|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Russ, you are either incredibly stupid or a Trolling Bigot
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Godwin's Law wins again.
Very trivial....
It is (I hope!!) a simple fact that you wouldn't accept the idea that 'Mein Kampf' is no different to other books just because it's made of paper, ink, etc just like those other books. The principles that Hitler's book stands for are horrendous whatever physical or these days electronic form they take.... And unlike the physical components, the principles can be argued about and are subject to criticism.
The 'gay cake' is certainly no different to other cakes in its physical ingredients. But its slogan expresses a view of the world which can quite reasonably be disagreed with; and confusing that point, as orfeo's post does, is also a questionable move.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Steve, do you lack all facility to discriminate between two unlike things on the basis that they share one attribute?
Because that's what I'm getting here. You are literally giving equivalence between Nazism and gay rights. If that's what you actually mean, then I think you should just come out and say it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm waiting for a comparison between gay and paedophilia.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Reasonably certain we've ruled that completely and utterly out-of-bounds. I'll check in the back room.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The 'gay cake' is certainly no different to other cakes in its physical ingredients. But its slogan expresses a view of the world which can quite reasonably be disagreed with; and confusing that point, as orfeo's post does, is also a questionable move.
So where's the line, in your view? At what point is the supply if a product endorsement of views?
Would you refuse to sell pasties to a group of men on the basis they might be homosexuals?
Would you refuse to sell used books to a chap who looks a bit peaky because he might be raising funds for his cocaine habit?
Would you refuse to take an order to print leaflets from a church because you've heard that their pastor us a touch less sure about nonviolence than you are?
Or are you saying there is something unique about this particular transaction which would make you shudder compared to all the other potential transactions with people you might disagree with?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor
quote:
You are literally giving equivalence between Nazism and gay rights.
No, and it says something about your bigotry that you can't follow the argument.
The point about the 'gay cake' so called is not that it is made of different physical ingredients to other cakes - somehow 'gay flour', 'gay sugar' etc. That is clearly absurd. The objectionable thing about the cake was the slogan on the cake and the 'world view' that slogan expresses.
I made the parallel to books - an objectionable book like 'Mein Kampf' is not made with 'Nazi paper', or 'Nazi ink', or bound in ,'Nazi card, leather, etc.' What is objectionable is the writing, the views the book expresses. It is the same with the 'gay cake' - the ingredients are not different from a cake saying 'Happy Birthday' - but the sentiments expressed - "Support Gay Marriage" are still a good deal more controversial.
And at last count it is still not illegal to engage in that controversy.... The question here is whether it is - or should be - legal for people on one side of the controversy to demand that people on the other be forced to produce their propaganda for them. And even gay activist Peter Tatchell was I believe a bit unhappy about that aspect.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So you do maintain the equivalence between printing Mein Kampf and putting a message supporting gay marriage on a cake, despite Nazism and gay rights being two separate and distinct things.
That is, objectively, deplorable.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's still making a parallel between gay and Nazi. What do you think it is like for a gay person to read that? FFS.
Ah well, at least I do know that not all Christians are so mind-fuckingly dumb/numb.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor
quote:
You are literally giving equivalence between Nazism and gay rights.
No, and it says something about your bigotry that you can't follow the argument.
Look into the fucking mirror, you complete waste of carbon.
Nazism is harmful. How is homosexuality harmful? Still waiting for that explanation.
quote:
And even gay activist Peter Tatchell was I believe a bit unhappy about that aspect.
Yeah, not the greatest moral reference. Even were he, one gay person does not a case make.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is objectionable is the writing, the views the book expresses. It is the same with the 'gay cake' - the ingredients are not different from a cake saying 'Happy Birthday' - but the sentiments expressed - "Support Gay Marriage" are still a good deal more controversial.
It's a shame to bring the Nazis in because the issue is hard enough to define for some folks. The short story is that the family who run Ashers are fairly fundamentalist evangelicals who believe that putting pro-gay messages on their business products (ie, cakes) would be to go against God's will.
They don't mind gay people buying their products, or I presume if someone else were to put their own message on the cake afterwards. The pink pound is perfectly acceptable in that respect. It seems God isn't so offended by them taking money off gay people to improve the profit margin. Funny that. Maybe it's an act of charity. After all, maybe they reckon that even damned-to-hell-for-all-eternity-sinners have to eat occasionally.
But they don't want to be seen as promoting 'teh gayz'.
Since the judgement, I've wondered what happens to, say, wedding-related businesses who have similar principles?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's still making a parallel between gay and Nazi. What do you think it is like for a gay person to read that? FFS.
Ah well, at least I do know that not all Christians are so mind-fuckingly dumb/numb.
Should they be so, they should look up my name here.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, it's an absurd implicit belief that "gay" cakes have different ingredients to "straight" ones.
Kind of like transubstantiation, only with a focus on sex.
Of course 'Mein Kampf' has the same 'ingredients'
as any other physical book - its ideas and principles, on the other hand.....
The actual point was that the baker has all the necessary ingredients in stock to make the gay cake.
Frankly I don't have a problem with people reading Mein Kampf, if it's legal (in some countries it isn't). But the stupidity of the comparison is easy to spot once you start thinking about the difficulties the bookseller might have in sourcing a copy of Mein Kampf for a customer, as opposed to the complete lack of difficulties in writing two male names on a cake rather than a male name and a female one.
Because you see, booksellers actually sell books, not publish them.
But hey, thanks for chiming in, offending a whole lot of people while doing it, and simultaneously being too fucking dense to grasp what I was talking about.
Proving Gee D's earlier point that someone can be both stupid AND a troll.
--------------------
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
I mean, can neither of you morons (one in this place, and one in the other) not grasp the fundamental non-equivalence between choosing which items to stock and choosing which customers to serve?
Every time you equate inanimate objects with living, breathing human beings, you convey just how little you value the homosexuals you're busy treating like objects.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
That's it. No cakes for Anabaptists. Ever.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point of what I said was in response to Palimpsest to make the point that I'm mostly in line with the common and historical usages of Christianity - really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.
So then why do you endlessly need to bring up your obsessions about Constantine ruining Christianity? Why derail discussion after discussion by bringing up this topic if there's no discernible difference between your sect and everyone else who hasn't rejected the Constantine Heritage who cares other than to remind you that you are wrong.
[ 02. January 2017, 02:54: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm waiting for a comparison between gay and paedophilia.
You have to go to a pizza parlor for that not a bakery.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point of what I said was in response to Palimpsest to make the point that I'm mostly in line with the common and historical usages of Christianity - really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.
So then why do you endlessly need to bring up your obsessions about Constantine ruining Christianity? Why derail discussion after discussion by bringing up this topic if there's no discernible difference between your sect and everyone else who hasn't rejected the Constantine Heritage who cares other than to remind you that you are wrong.
Hostly furry hat on
We are so not going there. Palimpsest, no. Just no. Everyone else? No also.
Hostly furry hat off
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is objectionable is the writing, the views the book expresses. It is the same with the 'gay cake' - the ingredients are not different from a cake saying 'Happy Birthday' - but the sentiments expressed - "Support Gay Marriage" are still a good deal more controversial.
Just as "Support Equal Rights for Negroes" would have been controversial in 1959. So? Do you seriously think that somebody is going to see this cake and say, "What bakery did you get this from, so we can boycott them, or drive them out of our church, or bomb them"? What commercial or personal harm is coming to the cake baker?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
My apologies for having crossed the boundaries of banned topics. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Since the judgement, I've wondered what happens to, say, wedding-related businesses who have similar principles?
I was chatting to someone who had a background in law and who had ploughed through the released documents and materials related to the 'gay cake' case. He was of the opinion that the case hinged on one simple thing - the provision of services, and whether it was a 'gay cake' was actually irrelevant. A man placed an order for a cake in a shop that advertised that they made bespoke cakes for various occasions. He seems to have paid up front, or at least made some manner of part payment. The order was accepted at the time of ordering when all of the details were known. The bakery declined to fulfil their obligation (and this is the core hinge of the case) and cited an ethical dilemma.
Now this ex law fellowe seemed to be of the opinion that the media reported the whole thing as a prejudice case when in fact the entire case hinged on the one fact explained in the above paragraph. This means that nothing in law has effectively changed and the case in the future cannot be fought again and won by the accused on the basis of religious sentiment or ethical principles as these matters were superfluous to the core element of the 'offence'.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My apologies for having crossed the boundaries of banned topics. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
It's not the question of the topic being banned, just that SL has been warned by Admin to avoid the topic unless it is strictly and obviously on topic. In this case, it is tangential.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Fletcher Christian - thank you. That was my understanding of it, too.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Doc Tor: quote:
So you do maintain the equivalence between printing Mein Kampf and putting a message supporting gay marriage on a cake, despite Nazism and gay rights being two separate and distinct things.
In fact there are legitimate academic reasons for reprinting Mein Kampf. An annotated critical edition in German was printed last year.
Contrary to popular belief in the UK, it is not a bestseller in Germany, although it did achieve respectable sales for an academic book.
If IfZ (a respectable, if not stodgy, academic publisher) can hold their noses long enough to publish a new edition of Mein Kampf, surely your friendly neighbourhood baker can hold his (or her) nose long enough to pipe 'Congratulations Andy and Barry' on a wedding cake?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If the law bars refusal of service to gay people it should bar refusal of service to straight people, because people should have equal rights under the law.
Anti-discrimination law does not prohibit the refusal of service to gay people. It prohibits the refusal of service to anyone if that refusal is on the grounds of sexuality.
Yes. But the "social damage" argument being put forward for it is an argument for officially-recognised minorities to have a protected status in law that is denied to both unrecognised-minorities and the normal majority.
If that argument were valid it would justify people not being equal under the law. People should be equal under the law. Therefore that argument is not valid.
Spoken like a privileged white pig.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
1) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, and given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has.
2) LGBT folks, women, and others have been treated unequally and unfairly, and not given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has. Sometimes, even the law and/or its interpretation is against them.
3) Making sure the folks in #2 are treated in line with #1 isn't giving them special rights--it's giving them the same rights as everyone else.
Compare with the way Irish immigrants were treated in the US.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Spoken like a privileged white pig.
I think Russ has more than adequately demonstrated that he can't even measure up to the standard of "pig". Maybe "crusted dog smegma"
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If IfZ (a respectable, if not stodgy, academic publisher) can hold their noses long enough to publish a new edition of Mein Kampf, surely your friendly neighbourhood baker can hold his (or her) nose long enough to pipe 'Congratulations Andy and Barry' on a wedding cake?
That's not even vaguely the same thing. A publisher has chosen for a variety of reasons to print Mein Kampf. I don't know this publisher, but we can assume they believe it is better to have Hitler's hateful ideas out there discussed and analysed rather than contribute to the Neo-nazi conspiracy theories that they're being hidden and/or censored.
But nobody has said that the publisher is forced to print MK. A similar publisher of academic books might decide that despite the potential benefits, there might also be potential drawbacks and therefore has chosen not to print it.
And the idea that a bookseller who orders books is forced to order anything requested is also bogus. That is clearly not the situation. Some booksellers who hold that information should be free and accessible have stated that they're committed to ordering whatever is asked for, but that's a voluntary choice.
The situation in the UK is that one can make discriminatory choices with regard to what one orders for customers providing that the reason is not because the customer is gay (or a load of other protected characteristics).
One could legitimately refuse to order Mein Kampf for many reasons. Whilst political and philosophical views are a protected characteristic in British law, there does not seem to be any case law which shows that ordering a book in this way can be done without discrimination regarding the customer's political views.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
1) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, and given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has.
2) LGBT folks, women, and others have been treated unequally and unfairly, and not given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has. Sometimes, even the law and/or its interpretation is against them.
3) Making sure the folks in #2 are treated in line with #1 isn't giving them special rights--it's giving them the same rights as everyone else.
Compare with the way Irish immigrants were treated in the US.
3) is a little more complex than you suggest here. Under British law, sexuality cannot be a reason for discrimination of service, which means that in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
mr cheesy: quote:
That's not even vaguely the same thing. A publisher has chosen for a variety of reasons to print Mein Kampf. I don't know this publisher, but we can assume they believe it is better to have Hitler's hateful ideas out there discussed and analysed rather than contribute to the Neo-nazi conspiracy theories that they're being hidden and/or censored.
No, it's not the same thing (though Russ seems to think it is) and that is exactly why IfZ chose to publish Mein Kampf. Of course, publishers are also in the business to make money so I daresay they were expecting to make a profit.
But that's not the point of the NI 'gay cake' case that revitalized the Dead Horses thread. The point there, as fletcher christian said, is that the bakery entered into a contract to provide this cake and then broke it. The reason why they broke it is almost irrelevant*. They are getting all het up about it because it Goes Against Their Religious Principles, but actually all the law is concerned with is that they had no right to break the contract.
*though not to all the other gay couples queuing up to order cakes from them, of course...
[ 05. January 2017, 08:07: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But that's not the point of the NI 'gay cake' case that revitalized the Dead Horses thread. The point there, as fletcher christian said, is that the bakery entered into a contract to provide this cake and then broke it. The reason why they broke it is almost irrelevant*. They are getting all het up about it because it Goes Against Their Religious Principles, but actually all the law is concerned with is that they had no right to break the contract.
*though not to all the other gay couples queuing up to order cakes from them, of course...
If it is the case that the legal point on which that case hinged was about breaking the contract (ie accepting the order and then later breaking it because of a moral qualm about the message) then that's (a) not something which has been clear from any of the media stories I've read and (b) not the point that people have been arguing about on that thread.
Indeed, the consistent point has been that all bakers who offer to ice cakes should be icing any (legal) message whether they agree with it or not. If in fact the legal point is regarding breaking a contract, that's a different point to whether the baker is forced to accept the contract in the first place.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
And anyway, I don't think Russ is trying to draw a straight-line comparison, he appears to be trying to understand where the line lies for a trader and the moral choices he/she makes on the produce they sell.
Others are telling him it is quite straightforward - namely that if one is a specialist store, one can choose to limit your stock or orderlist, if it is a general store-which-takes-orders then you must order anything asked of you that you can reasonably get hold of and/or make.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Mr Cheesey:
quote:
f it is the case that the legal point on which that case hinged was about breaking the contract (ie accepting the order and then later breaking it because of a moral qualm about the message) then that's (a) not something which has been clear from any of the media stories I've read and (b) not the point that people have been arguing about on that thread.
Indeed, the consistent point has been that all bakers who offer to ice cakes should be icing any (legal) message whether they agree with it or not. If in fact the legal point is regarding breaking a contract, that's a different point to whether the baker is forced to accept the contract in the first place.
The reporting of this issue began in Northern Ireland and as usual had all of the political and religious bias associated with such a crucible. Therefore the UK press were picking it up in the way it had been originally transmitted to the public in NI: as a tale of either, a poor Christian bakery forced to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, or, a pack of scoundrels who are so homophobic they couldn't make a cake for a gay (note that the equality issue at the time was then and still is now a very, very hot topic in NI).
Now I am more inclined to take the word of a law expert who has overlooked the case papers rather than the papers in the newsagents, but presumably - although I am no expert in law - if the bakery had initially declined service before contract or payment, there might not have been such an issue. Is it ok in law for a shop to decline service? I thought it was, but may be wrong. It is certainly ok for a bar to decline selling pints to a drunk.
Regardless, it seems that the bakery concerned has well and truly hoisted itself on its own Ashera Pole
[ 05. January 2017, 12:11: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, I don't think Russ is trying to draw a straight-line comparison, he appears to be trying to understand where the line lies for a trader and the moral choices he/she makes on the produce they sell.
I don't see that Russ is trying to understand at all. He's trying to justify.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
1) Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, and given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has.
2) LGBT folks, women, and others have been treated unequally and unfairly, and not given their legal rights--the same rights everyone else has. Sometimes, even the law and/or its interpretation is against them.
3) Making sure the folks in #2 are treated in line with #1 isn't giving them special rights--it's giving them the same rights as everyone else.
Compare with the way Irish immigrants were treated in the US.
3) is a little more complex than you suggest here. Under British law, sexuality cannot be a reason for discrimination of service, which means that in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.
Are you saying that [persons of different] sexuality is the only protected group that it's not legal to discriminate against?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Others are telling him it is quite straightforward - namely that if one is a specialist store, one can choose to limit your stock or orderlist, if it is a general store-which-takes-orders then you must order anything asked of you that you can reasonably get hold of and/or make.
I don't think that's right for the general store. They don't have to order anything asked of them that they could reasonably get hold of and/or make. Only that if they turn the order down it can't be for a discriminatory reason.
(A bit like hiring. You don't have to hire everyone - obviously you can't - but you can't turn someone down for a discriminatory reason).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it is the case that the legal point on which that case hinged was about breaking the contract (ie accepting the order and then later breaking it because of a moral qualm about the message) then that's (a) not something which has been clear from any of the media stories I've read and (b) not the point that people have been arguing about on that thread....
However, it does uphold the principle that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to get out of a contract.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.
The nerve of them, expecting to be treated just like any other member of the public.
--------------------
"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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And anyway, I don't think Russ is trying to draw a straight-line comparison, he appears to be trying to understand where the line lies for a trader and the moral choices he/she makes on the produce they sell.
I don't see that Russ is trying to understand at all. He's trying to justify.
And he is trolling you lot.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
....which means that in some senses discriminated groups can force people to trade with them in a way that other groups cannot.
I don't think this is true. The provider of services might *feel* they are in this position, because they *do* need to have really good, non-protected-characteristic grounds for refusing service, but it still isn't true.
Going back a few decades, there were night-clubs with imprecise dress-codes where - surprise, surprise! - black people always seemed to be on the wrong side of the dress code line, while white people always seemed to scrape through.
Following legislation, a club can still have an imprecise dress code, but if, over a period of time, it is demonstrably the case that ethnic minorities always fall foul of it, while white customers do not, the proprietor runs the risk of facing legal action.
If, in fact, maintaining standards of dress really is the issue at stake, better to have an objective pass/fail (no tie - no entry), than a manipulable requirement (smart dress only).
Or, if you retain an imprecise code (smart dress only), you can turn away a black person in designer trainers if you also turn away white people in designer trainers. (But then, you'd be better off clearly stating that your code is no trainers....)
There's no scenario, though, where you're obliged to admit black people in building site overalls.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't think this is true. The provider of services might *feel* they are in this position, because they *do* need to have really good, non-protected-characteristic grounds for refusing service, but it still isn't true.
Actually they don't, as I pointed out on that thread, there was a notorious bar in Coventry which had an unwritten dress code which was widely known to exclude red-heads and others that the owner deemed were dressed inappropriately.
As long as this code didn't directly adversely affect homosexuals (or other protected groups), there was absolutely nothing anyone could do about it other than regularly write to the local paper about the injustice of it.
The owner never actually gave reasons for refusal, as far as I know, hence it was very hard to prove that he was discriminating against protected characteristics. In fact, he might have even gone out of his way to ensure that those groups were served, I don't remember ever hearing that anyone from a discriminated group was refused service.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
However, it does uphold the principle that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to get out of a contract.
Which is an entirely fair point; nobody can go around agreeing to do work and then randomly deciding later that the work is too morally toxic for them.
But that's an entirely different point to the one you've been making on the dead horses thread.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The only sense in which people being discriminated against can "force" someone to deal with them is that when the discrimination stops, the amount of service those people will receive will increase.
This is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM with people like Russ only noticing the change and not noticing the baseline. This is exactly why people in positions of privilege cry and wail about the loss of their privilege, because that privileged state was "normal" to them.
If you're in a field where men have typically got 90% of the power, do you know what happens when women achieve equality? The more wankerish men don't shout "we've only got 50% of the power". No, what they shout is "our share of the power has decreased by 40 percentage points!".
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As long as this code didn't directly adversely affect homosexuals (or other protected groups)
And can you kindly stop perpetuating this piece of crap which is exactly the same rubbish that is being corrected for Russ elsewhere.
Homosexuals are not a protected group. Sexuality is a protected characteristic. You cannot exclude heterosexuals for being heterosexual either.
Here in Australia I know of several gay/lesbian bars that have had to seek special exemptions in relation to sex/sexuality discrimination, because unlike you they grasped that excluding straight people or excluding one gender would otherwise be discriminatory.
Women-only gyms have had to seek exemptions as well, because excluding men is just as discriminatory as excluding women.
[ 05. January 2017, 14:06: 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only sense in which people being discriminated against can "force" someone to deal with them is that when the discrimination stops, the amount of service those people will receive will increase.
What the fuck are you talking about? A barman can refuse to serve me because I'm wearing a moleskin coat, he can't because I'm gay. Therefore being gay means that I can force traders to trade with me in a way that I can't when wearing specific clothing.
quote:
This is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM with people like Russ only noticing the change and not noticing the baseline. This is exactly why people in positions of privilege cry and wail about the loss of their privilege, because that privileged state was "normal" to them.
People Like Russ. Fuckin' hell. He's a type now, is he?
quote:
If you're in a field where men have typically got 90% of the power, do you know what happens when women achieve equality? The more wankerish men don't shout "we've only got 50% of the power". No, what they shout is "our share of the power has decreased by 40 percentage points!".
Yes, that happens, but that's not actually what Russ is doing. Which you might actually notice if you managed to see beyond the red mist.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And can you kindly stop perpetuating this piece of crap which is exactly the same rubbish that is being corrected for Russ elsewhere.
Fuck off, you can't argue your way out of a paperbag, so just because you've said some shit doesn't actually mean that you've "corrected" or "proved" anything at all.
quote:
Homosexuals are not a protected group. Sexuality is a protected characteristic. You cannot exclude heterosexuals for being heterosexual either.
In some circumstances you can, actually. As shown by a case when a heterosexual couple was refused leave to get a civil partnership.
quote:
Here in Australia I know of several gay/lesbian bars that have had to seek special exemptions in relation to sex/sexuality discrimination, because unlike you they grasped that excluding straight people or excluding one gender would otherwise be discriminatory.
Which, I've refrained from saying up to now, has absolutely fuck all to do with a case in NI under British law. In case you've not grasped that there might be a difference between the laws in different jurisdictions.
quote:
Women-only gyms have had to seek exemptions as well, because excluding men is just as discriminatory as excluding women.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A barman can refuse to serve me because I'm wearing a moleskin coat, he can't because I'm gay. Therefore being gay means that I can force traders to trade with me in a way that I can't when wearing specific clothing.
That is some truly bizarre reasoning you're using there. Did you make it yourself or did you find it discarded at the back of a disused children's play area somewhere?
How the hell do you manage to turn "I can't be refused service because I'm gay" into "I can require service because I'm gay?"
It's a complete non sequitur. Being gay doesn't confer any kind of special right to service. The whole point is that being gay or non-gay confers no change in status whatsoever. Gay people don't have an automatic right to service IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE DON'T.
And so the straight people in moleskin coats and the gay people in moleskin coats are both refused service, and both the straight and gay people in whatever clothing is acceptable in this bizarre scenario are both given service.
You seem to be in this alternative universe where people have one single, defining characteristic. In which case no wonder you can't make sense of how discrimination law actually works. Meanwhile, here in the real world, people possess multiple characteristics. And discrimination law here on Planet Earth simply tells you which criteria you cannot use. What it doesn't do is say "and therefore people are immune from all other possible reasons for non-service".
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In case you've not grasped that there might be a difference between the laws in different jurisdictions.
Really? Wow. In 15 years of working in discrimination law and legislative drafting, that never occurred to me. You've opened my eyes. Why, right after you pointed this out I checked and discovered that you can do searches for the law of different places!
I even found out that right here in Australia, we have something called a "federal system" which means there are sometimes up to 9 different laws on the one subject! I never heard of this before! And here's me living only 10 minutes drive from a thing they call a "border" where the law changes!
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem to be in this alternative universe where people have one single, defining characteristic. In which case no wonder you can't make sense of how discrimination law actually works. Meanwhile, here in the real world, people possess multiple characteristics. And discrimination law here on Planet Earth simply tells you which criteria you cannot use. What it doesn't do is say "and therefore people are immune from all other possible reasons for non-service".
I never said anything about it being the "single defining characteristic", but you clearly believe one can force a baker to make a cake with a slogan about SSM whereas you can't force him/her to make a cake with a slogan about almost anything else which is unrelated to this or other protected characteristics.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a complete non sequitur. Being gay doesn't confer any kind of special right to service. The whole point is that being gay or non-gay confers no change in status whatsoever. Gay people don't have an automatic right to service IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE DON'T.
Also, according to you, one can walk into a general bookstore and expect to be able to order whatever the fuck you like because you happen to be gay (and or it is somehow about "being gay"), whereas a person who has a fascination with antique aeroplanes cannot force the bookseller to get him the book.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
