quote:

---

*Leon*: I wonder whether it matters if there's a religious dimension to the performance.

---

quote:

---

Gwai: The performer, on the other hand, is less anonymous, and I'd guess that to some degree people do presume performers won't play at places antithetical to their beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: I really don't think there SHOULD be a line.

---

quote:

---

Gwai: Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It sounds to me like what you are saying is that those people were NOT sincere, but were rather lying ("hiding discomfort behind a shield") and therefore were not entitled to any right of refusal.

This concerns me, because your logic chain goes like this: that because it baffles you, therefore it must be a lie, and therefore it deserves no legal protection. That's a really dangerous direction to head in, as others can easily turn the same logic on us. Better to overprotect than to underprotect, IMHO. Regardless of how personally abhorrent or baffling one may find it.

I can think of any number of religious issues that outsiders to that group would consider purely insane (for example, for certain Christian groups, the need to use wine in communion even during Prohibition days). That doesn't make them non-religious issues, or any less deserving of protection.

---

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: I wouldn't be willing to make those people a cake, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Macrina: I really don't think there SHOULD be a line.

---

So, what you are saying is that a performer SHOULD perform every time (s)he is asked? That would be pretty hard to argue. I've said 'no' when asked to perform numerous times. For many reasons: too busy, I didn't find the festival interesting, etc. I don't even have to say why I don't want to perform.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: No what I am saying is that you should not be allowed to refuse to perform on the basis of your objection to a particular characteristic that person has. There's a whole world of difference between refusing because you don't like the set list offered or the accommodation available or its inconvenient etc and refusing because your client is say a Black Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: The gospel group against gay marriage are just as wrong (on legal grounds) to refuse their services on the grounds of the characteristics of their client as any other group would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is a difference between a performer and a shop keeper that I can't quite put my finger on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Macrina: The gospel group against gay marriage are just as wrong (on legal grounds) to refuse their services on the grounds of the characteristics of their client as any other group would be.

---

Okay, that's your opinion. I'm not entirely convinced by it.

---

To be fair, it is not only my opinion it is also law under a fair amount of Equality legislation. But I am quite happy to live and let live with regard to you being unconvinced by it
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, can a gospel singer refuse to perform at a gay marriage?

---

I'm not sure. We'll have to wait for the first gay couple ever to like gospel music.

It may be some time....
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Le Roc--

Maybe the difference is whether the hired person has to be present?

Let's say a stunt-kite flyers club wants to hire someone for their annual dinner dance. The person they want to hire loves small birds, has been in bird clubs since childhood, and was always taught that stunt kites are evil and dangerous--both for birds and stunt-kite flyers.

A musician might not want to do a live performance. Would it make a difference if the "evil stunt-kite flyers" group skipped the musician altogether, and used the musician's latest CD?

A baker might not want to bake a cake. But the baker doesn't have to be at the "evil stunt-kite flyers" dinner-dance.

A caterer might not want to be there. OTOH, everyone needs to eat, even "evil stunt-kite flyers".

An owner of an event space might not want to rent it to "evil stunt-kite flyers". The owner doesn't have to be there for the event; but the group will be in the owner's space.

What about a restaurant? They mostly serve anyone who comes in.

How should all that play out?


Re what someone said about just trying to get a blank cake: I've wondered about that, too. Maybe the baker could have a large selection of cake toppers (wide variety of occasion themes), candied letters, etc. If people for the wedding cake topper are sold separately, then the purchaser can pick out the appropriate ones. If the baker won't carry them, maybe another store could. Might that arrangement accommodate all parties enough?

 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

W Hyatt: A performer is personally involved in the event while a shop keeper isn't personally involved at all. Something between the two might be someone providing a service during the event which requires them to be present but only in the background in a less active role, like handling the lighting.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: To be fair, it is not only my opinion it is also law under a fair amount of Equality legislation. But I am quite happy to live and let live with regard to you being unconvinced by it

---

quote:

---

Adeodatus: We'll have to wait for the first gay couple ever to like gospel music.

It may be some time....

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: Maybe the difference is whether the hired person has to be present?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that another person who might fall in that gray area is the wedding photographer. He isn't performing on a stage, in fact the best of them are those who can make themselves invisible. Would they be allowed to refuse to 'perform' at a gay marriage?

---

Just to throw a couple more examples in the mix:

What about a baker who is willing to bake a wedding cake for any gay or straight couple, but who wants to refuse service to someone who wants a depiction of something like bestiality or masturbation? Or one who wants to refuse to portray a gay wedding service as a Christian religious service? I can support the idea of requiring them to provide their service to everyone equally, without regard to race, religion, or orientation of their customers, but I also think I'd support the idea of allowing them to refuse service based on the details of the particular service being requested. Even so, that line could get very blurry.

On the other hand, how about a legitimate cuddling service? (Try googling "cuddling service".) Should they only employ cuddlers who are willing to cuddle with someone of either sex, or should the cuddlers be free to limit their clients to one particular sex?
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
This question reminds me of one of the participants - a mezzo-soprano - in a summer opera workshop back in the last century. She announced to everyone that she was a Christian, and would never do anything on stage that contravened her religion. And yet she wanted to be an opera singer ....

So, of course, we all started asking her questions like, "Would you dress as a man?" and "Would you kiss a woman?" and "Would you summon the Devil?" It turned out she didn't really know much about the operatic repertoire for her voice type, much of which consists of "witches, bitches and britches". I guess her answers were all no, because I never heard of her again after that summer.

The only gig I've ever felt uncomfortable about was my very first gig, and at the time it didn't bother me, 'cause, hey, it was my first gig. Now, I sometimes wonder if I contributed to human suffering by singing for a Christian Science congregation.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Tangent
I can't imagine it coming up here. Most of the lesbians I know have at least 3-4 lesbian friends who will fall over themselves to play guitar for their weddings. Likewise my gay friends have plenty of musician friends who will play and sing for a sandwich and champagne. I've sung a number of the latter.

I can't actually imagine a situation in which a lesbian or gay man would need to hire musicians unknown to them.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble Adeodatus, but I'm very fond of classic gospel, as are all the members of my homo group (like a home group, only more fabulous). We also like all forms of pre-20th century music.
Tangent over
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Call me grouchy, but...

Most of us can get a pretty fair idea of what the occasion is (and who it is for) at the time the initial approach is made to see if we can play/sing/ bake or decorate cake/ whatever.

If you don't like the sound of it, take instant dislike to the person/people who make the approach - again, whatever - you just make your excuses* and decline.

You do this without feeling the need to unburden yourself of your prejudices or foibles, just say you can't take the job because* and back out.

Whether you wish the happy gay couple well or wish them to roast in the eternal fires of hell is your opinion and they, and the world, don't need to know about it.

* another engagement/ clashes with family celebration/ too far to travel/ hoping to be on holiday - you get the drift
 

---

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I agree L'Organist.

In an ideal world I'd like it if everyone had fundamental respect for the lives and choices of others even if they themselves did not actively agree and endorse those things. Unfortunately, as these and many other cases show, we do not. I remain in favour of laws which forbid active discrimination but I am not going to advocate prosecuting thought-crime for suspected discrimination if people can make reasonable excuses for declining which do not rest on extolling their prejudices.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.

---

The difference being that there is equalities legislation to cover sex, age and sexuality. There isn't, in the same way, to cover political belief. So legally you have a situation where any business can refuse service to anyone they like (or don't!) unless that is trumped by equalities laws. So no "because you're a girl", no "because you is black", and no "because you're on the other team".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The US is not unique in this, Gwai. Wish it were.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: No worries, I didn't interpret it as antagonism. I understand where you're coming from it's just that I really do think if we give people an 'out' within the legislation then the legislation will become essentially useless in doing its job.

---

quote:

---

W Hyatt: What about a baker who is willing to bake a wedding cake for any gay or straight couple, but who wants to refuse service to someone who wants a depiction of something like bestiality or masturbation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
Does presence enter in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keromaru:
I keep thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

I don't recall anybody raising a stink about anyone contributing a cake or decorations or such to his wedding a few years back. I DO remember an outcry about Elton John performing there, considering Rush's views on gay people.

---

quote:

---

churchgeek: Does presence enter in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Elton John is batshit crazy. ... I cannot forgive him for what he did to the Lion King.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: If you advertise yourself in a certain way, as a business available to the public, then you're going to start running into trouble if you start refusing to provide your services to certain members of the public based on what you think of them morally.

Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine.

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed ...: Or the all too obvious consistency in rejection of certain groups specifically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose a band has a meeting in January and they say to eachother: "This year we're going to do the theatre tour, we already have requests in 5 cities. We're going to try to be on a couple of jazz festivals. And maybe this project will come up with regional tv where we'll be playing with a well-known artist."

Now, if a gay bar calls them in March and asks them to perform, they can say no because it doesn't fit in what they thought about for this year. Even when five gay bars call them. The band has the right to make their planning in accordance with their artistic and commercial perspectives.

You could say that they've rejected a certain group specifically. But I'm not convinced they've done anything bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you advertise yourself in a certain way, as a business available to the public, then you're going to start running into trouble if you start refusing to provide your services to certain members of the public based on what you think of them morally.

Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine.

It's not the rejection of a customer that gets people into trouble. It's the inconsistent rejection of a customer.

---

This makes the most sense to me.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

lilBuddha: It shouldn't become an issue, though. If notes were compred bewteen th bars and some though an issue was there, all that would be necessary would be to show your calendar.

---

quote:

---

JoannaP: The problem would be if a straight bar called them the day after the first gay bar - and the band rearranged their schedule to fit the straight bar in.

---

quote:

---

JoannaP: If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.

---

quote:

---

ChastMastr: This makes the most sense to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
The problem would be if a straight bar called them the day after the first gay bar - and the band rearranged their schedule to fit the straight bar in. If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

JoannaP: If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.

---

I don't think that works either. A friend of mine is a folk singer in the Netherlands. A couple of years ago, she decided to sing in Irish pubs around the country. So she accepted gigs from Irish pubs, but rejected request from other bars (including gay bars). Was she discriminating? I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Sioni Sais: Was she asked to perform at a gay Irish bar? That might have been the clincher.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Re not being able to force the band to show their calendar or their planning: the thing is, if the performer has a good, non-discriminatory reason for saying no, it's in their own interest to provide the reason - and hopefully clear up whatever discriminatory impression was created.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd: Does the distinction that LeRoc's groping for have anything to do with expectations of sincerity? That is, we expect performers to be sincere in what they're expressing (*) (**), and we hire performers at a wedding to be as sincerely happy for the bride and groom as can be reasonably expected of complete strangers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does the distinction that LeRoc's groping for have anything to do with expectations of sincerity? That is, we expect performers to be sincere in what they're expressing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Re not being able to force the band to show their calendar or their planning: the thing is, if the performer has a good, non-discriminatory reason for saying no, it's in their own interest to provide the reason - and hopefully clear up whatever discriminatory impression was created.

---

LOL, I've never played in a band that had a 'calendar'. Gigs would come up and musicians would put them in their own calendars (if that). Many professional musicians play in 3–4 bands to make a living, so it's often a complete mess of ever-changing appointments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does the distinction that LeRoc's groping for have anything to do with expectations of sincerity? That is, we expect performers to be sincere in what they're expressing

---

Well, this is an interesting thought.
AS I said earlier, I think this is event dependent. I do not think anyone looks at a wedding singer with any expectations other than quality of performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does the distinction that LeRoc's groping for have anything to do with expectations of sincerity? That is, we expect performers to be sincere in what they're expressing

---

Well, this is an interesting thought.
AS I said earlier, I think this is event dependent. I do not think anyone looks at a wedding singer with any expectations other than quality of performance.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Don't blame me, I'm not the one who came up with that hypothetical. It was already running when I got here.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: I think usually the only person who is paid to show up at a wedding and is expected to express, with or without sincerity, anything about the presumably happy couple, their relationship and so on is the celebrant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Hm, this must be a cultural difference then. In the Netherlands, the performer at a wedding party (usually a guy with a keyboard) has very much a role as entertainer too. He asks the bride and groom (or bride and bride or groom and groom) to the dance floor, he says things like "and here's another song for the happy couple", he makes jokes about the couple, guests request songs and relay anecdotes about the couple to him that he tells over the microphone ...

He doesn't just play and collect his paycheck, there is much more interaction with the couple and the guests than that. And I dare to say that this is at least as important as the quality of his musical performance.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But how is this not also part of the performance?

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: This is what I meant. Every performer has moments of pretense. Everyone performing for people they do not care for. Caring about every client is not in the job description.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I spent a my time as a wedding singer

---

quote:

---

afterwards, trying to find who the hell had my fucking money.

---

There's a reason I generally don't do weddings...

(full disclosure: I don't perform for a living - that gives a whole lot more latitude to refuse gigs...)
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think that if I were getting married, I'd want anyone I hired to be there to be at least neutral about the occasion. If there were something they loathed, whatever and for whatever reasons, it would probably leak out of them in some way.

In some circumstances, maybe disapproving performers, caterers, and photographers would be the only ones available. I'm not sure what should be done then. But weddings are often powder kegs, anyway, and the added stress of hirees who loath you just might be a spark.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: ISTM, most people don't even consider this as a factor. They look at the product (cake, photos, demo tape of performance, etc.) and say "I want that".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

They aren't really interested in whether Henk can play Paradise by the Dashboard Lights in a technically perfect way on his keyboard. They want to know, if through playing this song and through his personality, he can get people to the dance floor.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Yes, and Henk can do this without caring about the couple. It is just a different aspect of the performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
... In the Netherlands, most people will barely listen to the demo of the wedding performer. It's possible that they don't even have musical knowledge to make an informed decision about the quality of his music.

I'm talking about Marietje who works at the checkout of the Spar supermarket, who is going to marry Jan who operates a fork lift at a transport company. Through friends, they receive a business card from Henk with his Magical Keyboard™, and they decide to have a talk with him. ...

---

quote:

---

Soror Magna: The majority of my wedding gigs came from the church where I was also a paid soloist.

---

quote:

---

#5. And speaking of which, he'll be by your side just about as much as anyone in the party, and then some—how well do your personalities mesh? Will his presence be an asset or a burden? Truly, a wedding photographer's charm and ability to put everyone at ease is as important a skill as the actual photography.

---

quote:

---

Chemistry with the caterer is very important.

(snip)

Ask who will be the day-to-day and on-site contact for your event. Be sure you feel comfortable with this person. You want an event manager who seems to be enjoyable to work with, appears to be competent and client service-oriented and inspires confidence that you will feel relaxed and able to mix with your guests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not saying that wedding vendors should become your best friends forever--just that it's important to be able to get along with them. And if they loathe something about you (sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion...), then you're courting at least small disasters by hiring them. Who needs that kind of stress?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Out of curiosity, who plays the music at the barn dance? What is expected of him/her? How is this person contracted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Golden Key


Here you still find examples of the 'trad' English country wedding: home-made dress; bridesmaids walk in after bride; ceremony in church at 2pm; reception in the garden as an up-market tea party with champagne; couple either leave at 6pm or there is a barn dance. You make your own cake (or mum does) and the local bakery ices it, the ladies of the church flower guild decorate the church, etc, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Out of curiosity, who plays the music at the barn dance? What is expected of him/her? How is this person contracted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:


We've been talking about vendors who are openly discriminatory. If a vendor were legally forced to take a wedding they didn't approve of, that disapproval is apt to leak out somewhere. The couple deserves to have vendors who at least have a neutral attitude.

This could also apply to other events--a stereotypical stag party, for example. Some caterers wouldn't want anything to do with it. If they were forced to take the job, they'd likely look very uncomfortable and even disgusted. Not good for anyone involved, IMHO.

I just think that--for weddings, at least--forcing vendors to take jobs they find offensive may be massively counter-productive.

---

quote:

---

Gee D: We say that we like a doctor to have a good bedside manner. Why does not the argument you set out apply equally to a doctor who believes that same-sex practices by patients - or perhaps by the patient's mother - to be wrong and sinful?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Golden Key

I'm beginning to suspect this is another pond thing.

Here in the UK we don't yet (thank God) have a universal attitude towards a wedding that the whole thing is a massive production that MUST BE PERFECT - although there are worrying signs it is creeping up on us.

(snip)

All lower key, much lower cost and, dare I say, lower stress.

---

The perfection thing is pushed in the media, and throughout the culture. Bridal gown deep-discount sales can turn into actual brawls. And you might search on "bridezilla".

The simple weddings you mention sound like the ones at my childhood church--except it was fundamentalist, so no alcohol nor dancing. At least some of the dresses were homemade. Cakes, I'm not sure, But no meals. A reception, downstairs in the church basement. Just punch, coffee, cake, maybe some cookies, mixed nuts, and those little pillow-shaped mints. No musicians at the reception, IIRC. Generally, the only gift for an attendee would be a keepsake--either some dry rice (wrapped in pretty mesh), or a bit of wrapped cake.

Since at least half of the couple was a church member, I'm not sure if there was any charge for using the church. Might have been on a "love offering" basis.

I've never understood spending thousands of dollars on a wedding. If you're providing a dinner and putting up out-of-town guests in a hotel, then maybe. Or if you have a huge crowd. Personally, I'd rather have a pretty, but inexpensive wedding. Any other available money could go towards a house.

[ 13. March 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Another 'pond thing' is the wedding favour (or gift for attendee, as you put it) which isn't part of the British wedding tradition.

Here the wedding present is given by the guest to the happy couple - either something from a list or just whatever they think the couple need. There has been a move towards people asking for cash but that is considered very tacky and non-U.

Similarly we don't have the nonsense of rehearsal dinners and the like.

Some oldest son of some friends married in the USA and they were horrified by the expense, the needless invented dinners and suchlike, and the fact that people getting married at 12noon were expected to wear dinner jackets - and sported ready-made bow ties too
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Sorry Golden Key, my post was prompted by yours but I was not expecting a reply just from you.

This thread seems be much more tolerant of anti-LGBTn performers at weddings than was a recent thread on a doctor who was said to have refused to treat a girl with 2 mothers; I am wondering why, especially given the brief and fleeting nature or the performers' role and a possibly much longer doctor/patient relationship.
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:

---

Another 'pond thing' is the wedding favour (or gift for attendee, as you put it) which isn't part of the British wedding tradition.

---

quote:

---

I've never understood spending thousands of dollars on a wedding. If you're providing a dinner and putting up out-of-town guests in a hotel, then maybe. Or if you have a huge crowd. Personally, I'd rather have a pretty, but inexpensive wedding. Any other available money could go towards a house.

---

I had a fairly standard Scottish wedding -church service in the early afternoon, 100 people for a sit-down three course dinner, with another 50 coming for the evening ceilidh dance. Virtually every wedding I've been to has been the same. The idea is that this wedding sets you up for your married life. Twenty six years on, many of our wedding presents are still in daily use - the Le Creuset casseroles, the canteen of cutlery, our fridge-freezer, our food mixer, our most-thumbed recipe books, the crystal vase, the painting of the church where we married, our coffee table. I can tell you, 26 years on, who gave us that barometer, that gravy boat, and those wine glasses.

My parents are still using some of their wedding presents 52 years on.

It's a family / community thing - it costs a fortune, but everybody has a meal, a dance and the couple are set up with all manner of household stuff.

I do a lot of genealogy and it's a question you can ask very elderly people, to jog their memories - who gave you what at your wedding?

// End tangent
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{tangent}

NEQ--

Household gifts for the couple are traditional in the US, too. Gift registries are common, so the couple can get what they need, rather than 3 toasters and 15 crock pots (slow cookers). Although, from what I've seen in the occasional article, there's sort of a branch trend to give other things. Lots of people have lived on their own, or together, before marriage, and have all their household stuff. So guests might pitch in for something else, like money towards a house or maybe paying off student loans, or donate to a charity.

Long time since I was last at a wedding. It was the fanciest I'd ever been to, but much less fancy than many I've heard of. AFAIK, most Americans don't have the money for a fancy wedding Some find ways to cut costs, improvise, and make do. I suspect many couples and/or families go into deep debt.

PS A ceiledh sounds fun!

(/end tangent)

[ 14. March 2015, 02:38: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

I suspect many couples and/or families go into deep debt.

---

Never understood that. Finances are a big reason for marriages ending, so starting one this way?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
(tangent)

lilbuddha--

I think a good chunk of it is due to the idea that it's the best and most important day in the bride's life. (Media greatly reinforces that.) That attitude maybe makes sense in a culture where women have little freedom, and likely will never have anything for themselves again. I think that's less true in the US than it used to be, but some people still believe it.

(/end tangent)
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Out of curiosity, who plays the music at the barn dance? What is expected of him/her? How is this person contracted?

---

quote:

---

"I have come that they might have life, and have it in a-barn-dance".

---

quote:

---

I've got this hilarious picture in my mind's eye of a barn dance, either at a hetero or gay wedding bash, where some of the couples are same sex, some opposite sex. And you get to that bit in "Strip the Willow", where the couple goes down the aisle lined on both sides by other couples. Each one of them dancing briefly with all of the other people on their respective side of the line. So you don't know til you get there whether you'll be swinging around with a member of the same sex or the opposite sex. Now that could be a huge lot of chaotic fun - even more than the usual level of chaos.

---

I was at a ceilidh last month at which there was a large group from the University Overseas Students Society. None of them had done ceilidh dancing before, which added an element of chaos from the start. Added to that, the Muslim students were dancing with members of the same sex. The Strip the Willow was, as you can imagine "a huge lot of chaotic fun."

The Muslim women were not only coping with being "birled" by one arm but were managing to use the other hand to adjust their headscarves.

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I wish I'd been there!

We were at an amazing ceilidh a few years ago which formed the basis of the evening celebration of a wedding in Edinburgh. Must have been 200 people there. It knocked spots off the by now almost traditional evening affair at English weddings, with a DJ doing his best to strike sparks of the sort of unwilling which seems to be typical of all ages gatherings.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Palimpsest, that was an interesting argument. At the moment, I don't agree with your conclusion - I would want to have a doctor with whom I was comfortable and who was comfortable with me, while contact with a wedding performer is fleeting - but I can see where you're coming from.

---

Well, I'd rather have a doctor that I didn't think was a stupid bigot. That would make me more comfortable. But there are places where the choice is no doctor or the stupid bigot. In that case, I'd probably use the stupid bigot, although as little as possible. Wedding performers are less essential to life.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I am sure that none of us wants a stupid bigot to treat us, or to perform at our wedding. Realistically though, there are still quite a few anti-gay people out there in a range of jobs and professions. When it comes to medical treatment I'd prefer a sympathetic bedside manner, but I'd go for the better skills every time.

As to the pharmacy point. In country areas here, pharmacies can be few and far between. As a matter of law, and someone prepared to spend the time can correct me, I don't think there's an obligation on a pharmacist to stock the morning after pill and further I doubt that such a failure offends any of the anti-discrimination provisions. If a baker does not make mixed strawberry and chocolate cakes for anyone, he is not breaching any law by refusing to make one.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The annual bush dance is the largest gay and lesbian event in Canberra.

The fact that it's gay AND lesbian means that for any progressive dance or Strip the Willow you'll find yourself dancing with people of the opposite sex from time to time. The numbers are such that the lesbians tend to find they are dancing with boys a lot of the time.

I like lesbians as dance partners. The complete lack of any sexual tension is refreshing.

EDIT: Oh, and the same band has played at these dances for years and years. They keep getting hired and keep turning up.

[ 17. March 2015, 06:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well, I'd rather have a doctor that I didn't think was a stupid bigot. That would make me more comfortable. But there are places where the choice is no doctor or the stupid bigot.

---

quote:

---

Wedding performers are less essential to life.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: So fuck the discomfited pastry maker and stuff the uncomfortable performer. You shall not inhibit my progress further.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: The rules that are in place for everything else. That if a performer demonstrable indicates that they are not performing because of the clients orientation, they are penalised.

---

• He decides only to play Irish pubs this years, so he refused the gay pub
• The band decides informally that they will only play eight shows this summer, because some of the members have other engagements. This agreement is written down nowhere however. The ninth venue that asks is a gay bar.
• At the date a gay bar requests a performance, the singer's aunt is having a serious operation in hospital.
• The gay bar asks the band to perform on a Tuesday, and the bass player refuses to play when Mercury is in ascent in Aries.
• They are asked to play in a gay bar the day before Easter, and they are simply not in the mood that day.
• Etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose that Adam and Steve ask Hank the Keyboard Player to perform at their wedding. He refuses, and they sue him. The judge asks Hank: "why did you refuse to play?" Hank answers (through his lawyer): "I wasn't in the mood." That's where it ends. There is no case. As a free-lancer, Hank has the right to refuse for that reason, just like any other free-lancer. What is the judge supposed to do, look inside Hank's head if he really refused for homophobic reasons? The term 'tought crime' has been mentioned on this thread already.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: But this is rubbish. You might as well suggest that the judge asks Hank: "did you kill her" and Hanks answers "no", and then suggest that's where it ends. What is the judge supposed to do, look inside Hank's head to find out if he's lying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: But this is rubbish. You might as well suggest that the judge asks Hank: "did you kill her" and Hanks answers "no", and then suggest that's where it ends. What is the judge supposed to do, look inside Hank's head to find out if he's lying?

---

In this case, the judge can do something. She can look at evidence, call witnesses etc. She doesn't need to rely on Hank's testimony to determine if he's a murderer. If his testimony is all she has and he denies, then there is no case.

But if Hank refuses to perform at a gay wedding, firstly refusing to perform somewhere isn't a crime (offence ..., whatever) in principle for a free-lancer. It might be if he refused for homophobic reasons. But unless Hank has put "I won't play for queers" on his Facebook page, I don't think there is much she can do if he just says "I wasn't in the mood to play that evening". Even if witnesses say that he has made some anti-gay slurs in the past, I don't think that's enough to convict him for discrimination in this case.

---

quote:

---

Golden Key: Um, at the bottom of page 2, I posted a question about whether customers *buying* items/services should have to live up to the standards we're discussing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
What about the other way around--if you're hiring performers, and *you* turn out to have something against *them*? Should the rules be the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

Let's say you're holding an afternoon audition for a wedding reception band. You want light, New Orleans jazz. They all can and do play that well. But:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

--Group 1's members all cross-dress. You don't know if they're trans-gendered, transvestites, or just like a great costume. It doesn't bother *you*; but you can name half a dozen attendees who won't approve and won't keep that to themselves. And that's not counting the in-laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

--Group 2's members are all men with very long beards. They don't work Fridays. With that and the beards, you're thinking they might be Muslims. The bride is an Iraq war vet, with occasional PTSD. The other bride's grandparents are vitriolic televangelists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

--Group 3 is perfect--except they're staunch vegans, they require a vegan lunch, and you secretly think veganism is laughable.
If the budget allowed, no worries.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Golden Key:
[QB]
--And Group 4 is perfect for you in every way.

The groups audition in this order, and you don't know anything about them beforehand.

Are you required to hire any of them? Does it matter if you tell them why or why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
You seem to have made a 180 degree turn since this post where you said "Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine", and I'm having difficulty adjusting to the change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
What about the other way around--if you're hiring performers, and *you* turn out to have something against *them*? Should the rules be the same?

---

I do not think it is quite the same thing legally, but morally, maybe.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: I'd hire them anyway. But then, anyone attending my wedding would be likely to expect anything.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Whereas the point of my earlier post was more to do with legal principle: consistency is evidence, yes, but it's more directly relevant to the basic legal principle that it's not discrimination unless you treat gays (or whatever group) differently to how you treat other people.

---

My mind works on the basis of concrete examples (you can see this by the fact that I always name the people in my hypothetical examples )

Suppose someone asks Hank to perform at a gay event and he says no. Could you give a concrete (hypothetical) case of what would constitute evidence that he has treated gays differently to how he treats other people?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose someone asks Hank to perform at a gay event and he says no. Could you give a concrete (hypothetical) case of what would constitute evidence that he has treated gays differently to how he treats other people?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: After Hank has said no to someone, that someone's sister/friend etc rings up and asks Hank to perform in similar circumstances - the same night, for example. If Hank says yes to an alternative event that is very similar except for being "not gay", he's going to have some explaining to do.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I just recently read about something like this happening in real life (the actual occurrence was a while ago). Two Aboriginal women turned up in a town and went to a hotel asking for a room for the night. They were told there were no vacancies. They left, went to a phone booth, and called the same hotel. They got a booking for the night. You can imagine the expression on the hotelier's face when they went back to check in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: After Hank has said no to someone, that someone's sister/friend etc rings up and asks Hank to perform in similar circumstances - the same night, for example. If Hank says yes to an alternative event that is very similar except for being "not gay", he's going to have some explaining to do.

---

We've been through this already on this thread.

So, Hank is a freelance performer. On Friday afternoon, Jack the owner of "The Pink Unicorn" calls him and to asks him to perform at his bar on Sunday. Hank says "I'm not in the mood".

On Friday evening, John the owner of "The Straight Jacket" calls him and asks him to perform at his bar Sunday. Hank says yes.

Now suppose that Jack find out that Hank did perform at John's bar, and he decides to sue Jack. Has Hank discriminated gay people? Not necessarily. In fact, I could just cite Leorning Cniht's earlier post here. Maybe John is a friend, and Hank went the extra mile for him. Maybe John's bar serves particularly good beer. Maybe Hank had a drink in John's bar earlier, and he just loved the vibe of the people there. Maybe Hank had a migraine on Friday afternoon that resolved itself on Friday evening. Maybe Hank had a dream Thursday night where a ghost came to him saying "Don't play in bars that have a U in their name this Sunday!"

All of these are valid reasons for Hank to say no to Jack and yes to John. He can just give any of these explanations to the judge and as far as I'm concerned, he walks free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whereas Hank has always conveyed that his services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that he's not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, so he'll be fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think you can compel anyone to enter into a contract when you are the buyer. Contracts are an agreement between two parties.

---

quote:

---

A barrister must accept a brief from a solicitor to appear before a court in a field in which the barrister practices if:

the brief is within the barrister’s capacity, skill and experience;
the barrister would be available to work at the time required and is not already committed to other work which would prevent them from working in the client’s best interests;
the fee is acceptable (the barrister is obliged to disclose the proposed fee in the same way as a solicitor); and
the barrister is not obliged or permitted to refuse the brief. Situations in which a barrister is obliged to refuse a brief include where there is a conflict of interest.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: You seem determined to argue that there's no way Hank can get in legal trouble. Of course he can. He can say "I wasn't in the mood" and the judge can say "I don't believe you." Which is exactly what will happen if Hank has no extra evidence to explain what the difference between the 2 gigs was.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: This, too, is evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped: I wouldn't be willing to make those people a cake, either.

---

But that's the thing: I think you would have to. If a Mob boss (or the president of a xenophobic party) would enter your bakery and ask for a cake, you'd have to sell him a cake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you refuse to perform music at a rally for a xenophobic party, it's not because of anyone's race. It's because of political opinions about race.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: LeRoc, there is no prosecution. We're not talking about criminal law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you refuse to perform music at a rally for a xenophobic party, it's not because of anyone's race. It's because of political opinions about race.

---

And if you refuse to bake a cake for a gay rights organization in Northern Ireland, it's not because of anyone's sexuality, it's because of political opinions about sexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are making a religio-politic-douchebagious statement.
But, yes. Whether that is your intention or not.

---

1. If he's asked to perform at a gay event and he sais no.
2. If he's asked to perform at a gay event and he sais no, and he doesn't have solid evidence of the reason why he refused.
3. If he refuses to perform at a gay event a couple of times (how many?) in a row.
4. If he refuses to perform at a gay event, but at the same day he performs at a 'straight' event.
5. Something else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: LeRoc, there is no prosecution. We're not talking about criminal law.

---

I AM NOT A LAWYER!!! AND I AM NEITHER A NATIVE SPEAKER OF ENGLISH, NOR FAMILIAR WITH THE JURIDICAL SYSTEMS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES!!! I HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW!!!

Whenever I use a word like 'crime', I use it loosely to mean 'something that breaks the law'. Maybe in this case I should have used a word like 'felony' or something. I don't know. Whenever I use a word like 'prosecution', I use it loosely to mean 'whoever accuses the guy in a courtroom'. I don't know who does that in a specific cas.

It is fucking irritating when I'm in a discussion with you — and you are a lawyer &nmdash; and instead of replying to a post I've made an effort to compose, you just correct me on a wrong use of juridical terms.

We're not in a courthouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No anti-discrimination law says that you must do something. It only says that your reason for refusal mustn't be a certain characteristic.

Not one of the scenarios you're raising is because of a person's sex, race, sexuality or any of the usual grounds.

It is not racism to refuse to serve a racist. I can't be any clearer. It is not homophobic to refuse to serve a homophobe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, I get this. The trouble is, if you're going to make certain motivations off limits legally, how are you going to prove those motivations? (or given the political climate in some places, how are you going to disprove the accusation by the would-be client? I've had people attribute racism to me when the real problem was a dislike of assholes. But trying to prove a negative is darn hard.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: As to your complaint that something is just too vague for you: well, sorry, but that's just how it's going to have to be. Laws have to be general because they have to apply to absolutely every single situation, millions upon million of people interacting with each other.

---

quote:

---

mdijon: If on the other hand the baker cooks for everyone else with a smile but shouts at black people then we have a case. Likewise the performer.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I understand that you like concrete facts, but you're simply not giving anywhere NEAR enough facts in any of your scenarios to give you a nice, firm definitive answer either "yes, that's discrimination" or "no, that's not discrimination". Or even more difficult, "yes, that would prove discrimination" or "no, that wouldn't prove discrimination".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I'm interested in, is the cases where the performer just says "No, thank you". Is there any way in which he can still be found guilty if he does that?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Claiming you turned down a job because you weren't in the mood is going to at the very least raise an eyebrow. Is such a claim credible?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: If there is evidence showing that he said yes to someone straight in the same situation, then it's possible to infer that the difference between being straight and being gay was the difference between saying Yes and saying No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What kind of evidence can I give for not wanting to play on March 15?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Should the artists who boycotted South Africa's Sun City in the 1980s because of apartheid been compelled to perform there if invited to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Should the artists who boycotted South Africa's Sun City in the 1980s because of apartheid been compelled to perform there if invited to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is whether one can boycott something which one feels strongly against - yes or no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is whether one can boycott something which one feels strongly against - yes or no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is whether one can boycott something which one feels strongly against - yes or no?

---

Stupid question to answer yes or no to. It depends on the thing.

It's a bit like asking "is it legal to refuse to do something". Yes if you are being asked to buy a drink at a bar, no if you are being asked to pay a speeding fine by a proper authority.

Likewise is it legal to boycott something you feel strongly about? Yes if the thing you feel strongly about is drinking alcohol, buying expensive clothes or wearing blue clothes, no if the thing you feel strongly about is not discriminating against protected groups, arranging appropriate health and safety measures at work or purchasing insurance before you drive a car.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is whether one can boycott something which one feels strongly against - yes or no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Matt did not ask if it was legal to boycott something; he asked if it was possible. The two are not synonymous.

[/pedant mode]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I don't know what it is about the Ship in the last couple of weeks, but there seem to be a hell of a lot of people basically wanting to suggest that conscience is the ruler of all, and that the law can't ever say, no matter what "Tough Shit. You've got to do it whether you want to or not."

---

quote:

---

Gee D: Le Roc, you keep referring to freelance performers. Quite what do you mean by that?

---

quote:

---

Gee D: Ethically I must accept any brief offered to me, provided I am free to carry out the work, it is within an area of my expertise, and my usual fee is offered.

---

I don't know what a brief is, are you a lawyer too? I guess it is different for lawyers, because everyone who goes to court has the right to a lawyer. There is no ethical rule that says that every party has the right to a musician (although I feel there should be )

quote:

---

Gee D: I think you and Le Roc are often at cross purposes because you're looking at a point from the position of a common-lawyer, while Le Roc comes from a different background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What kind of evidence can I give for not wanting to play on March 15?

---

Whatever the reason actually was.

I don't see why you can't tell the judge about your existentialist problems. If you don't come across as being evasive, you'll probably be believed. It's a heck of a lot better than saying "I wasn't in the mood" and then clamming up and not elaborating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I were to try and explain why I didn't perform last Sunday, I guess most I could come up with is some incoherent rambling. Part of me also believes that my personal problems are none of the judge's business.

---

quote:

---

mdijon: My guess is that if it the consistent account of a witness or two that you made most of your decisions high, drunk and based on incoherent whims with no reason to suspect a discriminatory motive then there's very little chance of a successful action on grounds of discrimination.

---

quote:

---

mdijon: Of course you might open yourself to other legal sanction in the process of making that known.

---

quote:

---

What I'm defending is the right of a freelance musician to turn down a performance without having a clear reason for it. Because that's what they do sometimes.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: And how is this threatened?

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Where is there a law that says a performer must perform for everyone who asks unless the time requested is already

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: And in most, if not all, places which have anti-discrimination laws, prosecution of them requires proof of violation, not lack of proof of not violating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
According to Orfeo, it is up to Hank to provide satisfactory evidence of his innocence here.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: No. That isn't what I said. Only after someone has provided at least some evidence of his wrongdoing.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: As I've said, Hank is going to have to provide an alternative explanation, once the person complaining of discrimination has shown that it looks like Hank discrimianted.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I don't believe he's necessarily discriminated by turning down a gig either.

---

quote:

---

mdijon: My guess is that if it the consistent account of a witness or two that you made most of your decisions high, drunk and based on incoherent whims with no reason to suspect a discriminatory motive then there's very little chance of a successful action on grounds of discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
To me, it makes no difference if a freelancer often makes decisions on a whim or if he only does this occasionally (for the rest of his decisions he has a system). It doesn't matter to me either if he has witnesses to show how often he makes decisions on a whim. Taking decisions on a whim is a freelancer's right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Why should you be able to pick and choose for whom you work?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Look, LeRoc, all I can say is that never mind the law, life simply doesn't come with the guarantees you're looking for.

---

quote:

---

mdijon: You are misreading me. I'm not arguing you have to do that, I'm responding to the particular details you posted and illustrating how a defence against an allegation of discrimination might work.

---

quote:

---

Gee D: Yes, Le roc, I am a lawyer, but unlike Orfeo I am as self employed as you are - I have no guarantee of any work, no holiday pay, no sick leave, no long service leave, nothing. Why should you be able to pick and choose for whom you work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc: I'm probably using terms of criminal law again, but I believe that someone can only be convicted if his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know if an equivalent principle applies in civil law (and what the relevant terminology would be), but I believe that the judge should only rule that Hank has discriminated if there is no reasonable doubt that he did.

---

quote:

---

What I'm trying to say is: to me, "I wasn't in the mood" is always a reasonable ground for a freelance performer to turn down a performance. I have done so on occasion, and I'm definitely not the only one. <snip> What I'm saying is that in my view, if Hank says "I wasn't in the mood", this is enough for him to have sown reasonable doubt. And discrimination can't be proven anymore.

---

quote:

---

Leaf: "I wasn't in the mood" by itself is exceedingly unlikely to be sufficient evidence before a judge to convict Hank of discrimination. Your standard is too high. If your standard were applied to murder cases, all a person accused of murder would have to do is say, "I didn't do it" and you would say, "Aha! Reasonable doubt! Let him go." A person denying that they committed an offense is not sufficient to make it all go away if there is other evidence against him or her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Look, LeRoc, all I can say is that never mind the law, life simply doesn't come with the guarantees you're looking for.

---

In my relationship with the State, there are some rules that are pretty basic to me. "The State will strive not to punish the innocent" is a rather important example of this.

The State has the power to do some rather unpleasant thing to me. The police can imprison me, a judge can punish me ... Yet I seek to trust them. This rule is an important basis on which this trust is built.

So yes, I'd like to see some pretty solid guarantees of that. And I want these guarantees to be imbedded in the system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But the thing is: he can't prove that. All 'evidence' he has in his favour is him saying "I wasn't in the mood to play". What people on this thread are saying is that this isn't enough, and that he would be found guilty. It is this that I have problems with.

And another thing: the only difference between Hank and Hugh is what was going on inside their heads. I think that this is why people on this thread have used the term 'thought crime'.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: But what exactly has this got to do with "the State"? It's not "the State" that's taking Hank to court, it's a cranky customer. This isn't about a relationship with the State, it's a dispute between two people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

I don't know what the judge can do if she feels that Hank has discriminated. I guess she can give him a fine?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: You yourself wrote several sentences of context setting for us... but then you suggest that Hank has only one thing to say in court. Why?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: That is not what "thought crime" means. The fact murder, manslaughter and completely accidental killing all have the same physical outcome does not mean that murder is "thought crime".

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: Probably it's the gay bar making a civil claim of discrimination against Hank, and if Hank loses, the judge is going to award damages to the gay bar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: That is not what "thought crime" means. The fact murder, manslaughter and completely accidental killing all have the same physical outcome does not mean that murder is "thought crime".

---

But in this case, what went on inside Hank's head is the only thing that determines whether he's (morally) innocent or guilty. That counts as a thought crime to me. What would your definition of a thought crime be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
D'oh! I just thought of something.

Suppose they are all in court. Hank (the one from my last example), the owner of the gay bar who accused him, their lawyers and the judge.

Hank says: "I'm sorry, I really wasn't in the mood to play that weekend. But I have nothing against gay people, and I'd be more than happy to perform for you another day. In fact, if you want to we can make an appointment right now."

Would the judge be happy with that? Still, the only 'evidence' Hank has is "I wasn't in the mood".

---

quote:

---

But on Tuesday 17 March, he has a Sod it! moment. He says to himself: "This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one".

---

quote:

---

John Holding: The gay bar owner will have to produce some evidence that Hank is lying when he said he wasn't in the mood, and probably a pattern of refusing to play for gay clients.

---

quote:

---

John Holding: As for "the State" -- God help us all if we confuse a judge or a judicial system with "The State"

---

quote:

---

orfeo: No, that's not true. What he DID, combined with what he thought, will determine whether he's in the wrong. In exactly the same way that murder requires both killing and intent to kill.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: A "thought crime" is when you get punished for thinking something without any action involved. But you can think whatever filthy thoughts about homosexuals or women or black people you like, so long as your actual actions don't discriminate.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Because you're making it the only evidence. What happened to THIS bit?.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: And why did Hank have a Sod it! moment? What was going on that made him decide he wanted a break on that weekend?

---

quote:

---

Could I ask you to look at the whole post again?

In fact, I'll even formulate it again, taking your comment into account. Suppose that Hank says in court "I'm sorry, I really wasn't in the mood to play that weekend. On that Tuesday, I said to myself: 'This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one'. I guess I had some kind of Sod it! moment; I can't really explain why. So when Jack called me on Tuesday, asking me to perform on Sunday, I said 'No, thank you'. But I have nothing against gay people, and I'd be more than happy to perform for him another day. In fact, if he wants to we can make an appointment right now." Would this be ok? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question is whether one can boycott something which one feels strongly against - yes or no?

---

That is far too vague a question to give an answer to. Can you not attend a KKK rally? Can you refuse to perform at a gay wedding? Can you refuse giving medical treatment to a black man? Can you refuse to work with a woman because she belongs in the home?

Can you ignore laws you believe are wrong?

Not only does it depend on what it is you "feel strongly against" (not least whether it is truly a "something" or actually a "somebody"), it depends on what the heck you mean by "boycott".

I don't know what it is about the Ship in the last couple of weeks, but there seem to be a hell of a lot of people basically wanting to suggest that conscience is the ruler of all, and that the law can't ever say, no matter what "Tough Shit. You've got to do it whether you want to or not."

What is really amazing to me, though, is that this is happening in the context of a... of a website that people often think of as Christian. Where the heck did this philosophy come from? I don't recall Christian preaching being "do what you want to do". Indeed, I seem to remember a lot of talk about it sometimes being difficult, about how God would sometimes require things of you that weren't what you wanted but were for the best. About taking up crosses. About obedience.

Not about throwing tantrums the second anyone makes the slightest suggestion that maybe you can't just do what you want, whenever you want.

Right now I have this image in my head of a parent telling a kid, "be nice to your brother", and the kid is throwing a tantrum and shouting "NO! I don't WANNA! He's mean and he's horrible and he smells!". There's this constant feedback that's saying some of you just don't want to have to live in a society, where you might have to actually try to get along with other people and where just a small proportion of ways of saying "you're horrible and you smell" are out of bounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
what is legal at a given time may not be what is moral.

---

True. Treating black people well was moral prior to slavery being abolished. Treating women well was moral prior to women being given the right to vote. Treating gay people well was moral prior to gay people being allowed to marry. Treating other people well has always been moral regardless of whether the law requires it.

However, your suggestion that there should be a legal exemption allowing anyone who has strongly-held opinions to opt out of treating other people well... Do you seriously want the law to say "if you feel strongly about something you're allowed to disregard any laws on the subject"? Do you seriously think that would work as a law? Imagine what chaos would ensue if people could do anything they liked with the simple justification of "well I had strong feelings on the subject".

Let me assure you that some gay people have very strong feelings about the anti-gay Christians who have persecuted them for decades. I suggest that you wouldn't like the outcome if you gave those people the legal right to act on those feelings... But I guess what you were meaning was that Christians who have strong feelings get an exemption from laws about treating other people well when it comes to the treatment of gay people, but that gay people with strong feelings don't get any exemption from laws about treating others well when it comes to the treatment of Christians.

[ 23. March 2015, 09:42: Message edited by: Starlight ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But what the law says is right or wrong changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The laws of the pre-Christian Roman Empire at times required everyone to sacrifice to Caesar - are you seriously suggesting the early Christians were wrong to disobey those laws? Therefore, "because the law says so" is quote rightly not necessarily the end of the discussion; what is legal at a given time may not be what is moral.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I expect so, yes.

---

Hallelujah! Finally we're getting somewhere

Just a question: do you think that Hank saying he was prepared to perform at the gay bar on another date made a difference here? Because Hugh (the bad guy from this example) could also have said (in contrast to Hank, he would be lying): "I'm sorry, I really wasn't in the mood to play that weekend. On that Tuesday, I said to myself: 'This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one'. I guess I had some kind of Sod it! moment; I can't really explain why. So when Jack called me on Thursday, asking me to perform on Sunday, I said 'No, thank you'."
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
what is legal at a given time may not be what is moral.

---

True. Treating black people well was moral prior to slavery being abolished. Treating women well was moral prior to women being given the right to vote. Treating gay people well was moral prior to gay people being allowed to marry. Treating other people well has always been moral regardless of whether the law requires it.

However, your suggestion that there should be a legal exemption allowing anyone who has strongly-held opinions to opt out of treating other people well... Do you seriously want the law to say "if you feel strongly about something you're allowed to disregard any laws on the subject"? Do you seriously think that would work as a law? Imagine what chaos would ensue if people could do anything they liked with the simple justification of "well I had strong feelings on the subject".

---

quote:

---

Let me assure you that some gay people have very strong feelings about the anti-gay Christians who have persecuted them for decades. I suggest that you wouldn't like the outcome if you gave those people the legal right to act on those feelings... But I guess what you were meaning was that Christians who have strong feelings get an exemption from laws about treating other people well when it comes to the treatment of gay people, but that gay people with strong feelings don't get any exemption from laws about treating others well when it comes to the treatment of Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But what the law says is right or wrong changes.

---

...whereas your parents were completely consistent?

And are you suggesting people's moral positions don't change?

---

quote:

---

The fact that the law changes is no basis for saying that you can somehow then ignore what it says. You cannot run a society on personal consciences without serious problems, for the simple reason that personal consciences differ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: I expect so, yes.

---

Hallelujah! Finally we're getting somewhere

Just a question: do you think that Hank saying he was prepared to perform at the gay bar on another date made a difference here? Because Hugh (the bad guy from this example) could also have said (in contrast to Hank, he would be lying): "I'm sorry, I really wasn't in the mood to play that weekend. On that Tuesday, I said to myself: 'This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one'. I guess I had some kind of Sod it! moment; I can't really explain why. So when Jack called me on Thursday, asking me to perform on Sunday, I said 'No, thank you'."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
In the relationship between law and morality, I am here talking about moral absolutes - as Starlight said, it has always been wrong to discriminate against women, blacks, etc, whether or not individuals' moral positions change on that subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
In the relationship between law and morality, I am here talking about moral absolutes - as Starlight said, it has always been wrong to discriminate against women, blacks, etc, whether or not individuals' moral positions change on that subject.

---

Then why do you have to ask your question in the first place?

Seriously, you seem to be tying a logical knot. You seem to be claiming that we all know exactly which kinds of discrimination are not permissible, but at the same time you're asking whether an individual person is permitted to engage in a form of choice - a boycott - based on their own, personal disagreement on something.

How exactly did this disagreement arise, in a universe of moral absolutes?

And even asking whether someone is "allowed" to boycott raises a heap of questions. What do you mean by "allowed"? By their own morality? Of course. That's circular. By someone else's morality? Well, can someone else's morality differ with these moral absolutes? By the law? You've just told me you're not talking about the law.

At this point I'm mystified by just what kind of response you expect. It's already been said to you, there is no law that prevents you from boycotting racists. I can't give you some kind of broad-ranging answer beyond "it depends", for exactly the same reason I couldn't give LeRoc a more definite answer. Your generic question is in fact far more generic than anything LeRoc asked.

---

Yeah, I see what I've done there . I kind of was trying to ask,in a very cack-handed way, "what's the difference in principle between someone refusing to perform at a legal racist event, and someone refusing to perform at a legal gay wedding, other than 'the first refusal we would heartily approve of and the second we would heartily abhor - plus it might now amount to unlawful discrimination'?"

[ 23. March 2015, 15:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
One supports hate and the other supports tolerance?
If the agenda of one prevails, it actively makes life more difficult for large groups of people and if the other does it has no substantive effect on its opponents?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think you are essentially asking whether the state has any right to make a moral judgement in enacting laws. The idea that laws ought to be entirely arbitrary in some characteristic without any moral judgement is not going to play out well if you take it to its logical conclusion.

The state is allowed to say that it doesn't regard racists as a protected group, but does regard gay people as a protected group.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
That's the second leg of my objection - what the law says.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One supports hate and the other supports tolerance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
what's the difference in principle between someone refusing to perform at a legal racist event, and someone refusing to perform at a legal gay wedding, other than 'the first refusal we would heartily approve of and the second we would heartily abhor

---

• The group has historically been discriminated against, experiencing serious negative and cumulative consequences from discrimination
• the prejudice, hostility, and stigma has largely been fueled by stereotypes
• but the group's distinguishing characteristic does not actually cause harm or prevent it from contributing meaningfully to society
• the group is a minority, lacking the power to defend itself
• the trait defining the group is relatively involuntary or visible

quote:

---

orfeo: Yes, it's relevant. However, I am finding these examples more and more unreal, because you are inside all of your character's heads.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: In real life we have to judge people from the outside. We don't get told whether they are telling the truth or lying. We have to figure that out.

---

quote:

---

Leaf: and The State (ooh, a scary word, looking like a big concrete prison)

---

quote:

---

Leaf: In real life, the narrative would include:

Hank, whom we don't know if he is innocent or guilty;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I kind of was trying to ask,in a very cack-handed way, "what's the difference in principle between someone refusing to perform at a legal racist event, and someone refusing to perform at a legal gay wedding, other than 'the first refusal we would heartily approve of and the second we would heartily abhor - plus it might now amount to unlawful discrimination'?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Checking with my own morals, I still think that too big of a part of the burden of proof lies on him in this case. I'm rather surprised by this, and judging by some of the reactions on this thread, I'm not the only one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Consider three performers, Harry, Hank and Hugh.

Harry is a very reliable performer. Normally, he always plays when people ask him. But on Tuesday 17 March, he has a Sod it! moment. He says to himself: "This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one". On Thursday 19, someone calls and asks him to perform at a 'straight' (non-specifically gay) bar on Sunday 22. Harry says "No, thank you."

Hank is a very reliable performer. Normally, he always plays when people ask him. But on Tuesday 17 March, he has a Sod it! moment. He says to himself: "This weekend I just want to lie on the couch, watch porn and smoke a large one". On Thursday 19, someone calls and asks him to perform at a gay bar on Sunday 22. This is the first time Hank has been asked to play at a gay bar. He says "No, thank you." He doesn't say anything explicitly anti-gay, neither before, during or after this phone call.

Hugh is a very reliable performer. Normally, he always plays when people ask him. On Thursday 19, someone calls and asks him to perform at a gay bar on Sunday 22. This is the first time Hugh has been asked to perform at a gay bar. If it were a 'straight' bar, he would have performed but Hugh hates gays and says "No, thank you." He doesn't say anything explicitly anti-gay, neither before, during or after this phone call.


Now, I think we all agree that Harry hasn't done anything wrong. I think we also agree that Hugh is guilty, at least morally. I'd like to see him punished.

But the difficult case is Hank. I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent. I don't think you could morally justify that Harry is innocent and Hank is guilty. Should we force Hank to perform? He didn't discriminate against gays: he would have turned down the offer if it were a 'straight' bar too.

But the thing is: he can't prove that. All 'evidence' he has in his favour is him saying "I wasn't in the mood to play". What people on this thread are saying is that this isn't enough, and that he would be found guilty. It is this that I have problems with.

And another thing: the only difference between Hank and Hugh is what was going on inside their heads. I think that this is why people on this thread have used the term 'thought crime'.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: What's the alternative, though? That people simply aren't answerable for their actions?

---

quote:

---

JoannaP: In the UK at least (and I know even less about other jurisdictions), discrimination is a civil matter so, if the bar owner felt that Hank or Hugh had discriminated against him, he would have to persuade a lawyer that there was a reasonable chance of winning enough damages to make it worth their effort to take on the case.

---

quote:

---

JoannaP: I understand that these are just hypothetical cases but I think they are too far from reality to be useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: What's the alternative, though? That people simply aren't answerable for their actions?

---

The alternative that would be morally correct to me is this: it's up to the people who accuse Hank not just to prove that he has accepted offers from 'straight' venues but turned down an offer from a gay venue (which I admit is already very hard to do). It's also up to them to prove that he specifically did this because it was a gay venue. Which is nearly impossible, unless Hank has specifically said that he won't play at gay venues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...which boils down to a matter of personal opinion in essence - you and I think that apartheid was abhorrent but there were presumably - indeed obviously - those in South Africa who thought it was a Jolly Good Idea™.

---

quote:

---

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm happy to drop the term arbitrary, what I would say is that the utilitarian reasons you are giving are all arguable either way and I would imagine not what makes most people think that murder is right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I kind of was trying to ask,in a very cack-handed way, "what's the difference in principle between someone refusing to perform at a legal racist event, and someone refusing to perform at a legal gay wedding, other than 'the first refusal we would heartily approve of and the second we would heartily abhor - plus it might now amount to unlawful discrimination'?"

---

In other words, "how dare the law make a moral judgement"?

Like I said before: tough shit. Laws do impose morality. A law saying it's not okay to kill people is imposing morality. A law saying it's not okay to just take whatever you want from whoever you want is imposing morality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm happy to drop the term arbitrary, what I would say is that the utilitarian reasons you are giving are all arguable either way and I would imagine not what makes most people think that murder is right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I think it is what makes people think it right or wrong. Why was infanticide OK then, but not now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Back we go again, then: what about the apartheid laws? Happy to say "tough shit" about them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks, Starlight; that's kind of the answer I was looking for. Makes sense.

However:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I kind of was trying to ask,in a very cack-handed way, "what's the difference in principle between someone refusing to perform at a legal racist event, and someone refusing to perform at a legal gay wedding, other than 'the first refusal we would heartily approve of and the second we would heartily abhor - plus it might now amount to unlawful discrimination'?"

---

In other words, "how dare the law make a moral judgement"?

Like I said before: tough shit. Laws do impose morality. A law saying it's not okay to kill people is imposing morality. A law saying it's not okay to just take whatever you want from whoever you want is imposing morality.

---

Back we go again, then: what about the apartheid laws? Happy to say "tough shit" about them?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: He'll have to say something to explain himself because there's evidence that he did discriminate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: He'll have to say something to explain himself because there's evidence that he did discriminate

---

Maybe we need to talk about semantics first, because sometimes it seems to me that we mean different things when we say "Hank has discriminated". I think that we need to get this straight before continuing to discuss this further.

What exactly do you mean, when you say "Hank has discriminated" in this case?

a) Hank normally plays at straight events, but he turned down the offer to play at a gay event (for whatever reason)

b) Hank normally plays at straight events, but he turned down the offer to play at a gay event, because it is a gay event

I would call case b) discrimination. Case a) might or might not be discrimination; the accusation would have to prove that it was. For example, if Hank were very sick on the day of the gay event (and he could prove that), it wouldn't be discrimination.

Do you understand it in this way too?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: In one sense of the word, you "discriminate" every time you make a choice. But legally, "discrimination" means that you made a choice for a specific reason.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I don't think "discrimination" is the problem here, actually. I suspect the problem here is more to do with what works as "evidence". I didn't say Hank had discriminated (which is a conclusion for the judge at the end of the case). I said there was evidence he had discriminated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Back we go again, then: what about the apartheid laws? Happy to say "tough shit" about them?

---

Orfeo is saying that it is necessary to have laws that impose morality - there's no other way of running a state. I suppose one could say "tough shit" about apartheid - that the price one pays for international recognition of states is that some states will do some pretty terrible things that can't quickly be changed. Although of course apartheid was eventually changed.

What's the alternative Matt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
When you said things like "Hank needs to show evidence" before on the thread, I interpreted it as "Hank needs to prove beyond doubt that his reason for not performing is true", while he only needs to show evidence that there is a reasonably likely reason (other than discrimination) for not performing.

---

Aha! Yes.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

orfeo: Aha! Yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ultimately if one considers the law to be immoral, there is civil disobedience eg: Gandhi with the salt tax or violent resistance eg: ANC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Aha! Yes.

---

Okay, apologies for my misunderstanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ultimately if one considers the law to be immoral, there is civil disobedience eg: Gandhi with the salt tax or violent resistance eg: ANC

---

Still having a problem here, Matt.
To me, apartheid = anti-marriage equality. Not in scale,* but in spirit. Both are saying you are not equal because of what you are. Both penalize being something which does not harm others.
I can show examples of how apartheid hurt people regardless of one's belief in its morality.
Can you demonstrate how allowing marriage equality will hurt its opponents?

*repeating that I said "not in scale"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
We can of course say to them, "but you're wrong", but is that not merely stating our opinion and saying that our views should be given greater weight than theirs?

---

quote:

---

secondly, that there might be situations created by said law where they are required to act against their conscience eg: conservative Christian registrars having to officiate at same sex weddings.

---

I would have more sympathy with this if I were aware of a case where a conservative Christian registrar had objected to the blessing of a heterosexual marriage because it was clearly adulterous. Not being funny, but people engage the services of a registrar, rather than a priest, because either they think that the Christian definition of marriage is irrelevant, because they are not Christians, or because their marriage doesn't square with the Christian definition thereof and cannot persuade a priest to marry them. A Christian registrar who objects to performing the nuptials for a gay couple is really in the position of a pianist in a whorehouse who won't play 'New York, New York' because they don't approve of Frank Sinatra's connection to the mob. If their conscience was that pernickety they wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
There is the other point that presumably their terms and conditions of employment require them to perform legal marriages; if the definition of what a 'legal marriage' is changes due to government legislation or judicial decision, then technically their terms and conditions haven't changed.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And there should be no dilemma.
Morals are not part of a registrars job description. Nor is there any requirement to approve of the couple. Their job is to ensure the paperwork is correct and perform their duty.
If this is too much for their "moral" sensibility, then they have an option.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Nor is there any issue for this particular lawyer when it comes to, for example, preparing Wills for gay married couples or civil partners; I am happy to take the pink pound as much as I am any other!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0