|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Freedom Laws
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.
Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.
Nobody is putting the intolerant baker out of a job. The baker is there to provide baked goods, not to decide on the morals of the customer. It's so simple. If you want to get paid for doing your job, do your job.
I am a teacher. I get paid for teaching children. I don't get to choose which children.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Christmas is a federal holiday.
Pastors' signatures are fine for City Hall marriage licenses.
My state sells booze. You can't buy it anywhere before noon on Sunday. Why not close Wednesday morning instead.
There are official chaplains in the armed services and state and federal legislatures. Sessions generally open with prayers.
. . . and so on.
It's not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's mythical.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sincerity (despite my bringing it up in the first place) is actually not particularly relevant here. Only public profession of a belief, or overt practices and rites, are at issue, and they're at issue because, being public, they affect people outside the professing / practicing group.
If insincerity can be shown, that's another issue; then it becomes clear that the intent of the profession or practice is to discriminate, not to profess / practice.
This seems like an artificial distinction in many cases. To take a well known historical example, Bob Jones University was both sincere in its racially discriminatory polices and intentionally discriminatory. Just because you're sincere doesn't mean that your intention isn't to discriminate. In fact I'd argue that certain types of Christian sincerely see anti-gay discrimination as a way to profess / practice their faith.
Blogger David Watkins has some useful observations about what he calls the weaponization of religious exemptions. The distinction seems to be whether such exemptions are an attempt to enforce religious hegemony over non-believers.
quote:
But this [City of Bourne v. Flores] is only a partially weaponized use of religious exemptions; they’re being used as a weapon to advance the Church’s goals, but not striking against their political enemies. The quintessential case of a weaponized religious exemption is, of course, Hobby Lobby; Obamacare was to be the subject of a blitzkrieg, to be hit with any and every weapon imaginable, and that’s what the RFRA provided. Their efforts to make the claim appear credible could hardly be lazier or more half-assed. One possible check on weaponization, in a better and more decent society, could conceivably be a sense of embarrassment or shame; exposing one’s religious convictions as a cynical political tool to be wielded against one’s political enemies might be hoped to invoke enough embarrassment that it might be avoided, but we were well past that point. A remarkable document of this trend is this post from Patrick Deneen – fully, openly aware of the fundamental absurdity of Hobby Lobby’s case, cheering them on nonetheless. I mean, you’d think they’d at least have found a company owned by Catholics.
One of the things unaddressed, at least so far, is the perverse incentives involved. Indiana's version of RFRA seems to incorporate Hobby Lobby's position that artificial persons (corporations) can exercise religion and a provision extending religious exemption as a defense against torts between private parties, not just as protection against government regulatory authority. Given corporate abuse of other parts of the legal code, allowing corporations to assert that they don't have to obey any laws they find religiously objectionable seems like practically an invitation to abuse the system.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
From my point of view, sincerity doesn't matter. If you are insincere and do the right actions in a hypocritical way, that's fine, we can share a society. If you are sincere and damage others, your sincerity doesn't justify your actions.
Sincerity is usually a code word for discrimination against people that are traditionally oppressed. It's a hard line to follow to approve of racial anti-segregation laws which trampled "religious liberty" and yet claim other types of religious discrimination are an expression of liberty, such as not serving the handicapped or gay people.
Citing freedom of speech as an parallel doesn't hold up well. The border is where speech turns into a tool for action. Terrorism, inciting a lynch mob to riot or excluding people.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am a teacher. I get paid for teaching children. I don't get to choose which children.
You make it sound like that is carved in to stone tablets up a mountain.
IIRC, you are a teacher in the state system. The fact that that system has a duty to provide education for all pupils is a function of the fact that it is the state education system, not of the fact that you are a teacher.
Let's consider something a little more voluntary. Some children take private music lessons. In my limited experience, the arranging of these lessons is a two-way negotiation. The children, and their parents, are looking for appropriate teachers, and the teachers for appropriate pupils.
It is emphatically against the equality laws for such a music teacher to refuse pupils for being black, having gay parents, or whatever.
It is normal for such a teacher to choose not to teach particular pupils. (For all sorts of reasons - some won't take you if you aren't good enough, or not devoted enough. Some might just not like you.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In the case of the pizzeria people, a refusal to cater a gay wedding holds no water if it can be shown that they regularly serve pizza to already-married gays in their establishment.
The pizza people explicitly say that they are happy to serve gay customers in their stores. They are not afraid of catching gay cooties from the pink dollar or something.
They have said that they will not help celebrate a gay wedding, because they don't approve. If they are consistent in their behaviour, they will also refuse to cater the local Islamic society's iftar supper, or a Diwali party.
But somehow, I suspect that to the pizza people, homosexuality is a special kind of sin in a class all by itself.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
The thing I don't get about this shining a light how on anything to do with weddings is 'endorsing a lifestyle' is that so is everything else. If you are happy to serve a gay customer then you are happy for their lifestyle and income to contribute to yours and thus affirm its validity to you.
And I keep thinking well if not weddings what about anniversary dinners? If you don't think someone's marriage should exist do you ask every same sex group of diners what their motives are just in case one of them posts a lovely tripadvisor review of how they had a wonderful anniversary dinner at your establishment and everyone might suddenly consider you to 'endorse their lifestyle'. Focussing a laser point on weddings is unthoughtout ridiculousness.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In the case of the pizzeria people, a refusal to cater a gay wedding holds no water if it can be shown that they regularly serve pizza to already-married gays in their establishment.
The pizza people explicitly say that they are happy to serve gay customers in their stores. They are not afraid of catching gay cooties from the pink dollar or something.
They have said that they will not help celebrate a gay wedding, because they don't approve. If they are consistent in their behaviour, they will also refuse to cater the local Islamic society's iftar supper, or a Diwali party.
But somehow, I suspect that to the pizza people, homosexuality is a special kind of sin in a class all by itself.
I can't see how a willingness to serve pizza to an already-married gay couple serves a different purpose from catering a gay wedding.
The only difference I can see is that the owners won't necessarily know that the two men eating pizza at one of their tables are married to each other. It's difficult to discriminate against a pair of people whose "lifestyle" doesn't "show" on some particular occasion. It's pretty routine for pairs of men, even wearing wedding bands, to sit together to eat in pizza parlors, whether they're gay, straight, bi, or anything else. Unless the couple wave their marriage license about while downing pepperoni, they're just two random guys eating pizza.
The major difference with the wedding situation is that the owners would know, and know for certain, they were dealing with gay guys who marry. I think that IS discriminatory.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The major difference with the wedding situation is that the owners would know, and know for certain, they were dealing with gay guys who marry. I think that IS discriminatory.
Unless they were dealing with gay gals who marry.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But somehow, I suspect that to the pizza people, homosexuality is a special kind of sin in a class all by itself.
Actually I believe one of them actually said this in nearly so many words. For her, homosexuality was a special kind of sin that needs to be not supported, as opposed to other biblical sins that the interviewer asked about.
--------------------
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
Why is it that people tend to think sexual sins are the worst? Non-consensual is very bad; but consensual???
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Coz it's icky. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I've been wondering if atheists can have religious objections to serving customers or is this a prerogative which is given only to theists?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I've been wondering if atheists can have religious objections to serving customers or is this a prerogative which is given only to theists?
In the American context of the OP, atheists have a general freedom of conscience under the First Amendment. Under the federal RFRA and its state-based copycat laws (like the one in Indiana), only the religious can claim exemption from generally applicable laws (like anti-discrimination statutes).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Though there are atheistic religions under US law. Both Ethical Culture and Unitarian Universalism have no problems with atheists being members.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I can't wait for Scientology to start exploiting this. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Coz it's icky.
Nonsense; that's not the problem at all. All sex is icky. The problem with the sex under discussion is that it's not right. Only the way I do sex is the right way to do it. All other ways are clearly the work of Satan.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I think it is about control. Homosexual is a group which can be demonised because it is a relatively low percentage of the population. You can preach against it because few of your congregation will identify as LGBT+.
Other=Bad is a common theme and a common method of strengthening internal bonds.
--------------------
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
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
If such laws were presented by an organization that had traditionally supported the freedom of religion, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
But they aren't: the groups behind it are instead trying to work around the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution to promote their specific religion at the expense of others (and of those with no specific religion.)
The purpose for the current rhetoric is to pretend that Conservative Christianity is under threat in order to encourage adherents to vote in the next election. It's a pretty blatant dog-whistle, but, given the public response against it, it could be an effective one. They are more concerned with energizing their voting base than any potential loss of voters due to their tactics - it's all about relative turnout rather than folks changing their minds about how they would vote.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if it puts some poor freak of a baker or photographer or swimming helper out of a job, well, we won't be sorry. Because we're going to make everybody tolerant, by God, and we're going to do it according to our own perfect understanding. Whether they like it or not.
Fuck that. I'm trying oh-so-slowly to learn to love even the intolerant. It's part of learning to love my enemies. And taking their freaking livelihoods away from them because their views don't agree with mine isn't love.
Nobody is putting the intolerant baker out of a job. The baker is there to provide baked goods, not to decide on the morals of the customer. It's so simple. If you want to get paid for doing your job, do your job.
I am a teacher. I get paid for teaching children. I don't get to choose which children.
You do if you tutor privately. In other words, if it is your own business, there is surely a degree of control of what work you accept and what you don't...?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You do if you tutor privately. In other words, if it is your own business, there is surely a degree of control of what work you accept and what you don't...?
Like these did, for example?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I was thinking more in terms of type of work myself eg: you can say that you teach English but not mathematics, that within your English-teaching specialism, there are certain genres of literature which you don't teach etc; there is more largesse involved in being self-employed and freelance compared to having to kow-tow to a state-dictated curriculum. Of course all of this has to be done within whatever regulatory framework exists but there is more freedom involved nevertheless.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was thinking more in terms of type of work myself eg: you can say that you teach English but not mathematics, that within your English-teaching specialism, there are certain genres of literature which you don't teach etc; there is more largesse involved in being self-employed and freelance compared to having to kow-tow to a state-dictated curriculum. Of course all of this has to be done within whatever regulatory framework exists but there is more freedom involved nevertheless.
As has been explained multiple times, both here and elsewhere, it's both legal and acceptable to limit the services offered. What's not acceptable is discriminating against people. At least on certain grounds. Businesses are still able to discriminate between people on other grounds (e.g. between those who are able to pay for the services offered and those who aren't), but the number of times someone comes up with some variation of "If I can't say 'No Jews' in my tutoring job, it means I'm obligated to accept work patching drywall!" is discouraging.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Where we get into "let them (not) eat cake" grey-er territory though is where the business says, "I won't restrict the customers I sell to but I will restrict the types of goods or services I provide eg: I won't supply any good or service I consider to be offensive."
So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat, a black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK, and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
it's both legal and acceptable to limit the services offered.
And it's also legal and acceptable for our tutor to refuse particular potential pupils as long as he or she doesn't do so on specific prohibited grounds. So "I won't teach mathematics to Jews" is illegal, but "I won't teach Johnny - I only teach bright children" or "Kate is rude and unreliable - I don't want to bother with her any more" is legal.
Some on this thread are arguing that it shouldn't be - that if you set yourself up as a teacher of mathematics, you have an obligation to serve any potential pupil on a first-come-first-served basis.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
'So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,' Does no harm to the provider or customer.
' a black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK,'
Does harm to the provider.
' and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)'
Gay people getting married in no way harms people who are opposed to it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Where we get into "let them (not) eat cake" grey-er territory though is where the business says, "I won't restrict the customers I sell to but I will restrict the types of goods or services I provide eg: I won't supply any good or service I consider to be offensive."
So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,
You're allowed to discriminate between types/cuts of meat. Once again, there seems a distressing inability among the pro-discrimination faction to distinguish between things and people.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
a black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK,
No anti-discrimination law I'm familiar with forbids discriminating against terrorist organizations. Citation, please?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)
If you offer as a service "your message on a cake", your editorial options are usually limited to whatever's permissible under local obscenity ststutes. If you offer "one of these messages on a cake" with an accompanying list you're on better legal footing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Are you not therefore in the above falling into the same category as you accuse others of being unable to distinguish between things (messages on a cake) and people?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,' Does no harm to the provider or customer.
If the customer demands pork though, satisfying that demand arguably does do harm to the provider.
quote:
black printer refusing to print publicity material for the KKK,'
Does harm to the provider.
' and...er...a conservative evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake bearing a slogan endorsing gay marriage(....?)'
Gay people getting married in no way harms people who are opposed to it.
But endorsing gay marriage? If a message is offensive to the provider, then is there not an element of 'harm' in being asked to give that message. What if it was a Catholic printer asked to do a print run for Banner of Truth in Northern Ireland asserting, amongst other things, that the Pope was the Antichrist? Does the printer have to take the job or can s/he object on the grounds it offends his/ her religious sensibilities?
[ 09. April 2015, 17:08: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Are you not therefore in the above falling into the same category as you accuse others of being unable to distinguish between things (messages on a cake) and people?
Not necessarily. Most of the "cake" cases thus far center on same-sex couples wanting to buy wedding cakes. This seems to fall under Justice Scalia's "Yarmulke Tax" dictum ("a tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews") where discrimination against the message is inseparable from discrimination against people. For cakes bearing written slogans anti-discrimination laws are less clear, since discrimination due to political beliefs is usually not forbidden.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Agreed. I was thinking of the Northern Ireland Ashers Bakery case where they were (IIRC) asked to print a pro-equal marriage slogan on the cake.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'So, for example, assuming the following are all self-employed, a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork or non-halal/ kosher meat,' Does no harm to the provider or customer.
If the customer demands pork though, satisfying that demand arguably does do harm to the provider.
The same could be argued if the customer wanted to buy the light bulbs out of the fixtures. Just because the customer wants a service doesn't mean it's discriminatory not to offer it. It's only discriminatory if it's a service regularly offered to other customers. (e.g. a kosher butcher who won't sell to non-Jews.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The parallel of cakes with racist slogans or anti-Catholic slogans is not cakes with pro-gay-marriage slogans. It would be anti-straight marriage slogans.
To be specific;
"Down with Black Rights" and "Hallelujah Gay People can Marry too" are not on a par. It would have to be "Down with Blacks Rights" vs "Down with Hetero-Rights". Or something.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive. So, next question: whose opinion has the greater weight here as to what is offensive - Party A taking offence or Party B asking Party A to do something which Party B, far from taking offence at, actively support but Party A finds offensive?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive.
Are they putting their name to something? Do we assume that because Karl Marx's Capital is published by Penguin Books (a division of Penguin Random House, 2014 revenues of €3.3bn) that the publisher is necessarily advocating Marxist economics and communist revolution? It seems an odd position for a massive and profitable capitalist organization to take.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
You can always resign in disgust.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
I think the real answer is yes if you think it is bad enough. If I was on a committee that had just voted for something utterly awful like a resolution supporting torture, then I would walk out and refuse to take minutes.
And that is what seems so offensive, to me, about the position that says gay marriage is such an awful thing that I'll react in a way that would normally be reserved for extreme situations.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
At any rate, the particulars of publishing for hire, including refusing work and liability of publisher, are usually covered more thoroughly under free press/speech statutes than standard anti-discrimination law.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
You can always resign in disgust.
And that is the proper reaction. If you cannot perform under your legal job requirements, you cease doing that job. Why would you want to work for people who do something abhorrent to you?
In the case of the wedding cakes, if your conscience refuses to let you do cakes for LGBT+, the answer is to cease doing wedding cakes entirely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Good news for those offended by having to publish pro gay messages;
Colorado Commission upholds the right of a baker to not make a cake with anti-gay bible verses on it. So presumably another baker can refuse to print a pro-gay message.
Meanwhile, Colorado upholds the right of a gay couple to get a wedding cake from an unwilling baker because you're not allowed to discriminate in providing a public accommodation.
No doubt both cases will go up on appeal to higher courts.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Does the US have anything like the laws which outlaw hate speech in the UK. Because to my mind a UK baker could refuse to print anti gay verses on the grounds that they are hate speech. That's not an argument I particularly like applying to Holy Scripture but there's a pretty good case for it.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Does the US have anything like the laws which outlaw hate speech in the UK.
No. The First Amendment forbids government censorship on the grounds that speech is hateful. In order for the government to censor anything it has to be either some kind of immanent danger (threats, incitement to riot, etc.), fraudulent, or otherwise likely to inflict some tangible harm. The key there it "tangible". Hurt feelings don't count.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The first amendment also talks about not establishing any particular religion. So preventing hate speech is very hard, but preventing religious hate speech is even harder.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Here's a new twist on constitutional originalism.
South Carolina has filed a brief in the Supreme Court It says "The constitution allows the state to discriminate against women in regulating marriage, so why can't we discriminate against gays in same sex marriage. Since at the time of the singing of the constitution many states did not allow m married woman to have rights to her property, they claim that argues for a narrow definition of individual rights.
Truly breathtaking and Roberts and Scalia might buy it.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Scalia and Roberts would suck each others dicks (with Thomas watching and masturbating) to get away with that.
But Section 1 of the 26th amendment eliminates that part of the 14th.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that works: if a Trinitarian Christian is asked to print a flyer promoting Arianism, then to that Christian that would be as 'bad' as denouncing the Trinity. I am also not sure the provider would agree with you anyway: if they are having to put their name to something which they find offensive then, to them, it is offensive.
Are they putting their name to something? Do we assume that because Karl Marx's Capital is published by Penguin Books (a division of Penguin Random House, 2014 revenues of €3.3bn) that the publisher is necessarily advocating Marxist economics and communist revolution? It seems an odd position for a massive and profitable capitalist organization to take.
Fair point, but that's their choice. Others, perhaps smaller, more personal businesses may choose not to thus endorse something with which they profoundly disagree. Surely that is their choice too in a free society?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
I think the real answer is yes if you think it is bad enough. If I was on a committee that had just voted for something utterly awful like a resolution supporting torture, then I would walk out and refuse to take minutes.
And that is what seems so offensive, to me, about the position that says gay marriage is such an awful thing that I'll react in a way that would normally be reserved for extreme situations.
Yes, and it is offensive to me too. But it is more offensive to them that they be asked to, in their eyes, aid and abet something which goes against their conscience. There's the rub: different people find different activities and stances offensive and I therefore return to the question I posed upthread: why should what we regard as offensive trump that which others regard as offensive?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I'm secretary to a committee that has agreed a policy I find abhorrent, should I refuse to draft a minute?
You might decide to make the minutes as painfully accurate as you possibly can, so that it's crystal clear who approved of the abhorrent thing and why. And then maybe put a brief statement at the very end, expressing your opinion.
When, someday, the manure hits the fan and courts dredge up the minutes as evidence, they'll clearly see who to blame--and that you're not.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It perhaps depends on whether, as Secretary, you are part of the decision-making group, or whether you are merely a "Minutes Secretary" or "Recorder" who writes down what happens but has no voice.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
