|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 08 2015 13:15 oneofthem wrote:
there's a reason why civil rights laws specify the relevant groups/characteristics qualifying for protection, or cannot be used for differential treatment.
is your haunted house resident a race, gender, religion etc?
these particular kinds of prejudices are politically deemed to be unjustified.
if your particular scenario becomes widespread enough and the haunted way of life is in need of protection for equal rights, then maybe we can get that term added onto our laws.
Like I said, the law they're trying to introduce is stupidly framed around religious freedom, when it should have just been framed around a business's freedom to choose their clientele.
|
On April 08 2015 13:09 wei2coolman wrote:
Ignoring the way the entire thing has been phrased, but so long as consumers have the ability to back out of any dealings of a business regardless of reason, the business should be able to do the same.
Now, is there any reasonable situations where a business might want to not partake in a transaction with a customer that isn't discrimination? Probably not a lot of situations, but so long as the consumer has the freedom to choose whom they want to do business with, businesses should have the same freedom as well.
What if someone wants a restaurant to cater at a haunted house for a halloween party? The restaurant owner and workers are extremely superstitious, they refuse based on their own religious/spiritual/cultural belief? Are they now discriminating against haunted houses? What if that same cultural/spiritual/religious belief extends to ritual and ceremonies of other religions? Would you realistically expect a very christian pizza parlor to extend their catering service to a Satanic ritual?
Well, ignoring the obvious ridiculous situations you've created...
There are plenty of situations where customers can be refused. Dress codes, causing a disturbance, being violent, etc. Things like catering usually have listed clauses where they can refuse you depending on timing, logistics, unsafe environments, etc.
Not to mention businesses that only operate for select or limited clientele. A lawyer doesn't have to take every case that walks through his door.
What makes it discriminatory is when you refuse service to one person/people solely because of what gender/ethnicity/beliefs they are.
|
On April 08 2015 13:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 13:09 wei2coolman wrote:
Ignoring the way the entire thing has been phrased, but so long as consumers have the ability to back out of any dealings of a business regardless of reason, the business should be able to do the same.
Now, is there any reasonable situations where a business might want to not partake in a transaction with a customer that isn't discrimination? Probably not a lot of situations, but so long as the consumer has the freedom to choose whom they want to do business with, businesses should have the same freedom as well.
What if someone wants a restaurant to cater at a haunted house for a halloween party? The restaurant owner and workers are extremely superstitious, they refuse based on their own religious/spiritual/cultural belief? Are they now discriminating against haunted houses? What if that same cultural/spiritual/religious belief extends to ritual and ceremonies of other religions? Would you realistically expect a very christian pizza parlor to extend their catering service to a Satanic ritual? Well, ignoring the obvious ridiculous situations you've created... There are plenty of situations where customers can be refused. Dress codes, causing a disturbance, being violent, etc. Things like catering usually have listed clauses where they can refuse you depending on timing, logistics, unsafe environments, etc. Not to mention businesses that only operate for select or limited clientele. A lawyer doesn't have to take every case that walks through his door. What makes it discriminatory is when you refuse service to one person/people solely because of what gender/ethnicity/beliefs they are.
In the case of the cake and pizza, it was specifically a "gay" wedding, not "gays". Which is different. They refused the service based on the grounds of being part of a different religious ritual/service that they were uncomfortable, so that doesn't hold ground either....
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 08 2015 13:19 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 13:15 oneofthem wrote:
there's a reason why civil rights laws specify the relevant groups/characteristics qualifying for protection, or cannot be used for differential treatment.
is your haunted house resident a race, gender, religion etc?
these particular kinds of prejudices are politically deemed to be unjustified.
if your particular scenario becomes widespread enough and the haunted way of life is in need of protection for equal rights, then maybe we can get that term added onto our laws. Like I said, the law they're trying to introduce is stupidly framed around religious freedom, when it should have just been framed around a business's freedom to choose their clientele.
don't really care, as that 'freedom' is not actually justifiable and is even worse.
businesses clearly cannot abrogate certain fundamental rights of other people, and it is perfectly okay to decree as such.
the change to southern states common law to allow this broad freedom of private parties to discriminate did wonders for the jim crow era and you are welcome to pursue that line of argument, but yes, you'd be defending bigotry.
|
If you're a business that is open to and serves the general public, you serve the general public. You've chosen to make a company that deals with people through a product or service, no one made you start your bakery. You decided to start a bakery, as such you've explicitly decided that you will take public customers in all their forms. Bi, christian, muslim, black, mexican, FLAMING, man, woman, doesn't matter. If you or your religion make it such that you can't deal with people from all walks of life maybe you should go work in a factory or a warehouse or something. Get a job in a position where you don't have to deal with the public at large. But if you want to be an entrepreneur and reap the potential monetary benefits of serving the public, you WILL serve the public. That is the price of admission to play ball.
|
On April 08 2015 13:22 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 13:19 wei2coolman wrote:On April 08 2015 13:15 oneofthem wrote:
there's a reason why civil rights laws specify the relevant groups/characteristics qualifying for protection, or cannot be used for differential treatment.
is your haunted house resident a race, gender, religion etc?
these particular kinds of prejudices are politically deemed to be unjustified.
if your particular scenario becomes widespread enough and the haunted way of life is in need of protection for equal rights, then maybe we can get that term added onto our laws. Like I said, the law they're trying to introduce is stupidly framed around religious freedom, when it should have just been framed around a business's freedom to choose their clientele. don't really care, as that 'freedom' is not actually justifiable and is even worse. businesses clearly cannot abrogate certain fundamental rights of other people, and it is perfectly okay to decree as such. the change to southern states common law to allow this broad freedom of private parties to discriminate did wonders for the jim crow era and you are welcome to pursue that line of argument, but yes, you'd be defending bigotry.
lmao, no one is defending bigotry here. Preferring a free market response over a legal response is hardly "defending bigotry", and since when did we have to "justify" freedom?
even removing the whole bigotry bit, and the way this entire argument is framed around isolated events. The question revolves around, given 2 equal parties partaking in a contract, why should only 1 party have the right to not enter into a contract regardless of their reasoning, while the other party has to give a reason?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
under your system, they are freely...bigoting. not sure what you are objecting to here.
and you need to justify freedom when your use of the word is in the sense of an exercise of power over others, namely power to refuse service.
|
On April 08 2015 13:36 oneofthem wrote:
under your system, they are freely...bigoting. not sure what you are objecting to here.
being a discriminatory is one of the possible outcomes in this scenario, I don't deny that. I just value the freedom of a business to say no to any transaction, similarly the same freedom the consumer has to go elsewhere.
Obviously in scenarios where there are monopolies in locales, this becomes a lot more murky (such as ISP providers, utility provider, etc).
On April 08 2015 13:36 oneofthem wrote:
under your system, they are freely...bigoting. not sure what you are objecting to here.
and you need to justify freedom when your use of the word is in the sense of an exercise of power over others, namely power to refuse service.
lmao, not even sure how to respond to that. lol.
|
On April 08 2015 13:36 oneofthem wrote:
under your system, they are freely...bigoting. not sure what you are objecting to here.
and you need to justify freedom when your use of the word is in the sense of an exercise of power over others, namely power to refuse service.
That's an unusual idea of power over others, to do nothing.
|
I have no problem forcing the pizza people to cater satanic cults or haunted houses, meh.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not that i care but you are still defending bigots freedom to be bigots, among other things. i'm not sure why you are objecting to this characterization of your position.
On April 08 2015 13:43 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 13:36 oneofthem wrote:
under your system, they are freely...bigoting. not sure what you are objecting to here.
and you need to justify freedom when your use of the word is in the sense of an exercise of power over others, namely power to refuse service. That's an unusual idea of power over others, to do nothing.
it's very straightforward. your denial of service affects another person's access to said service.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn't just affecting the weather, it's harming Americans' health, President Barack Obama said Tuesday as he announced steps government and businesses will take to better understand and deal with the problem.
Obama said hazards of the changing climate include wildfires sending more pollution into the air, allergy seasons growing longer and rising cases of insect-borne diseases.
"We've got to do better in protecting our vulnerable families," Obama said, adding that, ultimately, all families are affected.
"You can't cordon yourself off from air," Obama said. Speaking at Howard University Medical School, he announced commitments from Google, Microsoft and others to help the nation's health system prepare for a warmer, more erratic climate.
Warning of the perils to the planet has gotten the president only so far; polls consistently show the public is skeptical that the steps Obama has taken to curb pollution are worth the cost to the economy. So Obama is aiming to put a spotlight on ways that climate change will have real impacts on the body, like more asthma attacks, allergic reactions, heat-related deaths and injuries from extreme weather.
Obama said spending on health — such as preventing asthma — can save more money than it costs, as well as alleviate pain and suffering.
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy noted that people suffering from an increase in asthma-attack triggers lose time at work and school. Murthy, a doctor, said the problem was especially personal for him because he's seen so many patients struggle to breathe and his own uncle died of a severe asthma attack.
Microsoft's research arm will develop a prototype for drones that can collect large quantities of mosquitoes, then digitally analyze their genes and pathogens. The goal is to create a system that could provide early warnings about infectious diseases that could break out if climate change worsens.
Google has promised to donate 10 million hours of advanced computing time on new tools, including risk maps and early warnings for things like wildfires and oil flares using the Google Earth Engine platform, the White House said. Google's camera cars that gather photos for its "Street View" function will start measuring methane emissions and natural gas leaks in some cities this year.
The Obama administration also announced a series of modest steps it will take to boost preparedness, such as expanding access to data to predict and minimize the health effects from climate change.
Source
|
On April 08 2015 13:45 oneofthem wrote:
not that i care but you are still defending bigots freedom to be bigots, among other things. i'm not sure why you are objecting to this characterization of your position..
I'm okay with this.
|
On April 08 2015 13:21 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 13:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2015 13:09 wei2coolman wrote:
Ignoring the way the entire thing has been phrased, but so long as consumers have the ability to back out of any dealings of a business regardless of reason, the business should be able to do the same.
Now, is there any reasonable situations where a business might want to not partake in a transaction with a customer that isn't discrimination? Probably not a lot of situations, but so long as the consumer has the freedom to choose whom they want to do business with, businesses should have the same freedom as well.
What if someone wants a restaurant to cater at a haunted house for a halloween party? The restaurant owner and workers are extremely superstitious, they refuse based on their own religious/spiritual/cultural belief? Are they now discriminating against haunted houses? What if that same cultural/spiritual/religious belief extends to ritual and ceremonies of other religions? Would you realistically expect a very christian pizza parlor to extend their catering service to a Satanic ritual? Well, ignoring the obvious ridiculous situations you've created... There are plenty of situations where customers can be refused. Dress codes, causing a disturbance, being violent, etc. Things like catering usually have listed clauses where they can refuse you depending on timing, logistics, unsafe environments, etc. Not to mention businesses that only operate for select or limited clientele. A lawyer doesn't have to take every case that walks through his door. What makes it discriminatory is when you refuse service to one person/people solely because of what gender/ethnicity/beliefs they are. In the case of the cake and pizza, it was specifically a "gay" wedding, not "gays". Which is different. They refused the service based on the grounds of being part of a different religious ritual/service that they were uncomfortable, so that doesn't hold ground either....
A "gay" wedding cake is just a wedding cake. Most wedding cakes don't even have writing on them or anything. Did they vet every couple that went into their doors? Interview them to find out of they were both Christian, if they had a child out of wedlock, if they'd have sex yet?
No? So why did they start up the practice when the couple was gay?
Same thing applies for the pizza place. A party is a party, so what if a gay couple that wants it? If they offer that service, and they didn't vet everyone on religious grounds before, what makes it so a gay couple has to be scrutinized?
Religious context is perfectly applicable when running a business. If you run a Kosher restaurant, you can't be forced to cook non-Kosher food (you can't be forced to cook any kind of food that isn't on your menu, for that matter).
What's not acceptable for businesses, or even religion for that matter, is selectively applying an excuse against specific kinds of people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
potentially interesting stuff indeed.
Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, said she has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate “a statistically significant” pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct.
While it is well-recognized that smaller, rural precincts tend to lean Republican, statisticians have been unable to explain the consistent pattern favoring Republicans that trends upward as the number of votes cast in a precinct or other voting unit goes up. In primaries, the favored candidate appears to always be the Republican establishment candidate, above a tea party challenger. And the upward trend for Republicans occurs once a voting unit reaches roughly 500 votes.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article17139890.html#storylink=cpy
|
On April 08 2015 14:04 oneofthem wrote:potentially interesting stuff indeed. Show nested quote +
Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, said she has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate “a statistically significant” pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct.
While it is well-recognized that smaller, rural precincts tend to lean Republican, statisticians have been unable to explain the consistent pattern favoring Republicans that trends upward as the number of votes cast in a precinct or other voting unit goes up. In primaries, the favored candidate appears to always be the Republican establishment candidate, above a tea party challenger. And the upward trend for Republicans occurs once a voting unit reaches roughly 500 votes.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article17139890.html#storylink=cpy
I don't think I'll be able to handle the ensuing comedy if it turns out to be fraud.
|
On April 08 2015 12:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 11:37 Danglars wrote:The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck. It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it. Yes, because apparently News Stations are wasting entire days just to look for specific stories instead of just, you know, interviewing business owners about the already existing lightning rod of the Religious Freedom Laws. Also love how you frame your argument. "I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them". Yeah, that's not how individual rights and freedoms work. We've been around and around the framing of these questions, so much so that the language is essentially inextricably tied to the debate. My rights are being denied that I can't marry a second woman until I've divorced the first, and it's about damned time high schoolers are allowed to marry when they feel like it (You ageists!). You're rather firmly in one camp or another by this point. I've no long-shot hope of changing y'all's thoughts on tradition and the philosophy of law through some inspired series of solidly rhetorical arguments. I won't be wasting much time and effort on it. Gay wedding catering and free abortifacients lie on a pretty black and white end of the gray spectrum that includes compelling state interests and individual freedoms. The sign that says gays aren't served in the store on the front, not even a scone (or an invoice with a like-mannered checkbox required) is at that same end--black and white.
This response, and its drumming up of the furor, struck a social nerve. I would've thought there would be a continuum of grumblings, what with its mate existing on the federal books and on what, 20 states rolls? Is there something special about Indiana and pizza weddings? On another note, are there liberals for religious freedom, anymore? Even for seeing in shades of gray? Intolerance has found its natural home amongst its most vocal adversary.
On April 08 2015 12:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 12:15 Nyxisto wrote:
if you don't want to interact with an individual because he's an ass, fine. If you systematically discriminate people because of race, ethnicity or gender every sensible constitution should prohibit that behaviour. How is forcing entire religions to violate their belief systems not discrimination, but refusing to bake a cake is? Haha! Also, one's clearly systematic, and the other bears no resemblance to it.
|
On April 08 2015 16:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 12:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2015 11:37 Danglars wrote:The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck. It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it. Yes, because apparently News Stations are wasting entire days just to look for specific stories instead of just, you know, interviewing business owners about the already existing lightning rod of the Religious Freedom Laws. Also love how you frame your argument. "I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them". Yeah, that's not how individual rights and freedoms work. We've been around and around the framing of these questions, so much so that the language is essentially inextricably tied to the debate. My rights are being denied that I can't marry a second woman until I've divorced the first, and it's about damned time high schoolers are allowed to marry when they feel like it (You ageists!). You're rather firmly in one camp or another by this point. I've no long-shot hope of changing y'all's thoughts on tradition and the philosophy of law through some inspired series of solidly rhetorical arguments. I won't be wasting much time and effort on it. Gay wedding catering and free abortifacients lie on a pretty black and white end of the gray spectrum that includes compelling state interests and individual freedoms. The sign that says gays aren't served in the store on the front, not even a scone (or an invoice with a like-mannered checkbox required) is at that same end--black and white. This response, and its drumming up of the furor, struck a social nerve. I would've thought there would be a continuum of grumblings, what with its mate existing on the federal books and on what, 20 states rolls? Is there something special about Indiana and pizza weddings? On another note, are there liberals for religious freedom, anymore? Even for seeing in shades of gray? Intolerance has found its natural home amongst its most vocal adversary.
Spot on. No grey exists. To object to the relatively new (in America) need in America for cakes for gay weddings, anyone who has even the slightest bit of objection is a terrible human being with a moral compass so misguided that the only word appropriate is bigot. Nevermind the distinction between someone who happens to be gay wanting a cake vs someone who wants a cake for a gay wedding. Because I have declared that your religious beliefs are stupid, bigoted, and behind the times, you will be compelled to comply.
|
On April 08 2015 16:27 Danglars wrote:This response, and its drumming up of the furor, struck a social nerve. I would've thought there would be a continuum of grumblings, what with its mate existing on the federal books and on what, 20 states rolls? Is there something special about Indiana and pizza weddings? On another note, are there liberals for religious freedom, anymore? Even for seeing in shades of gray? Intolerance has found its natural home amongst its most vocal adversary.
The US has always struck me as caught in some limbo between wanting Freedom of Religion and separation of church and state, while still trying to be an outspoken Christian nation. So, unsurprisingly, talk of wanting "more religious freedom" usually comes across as Christians wanting the country to be more outspokenly Christian.
Comparatively, attitudes toward religion in Canada seems much more laid back. We're still a primarily Christian nation at about 67-33 (though not nearly as Protestant as the US), but the dividing lines you have don't seem to be nearly as prevalent. I mean, there was some minor push like a decade and a half ago to make our national anthem gender neutral and to remove references to God. I think the general public opinion was basically "who the fuck cares".
And British Columbia is like a statistical anomaly among the Provinces and Territories, with about equal numbers of Christians and non-Religious people, and like half of the country's population of Buddhists and Sikhs. And, for the most part, no one steps on any toes...at least, not on a level that reaches politics.
So, you want more religious freedom? That's cool...provided you know what that actually looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
