new law" would look like.

Or can we safely assume that it would be pretty much identical to the bogus "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" that resulted in national condemnation with they tried to implement that in Indianna ant it was subsequently repealed.

 

[Coyote]

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?​

Part of the problem, as I see it is this: some business' business, by the nature of the service they offer, means they must "participate" (though I disagree with your terming it as such) in the venue they are servicing. That IS their product.

What is the difference between a business owner refusing to seat a gay couple in his restaurant because homosexuality goes against his religion and refusing to provide a product for a gay wedding because homosexuality goes against his religion? There is no effective difference. The discrimmination in both cases has to do with being gay.

To answer your question:
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?

You would not be discrimminating against me, you would be discrimminating against an event that has nothing to do with what I am as a person.

Here's another question: What if the majority believes in not serving gay clients? What then?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have a corporation that provides video equipment and sets it up at the customer location and someone comes in and puts down a deposit then your corporation has entered into a legal contract.

If you, as an individual, then choose to renege on that contract you have exposed your corporation to a lawsuit for failing to fulfill the signed contract.

No, your personal beliefs are not a justification for your corporation's failure to meet the terms of the contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?​

Part of the problem, as I see it is this: some business' business, by the nature of the service they offer, means they must "participate" (though I disagree with your terming it as such) in the venue they are servicing. That IS their product.

What is the difference between a business owner refusing to seat a gay couple in his restaurant because he homosexuality goes against his religion and refusing to provide a product for a gay wedding because homosexuality goes against his religion? There is no effective difference.

To answer your question:
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?

You would not be discrimminating against me, you would be discrimminating against an event that has nothing to do with what I am as a person.

Then if a baker routinely provides the services and products to the gay people that he provides to all other customers, logically it would follow that a baker who declined to be party to a gay wedding would be discriminating against an activity/event that has nothing to do with what they are as persons.

And to your question: "What is the difference between a business owner refusing to seat a gay couple in his restaurant because he homosexuality goes against his religion and refusing to provide a product for a gay wedding because homosexuality goes against his religion that has never been argued. The argument is the difference between refusing to seat a couple in a restaurant because they are gay and refusing to be party to a gay wedding.

A gay couple being seated in a restaurant asks or requires absolutely nothing from a business owner that the business owner doesn't furnish to every other customer in the restaurant. So to refuse to seat them just because they are gay is not a reasonable choice, would be discriminatory, and would be personally directed at them because they were gay. That is wrong and should never be condoned.

But refusing to participate in a gay wedding is refusal to participate or be party to an event/activity and has nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuality in general. Most especially if the gay people are provided the services and products that all customers normally get. Just as the anti-gay rally can be seen as different from all the other rallies that the business owner does provide products and services for, the gay wedding can be seen as different from all the other weddings the business owner provides products and services for.

However, if a baker refused to be a participant in a gay wedding because he believes homosexuality is wrong, that is still his right. He still cannot discriminate against gays in products and services he normally offers for sale. But he should not be forced to participate in a gay event of any kind no matter how wrong or evil or homophobic we might think he is with such an attitude.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not attempting to debate the pro's and con's of gay marriage - please don't assume that I am. I'm providing a real example of how something can harm without being "physical and material".

A person can think and believe whatever they want with impunity - I support that. They can say whatever they want (within legal restrictions) - I support that. Where it is a problem is when it's a business - which is NOT an individual and which serves the public - decides it can discrimminate against certain classes of people - with impunity. At the very least they should have a sign stating that they will not serve XYZ people. The business owner doesn't have to condone it - he just has to act like the professional he is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Again existing law, even the Constitution is not a valid argument for this thread.

No, that is not the correct call.

Rights, such as those in the 1st Amendment, exist irrespective of whether or not they are codified in the Constitution.

Referring to them as 1A rights does not negate the fact that the rights themselves are intrinsic to the OP topic.

Everyone has a right to freedom of and from religion. Everyone has a right to be treated equally. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression.

These are fundamental principles, not "existing laws".

Splitting hairs at that level weakens the OP's position.

 

[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.

I'm not attempting to debate the pro's and con's of gay marriage - please don't assume that I am. I'm providing a real example of how something can harm without being "physical and material".

A person can think and believe whatever they want with impunity - I support that. They can say whatever they want (within legal restrictions) - I support that. Where it is a problem is when it's a business - which is NOT an individual and which serves the public - decides it can discrimminate against certain classes of people - with impunity. At the very least they should have a sign stating that they will not serve XYZ people. The business owner doesn't have to condone it - he just has to act like the professional he is.

I didn't intend to imply you were debating pros and cons of gay marriage. I was just intending to avoid the possibility of or temptation for the thread to veer off in that direction. Sorry if there was any different implication in that.

And again I have not advocated discriminating against anybody. I am arguing for the right of people to not be party to an activity/event they do not wish to be associated with. You seemed to agree that it was okay to refuse to serve an anti-gay rally even when many other kinds of rallies are accommodated. Does it make a business owner unprofessional to make that choice?

So why isn't it okay for him to choose not to serve a gay wedding? Who gets to say that one event is worthy and the other is not? Will you allow the homophobic racist person dictate the rules for that? He probably isn't going to allow you to dictate the rules for that. Why can't everybody make their own choices for right and wrong re the events/activities they choose to be party to so long as they do not impose those choices on others who do not accept them?

 

[dblack]

Everyone has a right to be treated equally.

Treated equally by government, or by everyone?

 

[dblack]

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.

It doesn't. But it's private. What do you mean then by "social settings"?

Interactions with other people in public places. What I'm getting at, is, why is bigotry any more acceptable in non-commercial, but otherwise public, interactions?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Everyone has a right to be treated equally.

Treated equally by government, or by everyone?

Do you have the right to treat me as inferior because I am an atheist?

Do I have to treat you as superior because you are a libertarian?

Or should we treat each other as equals because neither of us are inferior or superior to the other?

 

[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.

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.

The printer lacking the capacity to fulfill your order has nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance and/or discrimination which is the OP topic.

On the other hand if the printer refused to print the invitations for a gay wedding that would be intolerance and discrimination and unacceptable to society because it is a violation of the rights of gays to receive equal treatment from the printer.

The printer cannot claim that his religious beliefs would be violated because printing the invitations to a gay wedding would be tantamount to participating in the event which is the argument the OP alleges should be protected by her "new law".

Once again the OP is requested to provide what this "new law" would look like.

Or can we safely assume that it would be pretty much identical to the bogus "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" that resulted in national condemnation with they tried to implement that in Indianna ant it was subsequently repealed.

In the example I used, the printer did not lack the capacity to fulfill my order. He had handled much larger orders for me in the past. He just didn't want to do it at the time. And I was okay with that. I found another printer who was happy to get the job.

If I was a business owner with a printing business, I would want the ability to decline printing up posters and tickets or whatever for an anti-gay rally that I considered to be unethical and wrong. In fact I would not accept such a job. Neither would I interfere with or attempt to punish those who chose to participate in such a rally.

So even though I personally have no problem with attending or participating in a gay wedding and have done so, I would also allow a printer to decline printing up the announcements or whatever if he had moral convictions against that. And I would expect him not to interfere with or punish those who were involved in that wedding.

Tolerance must be a two way street or it becomes arbitrary and authoritarian dictatorship imposed by whomever has the most power.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It doesn't. But it's private. What do you mean then by "social settings"?

Interactions with other people in public places. What I'm getting at, is, why is bigotry any more acceptable in non-commercial, but otherwise public, interactions?

It isn't acceptable. Being rude or condescending to others because of who they are based upon personal bigotry is not acceptable in public interactions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The printer lacking the capacity to fulfill your order has nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance and/or discrimination which is the OP topic.

On the other hand if the printer refused to print the invitations for a gay wedding that would be intolerance and discrimination and unacceptable to society because it is a violation of the rights of gays to receive equal treatment from the printer.

The printer cannot claim that his religious beliefs would be violated because printing the invitations to a gay wedding would be tantamount to participating in the event which is the argument the OP alleges should be protected by her "new law".

Once again the OP is requested to provide what this "new law" would look like.

Or can we safely assume that it would be pretty much identical to the bogus "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" that resulted in national condemnation with they tried to implement that in Indianna ant it was subsequently repealed.

In the example I used, the printer did not lack the capacity to fulfill my order. He had handled much larger orders for me in the past. He just didn't want to do it at the time. And I was okay with that. I found another printer who was happy to get the job.

As a business owner with a printing business, I want the ability to decline printing up posters and tickets or whatever for an anti-gay rally that I consider to be unethical and wrong. In fact I would not accept such a job. Neither would I interfere with or attempt to punish those who chose to participate in such a rally.

So even though I personally have no problem with attending or participating in a gay wedding and have done so, I would also allow a printer to decline printing up the announcements or whatever if he had moral convictions against that. And I would expect him not to interfere with or punish those who were involved in that wedding.

Tolerance must be a two way street or it becomes arbitrary and authoritarian dictatorship imposed by whomever has the most power.

Therein lies the problem.

Disclaimer: The following response uses the term "you" and "your" in the 3rd person only, no ad hom is intended.

If you went to your public library and asked them to procure a book by a racist white supremacist they would order it for you if they didn't have it in stock. The individual librarian doesn't have to agree with your reading tastes to provide the book. They just have a professional obligation to provide the service that you requested. The book you request could be about gay pornography and the librarians would still be obliged to provide it to you even if their personal religious beliefs were opposed to gays.

Why does the printer get a pass when the librarian doesn't?

Librarians don't make judgments about people based upon what they are reading. The reason you asked for the book by the white supremacist might be because you are studying the subject for a college course. You might need the book on gay pornography because you are researching a paper for your thesis.

So why does the printer get to pass judgments on what he is being asked to print up? Does he just assume that you are a racist white supremacist when in fact you are using the materials for a documentary film that you are making?

The simple fact is that the printer, the baker, the candlestick maker, et al, don't get to pass judgments based upon their personal religious bigotry and refuse to provide products or services without suffering the consequences of the actions, or lack thereof.

When you are acting in a professional capacity you do your job which is what you are getting paid to do. You are not getting paid to impose your personal religious bigotry on anyone.

This has nothing whatsoever with "tolerance being a two way street". It has to do with the OP erroneously conflating two entirely different things. You, as an individual, are entitled to whatever religious bigotry floats your boat. You, as a professional, cannot deny other's their right to equal service because of your personal religious bigotry. Conflating them is a fallacy and can never to legislated without causing harm and denial of rights to individuals.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I'm not attempting to debate the pro's and con's of gay marriage - please don't assume that I am. I'm providing a real example of how something can harm without being "physical and material".

A person can think and believe whatever they want with impunity - I support that. They can say whatever they want (within legal restrictions) - I support that. Where it is a problem is when it's a business - which is NOT an individual and which serves the public - decides it can discrimminate against certain classes of people - with impunity. At the very least they should have a sign stating that they will not serve XYZ people. The business owner doesn't have to condone it - he just has to act like the professional he is.

During my recent vacation, I found my grandfather's wedding album. As we were looking at it, we saw the cake, the pews in the church, the church had stained glass windows, the lights were on.... The reception was at what looked like a country club where there was the cake, the photographs on the 18th hole, the dance floor, and the reception hall.

Amazingly, the guest book was there in the box too with the album. Amazingly, they forgot to have the....
Baker of the cake
Glazier of the windows
Carpenter who made the pews
Electrician who wired the church (not to mention the owner of the power plant or the 1,800 workers that supplied the power)
The gardener who supplied the flowers
The groundskeepers at the country club
The photographer
The course Marshall who set up the 18th hole on that day
The staff at the reception hall

...sign the guest book. According to some here, they are part of the wedding party or "party to" the wedding which is even more ridiculous.

 

[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.

I'm not attempting to debate the pro's and con's of gay marriage - please don't assume that I am. I'm providing a real example of how something can harm without being "physical and material".

A person can think and believe whatever they want with impunity - I support that. They can say whatever they want (within legal restrictions) - I support that. Where it is a problem is when it's a business - which is NOT an individual and which serves the public - decides it can discrimminate against certain classes of people - with impunity. At the very least they should have a sign stating that they will not serve XYZ people. The business owner doesn't have to condone it - he just has to act like the professional he is.

During my recent vacation, I found my grandfather's wedding album. As we were looking at it, we saw the cake, the pews in the church, the church had stained glass windows, the lights were on.... The reception was at what looked like a country club where there was the cake, the photographs on the 18th hole, the dance floor, and the reception hall.

Amazingly, the guest book was there in the box too with the album. Amazingly, they forgot to have the....
Baker of the cake
Glazier of the windows
Carpenter who made the pews
Electrician who wired the church (not to mention the owner of the power plant or the 1,800 workers that supplied the power)
The gardener who supplied the flowers
The groundskeepers at the country club
The photographer
The course Marshall who set up the 18th hole on that day
The staff at the reception hall

...sign the guest book. According to some here, they are part of the wedding party or "party to" the wedding which is even more ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between being part of the wedding party and being 'party to the wedding'. The issue is not what part anyone plays. The issue is whether somebody should have choice as to whether to play any part in it whatsoever.