|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Stonespring's Same Sex Wedding Photography Question
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, are you saying that Jim Crow laws would be okay nowadays because blacks could bitch about it on Twitter?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I will type SLOWLY for you, kay?
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). Even less are they comparable to cases where a religious person, however mistaken, believes he/she cannot offer fairly frivolous business services because of the nature of the particular event (note: NOT the person ordering) and therefore declines to do so. I mean, hello? How is being asked to go to another bakery, or find another photographer, as life-limiting as "your children may not go to white schools, you may not patronize white businesses, sit somewhere else, drink water somewhere else, and by the way, if you need police or hospital services, you'll be damned lucky if you get any." ?
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Let's not try to legislate every freaking little thing. (and if you are going to do that anyway, come over and deal with my racist neighbor of fifteen years who legally harasses us by spying on us, photos even, so she can catch us with the grass an inch too tall and report us to the code police. We've been invited to sue her. Sue her for what? For being an asshole? It's racist, it's unpleasant, and it is in no way going to kill me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). <snip>
I'm seeing a trend, however. Businesses are asking the courts to allow them to not serve gays. The Christian Right in this country is attempting to usurp the rule of law and make it legal for them to discriminate en masse. In some parts of the south, this could end up in something very much like apartheid or Jim Crow. I find the answer "well they can just bitch about it on Twitter" to be insufficient.
And cool it with the type slowly shit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Dust motes add up. Again- and I will type slowly too- it's not about one incident. It't about preventing a buildup of small incidents which gradually become a boulder of unconscious ill-feeling.
To me it's similar to women getting catcalled on the street- each individual instance is only minorly unpleasant, but it's the cumulative effect over time that messes with your mindset.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's different in the UK, but I agree that treating each incident of bigotry as isolated, is a big mistake. I know some very unpleasant Christians, just itching to apply exemptions to their own brand of bigotry, and they certainly don't treat an individual incident as isolated. Each case is given a lot of publicity in the right-wing and Christian press, and is seen as a possible battering ram against the laws on bigotry.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm highly skeptical of the amount of faith placed in the idea that free markets will always correct against invidious discrimination (the underlying idea behind the "now we have Twitter" argument). The most obvious historical point against this position is the post-Civil War rise of Jim Crow in the U.S. coincides fairly closely (1877 to c.1900) with the Gilded Age and the dominance of laissez-faire capitalism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
come on. A dust mote on one side of the scale, a damned boulder on the other.
We need laws to protect people against falling boulders. Against the dust motes? Twitter, picketing, letters to the editor, and general social badmouthing will do just fine.
Dust motes add up. Again- and I will type slowly too- it's not about one incident. It't about preventing a buildup of small incidents which gradually become a boulder of unconscious ill-feeling.
To me it's similar to women getting catcalled on the street- each individual instance is only minorly unpleasant, but it's the cumulative effect over time that messes with your mindset.
Once more, and I'm giving up. I am not arguing that dust motes don't add up, or that insults are somehow good, or any of that nonsense. I am arguing that attempting to change every rudeness or insult in society by means of passing new laws is a bad idea. Find another way to enforce good manners. There are plenty of them, most much more effective and much less prone to abuse than passing a new law. Which will inevitably wind up being misapplied in ways the original framers never dreamed of, because it is fucking impossible to frame a law for human beings in a way that said human beings won't find eighty-five ways to wiggle out of. Or use against the very people it was intended to protect. Do you, for example, really want to see a creative Fred-Phelps-like individual deciding to order a weekly "God hates fags" cake from a baker who is known to be gay, on the grounds that a law forces him to accept all business?
That in itself would be a form of very nasty harassment, and the baker would have no legal recourse.
Not a good thing.
You want to think through all the possibilities before legalizing a blanket principle.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
All Christian businesses refusing to serve gay clients goes a bit beyond "bad manners." ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
it is fucking impossible to frame a law for human beings in a way that said human beings won't find eighty-five ways to wiggle out of.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
If you'll excuse me, I'll be over in that corner, reflecting on the meaningless of my professional life.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
There's a difference between difficult and impossible.
Much of the 'impossibility' actually lies in enforcement, not in the text of the law (although the clarity/effectiveness of the law itself might vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - especially in the USA where my profession barely exists). It doesn't matter how clearly the law on the books says that something is unlawful, it will still happen if people don't think they'll be punished for it. And when it comes to something like discrimination law, that requires the victims making a noise. And it probably also requires them to pick their battles, dealing in cases where the discrimination is particularly blatant, and high-profile, and provable.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The idea of what spurred the rise of the "Religious Right" in American politics and American Christianity has changed over time. It used to be assumed that it was spurred by the sexual revolution, secularism, and the rising economic and social malaise of the 1970's associated with the shortcomings of American New Liberalism. Now it seems that the academic left and right are divided, with the right claiming that the rise of the Religious Right was a movement against a perceived Communist threat that was linked to federal court rulings that banned prayer in public schools, and the left claiming that the Religious Right mobilized in response to a sense of government overreach due to civil rights legislation and other attempts (not all successful, especially when you include de facto segregation) to desegregate not only public schools and facilities, but also private businesses and housing. Does this mean that all people who are both politically and theologically conservative are racists? Of course not.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I am arguing that attempting to change every rudeness or insult in society by means of passing new laws is a bad idea. ...
Treating everyone equally isn't passing a new law. It's giving everyone the benefit of existing law. It's also why it's not ok for me to discriminate against Christians, much as I would love to some times.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Jim Crow laws had a major impact on human lives, a major, repeated, health- job- family- and life-threatening impact. They are no in no way comparable to the situation when some random asshole in my hometown decides on a single occasion that he doesn't want to serve me and my family (unlike the other 999,999 restaurants in lo, this city alone). <snip>
I'm seeing a trend, however. Businesses are asking the courts to allow them to not serve gays. The Christian Right in this country is attempting to usurp the rule of law and make it legal for them to discriminate en masse. In some parts of the south, this could end up in something very much like apartheid or Jim Crow. I find the answer "well they can just bitch about it on Twitter" to be insufficient.
And cool it with the type slowly shit.
Well, exactly. In big cities gay people may have other choices, but in small towns in places like east Texas, or Upstate New York or western Washington State, those choices may not exist. Whinging on Twitter or a Letter to the Editor may get you flamed or worse - targeted for violence. And photography and cake decorating is one thing, what if it is the only hotel on the highway for the next 100 miles? Or the only medical clinic that is open 24 hours in the area? Or the town's grocery store?
It may seem that 2014 is a fun easy place for gays to be gay in this country (and things have certainly improved since I was a kid), but 40% of homeless youth are LGBTs and LGBTs remain the highest victims of hate crimes in the U.S.. The bigotry still exists so the need for protection in all areas of public life is needed as well.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Treating everyone equally isn't passing a new law. It's giving everyone the benefit of existing law. It's also why it's not ok for me to discriminate against Christians, much as I would love to some times.
And I perfectly well understand why you would feel that way, Christian though I am.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course, there are places where laws still need to be passed. A considerable number of US states continue to have no protection at all against being fired for being homosexual, which to my mind is one of the most basic protections that should be in place.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, there are places where laws still need to be passed. A considerable number of US states continue to have no protection at all against being fired for being homosexual, which to my mind is one of the most basic protections that should be in place.
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ I forget these things, living in a country where workers have rights.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
^ I forget these things, living in a country where workers have rights.
Hold on tight to that reality. Don't let your legislators take it away. Because once the 1% take over, they will.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
Aye, there's the rub.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course the vast vast majority of work in the US is at-will, and you can be fired for any or no reason with no notice.
At-will employment is still limited by anti-discrimination law. You can be fired at any time, but not because you're black, pregnant, or old. I will grant that isolated cases are hard to prove, though.
It remains to be seen if Anti-discrimination law trumps the case where your employer is a corporation whose religious belief tells it to persecute blacks, unmarried pregnant women or gays.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It remains to be seen if Anti-discrimination law trumps the case where your employer is a corporation whose religious belief tells it to persecute blacks, unmarried pregnant women or gays.
The discrimination laws have explicit exemptions for some cases. It is not discrimination to insist that a minister of religion that you employ actually follows your religion, it is not discrimination to only consider women for an acting role to portray a female part, or to only consider female nurses if you want to hire nursing help for your elderly mother.
The discrimination laws do not have an exemption for "I don't like gays", and I am as certain as I can be given some of the oddities that come out of the Supreme Court that, let's say, a craft store making an RFRA challenge to ask to not be forced to employ gay people at its tills would fail.
Following the logic in the Hobby Lobby case, an RFRA challenge asking not to be forced to extend insurance benefits etc. to same-sex partners of employees would be closer, but I think would still fail.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Following the logic in the Hobby Lobby case, an RFRA challenge asking not to be forced to extend insurance benefits etc. to same-sex partners of employees would be closer, but I think would still fail.
From your lips to God's ears but I'm not certain about anything the Supreme Court might do.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Don't you just bet the shop fails to check whether its heterosexual customers are virgins. God's law is bound to be highly selective.
[ 10. August 2014, 09:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, if a gay man gets a church funeral, the misdirected sanctity might stick on him long enough to slip past St. Peter. Then you'd have a Gay man in Heaven. Next thing you know, he'll be redecorating the place, remodeling the clouds, giving style makeovers....
"Look honey! I know you are an angel and everything! but how can you call yourself Gaybriel and still wear that tired white robe? And those wings can we get some colour on those? At least tint the tips"?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I'm guessing the new arrival in question is David Turturro.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The discrimination laws have explicit exemptions for some cases. It is not discrimination to insist that a minister of religion that you employ actually follows your religion, it is not discrimination to only consider women for an acting role to portray a female part, or to only consider female nurses if you want to hire nursing help for your elderly mother.
The discrimination laws do not have an exemption for "I don't like gays", and I am as certain as I can be given some of the oddities that come out of the Supreme Court that, let's say, a craft store making an RFRA challenge to ask to not be forced to employ gay people at its tills would fail.
That depends. In the U.S. there is no federal statute that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, so whether or not discrimination laws have an exemption for "I don't like gays" depends on where you live. For example, the state of Pennsylvania, where the recently-mentioned bridal shop is located, only forbids discriminating against gays in public employment. Allegheny and Erie counties, as well as the city of Philadelphia, have passed broader anti-discrimination statutes but Bloomsburg, PA (located in Columbia County) has no law on its books that says you can't discriminate on the basis of "I don't like gays".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
that's why they pay you the big bucks (or not) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
