Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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.

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

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

To insist that a member has argued something that he/she has not argued is to introduce a straw man into the discussion. To change what the member has argued into something easier to attack is to introduce a straw man into the discussion. To try to change the discussion to an unrelated illustration or example that is easier to attack is to introduce a straw man or red herring into the discussion. To refuse to acknowledge what a member has argued and insist the member intended or is arguing something else is, in my opinion, dishonest.

 

[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.

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

 

[dblack]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

 

[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.

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

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

You are all over the place here. On the one hand, you say the city can set rules. On the other hand, they can only set rules you agree with.

And yes, a city can choose not to grant a business a license if the business doesn't follow the law.

 

[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.

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

You are all over the place here. On the one hand, you say the city can set rules. On the other hand, they can only set rules you agree with.

And yes, a city can choose not to grant a business a license if the business doesn't follow the law.

Non sequitur and existing law is not allowed as an argument for purposes of this discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

You are all over the place here. On the one hand, you say the city can set rules. On the other hand, they can only set rules you agree with.

And yes, a city can choose not to grant a business a license if the business doesn't follow the law.

Non sequitur and existing law is not allowed as an argument for purposes of this discussion.

Ravi never used "existing law" in her posts.

She was referring to the law in the abstract, she was wasn't quoting any specific "existing law" in her response.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Existing law as an argument is off limits in this discussion. Please review the stated thread topic:

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any USMB member or any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

2. For purposes of this discussion only, if there is any question or dispute re definitions used, the OP will define the word or term.

3. Links can be used to reinforce an argument but are not required and, if they are used, must be accompanied by a brief description of what the member will learn if they click on the link.


THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

 

[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.

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

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

You are all over the place here. On the one hand, you say the city can set rules. On the other hand, they can only set rules you agree with.

And yes, a city can choose not to grant a business a license if the business doesn't follow the law.

Non sequitur and existing law is not allowed as an argument for purposes of this discussion.

It is neither a non sequitur nor a discussion about existing law. A city may not grant a business a license if the the business doesn't follow the laws of the city, existing or not. Laws change all the time and not all cities have the same laws. But all cities have the right to regulate which business operates in their city.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

why not? They have choices. They can run a legitimate business in the city of their choice by obeying local business rules. Or they can run a service out of their home that allows them to discriminate.

Why on earth would you be against a city setting business rules. No one has a RIGHT to open and operate any business they choose in the location of their choice.

I have not argued against a city setting business rules. I have been quite specific that I have no problem with reasonable expectations being attached to a business license. This discussion, however, has nothing to do with the location of the business and it has nothing to do with a business being allowed to discriminate.

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

You are all over the place here. On the one hand, you say the city can set rules. On the other hand, they can only set rules you agree with.

And yes, a city can choose not to grant a business a license if the business doesn't follow the law.

Non sequitur and existing law is not allowed as an argument for purposes of this discussion.

It is neither a non sequitur nor a discussion about existing law. A city may not grant a business a license if the the business doesn't follow the laws of the city, existing or not. Laws change all the time and not all cities have the same laws. But all cities have the right to regulate which business operates in their city.

Again existing law is not to be used as a basis for argument in this discussion so what a city can or cannot do and/or what the existing law is may not be used as an argument. The argument can be what the law SHOULD BE within the scope of the topic but not what the law is.

 

[Valerie]

Existing law as an argument is off limits in this discussion.

i wasn't making an argument, i was elucidating the topic with facts you'd like to ignore.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have not at any time said that any business owner should have to do their 'normal jobs'.

But you did right here in post #622!

Debate Now - Tolerance Political Correctness and Liberty Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.

Are you denying that you made the argument even if the book itself was repugnant ordering it would still be in the "normal course of her job" since it does not "require her to participate" in an "event or activity"?

How is that in any way different to the pharmacist filling a prescription as the "normal course of his job"?

 

[dblack]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not at any time said that any business owner should have to do their 'normal jobs'.

But you did right here in post #622!

Debate Now - Tolerance Political Correctness and Liberty Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.


View attachment 47198

Are you denying that you made the argument even if the book itself was repugnant ordering it would still be in the "normal course of her job" since it does not "require her to participate" in an "event or activity"?

How is that in any way different to the pharmacist filling a prescription as the "normal course of his job"?

Post #622 said NOTHING about a person HAVING TO DO THEIR NORMAL JOBS. Post #622 offered a rationale or argument if you will for why ordering a book for a particular customer as a book would be ordered for any customer is not the same thing as participating in that customer's activity/event. It went on to explain that the librarian should not have to participate in the customer's activity or event if the librarian did not wish to do so.

And expanding on that here, the librarian should not be required to stock a book the librarian does not wish to stock.

Likewise a pharmacist should sell to any customer who comes into the pharmacy whatever the pharmacy carries for sale with the understanding that certain rules for certain sales can be appropriate for a pharmacy. The pharmacist should not have to special order a product for a customer that the pharmacy does not carry for sale if the pharmacist does not wish to order that product.

Post #622 certainly did not endorse government at any level having power to dictate to any business what product or service that business must provide.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

Treatment - definition of treatment by The Free Dictionary

Serve - definition of serve by The Free Dictionary

Inalienable rights legal definition of Inalienable rights

Does that clarify the difference for you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

Treatment - definition of treatment by The Free Dictionary

View attachment 47200

Serve - definition of serve by The Free Dictionary

View attachment 47201

Inalienable rights legal definition of Inalienable rights

View attachment 47202

Does that clarify the difference for you?

The OP reserved the right to define terms as they will be understood in this discussion and in this case suggest you use ALL the usual definitions of these words if you are going to use them for an argument. And then I will make a ruling on what the definition we will use for this discussion will be. Okay?

Otherwise I am quite content with dblack's obvious intent with the terms as he is using them.

 

[dblack]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Post #622 said NOTHING about a person HAVING TO DO THEIR NORMAL JOBS. Post #622 offered a rationale or argument if you will for why ordering a book for a particular customer as a book would be ordered for any customer is not the same thing as participating in that customer's activity/event. It went on to explain that the librarian should not have to participate in the customer's activity or event. Likewise a pharmacist should sell to any customer who comes into the pharmacy whatever the pharmacy carries for sale. The pharmacist should not have to special order a product for a customer that the pharmacy does not carry for sale if the pharmacist does not wish to do so.

I quoted your exact words about the librarian having to do their normal job. Are you now denying the words that you actually posted?

The particular prescription is not special ordered. It is simply the filling of yet another Rx just as all of the others are normally handled by the pharmacist. Those products are "carried for sale" pharmacies and it isn't the pharmacist who makes the decision what is for sale, in that instance it was Walgreens.

Post #622 certainly did not endorse government at any level having power to dictate to any business what product or service that business must provide.

That is your "strawman" that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "normal" business of a printer, baker, librarian or pharmacist.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

Treatment - definition of treatment by The Free Dictionary

View attachment 47200

Serve - definition of serve by The Free Dictionary

View attachment 47201

Inalienable rights legal definition of Inalienable rights

View attachment 47202

Does that clarify the difference for you?

The OP reserved the right to define terms as they will be understood in this discussion and in this case suggest you use ALL the usual definitions of these words if you are going to use them for an argument. And then I will make a ruling on what the definition we will use for this discussion will be. Okay?

Otherwise I am quite content with dblack's obvious intent with the terms as he is using them.

The links were supplied in case the OP would like to choose a different definition.

In each instance the definitions provided were the first and most commonly used and accepted definitions for those terms.