|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I want to encourage others to do so too. And feel frustrated when they don't seem to be bothered to try.
And it doesn't occur to you that others might be seeing the same thing in reverse?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Refusing to ice a picture of Mohammed is not discriminating against any group. Refusing to say homosexuality is a sin is not discriminating against a religion, unless you want to adopt the very sad argument that the belief in homosexuality being a sin is emblematic of Christianity.
Refusing to ice a picture of Mohammed discriminates against those who want to see iced pictures of Mohammed.
A person's view as to what is or is not a sin doesn't have to be emblematic of anybody else's faith in order to qualify as a religious conviction.
You seem to have this strange view that if people do something or believe something in sufficient numbers that it thereby becomes more moral. That if one person holds an idea they're just wrong, but if 1000 people hold that idea then they're a minority who mustn't be discriminated against by saying that idea is just wrong.
Seems to me that if you want to promote "discrimination" from a personal preference as to outcomes into a moral rule then you have to parse it in terms of individual actions against individuals.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Discriminating against people who want to see pictures of Mohammed is not the same as discriminating against people who are gay. You seem to have this strange view (and by strange I mean actually not all that justifiable and a little daft) that one has to say discrimination is always bad or always good.
It is quite reasonable to discriminate against murderers. Less reasonable to discriminate against black people. Discriminating against people who want to see pictures of Mohammed is kinda harmless and not really the same as discriminating against gay people.
You are going to have to discriminate discrimination if you want to engage with the world, otherwise you are in cloud cuckoo land.
[ 10. December 2016, 10:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Discriminating against people who want to see pictures of Mohammed is not the same as discriminating against people who are gay. You seem to have this strange view (and by strange I mean actually not all that justifiable and a little daft) that one has to say discrimination is always bad or always good.
Why isn't it the same? I don't understand what you are saying here.
We are agreed there are a number of protected characteristics under the Equalities Act. The effect of one is to protect gay people from discrimination in buying cakes. Another has the effect of protecting travellers wanting to buy a beer in a pub.
But the law actually states that philosophical beliefs are protected, and there is case law to show that this includes political views.
So whilst I understand the point that you are saying that "people who want to see pictures of Mohammed" are not the same as people who are gay who want to buy an iced cake, I'm not sure what it is that you think that is different or why the latter is not a philosophical view as per the Equalities Act.
Saying that these groups are not the same and are therefore not equally protected by the Equalities Act is not giving any reasoning, and is a point that experts in the law disagree about. You appear to be saying that there cannot possibly be a coherent political group who want to buy Charlie Hebdo in a Muslim newsagent, but I'm far from convinced that you've shown why that must be the case.
quote:
It is quite reasonable to discriminate against murderers. Less reasonable to discriminate against black people. Discriminating against people who want to see pictures of Mohammed is kinda harmless and not really the same as discriminating against gay people.
Well that might or might not be the case, I suppose. But when we're talking about "reasonable" political views, then there is a level of subjectivity on the part of the observer.
If you are saying that protecting those with political views are always less important than racial (or other groups), that might be a fair moral argument, but I can't see that this heirarchy is spelled out in the Equalities Act.
quote:
You are going to have to discriminate discrimination if you want to engage with the world, otherwise you are in cloud cuckoo land.
It seems that you've arbitrarily decided to draw a line in the sand and you've then said that your line is the one obvious and reasonable one that nobody could possibly argue with. But the law doesn't seem to use your understanding of reasonableness - and from the case law on protecting philosophical views, the judges have judged them based on the cohesion of them not on whether or not they can be considered reasonable.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not saying my particular arbitrary line is the only or best one, but I am saying that one needs to be drawn. I don't think the line of "no discrimination over any characteristic" is tenable, but neither to I think "any discrimination goes" is the appropriate response to that.
So someone has to decide. We have legislation and representative democracy to help us draw the line.
I may have got the interpretation wrong, and as you say there are different views, but I haven't seen any cases referred to that yet convince me of that for the reasons discussed up thread.
It is going to be messy as there are competing rights, political groupings may be in conflict with hate speech legislation for instance, so it wouldn't be a surprise if I was wrong. But what I would maintain is that we have to have a line drawn that is between the two extremes, and protesting that this is arbitrary and an imposition on freedoms is missing the point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
..protesting that this is arbitrary and an imposition on freedoms is missing the point.
What point is being missed?
As far as I understand, the Nazis had various groups of undesirables - including Jews and Romany people, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Communists and other political dissidents.
I assume that you'd agree that in the same way that it was totally long for Jews and Romany to be treated with contempt, it was also wrong for those things to be done to Communists and the mentally ill.
It was wrong to have a "no Jews, gypsies or dogs" sign in a bakery, just as it would be wrong to have "no Communists" and "no Downs syndrome people" and "no homosexuals".
Can we agree there?
So how do we get from there to deciding who should be forced to print things that other marginal groups dislike? Should a Communist be forced to print a Jewish tract which lays out an argument against Marxism? Should a Jewish group be forced to print a Romany Christian tract which says all Jews ate going to hell?
I think it is reasonable to examine our preconceptions and try to establish where we are being inconsistent and how we are determining the way to make and enforce rules in society. Are you saying that project of examination is not worth doing?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So whilst I understand the point that you are saying that "people who want to see pictures of Mohammed" are not the same as people who are gay who want to buy an iced cake, I'm not sure what it is that you think that is different or why the latter is not a philosophical view as per the Equalities Act.
Being gay is not a "view" at all. You might as well say that being female and wanting to buy a cake is a philosophical view. Adding "wanting to buy a cake" to "is a woman" does not a philosophical view create.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Being gay is not a "view" at all. You might as well say that being female and wanting to buy a cake is a philosophical view. Adding "wanting to buy a cake" to "is a woman" does not a philosophical view create.
As I understand it, philosophical view discrimination is outlawed via the Equalities legislation in exactly the same way as discrimination against Jews or homosexuals. I'm not saying being gay is a view.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"And why the latter is not a philosophical view." You very much appear to be doing just that.
--------------------
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
Apology accepted gratefully -- I didn't think you could possibly be saying that but sometimes people get "queer fits" as Gandalf said of Bilbo, pun intended.
--------------------
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:
So how do we get from there to deciding who should be forced to print things that other marginal groups dislike?
We don't because that isn't the premise of my argument.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Should a Communist be forced to print a Jewish tract which lays out an argument against Marxism? Should a Jewish group be forced to print a Romany Christian tract which says all Jews ate going to hell?
I think these are good questions. I kinda don't know the answer, but what I do know is that we are going to have to work out a way of dealing with them. The only way of completely avoiding these questions is to either say all discrimination is off and everyone has to print anything and everything, or to say that all discrimination is on and it's up to the printer/baker/service provider.
So I think it's fine to bring up these questions and then debate possible answers to them, what I don't think one can do is use the existence of these questions to argue that equality legislation is flawed and should be done away with, and that a necessary consequence of the existence of these questions is that gay people (or black people or whoever) have to accept discrimination.
Happy to go on and debate those questions, but I wanted to clarify that bit of the argument first - and maybe you don't agree.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not saying my particular arbitrary line is the only or best one, but I am saying that one needs to be drawn. I don't think the line of "no discrimination over any characteristic" is tenable, but neither to I think "any discrimination goes" is the appropriate response to that.
So someone has to decide. We have legislation and representative democracy to help us draw the line.
Laws will always be a compromise, and will never protect every possible condition equally.
but the ridiculousness of these conversations is that they ignore the real world.
The reason there are protected groups is that there is real danger in belonging to one of them.
We live in a world where everyone thinks they are oppressed and it is both annoying and a real danger to those who actually are.
Not directing this at you, mdijon, just expanding on your point.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm wondering if Steve will come back and tell us why he thinks the word "gay" is the best word in the English language, and gay people the worst people.
It occurs to me that while I have occasionally heard people like Steve L complain about the "loss" to our language of the word "gay", I don't think I've ever heard anyone on the anti-gay side object to the corruption of once-useful words like "bent", "queer" and "faggot". And I've certainly never heard anyone lament the fact that the linguistic processes that gave us "bugger" and "sod" have left them bereft of vocabulary when discussing eastern European heretics or the residents of ancient Sodom.
It seems that they only really object to the misuse of English words to describe homosexuality when it produces neutral or positive ways to refer to homosexual people, but never when it generates more ways to insult, abuse and oppress them. Should I be surprised?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think I've ever heard anyone on the anti-gay side object to the corruption of once-useful words like "bent", "queer" and "faggot".
Is there a sense in which one can no longer use "bent" without someone assuming you mean homosexual?
"Queer" I'll give you, although I think you can tell someone you came over a bit queer this morning without them thinking that you suddenly started batting for the other team.
As for "faggot", it's so dominated by cross-pond issues that I've lost track of how it's likely to be taken in the UK. I'd assume that one can still acquire faggots in gravy if one's tastes run in that direction.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Discriminating against people who want to see pictures of Mohammed is kinda harmless and not really the same as discriminating against gay people.
You are going to have to discriminate discrimination if you want to engage with the world
Your final sentence there seems to be saying much the same thing that I was trying to say to mousethief earlier.
I think we're agreed that there's a sense of "discrimination" meaning something like "recognising or acting on fine or subtle distinctions" that is a positive thing.
And that there's a difference between "direct discrimination" (e.g. a Protestant employer making a policy of not hiring Catholics or vice versa for a job to which religion is irrelevant) and indirect effects (e.g. a tax on fish might be said to disadvantage those whose religious custom is to eat fish every Friday).
I'm suggesting that direct discrimination is a real sin - a morally wrong way for one human being to treat another - regardless of any "protected characteristic" list that any legislator may have drawn up in any jurisdiction.
And that "indirect discrimination" is not morally wrong, again regardless of who is suffering the relative disadvantage.
Picking on people is not "kinda harmless" - it's bad whether or not the victim is a representative of some group you consider disadvantaged.
The right response to the person who wants a birthday cake with a picture of the prophet is not "sorry chum, you're not on my protected list so you have no rights" It's that the disadvantage - having to find another baker - is a trivial side-effect of the principle that people should not be compelled to act against their religious convictions.
And that's not special pleading for organised religion, but extends to every person's deep convictions (such as conscientious objectors to military service).
God has no protected list...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Said by a Straight. White. Man. who has never had to hunt for a place that would serve him.
It is a cute attempt to try to place things on an equal plain, but they are not.
You are attempting to put the right to discriminate against the right to exist and pretend they are the same thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Is there a sense in which one can no longer use "bent" without someone assuming you mean homosexual?
A "bent copper" (i.e. a corrupt policeman) - has nothing to do with sexuality.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Said by a Straight. White. Man. who has never had to hunt for a place that would serve him.
It is a cute attempt to try to place things on an equal plain, but they are not.
You are attempting to put the right to discriminate against the right to exist and pretend they are the same thing.
That's the trouble though: how exactly to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against whilst at the same time ensuring that they don't discriminate against other minorities in trading relationships.
I agree it isn't equal. But I'm far from convinced that mandating who must trade with whom solves the problem.
And I eat faggots all the time. I don't think that term has been "lost" (which I agree is a daft way to look at the development of language).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
That's the trouble though: how exactly to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against whilst at the same time ensuring that they don't discriminate against other minorities in trading relationships.
This is the first I remember seeing in this thread about minorities discriminating against other minorities. This hasn't been "the trouble," at least as far as the discussion here is concerned, until just now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
That's the trouble though: how exactly to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against whilst at the same time ensuring that they don't discriminate against other minorities in trading relationships.
This is the first I remember seeing in this thread about minorities discriminating against other minorities. This hasn't been "the trouble," at least as far as the discussion here is concerned, until just now.
I'm not sure it a a trouble in any context.
Black people cannot legally, discriminate against LGBT+ or any other protected category.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well I've been talking about it above eg the Communist who refuses to print a Jewish anti-Marxist pamphlet and so on.
The protected characteristics are so broad that it could cover those who say that the failure of a Muslim printer to print a cartoon of Muhammed infringes the philophical or political rights characteristic.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And this is the frustration here. The effect of your argument is to allow the discrimination of those who have actually faced real problems simply trying to exist against hypothetical situations.
Or effectively not allowing anyone to do anything because someone might be offended.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... And that there's a difference between "direct discrimination" (e.g. a Protestant employer making a policy of not hiring Catholics or vice versa for a job to which religion is irrelevant) and indirect effects (e.g. a tax on fish might be said to disadvantage those whose religious custom is to eat fish every Friday).
I'm suggesting that direct discrimination is a real sin - a morally wrong way for one human being to treat another - regardless of any "protected characteristic" list that any legislator may have drawn up in any jurisdiction.
And that "indirect discrimination" is not morally wrong, again regardless of who is suffering the relative disadvantage. ...
Well, regardless of whether you think it is morally wrong or not, structural inequities can be just as harmful to individuals as out-and-out hate. That's just a fact. You're just repeating the same old nobody-should-sleep-on-park-benches argument. You are arguing that it is just an unfortunate consequence of the park bench rules that poor people get thrown in jail but rich people don't, when, in reality, the park bench rules were written by rich people who don't want to see poor people sleeping in the park. As a friend of mine says, "Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining."
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is the frustration here. The effect of your argument is to allow the discrimination of those who have actually faced real problems simply trying to exist against hypothetical situations.
Or effectively not allowing anyone to do anything because someone might be offended.
I'm sorry, why is the Muslim printer example only considered hypothetical?
And anyway, prominent gay activist Peter Tatchell, referred to in this thread by me, is so worried that the cake judgement would lead to gay bakers being force to make anti-gay cakes that he withdrew his support from the prosecution.
Are you saying Tachell has not experienced persecution? That he is somehow not allowed to be worried by the effects of this legislation and this ruling?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The Textbook Allegory
--------------------
"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 mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, why is the Muslim printer example only considered hypothetical?
Show me real examples where this is occurring. How many Mohammed cakes do you truly think are being desired?
quote:
And anyway, prominent gay activist Peter Tatchell, referred to in this thread by me, is so worried that the cake judgement would lead to gay bakers being force to make anti-gay cakes that he withdrew his support from the prosecution.
I think this an irrational fear. Yes, cases going against anti-LGBT+ might well trigger a few such cases. But, given that most bakers will be straight, it is not a massively likely occurrence. And, it is a scenario worth accepting to end dicrimination against LGBT+
quote:
Are you saying Tachell has not experienced persecution? That he is somehow not allowed to be worried by the effects of this legislation and this ruling?
Not saying either, he likely has. He is entitled to his view, I disagree with.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The Textbook Allegory
Love this. It is a simple and clear explanation.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The protected characteristics are so broad that it could cover those who say that the failure of a Muslim printer to print a cartoon of Muhammed infringes the philophical or political rights characteristic.
Yes, in some readings it could. But I bet it wouldn't be successful if argued in court. I appreciate some authorities think it might, I would prefer that it wouldn't and will wait with interest to see a case demonstrating the opposite.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The right response to the person who wants a birthday cake with a picture of the prophet is not "sorry chum, you're not on my protected list so you have no rights"
I quite agree and that isn't my response. Individuals aren't ticked off as "on the protected list and entitled to whatever they ask for" or "not on and not protected therefore accorded no rights". Everyone is one the list. Everyone can have a race, a sexual orientation, and an disabled/abled category. The question is whether they are being discriminated against for one of those characteristics. So whatever race they are, they can't be discriminated against for being that race. Whatever sexual orientation they are, they can't be discriminated against for that sexual orientation.
I think that's even handed.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Everyone is on the list. Everyone can have a race, a sexual orientation, and an disabled/abled category.
And a nationality ? And a religion ?
You've said that this is how the law works in the UK. But it's not clear to me why you think that's the way it should work.
Suppose a redheaded gay man is turned down for a job. If the reason he's given is "we don't want any effin queers round here" you think that's wrong, and I agree. But do you think it's OK if they say instead "we don't want any effin redheads around here" ?
One may be - as a matter of degree - more hurtful than the other, but I find it hard to see why anyone would think one morally wrong and the other not.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... But do you think it's OK if they say instead "we don't want any effin redheads around here" ?...
Let's see ... what race do redheads belong to?
It's a common fallacy that only people of colour have a race, only women have a sex, and so on. Why is it only fascist nutjobs that remember that white people are a race as well?
ETA: remove oopsie
[ 12. December 2016, 00:13: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It would be an illegal recruitment practice in any case. But yes, as I think Soror is saying, one can argue that red hair is a racial characteristic and prejudice against people with red hair fails the equality legislation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is some uncertainty about whether red-heads would fall under categories in the Equalities Act (see legal opinions here here here etc and ad nauseum) but as there has never been a test case it is quite a hard one to call.
But Russ' point is sound if we insert something that is unquestionably not covered. It is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone because you object to his trousers or believe his hands are too small.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
God has no protected list...
...or perhaps has one as big as all of creation...
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I kinda don't know the answer, but what I do know is that we are going to have to work out a way of dealing with them. The only way of completely avoiding these questions is to either say all discrimination is off and everyone has to print anything and everything, or to say that all discrimination is on and it's up to the printer/baker/service provider.
Your honesty and even-handedness are both appreciated.
Is it fair to say that you sympathize with minorities ? That you feel it is somehow unjust for a gay customer to be turned away because the printer objects to printing a pro-homosexuality slogan ? That you also feel it unjust for a black printer to be compelled to print a KKK tract? That you look to anti-discrimination laws to prevent both these perceived wrongs ?
Seems to me that your even-handed version of what discrimination is doesn't quite do what you want it to do.
It's easiest to see in terms of religion. Suppose a Sunni Muslim wants a religious tract printed and a Shia Muslim funds it objectionable. The text impinges on the protected characteristic of both parties. How does your even-handed anti-discrimination law help to tell us whose will should prevail ?
The non-even-handed version has an answer. Those who think that the law should be partisan and give some people more rights than others would look at whether the Sunni have persecuted the Shia more than vice versa (in some particular area over some particular time period) and conclude that one individual is a Victim (regardless of the level of persecution that those two individuals have actually experienced ) and that therefore one of the two is discriminating against an Oppressed Minority and therefore in the wrong.
There are two different approaches here. Whilst not agreeing with you, I want to apologise to you if anything I've said about the bad version has wrongly impugned your good self.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's easiest to see in terms of religion. Suppose a Sunni Muslim wants a religious tract printed and a Shia Muslim funds it objectionable. The text impinges on the protected characteristic of both parties.
(Note that the law prohibits discrimination in relation to a protected characteristic, not only against those who have a minority form of a particular characteristic.)
In this case, my understanding of the law is that your Shia printer cannot refuse to print what he sees as the blasphemous Sunni tract. This is identical to the Ashers case - the printer finds the content objectionable, but may not refuse it because the nature of the content brings a protected characteristic in to play.
The law does, indeed, privilege customers over vendors. The law does not see two equal parties with different religious opinions negotiating over some mutually beneficial business: it sees a merchant offering to do business with the public, and an individual seeking the services that that merchant provides.
It is not illegal for a bunch of Sunnis to refuse to patronize a Shia printer, a group of black people to refuse to patronize a red-headed printer, or for a group of gay men to seek to deal exclusively with gay-owned businesses.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The law does, indeed, privilege customers over vendors. The law does not see two equal parties with different religious opinions negotiating over some mutually beneficial business: it sees a merchant offering to do business with the public, and an individual seeking the services that that merchant provides.
Thank you - that's clearly put.
Whilst I don't doubt that this is an informed view of what (?UK?) law is, I'm more concerned with what the law should be. I use the term "moral", mousethief talks of "equity", others might say "natural justice" (and maybe to a lawyer those terms have different meanings) but it seems meaningful to ask whether the law has got it right.
Is it your moral intuition or sense of justice that the law as you describe it is right ?
A merchant might object to a text on several grounds -
- philosophical conviction (pacifist rejecting a text advocating holy war)
- insult to protected characteristic (anti-gay propaganda)
- obscenity
- blasphemy, or
- political conviction.
Sounds like you're saying that the only criterion that the merchant may apply is whether the text is legal. So the state may have obscenity laws and blasphemy laws and anti-discrimination laws and treason laws. And the merchant must refuse to print something he believes to be against those laws and may not refuse a text that complies with those laws.
Conscience has been nationalised. There is no space for discretion between the forbidden and the compulsory. Merchants are obliged to let the state define what is or is not a permissible text. That's what you think makes for a better world ?
Would you permit a Christian merchant to offer a service of printing Bible verses (on mugs, t-shirts etc) ?
Or provide a short list of phrases that they offer to ice on a cake, that includes "happy birthday" and "merry christmas" ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I kinda don't know the answer, but what I do know is that we are going to have to work out a way of dealing with them. The only way of completely avoiding these questions is to either say all discrimination is off and everyone has to print anything and everything, or to say that all discrimination is on and it's up to the printer/baker/service provider.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your honesty and even-handedness are both appreciated.
Is it fair to say that you sympathize with minorities ?
No. I would be just as happy to see a white customer protected against being turned away for being white as for a black customer to be protected against being turned away for being black.
The issue isn't minority vs majority it is the parameter chosen, which needs to be a protected characteristic.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Suppose a Sunni Muslim wants a religious tract printed and a Shia Muslim funds it objectionable. The text impinges on the protected characteristic of both parties. How does your even-handed anti-discrimination law help to tell us whose will should prevail ?
I wouldn't at all advocate looking at who has been more persecuted and I don't think anyone else on this thread has indicated they would either.
For me, the principles go like this;
- No-one has a right to suppress freedom of speech simply because they are offended. So neither Sunni no Shiite citizens have a right to stop material that offends them.
- If a Sunni printer goes into business then once they are in business they can't refuse to print Shiite material simply because it is Shiite material
- If a Shiite printer goes into business then once they are in business they can't refuse to print Sunni material simply because it is Sunni material.
I would advise an easily offended printer that they are probably not in the best business for them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But Russ' point is sound if we insert something that is unquestionably not covered. It is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone because you object to his trousers or believe his hands are too small.
Yes it is. And while I don't like the idea of service providers being capricious and petty I can't see it is desirable to prevent them being capricious and petty with legislation. When a community may become marginalized then I think legislation has a role in protected their place in the marketplace, but that is an additional danger to society that I think it legitimate to respond to with legislation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Merchants are obliged to let the state define what is or is not a permissible text. That's what you think makes for a better world ?
No. They do have to let the state decide what are protected characteristics, and they can turn down text because it is badly spelt, silly, not the sort of thing they print or any other reason. The only thing they can't do, according to this legislation, is turn down printing it because it is text that is associated with a particular group defined using a protected characteristic.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Russ, you're doing the usual thing and treating the state as if it were totalitarian simply because it's saying something you don't like. If one likes/approves of a particular legal restriction it becomes society's, or imposed by the people.
In certain circumstances, I might even do the same thing myself, but that is what you are doing. For it to be anything other than particularly humdrum bias, you need to prove that this is anything other than the legal process working in the usual legal way, and therefore what is illegitimate about it.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Would you permit a Christian merchant to offer a service of printing Bible verses (on mugs, t-shirts etc) ?
Or provide a short list of phrases that they offer to ice on a cake, that includes "happy birthday" and "merry christmas" ?
Who, and where, has suggested that those examples have anything at all to do with the question being discussed? Only you, so far as I can see. And I. for one, beleive them to be stunningly irrelevant.
In brief, neither a Christian, nor a Jewish, nor an atheist nor a HIndu....can be prevented from printing (christian) bible verses on anything. No one has ever suggested they should be. SImply to state your case in this way shows how utterly empty it is. And the same goes for your second question.
These aren't even straw men...they're too weak even for that. They're not even properly part of a discussion about this matter.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
At this point I'm having a hard time not seeing a Gish Gallop here. Every answer is met with "Oh yeah what about?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Is it fair to say that you sympathize with minorities ?
Must. Resist. Temptation. Must. Resist.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Conscience has been nationalised. ...
That's just silly. We have legal systems because we cannot rely on conscience to get people to treat each other decently, especially those who are weaker or with whom they have little in common. To quote Heinlein, "Never appeal to a man’s 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his 'self—interest' gives you more leverage."
Here's a thing:
D.C. restaurant apologizes for hosting alt-right group, diners who performed Nazi salute
Now, the restaurant didn't know in advance they were hosting Nazis, so we don't know if they would / could have refused the booking. They had to shut down the event when protesters showed up, and they found out about the Nazi stuff when they recognized their room on social media. As they did not want to be associated with such horrible people, they issued a public apology and donated the profit from the event to the Anti-Defamation League.
-
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
John Holding, I don't think Russ is suggesting that anyone is being prevented from decorating cakes with Christian messages or whatever; his question is may a cake decorator offering services to the public say that the only service being offered is x, or y or z. Just as a Jewish deli may say that the only food being offered is kosher and so ham is not sold. Or can a deli say "we sell a range of deli products but none is kosher and our knives etc are not regularly kashered". At least I think that's what he's asking.
The small hands etc comments - is this not discrimination on the basis of a physical characteristic and thus may well fall foul of the legislation where you are.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Yeah, and we dealt with the Jewish deli and the men's wear store pages ago. The Jewish deli doesn't have to sell ham, but they do have to sell matzo balls to Gentiles. The men's wear store doesn't stock women's shoes, but they have to sell men's shoes to a woman if she wants to buy a pair.
I do think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what human rights legislation is intended to accomplish. Russ regularly refers to minorities being given "additional rights" that others do not have. It seems that in Russ' interpretation, laws requiring e.g. accessibility for the disabled give disabled people "more rights" than non-disabled people. That only makes sense if you completely ignore the reality that non-disabled people already have the "right" to accessibility everywhere. Nobody is getting more or different rights; we all have the same rights, but different accommodations are required to allow all individuals to exercise those rights.
So let's suppose that there's a business that has steps at the entrance and a very narrow door. Anyone using a wheelchair or scooter cannot enter, and therefore cannot do business there. Is that fair? Is that right? How do we fix it so that anyone can come in and do business? Whose responsibility should it be to make that happen?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
we dealt with the Jewish deli and the men's wear store pages ago. The Jewish deli doesn't have to sell ham, but they do have to sell matzo balls to Gentiles. The men's wear store doesn't stock women's shoes, but they have to sell men's shoes to a woman if she wants to buy a pair.
Agreed. In those examples, the merchant cannot "directly" discriminate against any customer, but they're allowed to sell only stuff that is associated with one value of a protected characteristic. In much the same way that has been described above as "indirect discrimination" when selling printing services.
Y'all don't seem to think that it's OK for a Sunni printer to refuse a Shia text so long as he also refuses it to a Sunni who's buying it for a friend. But when it comes to selling men's shoes, that's proof of non-discrimination ?
Is it discrimination to run a Christian bookshop that only sells Christian books ?
Is it discrimination if that shop also sells Christian booklets and prints them in the back room ?
Is it discrimination if the bookshop owner / printer will also print for customers Christian material that they've seen on the internet ?
Does it become discrimination if there's one second-hand book of Muslim spirituality in the shop so that it is just conceivable that a passing Muslim might think that the owner would print a Muslim text for him ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Y'all don't seem to think that it's OK for a Sunni printer to refuse a Shia text so long as he also refuses it to a Sunni who's buying it for a friend. But when it comes to selling men's shoes, that's proof of non-discrimination ?
Is it discrimination to run a Christian bookshop that only sells Christian books ?
Is it discrimination if that shop also sells Christian booklets and prints them in the back room ?
As discussed above, the law is that you can't disciminate against particular groups. So if a Muslim comes into a Christian bookshop, you can't refuse to sell him a book on account of him being a Muslim.
Similarly if you provide printing services, you can't decide not to print something requested by a gay man because they're gay.
I don't see much point in attempting to discuss whether someone can be forced to sell something that they're not selling. Clearly the answer is no.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Russ, I don't think some of your examples would even be an issue, others seem to be not really getting the way many of us are suggesting discrimination would work. But rather than work through each individually could you articulate the point?
I've explained why I think we need some form of discrimination legislation, and I recognize some examples do become very problematic. But I nevertheless think the alternative of allowing discrimination because the law would be messy is unacceptable.
What is your conclusion? That because the law gets messy and one can think of complex examples there that there should be no law in this area?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Y'all don't seem to think that it's OK for a Sunni printer to refuse a Shia text so long as he also refuses it to a Sunni who's buying it for a friend. But when it comes to selling men's shoes, that's proof of non-discrimination ?
Is it discrimination to run a Christian bookshop that only sells Christian books ?
These are quite different things. If you're a bookshop, you have books on your shelves that you sell. You're not discriminating by not stocking books that some customer might like any more than you're discriminating by not stocking cucumbers or motorcycle parts.
If, like some bookshops, you allow customers to order books, and you are able to order books on Islamic theology through your supply chain, but refuse to do so on the grounds that you think Islam is a load of bunk, you would be discriminating on prohibited grounds, and be breaking the law.
If you're a printer, then the customer shows up with something he'd like printing, and you print it. Perhaps you also do typesetting. Refusing certain print jobs because you didn't like the content would be discrimination. If you refused a job that members of a certain religion are more likely to want, or people with a certain sexuality are more likely to want, or so on, you would be discriminating on prohibited grounds.
Perhaps in an ideal world free of widespread bias, shopkeepers and businessfolk could be free to discriminate as they pleased without unpleasant consequences. We don't live in that world.
In this real world in which we live, preventing widespread discrimination that actually happens against people on the grounds of race, sexuality and so forth is, in my opinion, more important than what is frankly a small imposition on the ideological purity of a printer.
It's a messy compromise. And there comes a point where we stop compromising - we don't force religious organizations to act in opposition to their beliefs: so we require a Christian florist to accept an order from a gay couple, but don't require her church to host the wedding.
And at the boundaries, people are going to be unhappy. They always are - the law is forcing them to do something they don't want to do, and they can point at some other situation that they consider similar where the law does not force them to do something. That, I'm afraid, is a fact of life - people at the boundaries are always going to feel hard done by, and will always want to slide the boundaries a bit in their favour.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
