|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Stonespring's Same Sex Wedding Photography Question
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is almost always possible to frame something in a different way to make it look a little less discriminatory. Most discrimination, these days at least, is not direct and explicit. But that is why courts/laws developed notions of indirect discrimination, to try to look at the context and the practical impact and to avoid technical arguments like "but gay men are free to marry the woman of their choice".
It's to avoid accusations of indirect discrimination that I and others have pointed out that straight people support SSM too.
The question is basically about lines in the sand. My feeling is that mousethief's line has undesirable consequences, but mousethief does not regard them as undesirable, hence the impasse.
That said, SSM is currently unrecognised in Northern Ireland. We are in very strange legal territory if refusing to help campaign for gay marriage is illegal discrimination, but refusing to allow gay people actually to get married is not.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said, SSM is currently unrecognised in Northern Ireland. We are in very strange legal territory if refusing to help campaign for gay marriage is illegal discrimination, but refusing to allow gay people actually to get married is not.
I don't know what rules are in Northern Ireland about freedom of speech, but the usual American legal territory is that freedom of speech allows right to propose things be allowed which are currently illegal. That's an essential step toward changing a bad law. The war on drugs did not stop people from advocating legalization of pot in Washington State. I would have thought that European Human Rights would grant the same privilege of being able to advocate changes to any law.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is almost always possible to frame something in a different way to make it look a little less discriminatory. Most discrimination, these days at least, is not direct and explicit. But that is why courts/laws developed notions of indirect discrimination, to try to look at the context and the practical impact and to avoid technical arguments like "but gay men are free to marry the woman of their choice".
It's to avoid accusations of indirect discrimination that I and others have pointed out that straight people support SSM too.
You're actually walking straight into accusations of indirection discrimination. The definition of indirect discrimination is generally wider than you appear to think. It covers requirements or conditions that are likely to have the effect of disadvantaging the protected group, or with which a substantially higher proportion of other people can comply with compared to the protected group.
One of the most notable sex discrimination cases in Australian legal history involved the firing of workers from a steelworks. The basic principle was last hired, first fired. Only thing was, it had only been in fairly recent times that women had succeeded in getting hired in most jobs.
The company tried to say "but we'll be firing men too". The company lost. It was indirect discrimination.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you say you will print anything the customer asks for, and then don't, that's probably a breach of the Trades Description Act regardless of the discrimination issue. If you specify there is an editorial policy, and that applies to everyone, I am not sure there is a problem except that I shouldn't have used the word 'options'. Maybe 'house rules' would have been better.
But then you get into the definition problem of what the policy is that applies to everyone. Neither the rich nor the poor may sleep on park benches. That applies to everyone, but it still discriminates. You can say "neither racists nor non-racists can have a cake with a racist slogan" but you're still discriminating against one group and not the other, even though ostensibly you are applying your rule to everyone.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you say you will print anything the customer asks for, and then don't, that's probably a breach of the Trades Description Act regardless of the discrimination issue. If you specify there is an editorial policy, and that applies to everyone, I am not sure there is a problem except that I shouldn't have used the word 'options'. Maybe 'house rules' would have been better.
But then you get into the definition problem of what the policy is that applies to everyone. Neither the rich nor the poor may sleep on park benches. That applies to everyone, but it still discriminates. You can say "neither racists nor non-racists can have a cake with a racist slogan" but you're still discriminating against one group and not the other, even though ostensibly you are applying your rule to everyone.
Noting that discriminating against either racists or poor people is not usually unlawful. But I agree with your analysis.
[ 17. July 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is almost always possible to frame something in a different way to make it look a little less discriminatory. Most discrimination, these days at least, is not direct and explicit. But that is why courts/laws developed notions of indirect discrimination, to try to look at the context and the practical impact and to avoid technical arguments like "but gay men are free to marry the woman of their choice".
It's to avoid accusations of indirect discrimination that I and others have pointed out that straight people support SSM too.
You're actually walking straight into accusations of indirection discrimination. The definition of indirect discrimination is generally wider than you appear to think. It covers requirements or conditions that are likely to have the effect of disadvantaging the protected group, or with which a substantially higher proportion of other people can comply with compared to the protected group.
One of the most notable sex discrimination cases in Australian legal history involved the firing of workers from a steelworks. The basic principle was last hired, first fired. Only thing was, it had only been in fairly recent times that women had succeeded in getting hired in most jobs.
The company tried to say "but we'll be firing men too". The company lost. It was indirect discrimination.
There is also the complication that in the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, you don't have to actually be a member of a protected group to be protected by the Act. So for example, if a cis man walks into a shop to buy a dress for his cis wife, and the shop assistant thinks that he intends to wear the dress himself and so refuses sale on 'moral' grounds, that man is protected by the same law that bans discrimination against trans people. He doesn't have to be trans: it is enough that he has been discriminated against on those grounds. It's the same if a cis man is beaten up while dressed like a woman for a Hallowe'en party, or if a straight woman is attacked because she 'looks like a Lesbian'. If the protected characteristic is deemed to be part of the attackers' motivation, they can be prosecuted for aggravated assault, regardless of whether they had rightly read the situation.
The Equality Act also applies at one further remove: if a pregnant woman's partner loses their job for taking the woman to hospital in an emergency, then that is also potentially discrimination according the the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. If a landlord/lady is harassed for letting their flat to a Muslim family, then they are as protected as is the Muslim family by the Equality Act's protection of religion or belief.
So if a person orders a cake supporting SSM, and is refused, in terms of the Equality Act it does not matter in the slightest whether they are straight or gay. If discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is deemed to have occurred, then it has occurred no matter the sexuality of the person who ordered the cake.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now this i don't get. Any work, of course. Photography, cake decorating, singing--none of these are vital emergency services that will cause somebody death or bodily harm if denied. Go find another freaking singer or whatever. They .ay be srongheaded stupid asses, but it' s not my prerogative to force them. To take a more serious example, there are restaurants and even banks in this town that won't serve my mixed race family. I may point and laugh, or write nasty reviews on the internet, but in the end it is their freedom--freedom even to make asses of themselves. For me to try to force such people would be as small-minded and inexcusable as they are.
[[ LIKED ]] by Mark Betts.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
[[ LIKED ]] by Mark Betts.
Hardly surprising. A white, male Christian in a country dominated by such.
Whilst I don't quite see this issue the same way as she, LC's post is from a more affected POV.
I do not know your "like" is strictly from an outsider's POV, but that it makes it more difficult to truly see.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suppose what I am recommending is that we refrain from passing new, sweeping laws in a fit of pique, simply because we can (see: current political climate) and because we are failing to distinguish between real harm and simple insult. And perhaps because we are unwilling to tackle the hard work of deciding where the line between the two lies.
How many times, in your view, does a person have to be "simply insulted" before it becomes real harm? If a group of kids shouts "fag" at your son on the bus every day, does that not eventually cause him real harm?
I was not discussing a) bullying, b) treatment of children, or c) situations where the insulted person has no choice but to stay and bear the insult. All three of those dynamics are dangerous, and especially together may lead to real and permanent harm--which is precisely what I was NOT allowing. Laws exist and should exist to deal with such situations.
But a one-off case where an adult customer, who is perfectly free to leave or stay or kick up an enormous public fuss for that matter, suffers insult? No law is needed for that. Any fool can get on Twitter and cause an enormous stinkfest that will be far more effective in curbing rude behavior. And without creating dangerous legal precedents thereby.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
How about we let businesses discriminate so long as they have the guts to put signs on the door? You know "WHITES ONLY", or "NO QUEERS". Be public about it. Let all their other customers know how they treat people.
One of the reasons businesses think they can still get away with this kind of behaviour is because they count on no-one hearing about besides the person who is discriminated against. They want you to go away quietly, not make too much of a fuss, and find another business. You've stopped being their problem then. All the cost is on you, not on them.
It'd be very interesting to see how the discriminators would behave if it was made more of their problem.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How about we let businesses discriminate so long as they have the guts to put signs on the door? You know "WHITES ONLY", or "NO QUEERS". Be public about it. Let all their other customers know how they treat people.
Sadly there are a fair number of places would be happy to post the sign. See "Whites Only" or "no Irish Need apply." for historical examples. They are proud of the fact they won't serve gays.
I must admit I do have a fondness for this one.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It'd be very interesting to see how the discriminators would behave if it was made more of their problem.
Given that we've spent several pages discussing the activities of a small bakery in Northern Ireland, can we not say that we've reached the point where it can very much be the discriminator's problem? If people feel that they’ve been wronged they’re often not afraid to hit Twitter, etc. to complain about it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Given that we've spent several pages discussing the activities of a small bakery in Northern Ireland, can we not say that we've reached the point where it can very much be the discriminator's problem? If people feel that they’ve been wronged they’re often not afraid to hit Twitter, etc. to complain about it.
Sure, and you can eliminate the laws against armed robbery because the robbed can write about it on twitter. That will be the robber's problem. What an odd idea of justice.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Given that we've spent several pages discussing the activities of a small bakery in Northern Ireland, can we not say that we've reached the point where it can very much be the discriminator's problem? If people feel that they’ve been wronged they’re often not afraid to hit Twitter, etc. to complain about it.
Sure, and you can eliminate the laws against armed robbery because the robbed can write about it on twitter. That will be the robber's problem. What an odd idea of justice.
Orfeo had written:
quote:
One of the reasons businesses think they can still get away with this kind of behaviour is because they count on no-one hearing about besides the person who is discriminated against.
I was suggesting that we might be in an age (or moving towards an age) when people do very much hear about this sort of thing.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
And as I pointed out in the following post, Orfeo's suggestion is a thoroughly bad idea. People glory in their bigotry. There has been ample historical evidence of this in "whites only" signs in the U.S. or the Boy Scouts discrimination against Gays.
Shame may be a motivating factor for slow change, but a law preventing discrimination is much more useful for redress for the actual injury. If someone thinks Twittering is a more effective tactic they're free to do it rather than claim their protection under the law. That doesn't mean the law should be abolished. it's need for protection against the shameless.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, are you saying that Jim Crow laws would be okay nowadays because blacks could bitch about it on Twitter?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I will type SLOWLY for you, kay?
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). Even less are they comparable to cases where a religious person, however mistaken, believes he/she cannot offer fairly frivolous business services because of the nature of the particular event (note: NOT the person ordering) and therefore declines to do so. I mean, hello? How is being asked to go to another bakery, or find another photographer, as life-limiting as "your children may not go to white schools, you may not patronize white businesses, sit somewhere else, drink water somewhere else, and by the way, if you need police or hospital services, you'll be damned lucky if you get any." ?
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Let's not try to legislate every freaking little thing. (and if you are going to do that anyway, come over and deal with my racist neighbor of fifteen years who legally harasses us by spying on us, photos even, so she can catch us with the grass an inch too tall and report us to the code police. We've been invited to sue her. Sue her for what? For being an asshole? It's racist, it's unpleasant, and it is in no way going to kill me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). <snip>
I'm seeing a trend, however. Businesses are asking the courts to allow them to not serve gays. The Christian Right in this country is attempting to usurp the rule of law and make it legal for them to discriminate en masse. In some parts of the south, this could end up in something very much like apartheid or Jim Crow. I find the answer "well they can just bitch about it on Twitter" to be insufficient.
And cool it with the type slowly shit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Dust motes add up. Again- and I will type slowly too- it's not about one incident. It't about preventing a buildup of small incidents which gradually become a boulder of unconscious ill-feeling.
To me it's similar to women getting catcalled on the street- each individual instance is only minorly unpleasant, but it's the cumulative effect over time that messes with your mindset.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's different in the UK, but I agree that treating each incident of bigotry as isolated, is a big mistake. I know some very unpleasant Christians, just itching to apply exemptions to their own brand of bigotry, and they certainly don't treat an individual incident as isolated. Each case is given a lot of publicity in the right-wing and Christian press, and is seen as a possible battering ram against the laws on bigotry.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm highly skeptical of the amount of faith placed in the idea that free markets will always correct against invidious discrimination (the underlying idea behind the "now we have Twitter" argument). The most obvious historical point against this position is the post-Civil War rise of Jim Crow in the U.S. coincides fairly closely (1877 to c.1900) with the Gilded Age and the dominance of laissez-faire capitalism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Dust motes add up. Again- and I will type slowly too- it's not about one incident. It't about preventing a buildup of small incidents which gradually become a boulder of unconscious ill-feeling.
To me it's similar to women getting catcalled on the street- each individual instance is only minorly unpleasant, but it's the cumulative effect over time that messes with your mindset.
Once more, and I'm giving up. I am not arguing that dust motes don't add up, or that insults are somehow good, or any of that nonsense. I am arguing that attempting to change every rudeness or insult in society by means of passing new laws is a bad idea. Find another way to enforce good manners. There are plenty of them, most much more effective and much less prone to abuse than passing a new law. Which will inevitably wind up being misapplied in ways the original framers never dreamed of, because it is fucking impossible to frame a law for human beings in a way that said human beings won't find eighty-five ways to wiggle out of. Or use against the very people it was intended to protect. Do you, for example, really want to see a creative Fred-Phelps-like individual deciding to order a weekly "God hates fags" cake from a baker who is known to be gay, on the grounds that a law forces him to accept all business?
That in itself would be a form of very nasty harassment, and the baker would have no legal recourse.
Not a good thing.
You want to think through all the possibilities before legalizing a blanket principle.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
All Christian businesses refusing to serve gay clients goes a bit beyond "bad manners." ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
it is fucking impossible to frame a law for human beings in a way that said human beings won't find eighty-five ways to wiggle out of.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
If you'll excuse me, I'll be over in that corner, reflecting on the meaningless of my professional life.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
There's a difference between difficult and impossible.
Much of the 'impossibility' actually lies in enforcement, not in the text of the law (although the clarity/effectiveness of the law itself might vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - especially in the USA where my profession barely exists). It doesn't matter how clearly the law on the books says that something is unlawful, it will still happen if people don't think they'll be punished for it. And when it comes to something like discrimination law, that requires the victims making a noise. And it probably also requires them to pick their battles, dealing in cases where the discrimination is particularly blatant, and high-profile, and provable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The idea of what spurred the rise of the "Religious Right" in American politics and American Christianity has changed over time. It used to be assumed that it was spurred by the sexual revolution, secularism, and the rising economic and social malaise of the 1970's associated with the shortcomings of American New Liberalism. Now it seems that the academic left and right are divided, with the right claiming that the rise of the Religious Right was a movement against a perceived Communist threat that was linked to federal court rulings that banned prayer in public schools, and the left claiming that the Religious Right mobilized in response to a sense of government overreach due to civil rights legislation and other attempts (not all successful, especially when you include de facto segregation) to desegregate not only public schools and facilities, but also private businesses and housing. Does this mean that all people who are both politically and theologically conservative are racists? Of course not.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I am arguing that attempting to change every rudeness or insult in society by means of passing new laws is a bad idea. ...
Treating everyone equally isn't passing a new law. It's giving everyone the benefit of existing law. It's also why it's not ok for me to discriminate against Christians, much as I would love to some times.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). <snip>
I'm seeing a trend, however. Businesses are asking the courts to allow them to not serve gays. The Christian Right in this country is attempting to usurp the rule of law and make it legal for them to discriminate en masse. In some parts of the south, this could end up in something very much like apartheid or Jim Crow. I find the answer "well they can just bitch about it on Twitter" to be insufficient.
And cool it with the type slowly shit.
Well, exactly. In big cities gay people may have other choices, but in small towns in places like east Texas, or Upstate New York or western Washington State, those choices may not exist. Whinging on Twitter or a Letter to the Editor may get you flamed or worse - targeted for violence. And photography and cake decorating is one thing, what if it is the only hotel on the highway for the next 100 miles? Or the only medical clinic that is open 24 hours in the area? Or the town's grocery store?
It may seem that 2014 is a fun easy place for gays to be gay in this country (and things have certainly improved since I was a kid), but 40% of homeless youth are LGBTs and LGBTs remain the highest victims of hate crimes in the U.S.. The bigotry still exists so the need for protection in all areas of public life is needed as well.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Treating everyone equally isn't passing a new law. It's giving everyone the benefit of existing law. It's also why it's not ok for me to discriminate against Christians, much as I would love to some times.
And I perfectly well understand why you would feel that way, Christian though I am.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course, there are places where laws still need to be passed. A considerable number of US states continue to have no protection at all against being fired for being homosexual, which to my mind is one of the most basic protections that should be in place.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, there are places where laws still need to be passed. A considerable number of US states continue to have no protection at all against being fired for being homosexual, which to my mind is one of the most basic protections that should be in place.
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ I forget these things, living in a country where workers have rights.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
^ I forget these things, living in a country where workers have rights.
Hold on tight to that reality. Don't let your legislators take it away. Because once the 1% take over, they will.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
Aye, there's the rub.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
It remains to be seen if Anti-discrimination law trumps the case where your employer is a corporation whose religious belief tells it to persecute blacks, unmarried pregnant women or gays.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It remains to be seen if Anti-discrimination law trumps the case where your employer is a corporation whose religious belief tells it to persecute blacks, unmarried pregnant women or gays.
The discrimination laws have explicit exemptions for some cases. It is not discrimination to insist that a minister of religion that you employ actually follows your religion, it is not discrimination to only consider women for an acting role to portray a female part, or to only consider female nurses if you want to hire nursing help for your elderly mother.
The discrimination laws do not have an exemption for "I don't like gays", and I am as certain as I can be given some of the oddities that come out of the Supreme Court that, let's say, a craft store making an RFRA challenge to ask to not be forced to employ gay people at its tills would fail.
Following the logic in the Hobby Lobby case, an RFRA challenge asking not to be forced to extend insurance benefits etc. to same-sex partners of employees would be closer, but I think would still fail.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Following the logic in the Hobby Lobby case, an RFRA challenge asking not to be forced to extend insurance benefits etc. to same-sex partners of employees would be closer, but I think would still fail.
From your lips to God's ears but I'm not certain about anything the Supreme Court might do.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Don't you just bet the shop fails to check whether its heterosexual customers are virgins. God's law is bound to be highly selective.
[ 10. August 2014, 09:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, if a gay man gets a church funeral, the misdirected sanctity might stick on him long enough to slip past St. Peter. Then you'd have a Gay man in Heaven. Next thing you know, he'll be redecorating the place, remodeling the clouds, giving style makeovers....
"Look honey! I know you are an angel and everything! but how can you call yourself Gaybriel and still wear that tired white robe? And those wings can we get some colour on those? At least tint the tips"?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I'm guessing the new arrival in question is David Turturro.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The discrimination laws have explicit exemptions for some cases. It is not discrimination to insist that a minister of religion that you employ actually follows your religion, it is not discrimination to only consider women for an acting role to portray a female part, or to only consider female nurses if you want to hire nursing help for your elderly mother.
The discrimination laws do not have an exemption for "I don't like gays", and I am as certain as I can be given some of the oddities that come out of the Supreme Court that, let's say, a craft store making an RFRA challenge to ask to not be forced to employ gay people at its tills would fail.
That depends. In the U.S. there is no federal statute that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, so whether or not discrimination laws have an exemption for "I don't like gays" depends on where you live. For example, the state of Pennsylvania, where the recently-mentioned bridal shop is located, only forbids discriminating against gays in public employment. Allegheny and Erie counties, as well as the city of Philadelphia, have passed broader anti-discrimination statutes but Bloomsburg, PA (located in Columbia County) has no law on its books that says you can't discriminate on the basis of "I don't like gays".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
