EPTOn March 23 2017 09:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just imagine how crazy it would be if Trump colluded with the Russians
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7181
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Just imagine how crazy it would be if Trump colluded with the Russians | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
also that might kill it with the moderates. or at least Ted Lieu hopes it does. Ted Lieu's twitter is awesome by the way. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
I haven't read the court decision but I don't like giving religion primacy to discriminate in a secular society so I agree with the idea. It's simpler because it's an actual store and not like a custom designer guy. Stores in general can't discriminate. Not sure what the law says about private sort of at will work. I was under the impression that it was custom work. Because this was a repeat customer. One of the fellows getting married bought quite a lot. (Or maybe that was the florist- I get the two cases confused.) But that's sort of my question- is there a difference between selling a custom cake vs a predesigned cake? Ah it was the florist Stutzman that sold to Rob for years and years "I count him as a friend" but baulked at providing an arrangement for the ceremony. Can she not participate similar to the bands or is she compelled to participate? In regards to the bands: ideological vs discrimination. In one sense, it's not quite so different- they are discriminating in the second meaning of the word- their discrimination is based on ideology. Whether the band is being unjust or prejudicial (first sense meaning of the word) would, I suppose depend on your ideology. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 23 2017 09:57 Falling wrote: I was under the impression that it was custom work. Because this was a repeat customer. One of the fellows getting married bought quite a lot. (Or maybe that was the florist- I get the two cases confused.) But that's sort of my question- is there a difference between selling a custom cake vs a predesigned cake? Ah it was the florist Stutzman that sold to Rob for years and years "I count him as a friend" but baulked at providing an arrangement for the ceremony. Can she not participate similar to the bands or is she compelled to participate? I'm don't really know. That's in a tricky area. Most of the time it doesn't really come up because you don't have such a direct means of showing that it was discrimination. This is where things get complicated and it goes into philosophy of the government's role in civil rights and stuff where I am completely lost when even beginning to try to formulate an opinion. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I'm don't really know. That's in a tricky area. Most of the time it doesn't really come up because you don't have such a direct means of showing that it was discrimination. This is where things get complicated. Right. Because if the person keeps their mouth shut, they could be refusing for any number of reasons. I suspect it's tricky because it comes down to determining motivation, which unless they assist you in revealing their motivation, it's not so easy. But it's these tricky areas that set me into questioning some of my pre-established 'oughts'. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:04 Falling wrote: Right. Because if the person keeps their mouth shut, they could be refusing for any number of reasons. I suspect it's tricky because it comes down to determining motivation, which unless they assist you in revealing their motivation, it's not so easy. But it's these tricky areas that set me into questioning some of my pre-established 'oughts'. my problems always giving an argument that is consistent with my other beliefs. So basically why x is okay but y isn't. Nobody wants to force a band to play at an event they don't believe in or make a painter paint a piece for someone(even if the motivations were hypothetically based on explicit racism.) I mean they'd get publicly destroyed but I don't think anyone wants the government to get involved. Hypothetically let's say there's an architect. He refuses to design a house for someone because they're black. What's the role of the government? force him to build the house. Fine him? I think it's wrong I just don't know what the consequence is. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44307 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:04 Falling wrote: Right. Because if the person keeps their mouth shut, they could be refusing for any number of reasons. I suspect it's tricky because it comes down to determining motivation, which unless they assist you in revealing their motivation, it's not so easy. But it's these tricky areas that set me into questioning some of my pre-established 'oughts'. Your example has been cited by conservatives before. You are cheered as brave if you refuse the RNC or Trump, but if you object to catering an important ceremony you should be fined and your business closed. This is why the court was so important to conservative Trump voters, as well. It's bad enough that the courts find new rights hiding in the constitution, it's imperative that they don't remove rights already there. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:09 KwarK wrote: I don't really see the issue Falling. Businesses can discriminate against anyone not in a protected class. What do you mean by protected class? By protected class, do you mean those that historically have experienced oppression in some way- so in America- women, minorities, non-hetero-sexual/non-binary gender? Or does it need to be current oppression/ what makes a protected class, a protected class? I think it's wrong I just don't know what the consequence is. And I think that's where the real rub is- one might have a noble goal, but what is the right solution? And at what point do you actually want the state involved? I don't really know. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44307 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:19 Falling wrote: What do you mean by protected class? By protected class, do you mean those that historically have experienced oppression in some way- so in America- women, minorities, non-hetero-sexual/non-binary gender? Or does it need to be current oppression/ what makes a protected class, a protected class? I mean protected class. It's an actual thing that says who you can't discriminate against in the US. It's not about history or oppression, it's literally about having your class on the following list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class That's why the whole debate is silly. The law says that if you offer your services to the public then you cannot refuse service because of any of those. So when we get hypotheticals like "what if I disagree with their politics?" it's not really an issue because political affiliation is not a protected class. The only interesting part of the subject, in my eyes at least, is that trans people are not a protected class. You can absolutely fire an employee for being trans. Every now and then a religious group will argue that they deserve a right to discriminate against a protected class (as you can imagine there was an awful lot of those arguments made during the civil rights act cause Christianity and racism go hand in hand) but the issue was settled a long time ago and the conclusion was that no matter how genuine your religious convictions are you still can't discriminate against people. Every now and then people, particularly conservatives in need of a safe space, (bio major in this topic (not trying to single you out but you did make the argument)) will say that political convictions should be a protected class to stop their views being challenged or opposed by businesses or institutions. Being a conservative on a college campus is a common example but also generally just being fired for political facebook posts etc also seems to strike a nerve. I think it's pretty funny that they make that argument with a straight face while trans people aren't but whatever. The whole "can religious groups discriminate?" argument is neither interesting nor topical though. It's very settled, they can when the rest of us can and they can't when the rest of us can't. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Also the government only goes after things that get challenged. So probably a lot of questionable things that are going on. Regarding bands, the band isn't actually in charge of who gets let in. So they could presumably avoid playing black events but obviously they can't ban black people from gigs. Also if a band refused to play events with Black people attending they'd quickly find no gigs. I'm unaware of a band having an existing relationship with someone and then refusing to play a gig for them because it was an event for some African American people. Plus due to backlash it would quickly ruin their careers. Also bands tend to be more political in general as opposed to flower arrangements which is inherently unpolitical. Plus bands also are used to actually bring people in. Nobody is showing up to the wedding due to the flower arrangements. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
Should this be allowed? If not, the actual outcome is "Jewish sculptors aren't allowed to take professional commissions". | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:41 Buckyman wrote: Hypothetical: A Jewish sculptor makes custom statues for a living. She gets an order for a pagan idol and refuses to make it because of its connection to pagan religion. Should this be allowed? If not, the actual outcome is "Jewish sculptors aren't allowed to take professional commissions". First of all this is slightly different for two reason. 1)the statue itself would be offensive. There's a difference between providing a flower arrangement and actively making something that offends your religion. You don't control how it's used but you do control what you make. Really I think it depends on how official the buisness is and stuff. if she does it as a hobby it's different than if she has a company. 2. the person is themselves protected by the exact same religious antidiscrimination rules. Now if it was a Satanist coming into the shop it would be different (unless we go by the RAF which considers Satanism to have the equivalent protections as other religions.) | ||
|
KwarK
United States44307 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:41 Buckyman wrote: Hypothetical: A Jewish sculptor makes custom statues for a living. She gets an order for a pagan idol and refuses to make it because of its connection to pagan religion. Should this be allowed? If not, the actual outcome is "Jewish sculptors aren't allowed to take professional commissions". Religion is a protected class. She is not allowed to refuse to take an order due to the religion of a customer. I guess an argument could be made that there is no link between the pagan religion of the customer and the pagan statue ordered by the customer but I think that'd go down as well as a baker who insisted that they have nothing against interracial marriages, they just really hate it when they bake cakes where the figurines don't go with the icing so they automatically decline any order where the figurines aren't colour matched. The lawyers would have fun with it though. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote: I mean protected class. It's an actual thing that says who you can't discriminate against in the US. It's not about history or oppression, it's literally about having your class on the following list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class That's why the whole debate is silly. The law says that if you offer your services to the public then you cannot refuse service because of any of those. So when we get hypotheticals like "what if I disagree with their politics?" it's not really an issue because political affiliation is not a protected class. The only interesting part of the subject, in my eyes at least, is that trans people are not a protected class. You can absolutely fire an employee for being trans. Every now and then a religious group will argue that they deserve a right to discriminate against a protected class (as you can imagine there was an awful lot of those arguments made during the civil rights act cause Christianity and racism go hand in hand) but the issue was settled a long time ago and the conclusion was that no matter how genuine your religious convictions are you still can't discriminate against people. Every now and then people, particularly conservatives in need of a safe space, (bio major in this topic (not trying to single you out but you did make the argument)) will say that political convictions should be a protected class to stop their views being challenged or opposed by businesses or institutions. Being a conservative on a college campus is a common example but also generally just being fired for political facebook posts etc also seems to strike a nerve. I think it's pretty funny that they make that argument with a straight face while trans people aren't but whatever. The whole "can religious groups discriminate?" argument is neither interesting nor topical though. It's very settled, they can when the rest of us can and they can't when the rest of us can't. From what I've been reading, although some states and cities had previously passed their own anti-discrimination laws, it was only as recently as November 2016 that a federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled that sexual orientation fell under Civil Rights Act provision Title VII. It seems like some gay discrimination cases will likely end up before the federal appeals court or even the supreme court sometime soon. Something worth keeping an eye on. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
So alright- I understand what you mean by protective class and I understand politics isn't part of it. But although it may be an open and shut case for you, I'm still sorting these things in my own head, trying to formulate the real question that's been nagging me, but I can't quite yet identify. So same scenario- Trump and RNC are requesting the band. They refuse on the grounds of the "RNC is run by white (race/colour) males (sex)". "Too much patriarchy; we are against white males." (I guess it's a feminist band- we could even throw in "too many Christians" (religion): a feminist atheist band). Could they refuse on those grounds? I think the part that's bothering me is there does (in my mind) seem to be a distinction between something that's a public accommodation and something that is a creative enterprise. There is a myriad of places I could perform my art as a creator- am I yanked by the chain by everyone that wants me to perform? Someone somewhere demanded it, so for them, I must perform? One has a limited amount of time, so one will have to choose one and not the other- so one could refuse on the grounds of 'too busy'. The reason may seem nicer, but the outcome is the same, regardless of the true motivation. But if there is a pattern of being 'too busy' for a particular class of people, we are back to guessing at motivation. But then, even demonstrating that they said they were 'too busy', but it turns out they had no conflicting event... but must every hour in the day be booked, without allowance of taking a break from tour (again motivation). | ||
| ||
