Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I can't even begin to describe how much I would enjoy putting a "No Bigoted Christians" sign on my place of business, if I had one in Indiana.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Goose, gander, sauce. quote:IStM, the only thing "under attack" is religion's ability to discriminate.
Three of the lobbyists who pushed hardest for last year's gay marriage ban — Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute and Eric Miller of Advance America — were among the 70 to 80 guests invited to the private bill signing.
"It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana," Miller said in a statement after the bill signing. "It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!"
quote:Hi Fool, nice to see you posting again. Please take a moment to check out our homegrown policy on Dead Horses and feel free to wade in on those issues on the board lilbuddha has linked to in the post above.
Originally posted by Fool:
If god created people as homosexuals surly that is what they are meant to be. Or did god make a mistake? Or as the old nasty joke had it did he want to make their lives difficult because he hates 'poofs' too?
Goose, gander, sauce.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I can't even begin to describe how much I would enjoy putting a "No Bigoted Christians" sign on my place of business, if I had one in Indiana.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Is it illegal to hang a confederate flag outside one's premises in the US? It would be difficult to imagine this. The General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard had one on its roof.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My reading of the law the governor signed allows me to hang my confederate flag outside the store I (hypothetically) own ...
quote:Not at all - although it may get you some disapproving looks, to say the least, depending on where the premises in question might be...
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is it illegal to hang a confederate flag outside one's premises in the US? It would be difficult to imagine this. The General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard had one on its roof.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My reading of the law the governor signed allows me to hang my confederate flag outside the store I (hypothetically) own ...
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Macrina:
However, I really do struggle with the idea that there is any infringement of Relgious Freedom here. No one has told anyone they can't attend a church or belong to a particular denomination. No one is trying to make Christianity illegal or to actively stamp it out...
quote:An excellent point.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Do people really want to live in a world where people live in fear of other people finding out their sexuality or their religious or political beliefs just in case it spells ruin or violence for them?
quote:I think some of them genuinely don't see the double standard, or if they do see it just don't want to acknowledge it. We are all very good at confirmation bias and blindness to that which contradicts our fundamental beliefs after all.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would like them to explain why they think it's OK to force those beliefs on others. I expect fear is at the bottom of it, fear of being forced to accept the 'unacceptable' (in their eyes).
quote:Yes. Some people do, as long as it is other people.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Do people really want to live in a world where people live in fear of other people finding out their sexuality or their religious or political beliefs just in case it spells ruin or violence for them?
quote:Dirty heathens don't count.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the definition of 'religion' is very loosey goosey in the US. This entire area of law started out because Native Americans wanted to use peyote in their religious services and fell afoul of the drug enforcement people.
If I start a religion tomorrow with a tenet that paying my grocery bill is a sin, what would happen? If I point to the Old Testament and refuse to go to my job when I am menstruating, could they fire me?
quote:I don't think they have to be silent. They just have to not discriminate in services offered and rendered. Say, a couple comes into a bakery for a wedding cake, and the proprietor doesn't like the couple's ethnicity. The baker may tell them plainly s/he doesn't really like having to serve them. If the couple still wants to do business with them, they still get their cake- that's the law. Unpleasant, but free speech and non-discrimination are technically preserved.
I'm reading over my own post and thinking yes but am I expecting people who don't agree with my view that *DEAD HORSE* is acceptable to adopt my view or be silent and does that make me no better than those people.
quote:Seems more like an implicit endorsement. Reading meaning into cakes requires a lot of assumptions.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The case of the marriage cake falls somewhere between these two clear-cut cases. But in my opinion, a wedding cake is not an ordinary cake, but part of the celebration of marriage, and hence part of an explicit endorsement.
quote:This position would seem to make it impossible to enforce any kind of generally applicable law if a religious exemption could always be claimed. To take an example that should be familiar to you, an employer who is an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith could argue, under your reasoning, that he should not be forced to endorse remarriage after divorce by covering such couples under the company insurance plan in the same manner as other legally married couples, despite employment laws and insurance regulations saying othewise.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And nobody should be forced to endorse what they do not like, even by proxy of being a supplier of goods. So I think it was wrong to force the shop keeper to do that, or face ruin.
quote:No it's not illegal. There's a case now where a group in Texas wants to compel the State of Texas to put a confederate flag on their vanity license plates.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is it illegal to hang a confederate flag outside one's premises in the US? It would be difficult to imagine this. The General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard had one on its roof.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My reading of the law the governor signed allows me to hang my confederate flag outside the store I (hypothetically) own ...
quote:It is not an example I am particularly familiar with. I am from Europe, and all countries I have lived in had universal health care (either directly from the state, or through state-controlled insurance companies). Most problems Americans seems to have with this seem mildly insane to me, frankly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take an example that should be familiar to you, an employer who is an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith could argue, under your reasoning, that he should not be forced to endorse remarriage after divorce by covering such couples under the company insurance plan in the same manner as other legally married couples, despite employment laws and insurance regulations saying othewise.
quote:This discussion will go nowhere unless there is a basic respect for all involved parties. Facile accusations of bad faith and ulterior motives provide heat, not light.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure that treating religious belief simply as a handy end-run around laws you don't want to obey does any great favors to religion in the long run.
quote:The baker is not being asked to simply supply some cake, which just happens to be eaten at a wedding, but rather to supply a specific cake that explicitly celebrates this wedding. This implicates the baker in the celebration, and hence in my opinion cannot justly be required of him. The equivalent in a party organiser would not be to supply simply tables, but tables with some fancy design wishing the couple luck in their marriage. I also think that a party supplier cannot be asked to do so, if he does not believe that this marriage is worthy of celebration.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A wedding cake is part of the wedding celebration, the baker is not. Just as the tables are part, for the duration of the celebration, but the supplier of those tables is not.
quote:No one is talking about making a church marry people who they disapprove of. However providing a cake is a service not an endorsement. You're allowed to disapprove of inter-racial marriage and not perform them in your church. If a bakery refuses to provide a cake to an inter-racial wedding, they will suffer the penalties of anti-discrimination law.
Originally posted by IngoB:
IThe case of the marriage cake falls somewhere between these two clear-cut cases. But in my opinion, a wedding cake is not an ordinary cake, but part of the celebration of marriage, and hence part of an explicit endorsement. And nobody should be forced to endorse what they do not like, even by proxy of being a supplier of goods. So I think it was wrong to force the shop keeper to do that, or face ruin. Whereas the case would have been different if it was about an ordinary cake, or a birthday cake. Supplying that has nothing to do with the sexuality of the customer, hence supplying ordinary cake to a gay couple is simple toleration. That can be justly demanded in a secular society.
I'm not saying that this principle is foolproof, or will solve all difficult cases, but it is a start. Essentially, toleration is not approval, and people should remain free to express that difference in thought, word and deed. And yes, this principle can and should be applied "the other way around" as well, e.g., an atheist should be required to tolerate believers, but not to the point where he is forced into action or speech that appears to support their religion.
quote:I never indicated that the insurance offered was medical coverage. One could just as easily stipulate a company-provided life insurance policy, or insurance against work-related injury. The main question is whether an employer can claim religion as an excuse to do things which would otherwise a violation of employment law or insurance regulation. For instance paying a death benefit to a worker's first wife (widow?) rather than the woman indicated on his policy and acknowledged by the state as his current spouse. Or (more likely) arguing that the marriage wasn't valid under the employers faith so there is no qualifying beneficiary listed. It seems naïve to simply assume no business would do such a thing if it were a legally allowed way to renege on money owed.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:It is not an example I am particularly familiar with. I am from Europe, and all countries I have lived in had universal health care (either directly from the state, or through state-controlled insurance companies). Most problems Americans seems to have with this seem mildly insane to me, frankly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take an example that should be familiar to you, an employer who is an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith could argue, under your reasoning, that he should not be forced to endorse remarriage after divorce by covering such couples under the company insurance plan in the same manner as other legally married couples, despite employment laws and insurance regulations saying otherwise.
quote:I restored the bit you decided to edit out. My argument isn't a "[f]acile accusation[] of bad faith", I'm noting that a system exempting those claiming religious belief from obeying generally applicable laws is one that provides a perverse incentive to make bad faith arguments for ulterior reasons.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This discussion will go nowhere unless there is a basic respect for all involved parties. Facile accusations of bad faith and ulterior motives provide heat, not light.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure that treating religious belief simply as a handy end-run around laws you don't want to obey does any great favors to religion in the long run. It seems like the kind of thing designed to encourage bad faith arguments.
quote:That seems pretty tenuous. Does anyone really believe that a cake proclaiming Joan to be "The World's Best Mom" represents some kind of endorsement of Joan's parenting ability by the baker who prepared it? If the same baker later prepares a cake proclaiming Elaine to be "The World's Best Mom", does this count as defaming Joan, whose parenting abilities have allegedly slipped? Going back to weddings, if the marriage later turns out to be an abusive nightmare, does the abused spouse have recourse to recovering damages from the baker who "endorsed" the match by preparing a cake? If not, why doesn't this endorsement count?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The baker is not being asked to simply supply some cake, which just happens to be eaten at a wedding, but rather to supply a specific cake that explicitly celebrates this wedding. This implicates the baker in the celebration, and hence in my opinion cannot justly be required of him.
quote:I'm a very happy lesbian, thank you very much! Now, some homosexuals ARE surly but that might be because their shoes are too tight or they weren't able to purchase that faaaaaaabulous dress they were going to wear to the drag show...
If god created people as homosexuals surly that is what they are meant to be.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I think these distinctions are very tenuous. Why not consider a wedding ceremony as simply a service as well? If we can force a baker to create a cake that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of, why can we not force a clergyman to perform a ceremony that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
No one is talking about making a church marry people who they disapprove of. However providing a cake is a service not an endorsement. You're allowed to disapprove of inter-racial marriage and not perform them in your church. If a bakery refuses to provide a cake to an inter-racial wedding, they will suffer the penalties of anti-discrimination law.
quote:It is true that the baker is more removed from the event, so that he can potentially bake a wedding cake for a wedding he would disapprove of, without knowing this. Whereas a clergyman directly involved in the process invariably knows if the marriage is not licit according his belief. However, that doesn't really change anything. If the baker knows, he is still in a position of choice.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But that is ridiculous. A baker does not interview the couple to ascertain their compliance with all their religion's marriage requirements.
Do Catholics only go to Catholic bakers?
The supplying of a service is not an endorsement of the event.
Would a baker who believed inter-racial marriage was wrong be OK in refusing to provide a cake for such an event?
quote:Once more, I consider these concerns to be basically misplaced. They do not point to a problem with religious convictions, rather they point to some idiotic regulations. If somebody can be tricked into accepting an insurance policy that can be denied on such grounds, or if such a denial can be imposed retroactively on existing contracts that do not speak of it, then that needs to be fixed by law. That's simply lack of proper process: the buyer has a right to know what he is buying. And if somehow the market cannot provide alternative products, that provide what the buyer wishes, in spite of there being considerable demand, then that also points to bad regulations - namely of the marketplace. That needs to be fixed then, if necessary by state intervention. If however you sign up by your own free and informed choice with a RC supplier who makes no secret of enforcing RC standards on the contracts it offers, then there's exactly nothing wrong with that supplier enforcing those standards on you.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems naïve to simply assume no business would do such a thing if it were a legally allowed way to renege on money owed.
quote:Every law has problems in its application, otherwise we would need neither lawyers nor judges. All the more important to say clearly where is acceptable, and what is not. You seem to think that no exceptions for religious reasons are acceptable. I disagree.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm noting that a system exempting those claiming religious belief from obeying generally applicable laws is one that provides a perverse incentive to make bad faith arguments for ulterior reasons.
quote:If the baker knows that Joan is a terrible and abusive mother, then I think he should have a right to reject that order.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does anyone really believe that a cake proclaiming Joan to be "The World's Best Mom" represents some kind of endorsement of Joan's parenting ability by the baker who prepared it?
quote:Why would it? You are now making up rules that exist nowhere else. If I make a public toast to the success of your company at the founding party, you cannot later sue me for damages when you go broke. If at all, I can feel slightly aggrieved that you've disappointed my good expectations with your subsequent actions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Going back to weddings, if the marriage later turns out to be an abusive nightmare, does the abused spouse have recourse to recovering damages from the baker who "endorsed" the match by preparing a cake? If not, why doesn't this endorsement count?
quote:I think I might be missing your argument here. As best as I can make out, you are arguing:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In this case, gov't is interfering to harm business in general in their jurisdiction. I would thus agree that gov'ts should not do what this one has done.
quote:Um, it issimply a service. Legally. It is the state that issues the permission. One can add the religious trappings if one desires.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why not consider a wedding ceremony as simply a service as well?
quote:The clergyperson is an employee of an organisation which has been given dispensation to discriminate.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we can force a baker to create a cake that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of, why can we not force a clergyman to perform a ceremony that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of?
quote:We agree on this, though I might apply it more broadly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But this then surely would be kind of moral reservation within which the last troglodytes are allowed to die out.
quote:Intolerance is what the laws being discussed are protecting. You may revel in your intolerance within the walls of your cathedrals, we are saying do not extend it into the public sphere.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This common comparison, which I consider false, signals of course nothing less but the move to a policy of intolerance,
quote:Manifestly untrue.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only place for it will be mutterings in the privacy of one's own home. That after all is exactly what happened in the case of racism.
quote:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
quote:Religious practice and homosexual practice are both choices.
Originally posted by Fool:
I would say that homosexuality is a reality and religion is a lifestyle choice
quote:Christian theology has never taught that any and every human inclination is indicative of what God "meant" that person to be.
If god created people as homosexuals surly that is what they are meant to be. Or did god make a mistake?
quote:Or at least not into the commercial sphere.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Intolerance is what the laws being discussed are protecting. You may revel in your intolerance within the walls of your cathedrals, we are saying do not extend it into the public sphere.
Originally posted by IngoB:
This common comparison, which I consider false, signals of course nothing less but the move to a policy of intolerance,
quote:As has been pointed out by others, a religious organization is not considered a public accommodation in most jurisdictions. Legally it more closely resembles a private club which serves only its own members. This is a well known feature of most discrimination law. It's why Rabbi Cohen can refuse to marry non-Jews despite laws forbidding discrimination based on ethnicity, but Izzy Cohen can't have a "Jews Only" deli. It's why the Catholic Church can refuse communion to non-Catholics, but a Catholic running an accounting firm can't require his employees to be Catholics. It's why Reverend Cletus of the Christian Identity Church can have a whites only congregation but Mr. Cletus can't have a whites only apartment complex. But for some reason people who are perfectly well aware that the Catholic Church has never been forced to marry a previously divorced person forget all this when it comes to discriminating against queers.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think these distinctions are very tenuous. Why not consider a wedding ceremony as simply a service as well? If we can force a baker to create a cake that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of, why can we not force a clergyman to perform a ceremony that clearly celebrates a marriage he disapproves of?
quote:Why, exactly, is this so amazing? Doesn't it fall exactly in line with your stated ideal: that discrimination is permissible if there is some religious fig-leaf placed over it? Is there any substantive distinction between someone wanting to operate a "No Queers" bakery and someone desiring a "Whites Only" lunch counter? I mean, aside from the fact that the latter offends your personal morality in a way the former does not? I'm not getting any sense of a driving principle beyond "discrimination which I approve of should be legal, but laws against other forms of discrimination are okay".
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm amazed to hear that apparently in the USA a church could get away with denying interracial marriages (really?). But this then surely would be kind of moral reservation within which the last troglodytes are allowed to die out.
quote:Fixing something by law would seem impossible under your standard exempting those claiming religion from the rule of law. Why wouldn't any legal fix be similarly subject to your rule that anyone claiming religious conviction can be exempted from the requirements of the law?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Once more, I consider these concerns to be basically misplaced. They do not point to a problem with religious convictions, rather they point to some idiotic regulations. If somebody can be tricked into accepting an insurance policy that can be denied on such grounds, or if such a denial can be imposed retroactively on existing contracts that do not speak of it, then that needs to be fixed by law.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems naïve to simply assume no business would do such a thing if it were a legally allowed way to renege on money owed.
quote:Not at all. You're arguing that a baker providing a cake is a form of substantive endorsement. That makes it akin to a doctor recommending a course of treatment or an engineer approving a certain type of structural steel. There most certainly are rules governing endorsements in those contexts.
Originally posted by IngoB:quote:Why would it? You are now making up rules that exist nowhere else.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Going back to weddings, if the marriage later turns out to be an abusive nightmare, does the abused spouse have recourse to recovering damages from the baker who "endorsed" the match by preparing a cake? If not, why doesn't this endorsement count?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Religious practice and homosexual practice are both choices.
Originally posted by Fool:
I would say that homosexuality is a reality and religion is a lifestyle choice
quote:Fair enough. So the question is more whether the civil code should not provide some more general dispensation to discriminate, if otherwise people will be forced to act against their convictions. Since this is what we apparently were concerned with when giving these organisations a dispensation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The clergyperson is an employee of an organisation which has been given dispensation to discriminate.
A baker is not. A baker is a member of a group which is overseen by a civil code and is obligated to adhere to that code.
quote:But to merely provide freedom to live out your religious beliefs behind closed doors is not providing much freedom at all. Frankly, that really is just freedom from being spied on and hunted down. It's better than having the secret police on your back and the concentration camps waiting. But it is a bit rich to call this "religious freedom".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Intolerance is what the laws being discussed are protecting. You may revel in your intolerance within the walls of your cathedrals, we are saying do not extend it into the public sphere.
quote:I'm not sure that I follow your line of thinking here... Are you saying that what I can do is to convert everybody (or at least a majority that cares) to say Roman Catholicism, whereupon I will be able to change the civil laws through the democratic system in order to enforce regulations aligned with RC beliefs? Basically, you say the only way to practice religion in the public sphere is by a de facto theocratic coup d'etat? That would be a remarkable definition of religious tolerance.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Manifestly untrue.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only place for it will be mutterings in the privacy of one's own home. That after all is exactly what happened in the case of racism.
From Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986:
quote:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
quote:Fair enough. I guess the question then becomes whether Izzy Cohen can be forced to provide non-kosher food to one of his non-Jewish customers, just because he is technically able to do so (he has all the necessary ingredients and facilities at hand, and the non-kosher version is a simple variation of the food he usually provides - say making a non-kosher deli sandwich by putting ingredients together that shouldn't be).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Legally it more closely resembles a private club which serves only its own members. This is a well known feature of most discrimination law. It's why Rabbi Cohen can refuse to marry non-Jews despite laws forbidding discrimination based on ethnicity, but Izzy Cohen can't have a "Jews Only" deli.
quote:Obviously, if we set aside my "personal morality" and the reasons I might have for it, then indeed there is no difference. But of course if we do that, then there is also no difference between jailing people wearing red t-shirts and jailing people who are murderers. I'm not sure that that demonstrates anything other than that in matters of morals, we cannot set morality aside.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any substantive distinction between someone wanting to operate a "No Queers" bakery and someone desiring a "Whites Only" lunch counter? I mean, aside from the fact that the latter offends your personal morality in a way the former does not?
quote:None of the fixes I have suggested would be a concern to somebody with religious convictions, unless they in turn want to force their convictions on everybody. They might, of course, but I'm not suggesting that a secular state should give in to that, suicidally. Reasonable RCs will see no particular issue with non-RCs taking out insurances that do not follow RC standards. Why would they? And why would they resist regulations that make it possible for such insurances to exist, if that takes pressure away from RC insurers to insure non-RCs in ways not compatible with RC belief? If they are not planning for a theocracy, and most RCs are not, then they have no less reason to welcome alternative provisions than non-RCs do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why wouldn't any legal fix be similarly subject to your rule that anyone claiming religious conviction can be exempted from the requirements of the law?
quote:Not at all. The baker is not baking a cake that says: by my certified expertise, I hereby declare that this man is good husband material and this woman is good wife material. The baker is baking a particular style of cake that is intended to celebrate the decision of this man and woman to get married. It is, as I've said, similar to celebrating the start of a company. One does not become responsible for how a company is subsequently run by congratulating the people who are starting a company. Obviously, if the baker is so worried about the complete unsuitability of a particular couple to get married that he cannot in good conscience provide something that celebrates their decision, then I think he should be able to refuse selling such a cake. And that is exactly what happens in the case of gay marriages, except that there this is systematic rather than individual.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're arguing that a baker providing a cake is a form of substantive endorsement. That makes it akin to a doctor recommending a course of treatment or an engineer approving a certain type of structural steel.
quote:It's pretty clear. You claim that racist speech has been relegated to the privacy of the home and imply that this is both a bad thing and the result of government legal action against racist speech. lilBuddha cited a statute deliberately protecting racist and otherwise bigoted speech, showing your paranoia about government bans on saying racist stuff in public was a fantasy. It seemed pretty straightforward to me; a direct refutation of a factual claim.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm not sure that I follow your line of thinking here...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Manifestly untrue.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only place for it will be mutterings in the privacy of one's own home. That after all is exactly what happened in the case of racism.
From Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986:
quote:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
quote:No, nor is he required to sell the cutlery or the light bulbs out of his fixtures to his customers just because those things are on hand as well. Being a public accommodation means that you have to accommodate all members of the public, offering the same services equally. It doesn't obligate you to offer any particular service.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Fair enough. I guess the question then becomes whether Izzy Cohen can be forced to provide non-kosher food to one of his non-Jewish customers, just because he is technically able to do so (he has all the necessary ingredients and facilities at hand, and the non-kosher version is a simple variation of the food he usually provides - say making a non-kosher deli sandwich by putting ingredients together that shouldn't be).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Legally it more closely resembles a private club which serves only its own members. This is a well known feature of most discrimination law. It's why Rabbi Cohen can refuse to marry non-Jews despite laws forbidding discrimination based on ethnicity, but Izzy Cohen can't have a "Jews Only" deli.
quote:It's always risky to take sides against the people who prepare your food. Sometimes it's necessary, though.
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the way, just practically speaking: isn't it dumb to insist that a supplier supplies you against his will?
quote:No, the question is whether it's possible to reconcile your claim to want a religious exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for anti-homosexual animus with your assertion that an exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for religiously-based racism is inappropriate. So far you've not offered any reason for the distinction between the two exemptions other than "our hatred of this group is a righteous expression of religious principle, while their hatred of that group is just mindless prejudice". In other words, just so much special pleading.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Obviously, if we set aside my "personal morality" and the reasons I might have for it, then indeed there is no difference. But of course if we do that, then there is also no difference between jailing people wearing red t-shirts and jailing people who are murderers. I'm not sure that that demonstrates anything other than that in matters of morals, we cannot set morality aside.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any substantive distinction between someone wanting to operate a "No Queers" bakery and someone desiring a "Whites Only" lunch counter? I mean, aside from the fact that the latter offends your personal morality in a way the former does not?
I think the question here is whether society still allows for divergent opinions on some particular aspect of morality, and hence endeavours to maintain the possibility of divergent life patterns, or not.
quote:I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Advocates of the previous discriminatory system are outraged that they no longer have access to the levers of state power to discriminate under color of law, so they've adopted a fall-back position trying to carve out the legal space for a system of privately maintained discriminatory behavior to take the place of the previous state-enforced system. Ed Kilgore points out that we've danced this dance before.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Basically the pendulum was pushed all the way to criminalising homosexuality once. Clearly it has been swinging to the other side since. What I'm asking is whether it is going to stop before it hits the other extreme?
quote:I didn't. She didn't. It wasn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You claim that racist speech has been relegated to the privacy of the home and imply that this is both a bad thing and the result of government legal action against racist speech. lilBuddha cited a statute deliberately protecting racist and otherwise bigoted speech, showing your paranoia about government bans on saying racist stuff in public was a fantasy. It seemed pretty straightforward to me; a direct refutation of a factual claim.
quote:So the baker doesn't have to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings, he can simply offer wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings? And yes, the two types of weddings can be distinguished easily, and visibly so in the corresponding cake design (bride and groom figures on top, names of the couple). So the only possible issue here is then that the baker did not clarify just what he is offering. Instead of an advertisement sign "Wedding Cakes" he should have had a sign "Wedding Cakes (heterosexual marriages only)" and everything would have been A-OK. Right?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Being a public accommodation means that you have to accommodate all members of the public, offering the same services equally. It doesn't obligate you to offer any particular service.
quote:I assume you know that I cannot argue here why distinctions based on outer appearances like skin colour, and distinctions based on one's choice of actual sexual activity are not the same. It is also not really what this thread is about, i.e., it is not really about justifying one discrimination as opposed to another. We are discussing under what circumstances religion should have the ability to discriminate, which does not necessarily mean that one agrees with the discrimination. The state certainly can see granting the right to discriminate as a "lesser evil" to the common good.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, the question is whether it's possible to reconcile your claim to want a religious exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for anti-homosexual animus with your assertion that an exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for religiously-based racism is inappropriate. So far you've not offered any reason for the distinction between the two exemptions other than "our hatred of this group is a righteous expression of religious principle, while their hatred of that group is just mindless prejudice". In other words, just so much special pleading.
quote:The question is quite simply whether society reckons that divergent moral opinion on some issue is admissible as part of its pluralistic society, or not. There is a difference between saying "this is right" and saying "this is right, and everybody who wants to live here has to agree". Concerning race, such distinctions are now totally illicit in Western Europe (best I know), and I am genuinely surprised that it is otherwise in the USA. Concerning homosexuality, such distinctions are still considered admissible to a certain degree in the West. But pragmatically speaking, whatever may be the good or bad reasons for it, the decision what part of the moral spectrum of opinions is allowable is basically imposed by society, largely through the state.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Advocates of the previous discriminatory system are outraged that they no longer have access to the levers of state power to discriminate under color of law, so they've adopted a fall-back position trying to carve out the legal space for a system of privately maintained discriminatory behavior to take the place of the previous state-enforced system.
quote:No, for more or less the same reason he can't offer "Wedding Cakes (Whites Only)", another type of wedding that can be "distinguished easily, and visibly so in the corresponding cake design (bride and groom figures on top)". Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between things (a tiered cake with white icing) and people (the happy couple). If you're offering a tiered cake with white icing for sale you can't offer it only to only to certain members of the cake-buying public based on your personal prejudices.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:So the baker doesn't have to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings, he can simply offer wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings? And yes, the two types of weddings can be distinguished easily, and visibly so in the corresponding cake design (bride and groom figures on top, names of the couple). So the only possible issue here is then that the baker did not clarify just what he is offering. Instead of an advertisement sign "Wedding Cakes" he should have had a sign "Wedding Cakes (heterosexual marriages only)" and everything would have been A-OK. Right?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Being a public accommodation means that you have to accommodate all members of the public, offering the same services equally. It doesn't obligate you to offer any particular service.
quote:Given that the only grounds you've given for what you consider legitimate discrimination is "my religious beliefs tell me not to like those people", there's not much to distinguish between discriminating between outer appearance (which you claimed was perfectly sufficient grounds just one paragraph up!) and chosen behavior like sexual activity or religious worship. So if we want to avoid dead horses entirely, you could explain why there should be different standards for someone whose religious convictions direct him to operate a Whites Only business and someone whose religious convictions direct him to operate a Catholics* Only business. That would seem to preserve the same distinction you seem to find critical between appearance-based discrimination and activity-based discrimination without involving any forbidden topics.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I assume you know that I cannot argue here why distinctions based on outer appearances like skin colour, and distinctions based on one's choice of actual sexual activity are not the same.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, the question is whether it's possible to reconcile your claim to want a religious exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for anti-homosexual animus with your assertion that an exemption from generally applicable anti-discrimintion laws for religiously-based racism is inappropriate. So far you've not offered any reason for the distinction between the two exemptions other than "our hatred of this group is a righteous expression of religious principle, while their hatred of that group is just mindless prejudice". In other words, just so much special pleading.
quote:No, the question is whether divergent moral opinion (a.k.a. personal prejudice) is sufficient justification for exemption from generally applicable laws (in this case anti-discrimination statutes). More broadly, it's a question of whether personal prejudice is sufficient grounds to deny certain groups full participation in society. It's very limiting to always have to wonder "will the hotel honor our reservation, or will we be looking for a room in a strange city late at night?" or "can I keep my job if my boss finds out I'm really X?".
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The question is quite simply whether society reckons that divergent moral opinion on some issue is admissible as part of its pluralistic society, or not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Advocates of the previous discriminatory system are outraged that they no longer have access to the levers of state power to discriminate under color of law, so they've adopted a fall-back position trying to carve out the legal space for a system of privately maintained discriminatory behavior to take the place of the previous state-enforced system.
quote:I agree completely.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the comparison between race and homosexuality, which I consider simply inappropriate, is appropriate in this sense: if this comparison was accurate, then obviously the state and society have to be coming for those who still believe that homosexuality is immoral. I'm amazed to hear that apparently in the USA a church could get away with denying interracial marriages (really?). But this then surely would be kind of moral reservation within which the last troglodytes are allowed to die out.
This common comparison, which I consider false, signals of course nothing less but the move to a policy of intolerance, namely against those who maintain that homosexual activity is immoral. It is not just that there is a disagreement on morals, and a kind of ceasefire brokered by secular society, with boundaries that preserve a uneasy peace. Rather it will not be allowed any longer to maintain the dissenting morals in any meaningful way under the watchful gaze of the state and society.
quote:If racism doesn't exist any more, as you claim, why are there still so many active racist hate groups? Is it all some massive hoax?
Originally posted by Freddy:
If the comparison with racism is successfully made then a dissenting moral view cannot be allowed. No one is allowed to practice racism.
quote:It doesn't really matter that much from the standpoint of most anti-discrimination statutes which typically cover a mix of immutable characteristics (e.g. race or ethnicity) and ones that are voluntarily chosen (e.g. religion or creed).
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm slightly puzzled as to why a number of contributors are clearly of the opinion that being homosexual is a choice, and thus different from ethnicity, and base their arguments on this opinion, which has no evidential support in science - and that this thread has not therefore been hoicked elsewhere.
quote:This shows a definitional problem. Here is no distinction between "gay marriage" and any other sort. It's all marriage. In this sense, then it does become equivalent to racism under law and should be treated the same same way as discriminatory.
Originally posted by IngoB:
So the baker doesn't have to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings, he can simply offer wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings? And yes, the two types of weddings can be distinguished easily, and visibly so in the corresponding cake design (bride and groom figures on top, names of the couple). So the only possible issue here is then that the baker did not clarify just what he is offering. Instead of an advertisement sign "Wedding Cakes" he should have had a sign "Wedding Cakes (heterosexual marriages only)" and everything would have been A-OK. Right?
----
That's what we are talking about, or at least that's what I am trying to talk about. And as mentioned, the constant comparisons of homosexuality and race - unwarranted in my opinion - simply suggest to me that the other side has ceased having any interest in discussing this or providing any accommodation for it (beyond not opening gulags for private dissenters, perhaps).
quote:So no, you should not get accommodated. Except privately.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/page-1.html#h-3
...the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. (part 3(1))
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:So to be above board, according to you the the baker should say: "Sure, Steven and James, I'm happy to sell you the kind of wedding cakes that I make, if you want one. They come with figurines of a bride and a bridegroom integrated into the icing on top, and with the names of the husband and the wife in icing on the side. I guess I will just choose a female name at random for you, or do you have any preference? Perhaps the name of one of your mothers?" Or are you saying that the baker has to change his produce in order to accommodate the gay couple, after all? (By the way, I consider all this to be mildly absurd. But you are forcing this absurdity on me by insisting that a supplier may not deny his product based on how it will be used. I'm not making this stuff up to be confrontational to gay people, I would consider such actions to be insulting were it not for this undue pressure. The baker should be able to say "I'm offering special cakes for celebrations that I consider as marriages, that's what I mean by 'wedding cake'", without having to use gimmicks to protect that choice from abuse.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between things (a tiered cake with white icing) and people (the happy couple). If you're offering a tiered cake with white icing for sale you can't offer it only to only to certain members of the cake-buying public based on your personal prejudices.
quote:I'm not sure what else to say, really. Indeed, appearance-based discrimination is generally bad, at least where that appearance is neither a choice nor relevant for the activity or position for which we are selecting. (There can be occasions, say in acting or modelling, where appearance is essential and discrimination concerning it can be justified.) Whereas activity-based discrimination is often good, in particular so where there is a moral evaluation of the activity. If you ace the test, then I discriminate in your favour for my job. If you murder people, then I discriminate against you concerning your freedom. I have not argued for a "Catholics Only" business, any more than I have argued for a "Whites Only" business. I have argued for distinguishing between endorsement and toleration. In a pluralistic society, it seems reasonable to met that one tolerates people even if one opposes what they do. But one should not have to act so as to effectively aid precisely what one opposes. So if a Muslim wants to buy a vase from a rad-trad Catholic who thinks all Muslims must convert or burn in hell, then the Catholic should sell the vase to him. Because buying the vase has really nothing to do with what the Catholic thinks the Muslim is doing wrong, and refusing the sale would be just an attempt to ostracise the Muslim for matters unrelated to that sale. In a pluralistic society, one can demand a basic tolerance for persons. However, if the local ISIS representative comes to the same Catholic, and wants to buy a few icons, rosaries and bibles for their chapter's next defilement and book burning session, then I think the Catholic is within his right to refuse the sale. He would be aiding the purchaser in doing what is deeply wrong according to his beliefs, and thereby de facto endorse actions he finds despicable. He should not have to do that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if we want to avoid dead horses entirely, you could explain why there should be different standards for someone whose religious convictions direct him to operate a Whites Only business and someone whose religious convictions direct him to operate a Catholics* Only business. That would seem to preserve the same distinction you seem to find critical between appearance-based discrimination and activity-based discrimination without involving any forbidden topics.
quote:I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there about "personal prejudice". As far as I am concerned, your opinion about for example homosexuality is a personal prejudice, and prejudice decidedly in the negative sense of the word. Now, I accept that you may be making an honest mistake there, following a false conception of the good, that I do not really know how much blame for that falls on your shoulders, and that anyhow it is unlikely to do anyone any good if I constantly talk down to you concerning this. Hence I talk politely about "divergent moral opinion", in the hope that it might lead to a pragmatic and respectful dialogue.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, the question is whether divergent moral opinion (a.k.a. personal prejudice) is sufficient justification for exemption from generally applicable laws (in this case anti-discrimination statutes). More broadly, it's a question of whether personal prejudice is sufficient grounds to deny certain groups full participation in society. It's very limiting to always have to wonder "will the hotel honor our reservation, or will we be looking for a room in a strange city late at night?" or "can I keep my job if my boss finds out I'm really X?".
quote:First, whether being homosexual is a choice or not, having gay sex is a choice (except for rape). My personal belief system has no problem with "being" homosexual (at least as far as that is not a choice), but merely with "acting out" homosexuality. Second, I'm not aware of scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice in some sense. (This seems to suggest that I think all homosexuals made an explicit choice to have a homosexual orientation. I don't think that. Neither do I think that all homosexuals have a choice to stop having a homosexual orientation. I'm merely saying that best I know no scientific proof exists that homosexuality is always entirely nature, with no nurture and/or voluntary decision involved.)
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm slightly puzzled as to why a number of contributors are clearly of the opinion that being homosexual is a choice, and thus different from ethnicity, and base their arguments on this opinion, which has no evidential support in science - and that this thread has not therefore been hoicked elsewhere.
quote:There's no scientific proof that any complex behavioural pattern and set of of characteristics is one or the other of nature or nurture. Behavioural genetics and evolutionary psychology have both moved beyond such elementary considerations.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm merely saying that best I know no scientific proof exists that homosexuality is always entirely nature, with no nurture and/or voluntary decision involved.)
quote:Sorry, I will avoid any further direct discussion of homosexuality.
Originally posted by Gwai:
IngoB may well have crossposted with Eutychus, but no prophet clearly did not.
quote:If the only way the baker sells tiered cakes with white frosting is with "figurines of a bride and a bridegroom integrated into the icing on top", that's fine. I came across a story of a lesbian couple wanting to buy a cake where the baker refused to do a "two brides" cake, not because he objected to same sex marriages but because he only stocked bride-and-groom figures that were integrally joined at the base. The cake was eventually made with an edible floral arrangement on top. So yes, a baker could insist a same-sex couple receive a wedding cake with an opposite-sex couple figurine on top, provided he never sells tiered cakes with white frosting without those figurines on top under any circumstances.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:So to be above board, according to you the the baker should say: "Sure, Steven and James, I'm happy to sell you the kind of wedding cakes that I make, if you want one. They come with figurines of a bride and a bridegroom integrated into the icing on top, and with the names of the husband and the wife in icing on the side. I guess I will just choose a female name at random for you, or do you have any preference? Perhaps the name of one of your mothers?" Or are you saying that the baker has to change his produce in order to accommodate the gay couple, after all?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between things (a tiered cake with white icing) and people (the happy couple). If you're offering a tiered cake with white icing for sale you can't offer it only to only to certain members of the cake-buying public based on your personal prejudices.
quote:Close, but not quite. I'm insisting a supplier may not deny his product based on certain statutorily defined characteristics of his prospective customers. Gay customers use cake the same way straight customers do: they eat it (and occasionally smash it in to each other faces for campy photos). What exactly do you think goes on at a wedding reception for a same-sex couple?
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the way, I consider all this to be mildly absurd. But you are forcing this absurdity on me by insisting that a supplier may not deny his product based on how it will be used.
quote:But whether such characteristics are "relevant for the activity or position" is often a matter of prejudice (or, if you prefer, divergent moral opinion). For example, if an employer believes that certain races are inherently inferior and lack the mental capacity to adequately perform whatever work he wants done, doesn't that mean he's entitled to an exemption from anti-discrimination laws in his hiring practices under your basic logic? After all, forcing this employer to hire someone he considers a member of an inferior race would be forcing him to endorse an action he considers wrong (in this case, that certain races are fit for his particular type of job).
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure what else to say, really. Indeed, appearance-based discrimination is generally bad, at least where that appearance is neither a choice nor relevant for the activity or position for which we are selecting.
quote:I'm not sure that's a distinction it's possible to make. If your hypothetical rad-trad Catholic sincerely believes Muslims should be ostracized, isn't forcing the Catholic to do business with the Muslim forcing him to endorse and participate in actions the Catholic finds abhorrent? (Namely the non-ostracism of Muslims.)
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have argued for distinguishing between endorsement and toleration. In a pluralistic society, it seems reasonable to met that one tolerates people even if one opposes what they do. But one should not have to act so as to effectively aid precisely what one opposes. So if a Muslim wants to buy a vase from a rad-trad Catholic who thinks all Muslims must convert or burn in hell, then the Catholic should sell the vase to him. Because buying the vase has really nothing to do with what the Catholic thinks the Muslim is doing wrong, and refusing the sale would be just an attempt to ostracise the Muslim for matters unrelated to that sale.
quote:What if the employer has a divergent moral opinion that gay people are unfit for decent society in any capacity? In other words, that gay people are intolerable? Doesn't forbidding him to discriminate against gay people force him to endorse the idea that gay people are fit at least for the society of this employer's place of business? Why doesn't this belief fall under your rule for not forcing people to endorse positions they reject?
Originally posted by IngoB:
And you are simply ignoring the distinction I have made. There is no particular reason why an employer should be allowed to discriminate against a gay person, even if that employer thinks gay sex is evil. Unless they are in the porn business, there is no direct connection between the job to be done and gay sex. Hence this is not an endorsement of gay sex, but simple toleration of a gay person.
quote:Yeah, that one was a bit strained. Anyway, while we can come to some form of agreement on this kind of case, apparently, it's gone far away from the point I was making. I still do not think that the baker has to supply a wedding cake for an event that he considers 1) not to be a wedding, and 2) the celebration of something immoral. And that's quite irrespective of what design the wedding cake has, as long as it is a wedding cake. The argument that gay people also eat cakes does not work, since I am not saying that the baker can just refuse to sell any kind of cake to a gay couple. It is the "specific use" the cake has that is at issue here, and as long as that usage is clearly intended and acknowledged by all concerned, it doesn't matter just how it is expressed in the shape of the cake.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The names are another matter. The service being offered is "your names inscribed in icing on the side of the cake". Even if he could demonstrate he'd never sold a tiered cake with white frosting that wasn't inscribed with the recipient's names, unless he has a history of routinely giving other customers the names he thinks they should have rather than the names they do have he's not offering the same service.
quote:I assume what goes on at the reception is a celebration of that wedding, in part by eating a particularly fancy cake. The baker should not be forced to contribute to that celebration, if he thinks that what is being celebrated is immoral. As mentioned above, that gay people eat cake like anybody else is neither here nor there. I indeed do believe that in general the baker can be obligated to sell his cakes to gay customers as much as to anyone else. Because in general cake, and the eating of cake, simply have nothing to do with homosexuality - other than being done by homosexuals in this case, but the baker can be expected to tolerate homosexuals. However in a gay wedding ceremony a cake specifically made to celebrate that event does have to do with homosexuality. And hence the baker can claim that his conscience does not allow being part of a celebration of what he considers immoral.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm insisting a supplier may not deny his product based on certain statutorily defined characteristics of his prospective customers. Gay customers use cake the same way straight customers do: they eat it (and occasionally smash it in to each other faces for campy photos). What exactly do you think goes on at a wedding reception for a same-sex couple?
quote:This is a factual claim, and hence much less problematic than a moral one. If the employer can prove that some races are intellectually inferior to such a significant degree as to be unable to carry out the required work properly, then of course he can discriminate against members of that race in hiring for that job. But since he cannot demonstrate that, indeed, since it can be demonstrated to him that this is simply not true, he cannot discriminate according to this criterion.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But whether such characteristics are "relevant for the activity or position" is often a matter of prejudice (or, if you prefer, divergent moral opinion). For example, if an employer believes that certain races are inherently inferior and lack the mental capacity to adequately perform whatever work he wants done, doesn't that mean he's entitled to an exemption from anti-discrimination laws in his hiring practices under your basic logic?
quote:Sure. And if the Catholic decides that all people who are not Catholic must be killed, then preventing him from doing so - preferably by locking him up somewhere under psychiatric treatment - also stands against his belief system. So what? I have not been arguing for a complete laissez faire as soon as someone says "religion". Every society has to make choices what behaviour it considers admissible. I have made a suggestion what I think a pluralistic society that is serious about granting religious freedom should consider as a basic operating principle. I think a distinction can be made according to how much a person becomes implicated in actions that go against his religious beliefs, roughly toleration vs. endorsement / participation. If you say that a person's religious beliefs do not allow toleration, that this for them would be participation in what they consider immoral, then I would simply say that such a person is not fit to be part of a pluralistic society.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that's a distinction it's possible to make. If your hypothetical rad-trad Catholic sincerely believes Muslims should be ostracized, isn't forcing the Catholic to do business with the Muslim forcing him to endorse and participate in actions the Catholic finds abhorrent?
quote:This is largely once more a factual claim, and hence can be rejected as counterfactual. You cannot argue that gay people are unfit to be say train conductors, when there are gay train conductors that do a perfectly fine job. The attribution of a vague and overarching claim of indecency is nothing but a belief that such a person cannot be tolerated as such. That is to say, no matter how good a train driver a gay train driver may be, he is then considered to be a bad train driver just because he is gay - and that is really nothing else but saying that the person will not be tolerated because they are gay, driving a train or anything else is merely accidental to that. I have said above what I think a pluralistic society owes to someone with such beliefs: nothing. To the contrary, a pluralistic society can rightly move to protect itself against such an individual. That's a kind of self-defense at the social level.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What if the employer has a divergent moral opinion that gay people are unfit for decent society in any capacity? In other words, that gay people are intolerable?
quote:What is about a request from a Host to stop discussing this topic that you don't understand?! Or don't feel applies to you?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If the only way the baker sells tiered cakes with white frosting is with "figurines of a bride and a bridegroom integrated into the icing on top", that's fine. I came across a story of a lesbian couple wanting to buy a cake where the baker refused to do a "two brides" cake, not because he objected to same sex marriages but because he only stocked bride-and-groom figures that were integrally joined at the base. The cake was eventually made with an edible floral arrangement on top. So yes, a baker could insist a same-sex couple receive a wedding cake with an opposite-sex couple figurine on top, provided he never sells tiered cakes with white frosting without those figurines on top under any circumstances.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:So to be above board, according to you the the baker should say: "Sure, Steven and James, I'm happy to sell you the kind of wedding cakes that I make, if you want one. They come with figurines of a bride and a bridegroom integrated into the icing on top, and with the names of the husband and the wife in icing on the side. I guess I will just choose a female name at random for you, or do you have any preference? Perhaps the name of one of your mothers?" Or are you saying that the baker has to change his produce in order to accommodate the gay couple, after all?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between things (a tiered cake with white icing) and people (the happy couple). If you're offering a tiered cake with white icing for sale you can't offer it only to only to certain members of the cake-buying public based on your personal prejudices.
The names are another matter. The service being offered is "your names inscribed in icing on the side of the cake". Even if he could demonstrate he'd never sold a tiered cake with white frosting that wasn't inscribed with the recipient's names, unless he has a history of routinely giving other customers the names he thinks they should have rather than the names they do have he's not offering the same service.
quote:Close, but not quite. I'm insisting a supplier may not deny his product based on certain statutorily defined characteristics of his prospective customers. Gay customers use cake the same way straight customers do: they eat it (and occasionally smash it in to each other faces for campy photos). What exactly do you think goes on at a wedding reception for a same-sex couple?
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the way, I consider all this to be mildly absurd. But you are forcing this absurdity on me by insisting that a supplier may not deny his product based on how it will be used.
quote:But whether such characteristics are "relevant for the activity or position" is often a matter of prejudice (or, if you prefer, divergent moral opinion). For example, if an employer believes that certain races are inherently inferior and lack the mental capacity to adequately perform whatever work he wants done, doesn't that mean he's entitled to an exemption from anti-discrimination laws in his hiring practices under your basic logic? After all, forcing this employer to hire someone he considers a member of an inferior race would be forcing him to endorse an action he considers wrong (in this case, that certain races are fit for his particular type of job).
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure what else to say, really. Indeed, appearance-based discrimination is generally bad, at least where that appearance is neither a choice nor relevant for the activity or position for which we are selecting.
quote:I'm not sure that's a distinction it's possible to make. If your hypothetical rad-trad Catholic sincerely believes Muslims should be ostracized, isn't forcing the Catholic to do business with the Muslim forcing him to endorse and participate in actions the Catholic finds abhorrent? (Namely the non-ostracism of Muslims.)
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have argued for distinguishing between endorsement and toleration. In a pluralistic society, it seems reasonable to met that one tolerates people even if one opposes what they do. But one should not have to act so as to effectively aid precisely what one opposes. So if a Muslim wants to buy a vase from a rad-trad Catholic who thinks all Muslims must convert or burn in hell, then the Catholic should sell the vase to him. Because buying the vase has really nothing to do with what the Catholic thinks the Muslim is doing wrong, and refusing the sale would be just an attempt to ostracise the Muslim for matters unrelated to that sale.
quote:What if the employer has a divergent moral opinion that gay people are unfit for decent society in any capacity? In other words, that gay people are intolerable? Doesn't forbidding him to discriminate against gay people force him to endorse the idea that gay people are fit at least for the society of this employer's place of business? Why doesn't this belief fall under your rule for not forcing people to endorse positions they reject?
Originally posted by IngoB:
And you are simply ignoring the distinction I have made. There is no particular reason why an employer should be allowed to discriminate against a gay person, even if that employer thinks gay sex is evil. Unless they are in the porn business, there is no direct connection between the job to be done and gay sex. Hence this is not an endorsement of gay sex, but simple toleration of a gay person.
quote:What constitutes "proof" in this context? Could an employer simply submit a copy Charles Murray's tThe Bell Curve and consider it proof? Would the answer be different if he instead submitted the Bible and argued that certain races were under the Curse of Ham? Is the fact that the prospective employer finds it convincing relevant, or is it simply a matter of whether he can convince other people? If it's the latter, why doesn't the "convincing others" standard apply to other forms of discrimination you endorse the legality of? The problem with the toleration/endorsement distinction is that it's almost impossible to apply consistently, Even the two parties to a transaction may differ on whether an activity is an endorsement.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This is a factual claim, and hence much less problematic than a moral one. If the employer can prove that some races are intellectually inferior to such a significant degree as to be unable to carry out the required work properly, then of course he can discriminate against members of that race in hiring for that job. But since he cannot demonstrate that, indeed, since it can be demonstrated to him that this is simply not true, he cannot discriminate according to this criterion.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But whether such characteristics are "relevant for the activity or position" is often a matter of prejudice (or, if you prefer, divergent moral opinion). For example, if an employer believes that certain races are inherently inferior and lack the mental capacity to adequately perform whatever work he wants done, doesn't that mean he's entitled to an exemption from anti-discrimination laws in his hiring practices under your basic logic?
quote:As I mentioned in my post - and it looks as though nobody has even read my questions. It seems you can try to lead a dead horse away from the water, but you can't restrain it from getting it's mouth back into the trough.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In short, the burden of proof in the endorsement/toleration distinction seems to shift depending on whether it's dealing with a type of discrimination you approve of or not. If it's the former, then the you simply assume that it's been met with the assertion that some kind of principle is involved. In the case of the latter you demand some kind of definitive proof be provided.
quote:I did read your post, Enoch. I just consider it to be supporting my position, and to be more a challenge to Crœsos and others who think like him.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:As I mentioned in my post - and it looks as though nobody has even read my questions. It seems you can try to lead a dead horse away from the water, but you can't restrain it from getting it's mouth back into the trough.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In short, the burden of proof in the endorsement/toleration distinction seems to shift depending on whether it's dealing with a type of discrimination you approve of or not. If it's the former, then the you simply assume that it's been met with the assertion that some kind of principle is involved. In the case of the latter you demand some kind of definitive proof be provided.
quote:Not necessarily. I gave a couple of examples of possible reasoning for racial discrimination, including a divine curse. How, exactly, would one objectively examine such claim? Or a claim of a sincere religious belief that, regardless of ability, members of different races are not meant to interact either socially or in the workplace? Forcing someone with those beliefs to obey non-discrimination laws in his hiring practices would seem to fall afoul of your rule against forcing people to endorse positions they oppose through their business practices.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Crœsos worries about IQ bell curves are largely artificial. Once more, these are factual claims that can be objectively investigated.
quote:A Divine curse is not a fact, it is a revelation. Precisely because one cannot objectively examine it. And I've already dealt with the case that faith stands against toleration, above. A pluralistic society cannot allow a faith that cannot tolerate, since toleration is fundamental to its structure. There is, obviously, quite a bit of flexibility in just how such a toleration can be required of some faith group, and that can be used to find a liveable compromise. But if all these efforts fail, then a pluralistic society has to contain, expel or terminate the resisting faith. What happens in practice depends largely on the balance of power in the concrete situation, and on what sort of thing people can do and still look at themselves in the mirror.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I gave a couple of examples of possible reasoning for racial discrimination, including a divine curse. How, exactly, would one objectively examine such claim? Or a claim of a sincere religious belief that, regardless of ability, members of different races are not meant to interact either socially or in the workplace? Forcing someone with those beliefs to obey non-discrimination laws in his hiring practices would seem to fall afoul of your rule against forcing people to endorse positions they oppose through their business practices.
quote:Unfortunately, people have a high tolerance for ignoring what is reflected back at them.
Originally posted by IngoB:
and on what sort of thing people can do and still look at themselves in the mirror.
quote:Except that you've also claimed that discrimination is okay if it's done to avoid "endorsing" something the discriminator finds objectionable. Is this simply a matter of finding some partial fig-leaf of participation? For instance, a retailer arguing that they'll allow all races to shop at their store, but insist on a "Whites Only" lunch counter. Assuming the retailer offered a religious justification for the distinction, does this exempt them from following anti-discrimination laws, since they're tolerating all races of shoppers? It would seem to follow your earlier (now not to be named) example of a business offering only partial service to certain segments of the public.
Originally posted by IngoB:
A Divine curse is not a fact, it is a revelation. Precisely because one cannot objectively examine it. And I've already dealt with the case that faith stands against toleration, above. A pluralistic society cannot allow a faith that cannot tolerate, since toleration is fundamental to its structure.
quote:Part of Hobby Lobby's argument against providing health insurance was they believed certain forms of birth control were "abortifacients", even though, in actual fact, they are not. However, SCOTUS explicitly said that it didn't matter that their belief was WRONG; all that mattered was that it was sincere and religious.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Crœsos worries about IQ bell curves are largely artificial. Once more, these are factual claims that can be objectively investigated. What the best procedure for this is is a pragmatic and procedural question I have little interest in. In practice, it would presumably be some employment tribunal that weighs the available scientific evidence....
quote:You appear to have considerable difficulties grasping the concepts I'm proposing, since this really is no challenge at all, merely befuddled. That retailer would not be tolerating all races at its lunch counter, and you have not offered any suggestions how this could be due to some kind of "endorsement" issue. What issue would that be, endorsing that black people eat?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that you've also claimed that discrimination is okay if it's done to avoid "endorsing" something the discriminator finds objectionable. Is this simply a matter of finding some partial fig-leaf of participation? For instance, a retailer arguing that they'll allow all races to shop at their store, but insist on a "Whites Only" lunch counter. Assuming the retailer offered a religious justification for the distinction, does this exempt them from following anti-discrimination laws, since they're tolerating all races of shoppers? It would seem to follow your earlier (now not to be named) example of a business offering only partial service to certain segments of the public.
quote:If your description is accurate, then that SCOTUS ruling was rather stupid. There is no such thing as a right to be factually and objectively wrong, and it certainly does not get granted by religion. It's a different, and difficult, question just when we assume as proven that something is right or wrong. It's hardly unknown that the certainties of yesterday dissolve into doubt tomorrow.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Part of Hobby Lobby's argument against providing health insurance was they believed certain forms of birth control were "abortifacients", even though, in actual fact, they are not. However, SCOTUS explicitly said that it didn't matter that their belief was WRONG; all that mattered was that it was sincere and religious.
quote:We're postulating a not-quite hypothetical retailer that doesn't believe various races should interact on socially equal terms. The retailer is willing to suspend this belief and tolerate such interactions in the retail sales part of his business, but regards integrated dining facilities as too intimate an interaction. There's always been a special social significance to breaking bread together. This would seem to be exactly parallel to your earlier example when you claimed a baker who is opposed to [mixed race]* marriage couldn't refuse to serve such couples entirely, but could restrict them from certain parts of his regularly offered business if he could posit some religious reason why that particular service would be a bridge too far.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You appear to have considerable difficulties grasping the concepts I'm proposing, since this really is no challenge at all, merely befuddled. That retailer would not be tolerating all races at its lunch counter, and you have not offered any suggestions how this could be due to some kind of "endorsement" issue. What issue would that be, endorsing that black people eat?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that you've also claimed that discrimination is okay if it's done to avoid "endorsing" something the discriminator finds objectionable. Is this simply a matter of finding some partial fig-leaf of participation? For instance, a retailer arguing that they'll allow all races to shop at their store, but insist on a "Whites Only" lunch counter. Assuming the retailer offered a religious justification for the distinction, does this exempt them from following anti-discrimination laws, since they're tolerating all races of shoppers? It would seem to follow your earlier (now not to be named) example of a business offering only partial service to certain segments of the public.
quote:Yes it is and yes it was.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If your description is accurate, then that SCOTUS ruling was rather stupid.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Part of Hobby Lobby's argument against providing health insurance was they believed certain forms of birth control were "abortifacients", even though, in actual fact, they are not. However, SCOTUS explicitly said that it didn't matter that their belief was WRONG; all that mattered was that it was sincere and religious.
quote:Except that there is nothing in the physical world corresponding to IQ. It's a made-up construct and its validity is a matter of opinion and not scientific fact.
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Crœsos worries about IQ bell curves are largely artificial. Once more, these are factual claims that can be objectively investigated.
