Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Valerie]

foxfyre said:

". We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should."



you seem to be taking this personally...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

PP is being attacked because of the edited comments that were in that videos.

Therefore they are both being attacked for what they said.

 

[Ravi]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

How are you defining harass or threaten? Please give some examples.

 

[Foxfyre]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

That's the way I think the law should be.

On the specific topic: 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

Calling a "right" a "politically correct point of view" (in relation to same sex marriage) makes it hard not to see it as a minimizing slur - but I'll try to work around it.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

That means people who's business involves serving diverse groups and viewpoints need to be able to be "professional enough" to serve them respectfully and equally. That means a caterer that typically does big events should be able to cater an NAACP conference and a Tea Party Rally with equal professionalism. They are not endorsing anything - they are venders. Tolerance also means that those looking for a vender, shop for the vender that most fits their needs - not seeking to find one that will repudiate them just so they can make a stink. None of that needs to be in the law - that's common curteousy.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree. Again I will cater your birthday party, your class reunion, your wedding, your fund raiser, etc. etc. etc. But if you want me to put swastikas on cupcakes for your white supremacist convention or cater your anti-gay rally, I am going to tell you no. If that makes me unprofessional, so be it. But it should be my right to be unprofessional and tell you no and I should be able to do so without fear of fine or other punishment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

PP is being attacked because of the edited comments that were in that videos.

Therefore they are both being attacked for what they said.

What they said about what they are doing. Not for expressing an opinion about it.

 

[dblack]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

PP is being attacked because of the edited comments that were in that videos.

Therefore they are both being attacked for what they said.

What they said about what they are doing. Not for expressing an opinion about it.

How is what they said any different to saying this?

"Two guys break into an atheist's home," Robertson began. "He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.'

"If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'"​

Is raping someone's female children in front of him, decapitating his wife and then castrating him somehow more "tolerable" speech than what was said on the PP videos in your opinion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person and violates no person's rights.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

PP is being attacked because of the edited comments that were in that videos.

Therefore they are both being attacked for what they said.

What they said about what they are doing. Not for expressing an opinion about it.

How is what they said any different to saying this?

"Two guys break into an atheist's home," Robertson began. "He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.'

"If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'"​

Is raping someone's female children in front of him, decapitating his wife and then castrating him somehow more "tolerable" speech than what was said on the PP videos in your opinion?

I won't dignify this with a response. Try again and maybe just maybe the point I was making might become clear and your post will be seen for the strawman that it is.

 

[dblack]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

 

[Foxfyre]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.
Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

How are you defining harass or threaten? Please give some examples.

I have provided a LOT of examples throughout this thread. Please refer to my other posts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

I AM speaking out against those kinds of protests. What did I say here different from that?

 

[dblack]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

I AM speaking out against those kinds of protests. What did I say here different from that?

Maybe I wasn't being clear. What I"m saying is that the PC protests against people who express unpopular opinions are the same sort of thing as a baker protesting gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. Both should be considered fundamental rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

I AM speaking out against those kinds of protests. What did I say here different from that?

Maybe I wasn't being clear. What I"m saying is that the PC protests against people who express unpopular opinions are the same sort of thing as a baker protesting gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. Both should be considered fundamental rights.

Oh okay. I did misunderstand you then. And I do disagree with that. I can't see it any other way than as an assault on a person's fundamental rights if people are allowed to organize to destroy his business and/or livelihood for no other reason than they don't like something he said.

 

[dblack]

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

I AM speaking out against those kinds of protests. What did I say here different from that?

Maybe I wasn't being clear. What I"m saying is that the PC protests against people who express unpopular opinions are the same sort of thing as a baker protesting gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. Both should be considered fundamental rights.

Oh okay. I did misunderstand you then. And I do disagree with that. I can't see it any other way than as an assault on a person's fundamental rights if people are allowed to organize to destroy his business and/or livelihood for no other reason than they don't like something he said.

We have no right to tolerance. If I say things my neighbors don't like, they're under no obligation to associate with me. I'm honestly surprised you think it ought to be otherwise.

 

[Valerie]

sounds exactly like those fakers who took illegal videos of planned parenthood meetings...




an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are?



Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

 

[Michelle420]

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

Civil Action implied a law suit which is about law.

If you simply mean can people Protest a business as a form of civil action of course they can.

I am not saying that they can or cannot. I am saying SHOULD the law or organized action be able to put a business owner out of business purely because he expressed an opinion others didn't like? And if you say yes, explain how that does not violate the business owner's rights.

Should which law? (you previously said not current so what do you mean?) ( what kind of organized action, any examples?)

 

[Michelle420]

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

No

 

[Ravi]

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

How are you defining harass or threaten? Please give some examples.

I have provided a LOT of examples throughout this thread. Please refer to my other posts.

I looked and couldn't find. One concrete example will suffice.

 

[Ravi]

Ok, I get it now. If people boycott duck dynasty, for example, or their advertisers, FF thinks that should be illegal. Am I right?