Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed?
BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake.
Key words being "their speech." If you're making the cake baker draw swastikas and shit it no longer is the patron's speech. Now it's compelled speech for the cake baker.
From my very brief reading into the latest SCOTUS case involving the web designer, this is why the web designer won. The people on the left that disagree with the ruling and think the web designer should have to design a website in support of gay marriage probably would simultaneously be against a web designer that's forced to design a website that says gay marriage is a sin. So essentially "compelled speech is bad unless I agree with what is being said." If you're looking for the hypocrisy or double standard to call out, there it is.
Would you mind answering the question I asked you in the earlier post, where I presented you the two scenarios? Are these two equally justified?
On July 20 2023 21:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:
On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:
On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:
On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:
On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:
On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:
On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations.
Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope.
And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true.
My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".)
For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements.
I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.)
Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story.
An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story.
You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with.
I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues.
I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question.
Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion?
I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech.
Are you saying that refusing service for the following two cakes is equally justified: "I don't want to make a wedding cake for you because you're gay and the cake mentions two guys' names on it and has two little groom figurines" (client's sexual orientation) vs. "I don't want to make a party cake for you because you're a Nazi celebrating the Holocaust and the cake has a swastika and 'Jews should die' on it" (client's speech)
If the cake baker offers a cake with a template “Congratulations Name and Name” and they refuse service because the couple is gay then that’s not as justifiable. If they offer cakes with a template of “Your Message Here (max. 160 characters)” or something then I think they are equally justified in rejecting any message they find objectionable. I don’t see how you would rank the justifiableness of forcing someone to write messages that you demand they write.
The reason is the same, being gay, the message only makes more obvious that they are gay.
On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed?
BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake.
Key words being "their speech." If you're making the cake baker draw swastikas and shit it no longer is the patron's speech. Now it's compelled speech for the cake baker.
From my very brief reading into the latest SCOTUS case involving the web designer, this is why the web designer won. The people on the left that disagree with the ruling and think the web designer should have to design a website in support of gay marriage probably would simultaneously be against a web designer that's forced to design a website that says gay marriage is a sin. So essentially "compelled speech is bad unless I agree with what is being said." If you're looking for the hypocrisy or double standard to call out, there it is.
Would you mind answering the question I asked you in the earlier post, where I presented you the two scenarios? Are these two equally justified?
On July 20 2023 21:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:
On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:
On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:
On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:
On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:
On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:
On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations.
Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope.
And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true.
My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".)
For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements.
I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.)
Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story.
An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story.
You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with.
I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues.
I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question.
Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion?
I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech.
Are you saying that refusing service for the following two cakes is equally justified: "I don't want to make a wedding cake for you because you're gay and the cake mentions two guys' names on it and has two little groom figurines" (client's sexual orientation) vs. "I don't want to make a party cake for you because you're a Nazi celebrating the Holocaust and the cake has a swastika and 'Jews should die' on it" (client's speech)
If the cake baker offers a cake with a template “Congratulations Name and Name” and they refuse service because the couple is gay then that’s not as justifiable. If they offer cakes with a template of “Your Message Here (max. 160 characters)” or something then I think they are equally justified in rejecting any message they find objectionable. I don’t see how you would rank the justifiableness of forcing someone to write messages that you demand they write.
I see what you're saying, and I think I understand the distinction you're making between the two templates. I also feel like, in practice, any baker who offers the first or second option also includes the caveat that the baker has the final say on the appropriateness of the names or message, and can still turn down anything they don't like, but I'm not sure that fine print necessarily means that all messages turned down are equally justifiable.
I think the strength of the justification can be scrutinized, based on why the baker is turning down a specific message. That may move past the current law, though, and into whether or not the baker ought to provide a justification for saying no. I think if turning down the message has the appearance of discriminating against protected classes, for example, then I think the situation should be looked into. I think that's a different situation than something like "It may be slightly bad for business because some of my customers like Pokemon, but I really don't like Pokemon so I don't ever write Gotta Catch 'em All on my cakes; it's just a personal thing for me". I think the whole "It's just a personal preference" holds water a lot better with some topics than others.
If a hypothetical web designer is against gambling or porn - I don't think they should be forced to work on a gambling or porn website. Unless they specify somehow "I will make ANY website for you, no exceptions, guaranteed". Or is it different because it's not about protected classes?
On July 21 2023 21:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: If a hypothetical web designer is against gambling or porn - I don't think they should be forced to work on a gambling or porn website. Unless they specify somehow "I will make ANY website for you, no exceptions, guaranteed". Or is it different because it's not about protected classes?
That is the default position, that you can’t make people provide a service. However in the US they had to make an addendum to that due to all the racism. When given total freedom to pick their customers the US immediately went “whites only” which was obviously bad for societal reasons. So they had to place a restriction on that freedom to stop people going “whites only” and in general we’re all pretty understanding about why, even though it’s forcing people to work, it’s necessary. Then the argument was made that if you engage in providing services to the public you shouldn’t be able to discriminate on any innate characteristics.
I’m not so sold on that one as the default should be freedom and the exception should be fixing a greater sin. There was a need to deal with “whites only” because America is so racist and given the option it would be pervasive. Homophobia today is a much smaller issue and the homophobes would face social backlash while the homosexuals would still be able to engage in commerce with the other businesses.
On July 21 2023 21:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: If a hypothetical web designer is against gambling or porn - I don't think they should be forced to work on a gambling or porn website. Unless they specify somehow "I will make ANY website for you, no exceptions, guaranteed". Or is it different because it's not about protected classes?
I believe so. I think that's why a lot of us feel differently about identity ("I'm not making a website/cake for a black/female/gay person or a website/cake that will be used to support black/female/gay rights") as opposed to issues like porn and gambling, especially given the history of systemic discrimination against black/female/gay people in the United States.
On July 21 2023 21:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: If a hypothetical web designer is against gambling or porn - I don't think they should be forced to work on a gambling or porn website. Unless they specify somehow "I will make ANY website for you, no exceptions, guaranteed". Or is it different because it's not about protected classes?
I believe so. I think that's why a lot of us feel differently about identity ("I'm not making a website/cake for a black/female/gay person or a website/cake that will be used to support black/female/gay rights") as opposed to issues like porn and gambling, especially given the history of systemic discrimination against black/female/gay people in the United States.
In the case of websites I thin refusing to build a website about any topic cannot fall under any kind of protected class, though, right?
I mean, "I don't want to build a website for black lives matter" is a very different thing to say than "I don't want to build a website for a black person. The latter is very clearly racist. The former could easily be that you don't want to make any websites for any political/activist messages.
Should a venue be able to deny a gay couple access to a venue because they plan to host a gay marriage there? Of course not. It is just letting people use land/facilities/buildings.
Should an artist be forced to create some sort of gay rights mural despite their moral objections to gay stuff? No, it would be weird to force someone to create that. Similarly, a gay artist should not be required to create a mural depicting gay people as evil and heterosexual couples being the only reason humans continue to exist or whatever.
I think boiling the issue down to "can people refuse service based on moral beliefs?" is too broad to be useful. It is really the kinda topic that requires a great deal of nuance.
How do we handle this from a legal perspective? I'm just some shit head chemist. fuck if i know. But this is my take on the ethics of the situation.
On July 21 2023 21:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: If a hypothetical web designer is against gambling or porn - I don't think they should be forced to work on a gambling or porn website. Unless they specify somehow "I will make ANY website for you, no exceptions, guaranteed". Or is it different because it's not about protected classes?
I believe so. I think that's why a lot of us feel differently about identity ("I'm not making a website/cake for a black/female/gay person or a website/cake that will be used to support black/female/gay rights") as opposed to issues like porn and gambling, especially given the history of systemic discrimination against black/female/gay people in the United States.
In the case of websites I thin refusing to build a website about any topic cannot fall under any kind of protected class, though, right?
I mean, "I don't want to build a website for black lives matter" is a very different thing to say than "I don't want to build a website for a black person. The latter is very clearly racist. The former could easily be that you don't want to make any websites for any political/activist messages.
No idea. Maybe ZeroByte13's website analogy doesn't fully work, compared to baking cakes. Maybe if the website was specifically for celebrating an upcoming gay wedding?
It's really not the end of the world if one bank drops Farage as a client. It becomes a problem if all the banks refuse to work with someone because of their opinions or if all 32 NFL teams refuse to hire a QB because of their opinions. Everyone should be sensible enough to say that blacklisting people to freeze them out of a portion of society because of their opinions is unfair. Sadly there's always some chunk of people who think it's fine as long as it's happening to the socialists under McCarthyism but unfair if it's happening to people on the right, and vice versa.
On July 22 2023 07:10 BlackJack wrote: It's really not the end of the world if one bank drops Farage as a client. It becomes a problem if all the banks refuse to work with someone because of their opinions or if all 32 NFL teams refuse to hire a QB because of their opinions. Everyone should be sensible enough to say that blacklisting people to freeze them out of a portion of society because of their opinions is unfair. Sadly there's always some chunk of people who think it's fine as long as it's happening to the socialists under McCarthyism but unfair if it's happening to people on the right, and vice versa.
Depends on the opinions. Depends on what the application is.
If someone's opinion is "kill all jews" and they are documented as professing such views with pride, yeah, makes sense to be completely blacklisted.
If their views are "Trump 2024 drain the swamp!", not so much. And like I said above, legally compelling someone to create a Trump 2024 mural would be unreasonable. But legally compelling a bike rental shop to let someone rent a bike is reasonable. If the bike rental shop said something like "We don't rent to fascism enablers!!!!!" because they had a trump 2024 bumper sticker, I would support efforts to force the bike shop to rent the bike.
The situation is simply too huge to frame in broad terms.
On July 22 2023 07:10 BlackJack wrote: or if all 32 NFL teams refuse to hire a QB because of their opinions.
I don't follow American football beside who won the latest Super Bowl, so I don't know if this is a real example, but isn't employment a somewhat different scenario? Let's say there's a QB - or any other player - who has opinions that many/all team owners find controversial. Maybe he brings bad publicity or pisses off fans or whatever. Does really it matter what are those opinions - no one owes him employment, right? You cannot force this, saying that at least 1 team out of 32 must make him an offer him or else? I.e. it's not like - yeah, you don't want him in your team (which means paying millions) but you have to employ him anyway?
On July 22 2023 07:10 BlackJack wrote: or if all 32 NFL teams refuse to hire a QB because of their opinions.
I don't follow American football beside who won the latest Super Bowl, so I don't know if this is a real example, but isn't employment a somewhat different scenario? Let's say there's a QB - or any other player - who has opinions that many/all team owners find controversial. Maybe he brings bad publicity or pisses off fans or whatever. Does really it matter what are those opinions - no one owes him employment, right? You cannot force this, saying that at least 1 team out of 32 must make him an offer him or else? I.e. it's not like - yeah, you don't want him in your team (which means paying millions) but you have to employ him anyway?
The reference is to Colin Kaepernick. A QB whose career probably would have been a bit longer if he hadn’t refused to stand for the National Anthem. I’m not saying anyone should be forced to employ anyone. The NFL employs wife beaters, rapists, animal abusers, probably even a murderer or two that hadn’t been caught. If the audience can stomach those people but they can’t stomach Colin Kaepernick then it really says a lot about our society and where it’s heading.
On July 22 2023 07:10 BlackJack wrote: It's really not the end of the world if one bank drops Farage as a client. It becomes a problem if all the banks refuse to work with someone because of their opinions or if all 32 NFL teams refuse to hire a QB because of their opinions. Everyone should be sensible enough to say that blacklisting people to freeze them out of a portion of society because of their opinions is unfair. Sadly there's always some chunk of people who think it's fine as long as it's happening to the socialists under McCarthyism but unfair if it's happening to people on the right, and vice versa.
It’s a somewhat intractable problem, part of the appeal of a laissez faire no discrimination/no censorship approach is that it neatly sidesteps the difficulties of constructing frameworks that aren’t very subjective and arbitrary.
Granted that introduces other problems, but at least it’s simple and consistent.
Nigel Farage is a dick IMO but is he even that extreme? His views are roughly aligned with a big chunk of the electorate. I’ve followed politics pretty closely since my teens and this is the first story I really recall where who a public figure banks with has even come out in the public domain. It’s almost invariably something private, or at least not common public knowledge. So I’m unsure how something like reputational damage by association can even factor
He was also not denied banking at the bank due to his opinions but due to his low balance at the bank. This is just another common fake story the right uses to lie about to try to make themselves a victim. Farage wanted to pursue in order to keep his name in the public view, its not a real story guys.
"Christel faces up to 65 days in juvenile detention." (50m 15s in the YT video) What for? For not going to school. The solution to a kid not going to school is to make it impossible for the kid to go to school even longer. Something tells me even people with room temperature IQ would find that this "solution" deserves the nobel prize of collective stupidity. It is one of several incarceration cases being followed in a documentary from 2014.
Watching it reminded me of a case I heard about many years ago of a man being released from prison. I'm no comedian, so I don't know how to make it sound funny when I tell you that he had no means of travelling back home. Why was that? See, he was imprisoned several states away from his home state, and he wasn't given enough money to return back home. Needless to say in such a situation a criminal would do what a criminal does to survive, and thus promptly get sent back to prison. I wish it were a joke.
EPT
