Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[dblack]

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?

Yes, to all of the above. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[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.

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

But if the person wanted her to set up a display of racist books at a white supremacist convention, she could legitimately have a problem with that and should not be required to participate in such an event against her choice to do so.

I think most people actually do see the difference between those two things. I wonder why it is so hard for some to understand?

 

[dblack]

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.

Why? What's the moral difference?

Would you make the same claim about consumer boycotts? Should consumers be required to treat all vendors equally? What about the wide middle-ground between consumers and public accommodations - independent contractors and the like? Is it wrong for an individual service provider to discriminate in their clientele? Is it wrong fro employees to discriminate in who they'll work for?

 

[dblack]

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

It doesn't matter. A librarian should have the same right as any other individual to say "no" for any reason they dream up. And, if they are employed by someone else, their employer should likewise have the right to fire them. I realize both concepts fly in the face of popular notions of 'social justice', which is exactly why 'social justice' has such a bad name.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

It doesn't matter. A librarian should have the same right as any other individual to say "no" for any reason they dream up. And, if they are employed by someone else, their employer should likewise have the right to fire them. I realize both concepts fly in the face of popular notions of 'social justice', which is exactly why 'social justice' has such a bad name.

Theoretically I agree with you in principle, but for practical purposes, I do see a difference between the librarian not having an excuse not to order a book that is in their inventory for a customer of the library and the librarian having every justification to not participate in an activity or event that she does not wish to participate in.

And because I have no problem with anti-discriminatory laws being attached to a business license meaning all customers who come into the place of business will be treated the same, I don't see such laws interfering with the business owner's rights in any way. But I do see requiring the business owner to participate in an activity or event that he does not want to associate with in any respect as an assault on his liberties and a violation of his rights.

 

[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.

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.

There is no difference whatsoever.

Apparently, according to you, that if the 1st United Church of Whatever started hosting Gay Weddings, the guy who built the altar could come back and repossess the altar and give the church their check back. Or if the church needed a fire extinguished, the volunteer fire department can decide to let it burn because gays were married there.

:::mod edit:::​

 

[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?

Yes, to all of the above. Why is that so hard to accept?

Thank you for openly admitting that you consider yourself to be superior to your fellow Americans who you consider to be your inferiors.

Would you care to explain what makes you superior to your fellow Americans?

TYIA.

 

[Ravi]

The bakers have figured out how to get around PA laws. They no longer have a store front and are no longer required to abide by PA law. They are free to be as discriminating as they please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

But if the person wanted her to set up a display of racist books at a white supremacist convention, she could legitimately have a problem with that and should not be required to participate in such an event against her choice to do so.

I think most people actually do see the difference between those two things. I wonder why it is so hard for some to understand?

And yet we have a pharmacist who refused to do the normal course of his job because dispensing a prescription would be "participating in an event" according to his religious beliefs.

Since dispensing prescriptions are a routine part of his job, just like the librarian routinely orders books, why does the pharmacist claim that this is a violation of his religious beliefs when it would essentially be the same thing for the librarian to refuse to order the book?

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Dispense Plan B Morning After Pill LifeNews.com

Yesterday, the Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of Pharmacist Dr. Philip Hall against the Walgreen Company.

The complaint alleges that, in August 2013, Walgreens wrongfully fired Hall, who had been employed for six years as a pharmacist at Walgreens’ store in Jamestown, Tennessee, in violation of his constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to freedom of religion.

Hall, a practicing Baptist, entertains profound religious and moral objections to dispensing abortifacients, or abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B. ​

The fuzzy "participating in the event" line that the OP topic wants to legislate doesn't apply in this case any more than it does with the librarian checking out a book.

So does this mean that if this lawsuit is upheld then the librarian can refuse to order those books?

Should the pharmacist be required to do his job irrespective of the content of the prescription just as the librarian will order the book irrespective of the content?

Where will the OP draw the line and on what legal basis will the line be drawn?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why? What's the moral difference?

Legislating morality has never worked.

 

[dblack]

Why? What's the moral difference?

Legislating morality has never worked.

Yep. Can you answer the question?

 

[dblack]

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?

Yes, to all of the above. Why is that so hard to accept?

Thank you for openly admitting that you consider yourself to be superior to your fellow Americans who you consider to be your inferiors.

Would you care to explain what makes you superior to your fellow Americans?

TYIA.

I misread your post. I thought you said "Do I have the right to treat ..."

My point is that people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit. As long as they don't violate the rights of others, it's none of the government's business. It's this notion you have that we all a right to be treated equally that's at issue here. Can you elaborate on that?

 

[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?

Yes, to all of the above. Why is that so hard to accept?

Thank you for openly admitting that you consider yourself to be superior to your fellow Americans who you consider to be your inferiors.

Would you care to explain what makes you superior to your fellow Americans?

TYIA.

I misread your post. I thought you said "Do I have the right to treat ..."

My point is that people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit. As long as they don't violate the rights of others, it's none of the government's business. It's this notion you have that we all a right to be treated equally that's at issue here. Can you elaborate on that?

Is the person who cuts your lawn or cleans your toilets inferior to you?

Or are they a hardworking naturalized citizen trying to put their children through college so that they will have a better earning potential?

Judging others and discriminating against them based upon what they do, what they look like, their accent, their gender, etc, etc is to deny them their right to be treated as a person with rights equal to your own.

There is an old religious adage, "there but for the grace of God go I". You don't need to be religious to understand that the roles could easily be reversed and it could be you that is struggling to make ends meet and a providing a better life for your family.

So to discriminate against others and perceive them as inferior or sinning or whatever other excuse is used to treat others as unworthy of being treated as equals is a violation of the most basic principle of our rights as individuals.

We are all born with the same rights. We have an obligation to uphold each other's rights or we forfeit our own. If we allow someone else to discriminate against our fellow Americans because they are gay or black or disabled then we open the door to being discriminated against ourselves.

The fallacy of the OP is that it wants the right to legalize religious bigotry and intolerance against a certain class of our fellow Americans. That means elevating their religious bigotry to a superior position over your and my rights. It means giving those who claim to hold these bigoted religious beliefs the legal power to discriminate at will against others.

And no, it won't stop at just "participating in events" either. If the "new law" in the OP is passed it would open the door to a woman being prevented from purchasing a cell phone because that means signing a contract and according to the religious bigotry of the individual working at the store woman are "chattals" and don't have a "right" to "own property" in their name because that is what they believe their bible tells them.

So please explain how "people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit" is going to work in real life when your support the OP's "new law" goes into effect and how it won't materially violate the rights of others?

 

[dblack]

So please explain how "people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit" is going to work in real life when your support the OP's "new law" goes into effect and how it won't materially violate the rights of others

First we need some clarity on what the rights of others are, and frankly, you don't seem to have a very coherent understanding of individual rights. In particular, this notion that each of us has a right to be treated equally makes no sense to me. Are you sure you're not conflating it with "equal rights under the law" or "equal protection"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So please explain how "people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit" is going to work in real life when your support the OP's "new law" goes into effect and how it won't materially violate the rights of others

First we need some clarity on what the rights of others are, and frankly, you don't seem to have a very coherent understanding of individual rights. In particular, this notion that each of us has a right to be treated equally makes no sense to me. Are you sure you're not conflating it with "equal rights under the law" or "equal protection"?

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights* beings as follows;

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​

So our "equal and inalienable rights" include our freedom and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*. No, I am not conflating anything with the law. I am talking about the rights that we are born with.

Onus is on you to demonstrate that because someone is born into a particular religion, race, gender, etc, they are somehow superior to those who are not of the same religion, race, gender, etc.

Alternatively you can provide evidence that refutes that everyone has "equal and inalienable rights".





* No, that preamble is not "existing law" therefore it is not an OP Rule violation. It is a statement of fact that everyone has "equal and inalienable rights". Furthermore the term "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" stem from the DOI which is also not "existing law".

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

But if the person wanted her to set up a display of racist books at a white supremacist convention, she could legitimately have a problem with that and should not be required to participate in such an event against her choice to do so.

I think most people actually do see the difference between those two things. I wonder why it is so hard for some to understand?

And yet we have a pharmacist who refused to do the normal course of his job because dispensing a prescription would be "participating in an event" according to his religious beliefs.

Since dispensing prescriptions are a routine part of his job, just like the librarian routinely orders books, why does the pharmacist claim that this is a violation of his religious beliefs when it would essentially be the same thing for the librarian to refuse to order the book?

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Dispense Plan B Morning After Pill LifeNews.com

Yesterday, the Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of Pharmacist Dr. Philip Hall against the Walgreen Company.

The complaint alleges that, in August 2013, Walgreens wrongfully fired Hall, who had been employed for six years as a pharmacist at Walgreens’ store in Jamestown, Tennessee, in violation of his constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to freedom of religion.

Hall, a practicing Baptist, entertains profound religious and moral objections to dispensing abortifacients, or abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B. ​

The fuzzy "participating in the event" line that the OP topic wants to legislate doesn't apply in this case any more than it does with the librarian checking out a book.

So does this mean that if this lawsuit is upheld then the librarian can refuse to order those books?

Should the pharmacist be required to do his job irrespective of the content of the prescription just as the librarian will order the book irrespective of the content?

Where will the OP draw the line and on what legal basis will the line be drawn?

We can always find straw men arguments to include in a discussion when we can't rebut the argument being made. I understand why it is tempting to do that. But I will continue to argue the point I have been making regardless of those who refuse to acknowledge that argument and rebut it on its own merits or lack thereof.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bakers have figured out how to get around PA laws. They no longer have a store front and are no longer required to abide by PA law. They are free to be as discriminating as they please.

Nobody should have to 'get around laws' that require them to participate in an activity/event that they choose not to participate in.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

There is no difference whatsoever.

Apparently, according to you, that if the 1st United Church of Whatever started hosting Gay Weddings, the guy who built the altar could come back and repossess the altar and give the church their check back. Or if the church needed a fire extinguished, the volunteer fire department can decide to let it burn because gays were married there.

:::mod edit:::​

A total misrepresentation of what I have argued.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ordering a book requires nothing of the librarian that she does not do in the normal course of her job. It requires her to participate in no event or activity that she does not want to be associated with.

But if the person wanted her to set up a display of racist books at a white supremacist convention, she could legitimately have a problem with that and should not be required to participate in such an event against her choice to do so.

I think most people actually do see the difference between those two things. I wonder why it is so hard for some to understand?

And yet we have a pharmacist who refused to do the normal course of his job because dispensing a prescription would be "participating in an event" according to his religious beliefs.

Since dispensing prescriptions are a routine part of his job, just like the librarian routinely orders books, why does the pharmacist claim that this is a violation of his religious beliefs when it would essentially be the same thing for the librarian to refuse to order the book?

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Dispense Plan B Morning After Pill LifeNews.com

Yesterday, the Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of Pharmacist Dr. Philip Hall against the Walgreen Company.

The complaint alleges that, in August 2013, Walgreens wrongfully fired Hall, who had been employed for six years as a pharmacist at Walgreens’ store in Jamestown, Tennessee, in violation of his constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to freedom of religion.

Hall, a practicing Baptist, entertains profound religious and moral objections to dispensing abortifacients, or abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B. ​

The fuzzy "participating in the event" line that the OP topic wants to legislate doesn't apply in this case any more than it does with the librarian checking out a book.

So does this mean that if this lawsuit is upheld then the librarian can refuse to order those books?

Should the pharmacist be required to do his job irrespective of the content of the prescription just as the librarian will order the book irrespective of the content?

Where will the OP draw the line and on what legal basis will the line be drawn?

We can always find straw men arguments to include in a discussion when we can't rebut the argument being made. I understand why it is tempting to do that. But I will continue to argue the point I have been making regardless of those who refuse to acknowledge that argument and rebut it on its own merits or lack thereof.

The OP was given a real life example clearly exposing the fallacy of the OP's position so the OP's only "defense" is to fallaciously cry "strawman"?

Onus is on the OP to prove that the pharmacist example is a "strawman". (Hint, it isn't, because the OP can't refute it!)

The OP's position has been exposed as not only utterly meritless but actually harmful to the rights of your fellow Americans over and over again in this thread.

Not once has the OP been able to demonstrate that the "new law" that the OP is advocating would be beneficial, or even benign for that matter, if it were to be enacted and put into effect.

The Indianna example clearly demonstrated that Americans can recognize when a new law is an attempt to legislate the right to impose religious intolerance and bigotry on others.

 

[dblack]

So please explain how "people have the right to treat others as inferior or superior or not as they see fit" is going to work in real life when your support the OP's "new law" goes into effect and how it won't materially violate the rights of others

First we need some clarity on what the rights of others are, and frankly, you don't seem to have a very coherent understanding of individual rights. In particular, this notion that each of us has a right to be treated equally makes no sense to me. Are you sure you're not conflating it with "equal rights under the law" or "equal protection"?

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights* beings as follows;

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​

So our "equal and inalienable rights" include our freedom and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*. No, I am not conflating anything with the law. I am talking about the rights that we are born with.

Onus is on you to demonstrate that because someone is born into a particular religion, race, gender, etc, they are somehow superior to those who are not of the same religion, race, gender, etc.

No, there's not, because I've made no such claim. I've said it's anyone's right to treat others as inferior or superiors as they wish. And it's anyone's right to laugh at them if they disagree.

Alternatively you can provide evidence that refutes that everyone has "equal and inalienable rights".

I don't dispute that either. "Onus" is on you to show that the right to be served by others, equally or otherwise, is inalienable.