|
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 March 23 2017 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Under the same logic, couldn't you say that forcing the sculptor to do something against her religion also discrimination?
|
United States43554 Posts
Would have to leave it to the lawyers to answer the specifics but my understanding is that whatever reason you give is pretty much taken at face value unless there is evidence otherwise. But employment demographics etc are reported to the gov for that reason. While they can't prove that the reason given in a specific case isn't valid unless you were stupid enough to write in an email that you don't hire blacks or whatever what they can do is demonstrate a bias through statistics.
|
United States43554 Posts
On March 23 2017 11:16 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 10:45 KwarK wrote: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. Under the same logic, couldn't you say that forcing the sculptor to do something against her religion also discrimination?
No?
She offers a service to members of the public and as such must not discriminate against members of the public on the grounds of those. If she didn't want to offer the service then she shouldn't have offered it. Nobody anywhere is forcing me to hold a gay wedding because I'm not in the wedding business. If you have a strongly held belief that interferes with your ability to treat other humans with basic respect and decency then customer service probably isn't the job for you. Discrimination would be saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a Christian, bwaahahahahahaaa!!!". What happened here is saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a baker who makes cakes". The religion of the person offering the service doesn't come into it.
|
Canada11412 Posts
On March 23 2017 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This seems to overly favour the religion of the customer over the religion of the creator. If the Jewish sculptor considered the commissioned sculpture to be vile in the pornographic sense- would that be grounds for refusal? (Even though likely his sense of vileness may come from his religion, while other thinks it is not vile due to his religion.) Or could a Muslim sculptor be compelled to carve a likeness of Mohammad or Allah if so commissioned for a protected class?
Discrimination would be saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a Christian, bwaahahahahahaaa!!!". What happened here is saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a baker who makes cakes"
But how do you figure that out? Two scenarios: 1) Gay couple oblivious to the owners' beliefs and likely actions get a surprise denial of service: and think 'what the hell, why am I getting discriminated against?" 2) Gay couple deliberately ignores the other bakeries in town that they know will have no problem, and instead ask for a cake at the Christian bakery because "bwaahahahaaa, Christians". If I am getting you correctly, in the second scenario that would be an example of discrimination against the bakery and the first against the couple? But the actions could be more or less the same. The motivations are entirely different, but how can you get into people's heads (owners or customers) to make that judgement... unless they verbalize their motivations. In which case, we are only going after loud discrimination and ignoring quiet discrimination. Or am I having a misunderstanding?
|
Holy shit, Trump might finally have been stumped with what the FBI has been saying today, I'm going to wait on the hard evidence, though
If it turns out that the Trump campaign did in fact coordinate with Russia, I see the Republicans losing hard in 2018 and 2020
|
United States43554 Posts
On March 23 2017 11:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 10:45 KwarK wrote: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. This seems to overly favour the religion of the customer over the religion of the creator. If the Jewish sculptor considered the commissioned sculpture to be vile in the pornographic sense- would that be grounds for refusal? (Even though likely his sense of vileness may come from his religion, while other thinks it is not vile due to his religion.) Or could a Muslim sculptor be compelled to carve a likeness of Mohammad or Allah if so commissioned for a protected class?
I'm not sure you're getting this. Members of protected classes can't just demand that everyone does what they say. They simply cannot be refused on the grounds of their class. If I demanded that a Muslim sculpted Allah for me on the grounds of me being white then he could just refuse to do it on the grounds that he didn't want to. If, however, he said that he was refusing to sculpt Allah on the grounds that I'm a white guy and he doesn't sculpt for white guys then he could be forced to. These cases are pretty hard to prove for that reason. I could never rent to gay couples but as long as I didn't write down "faggots" in the reason for rejection I'd be pretty much fine. It favours the business the vast majority of the time.
|
Canada11412 Posts
Okay, so I think that answers my edit above. Legally speaking, the state can really only go after verbalized discrimination with ease (their own words is the smoking gun.) But the law can't deal with unverbalized discrimination very easily. I was thinking at a more fundamental level- the reason for the laws (philosophical, if you well.) But the limitations of the law is a little more clear at least. Thank you.
|
The long-awaited Trump commentary on the UK attacks.
|
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so
|
On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so
so basically we go back to segregation in the south?
|
On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so
As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own.
Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over.
Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business.
|
On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business.
In the case of a sculptor vs. grocery store owner, the first is refusing an offer of work based on the subject of said work(are items a protected class?), while the other is discriminating against a person. Does that make a difference?
|
United States43554 Posts
On March 23 2017 13:15 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business. In the case of a sculptor vs. grocery store owner, the first is refusing an offer of work based on the subject of said work(are items a protected class?), while the other is discriminating against a person. Does that make a difference?
Potentially? If you were a wedding photographer who insisted that you were happy to accept the business of African Americans but wouldn't photograph them I think a reasonable person would conclude that your service was discriminatory, even though you offered everyone access to photos of whites regardless of their skin colour. "I'll accept your business but not your job" can situationally be valid and can be not.
|
On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business.
Yeah, while I do wish it was the case, I know it wouldn't work out in real life unless you had a very diverse group of people all over the area so that if a business refused to serve you, there would be one in pretty much the same area that would be more than happy to serve you and take your money. Like much of libertarianism, it's the people that implement the beliefs that ruin it
|
On March 23 2017 13:15 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business. In the case of a sculptor vs. grocery store owner, the first is refusing an offer of work based on the subject of said work(are items a protected class?), while the other is discriminating against a person. Does that make a difference?
Someone can refuse to do something because of the content. Like if I'm an artist and someone commissions me to paint a rape scene, I'm of course well within my rights to tell them I'm not doing that. My objection to making the thing is with the content on the piece itself. Same thing with making a sculpture of Muhammad if I was a Muslim. I'd be refusing the content, and not because you're a Christian or anything.
Christians aren't refusing to make homosexual couples cakes because of the content of the cakes. They're just cakes, they presumably aren't cakes of dicks and depictions of gay sex, they're just plain boring wedding cakes. They're refusing to make cakes because of their dislike of the person ordering it.
On March 23 2017 13:33 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business. Yeah, while I do wish it was the case, I know it wouldn't work out in real life unless you had a very diverse group of people all over the area so that if a business refused to serve you, there would be one in pretty much the same area that would be more than happy to serve you and take your money. Like much of libertarianism, it's the people that implement the beliefs that ruin it
People have a habit of ruining everything lol.
|
On March 23 2017 13:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Christians aren't refusing to make homosexual couples cakes because of the content of the cakes. They're just cakes, they presumably aren't cakes of dicks and depictions of gay sex, they're just plain boring wedding cakes. They're refusing to make cakes because of their dislike of the person ordering it.
Not necessarily. In that case, it was the content of the cake itself. Given it was in Ireland, but the situation is similar enough. One of the judges had this to say about the business:
"The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”
In regards to gay weddings, if you want to make wedding cakes for straight couples, you need to make them for gay couples as well. If they didn't want to make wedding cakes at all, that would be fine too.
|
On March 23 2017 13:52 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 13:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Christians aren't refusing to make homosexual couples cakes because of the content of the cakes. They're just cakes, they presumably aren't cakes of dicks and depictions of gay sex, they're just plain boring wedding cakes. They're refusing to make cakes because of their dislike of the person ordering it.
Not necessarily. In that case, it was the content of the cake itself. Given it was in Ireland, but the situation is similar enough. One of the judges had this to say about the business: "The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.” In regards to gay weddings, if you want to make wedding cakes for straight couples, you need to make them for gay couples as well. If they didn't want to make wedding cakes at all, that would be fine too.
To note in that case:
1) They agreed to make the cake in the first place (or, as said in court, they lied by saying that they would).
2) I'm assuming they make the same kind of cakes for other people (AKA Sesame Street), and write messages on them. And, as noted by the judge, that includes other political/religious slogans.
So they were not forced to make cakes they normally wouldn't. They agreed to make a cake of the same sort they make, with a message that is on the same level of political/religious content as others they have made before.
|
On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business.
This would be a fairly easy problem to fix though. I imagine that virtually *any* system, including democratic governance, when imposed suddenly and drastically on a society that doesn't operate in that form everyday would have quite a few problems adjusting.
All changes need to be imposed with time and care. So for this one, you could probably have some kind of transition period where people who legitimately can't find service due to say abject racism will be given some government funding to move to a different area of their choosing where they can integrate. The chances that anything like the scenario you talked about is also exceedingly remote; what are the chances that there is literally only one grocery store in 50 miles? In America...I find it hard to believe. Maybe in some backwater of a 3rd world country.
In any case, I'm not actually a libertarian, because the same arguments against anarchy can be levied against laissez-faire capitalism in some sense; economic anarchy can also be quite exploitative, and there need to be protections.
But on the issue of who to serve, no one is really 'exploiting' anyone else. They are simply choosing not to serve a particular customer, and unless there literally is no other source of food in 100 miles then its not a problem.
|
We may still yet hear more about it, the petition for write of certiorari is ongoing. And you may read how a religiously objecting bakery owner must bake a cake for a gay wedding but ...
an African-American cake artist may refuse to create a cake for the Aryan Nation
an Islamic cake artist may refuse to create a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church
three secular cake artists may refuse to create cakes for a Christian patron
Or the commission currently does not apply the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act to the aforementioned three. But I do recommend all to read the writ for details. SCOTUSblog. It gets in the reeds real quick, since they want to distinguish what is refusal based on the message and how that pertains to being forced to send any message i.e. a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated. Particularly knowing that they spend much time with their clients to craft the message on their cakes. Or, if you agree with some lawyers filing amicus curiae briefs, then an artist may be impelled to create a painting that celebrates gay marriages or quit his trade ... since it is expressive and artistic and not message-based.
|
On March 23 2017 15:11 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 13:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 23 2017 12:43 plasmidghost wrote:
I personally believe that privately-owned businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish but must publicly state so As KVR stated this might sound great on paper (as many libertarian policies might) but don't hold up in the real world. This can very easily lead to people being completely screwed through zero fault of their own. Say you're black, you live in rural Alabama. The only grocery store within 50 miles decides it doesn't serve blacks anymore. What now? Now you've got a big problem on your hands. You can't just up and move, you and your family need food to live so you drive 50 miles a trip now? What if those guys decide they hate black people too? It puts an undue burden on people for things they have no control over. Think of it as the cost of doing business. If you want to be an entrepreneur that's cool, but society has decided there are rules you will follow. You will serve all protected classes or you'll not have a business. This would be a fairly easy problem to fix though. I imagine that virtually *any* system, including democratic governance, when imposed suddenly and drastically on a society that doesn't operate in that form everyday would have quite a few problems adjusting. All changes need to be imposed with time and care. So for this one, you could probably have some kind of transition period where people who legitimately can't find service due to say abject racism will be given some government funding to move to a different area of their choosing where they can integrate. The chances that anything like the scenario you talked about is also exceedingly remote; what are the chances that there is literally only one grocery store in 50 miles? In America...I find it hard to believe. Maybe in some backwater of a 3rd world country. In any case, I'm not actually a libertarian, because the same arguments against anarchy can be levied against laissez-faire capitalism in some sense; economic anarchy can also be quite exploitative, and there need to be protections. But on the issue of who to serve, no one is really 'exploiting' anyone else. They are simply choosing not to serve a particular customer, and unless there literally is no other source of food in 100 miles then its not a problem.
There are pretty remote small towns in the US, but ok people can refuse service now....so promote segregation? So liberals in Cali can make is extremely hard for any conservatives to live there if they want....or a Racist town in Alabama can defacto shove people out by shutting them out of all kinds of services. What about Healthcare? There are already at least 1 case of a doctor refusing services to a child because the parents were lesbians. If you allow this type of behavior it will just push everyone even more so into segregated blocks as people end up moving to areas where they won't be inconvenienced by refusal of services (for those who can even afford to move).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
