|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
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.
Don't think I've mentioned either "totalitarian" or "will of the people", so I'm inclined to plead Not Guilty to this particular double standard that you rightly identify.
I do think it's a bad idea to give the state powers that infringe moral or "natural justice" rights and freedoms in pursuit of an outcome that one considers morally good.
And this issue does seem to ne to touch on freedom of religion.
A plural society either has no blasphemy law or tries to maintain some minimal "every reasonable person would be offended by" criterion that doesn't exactly correspond with anyone's sensibilities. If religion is a matter of private conviction, blasphemy is also a matter of private conviction.
And whilst ISTM wrong that anyone should have a right to actively hurt others in pursuit of that conviction, the right to passively withdraw from an interaction that offends against one's own sense of what is blasphemous seems a minimal accommodation to such convictions.
Isn't that somewhere near the line between a plural society that tolerates and promotes peaceful co-existence of different religions and none, and an irreligious society that denies the meaningfulness of the concept of blasphemy ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
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?
My conclusion is that you're not being totally consistent. You're judging that discrimination against a text constitutes discrimination against the group defined by a protected characteristic associated with that text in the case of printers but not in the case of booksellers.
And thereby being unjust to printers and those engaged in similar trades. Who should be allowed the same rights to have their religious convictions respected as other merchants. Which is to say choosing the service they offer but having to offer it to everyone.
I'm not saying "no discrimination law". I'm saying discriminating against people (i.e. direct discrimination") is wrong but discriminating against a text is tied up with freedom of speech/religion/conscience and should therefore be protected. And that this is both more just and more consistent than the law as you have said it currently stands.
Examples are great for testing one's moral intuition or sense of justice on. But the aim of moral thought has to be to connect up those moral insights into a consistent view of right and wrong. And sometimes that exercise should lead us to conclude that one of our judgments was mistaken, that what seemed at first sight to be like one thing is on reflection more like another.
--------------------
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
I don't think the issue is bookseller vs printer, it is special interest business vs mainstream business.
I would say that "special interest businesses" which are transparently special interest should be allowed to operate.
I think it is legitimate for a bookseller (or a printer for that matter) to be "special interest". So if a printer is exclusively a Christian book printer and transparently badged as that then that's fine by me.
What they can't do is set themselves up as a regular printer taking jobs from anyone (or a regular bookseller taking books from anyone), and then turn down specific jobs because they come from Muslims. Or Gays. Or whoever.
I don't know enough about the current legislation to know how this is handled, but what I do know is that we are not seeing Christian booksellers or publishers closed down left right and centre.
Either way I think this is a consistent approach.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And thereby being unjust to printers and those engaged in similar trades. Who should be allowed the same rights to have their religious convictions respected as other merchants.
Except you're not arguing to protect the rights of "printers and those engaged in similar trades", only those who happen to own a print shop or similar. Those who aren't self-employed but are nonetheless engaged in printing and similar trades apparently don't deserve "to have their religious convictions respected". Which would seem to indicate that what you're discussing isn't so much a "right" (which is applicable to everyone) as a "privilege" (an authority reserved to a few). In this case that not only can a print shop owner inflict his personal beliefs on his customers but on his employees as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not sure Russ is arguing either.
I would argue that a publishing house is entitled to describe itself as a Muslim publishing house (or Gay fiction or whatever) and then publish only books which fit within that category. If an employee of a publishing house takes a job in that firm they can't reasonably express a strong conviction against publishing that material.
Likewise if a publishing house has no such designation then employees don't get to pick and choose what work they will take from the employee. (And neither does the firm or representatives of the firm).
So I guess I would be arguing that although in the second instance the owner and employee are in the same boat, in the first instance the owner of a business has the legal privilege to determine the focus of a firm in the way that an employee doesn't.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Russ, and Steve L before he imploded, is trying to protect the right to continue real discrimination by hiding it behind a facade of protecting illusory freedoms. I cannot see any other conclusion from his arguments.
--------------------
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:
... Is it discrimination to run a Christian bookshop that only sells Christian books ?...
Well, let's look at the definition again:
quote:
•Indirect discrimination: discrimination caused when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would lead to a particular disadvantage compared with other persons. Unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
A Christian bookstore is patently not neutral. The owner of the Christian bookstore has chosen to only sell Christian books. S/He must sell that product to anyone - male, female, gay, straight, Muslim or Pastafarian. If a customer asks for a Koran, the bookseller can quite honestly say, "I only stock Christian books."
Now let's go back to the bakery. The bakery sells cakes. They must sell cakes to anyone. The bakery offers custom cake decorating. They must provide that service to anyone. The bakery is apparently neutral.
Now, if a bigoted baker wants to ensure that s/he will never have to create a cake that is personally objectionable, s/he can choose to offer a specific selection of acceptable images and texts for customers to choose from. What s/he cannot do is serve some customers, and refuse to serve others. S/he cannot refuse to make a "Congratulations" cake for teh gayz' wedding if "Congratulations" is one of the standard texts on offer. If the baker offers photo printing on cakes, s/he cannot refuse to print a picture of teh gayz on their cake.
But if all that legalese and protected characteristics and so forth is too complicated, and someone wants a simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution for dealing with the public, I recommend not doing anything that might look like "bait and switch." Everybody hates that.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Steve L before he imploded,
I think I'd remember imploding....
What has actually happened here is that I've been spending time on the Kerygmania 'Rapture?' thread and it's taking up too much of my time to deal properly with the issues here as well. I do aim to be back here.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Maybe this doesn't need to be said, but here goes.
There are, undeniably, Christian books. There's no such thing as a Christian cake.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Steve L before he imploded,
I think I'd remember imploding....
What has actually happened here is that I've been spending time on the Kerygmania 'Rapture?' thread and it's taking up too much of my time to deal properly with the issues here as well. I do aim to be back here.
You made what appeared to be a homophobic comment and then left the thread, it was an obvious assumption.
So, you are back. Can you explain that comment? Some of the "worst" are waiting to hear.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
Maybe this doesn't need to be said, but here goes.
There are, undeniably, Christian books. There's no such thing as a Christian cake.
But perhaps it isn't the state's job to decide that. I don't think the law is drafted in that way.
If someone decides that they might be able to make a go of it making Christian-themed pâtisserie then I believe they have the legal right to do that. And under those circumstances, for the firms no doubt long and highly profitable duration, customers would be in no doubt what they were getting.
And as many of us have said already, but repeated for the avoidance of doubt, what the baker can't do is be in the general bakery business and then decide to have a Christian theme when it comes to turning down jobs for customers they consider to be undesirable on the basis of protected characteristics.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
That seems like tautology to me. Can it really be the case that a baker who sets up as a "heterosexual wedding cake" designer could legitimately limit the market and therefore avoid the legal issues?
Are we saying that the cake would have been legal if it had been sold under a restrictive - discriminative? - banner but was only a problem because it wasn't promoted in that way and the gay slogan was rejected after the order was made?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Anyone for a hot cross bun?
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The owner of the Christian bookstore has chosen to only sell Christian books. S/He must sell that product to anyone - male, female, gay, straight, Muslim or Pastafarian. If a customer asks for a Koran, the bookseller can quite honestly say, "I only stock Christian books."
Now let's go back to the bakery... ...if a bigoted baker wants to ensure that s/he will never have to create a cake that is personally objectionable, s/he can choose to offer a specific selection of acceptable images and texts for customers to choose from. What s/he cannot do is serve some customers, and refuse to serve others. S/he cannot refuse to make a "Congratulations" cake for teh gayz' wedding if "Congratulations" is one of the standard texts on offer. If the baker offers photo printing on cakes, s/he cannot refuse to print a picture of teh gayz on their cake.
I'd agree with all of that.
I think we're all agreed that where the merchant specifies in advance the limits of the service provided, and offers that service to everyone, then no wrong has been committed.
The issues are:
1) whether refusing service to someone on the grounds of prejudice is equally wrong and should be equally illegal regardless of the particular characteristic, or whether it's OK to discriminate against people with small hands or large noses.
2) where the customer defines the detail of the service, e.g. by asking for a particular political or religious text to be iced on a cake, or asking to order a particular book (which the merchant might for example consider blasphemous or obscene).
What I'm not seeing is any rigorous reasoning why case 2) is any different from a normal transaction.
If it were feasible for a bookshop to keep a list of all the books in print and cross off the list all the ones that they're not prepared to sell, so the limits of the service were fully defined before the customer walks through the door, presumably that's OK ?
If instead the bookshop has a policy statement "we will order any book that in the opinion of the management is not contrary to the Christian faith" so that the judgment of the book (which is not a judgment of the customer) happens "on the fly" rather than in advance, does that make any difference to the rights and wrongs of the situation ?
--------------------
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 mr cheesy:
That seems like tautology to me. Can it really be the case that a baker who sets up as a "heterosexual wedding cake" designer could legitimately limit the market and therefore avoid the legal issues?
Here I think religion is treated differently from other protected characteristics. One is allowed to set up as a Christian/Muslim/Jewish organization and recruit a leader of a specific religious background, or set up as a faith-based bookshop or school and have policies that fit with that.
One wouldn't be allowed to set up as a white/black/asian school (and I remember a judgement regarding a Jewish school where the judge determined that the school had been using Jewish as a racial characteristic rather than religious and therefore was culpable under equality legislation).
I don't think one could legitimately be a heterosexual wedding bakery and use that to decline business to gay couples.
--------------------
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:
1) whether refusing service to someone on the grounds of prejudice is equally wrong and should be equally illegal regardless of the particular characteristic, or whether it's OK to discriminate against people with small hands or large noses.
It's wrong but not equally wrong. There are protected characteristics and small hands and large noses are not among them. This isn't unequal treatment of people but of characteristics. A small-handed black gay golfer can be legally discriminated against for his small hands or sporting preference, but not for his race or sexual orientation. Like-wise a big-handed white heterosexual footballer.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
2) where the customer defines the detail of the service, e.g. by asking for a particular political or religious text to be iced on a cake, or asking to order a particular book (which the merchant might for example consider blasphemous or obscene).
If the text or order is inextricable linked with a protected characteristic then the service provider may not discriminate against them on the basis of the link with the protected characteristic. If they have any other reason for not ordering the book (it's too expensive, don't like the publisher, don't do paperbacks) then they can cite that reason. But they can't not order the book because they don't like books written by black people.
--------------------
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 mdijon:
I would argue that a publishing house is entitled to describe itself as a Muslim publishing house (or Gay fiction or whatever) and then publish only books which fit within that category.
Sure - this is the same as being a Kosher butcher and only stocking Kosher meat, or being a greengrocer and not selling wheelbarrows. But "publishing" is not a service that normal publishers offer to the public. Normal publishers purchase rights to books from authors, exercise editorial control and so on.
If you were a self-publishing operation (basically, a book printing service with a couple of extras) then I think you'd find it hard to argue that you should be able to only accept gay fiction, or to refuse Muslim theology.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are, undeniably, Christian books. There's no such thing as a Christian cake.
There are cakes with Christian designs. If you had a business offering beautifully-iced cross-shaped cakes for baptisms and first communions, you might, I suppose, describe them as "Christian cakes".
And if that's what you sell, your local Satanist can't demand that you make him a picture of a horny chap on a pentagram on his cake.
But you can't refuse him a cross cake, even if you think he's going to hang it upside down.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
they can't not order the book because they don't like books written by black people.
But they can choose not to stock books written by black people ?
Why is it discrimination to not offer the service of ordering "the end of white world supremacy" but not discrimination to not offer the service of selling from stock the same title ?
How does it suddenly become discrimination when we're talking about a book-ordering service rather than a book-selling service ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's wrong but not equally wrong. There are protected characteristics and small hands and large noses are not among them.
"Protected characteristics" exist in law.
"Wrong" is a moral judgment.
Are you saying that the law has the power to create or remove moral rights and wrongs ? It's morally wrong if and only if it's against the law ?
Or are you asserting that protected characteristics are a moral reality that the law does not create but merely recognises ?
--------------------
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:
But they can choose not to stock books written by black people ?
Why is it discrimination to not offer the service of ordering "the end of white world supremacy" but not discrimination to not offer the service of selling from stock the same title ?
If I choose not to stock books by black authors, I am a racist. If I choose not to stock books about civil rights, I might be a racist, or I might be recognizing that I'm unlikely to sell many of those books to the customers that I get.
If I choose not to stock books by black authors, because I am a racist, then I am acting immorally. Because racism is immoral. But I am not, as far as I can tell, breaking the law.
Because the connection is too nebulous. By not having books by black authors on my shelves, I am causing harm to young black customers who won't see books written by people like them in my store. I'm causing harm to the black authors by not selling their books. But it's all too indirect to be illegal.
On the other hand, if I show up in your store and you refuse to order me a Toni Morrison novel, or a scholarly text on the rise of the Black Power movement, then we have direct discrimination on racial grounds. You may not be any more immoral, or any more of a racist, in the second case - but we have a direct enough connection to demonstrate a crime.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The issues are:
1) whether refusing service to someone on the grounds of prejudice is equally wrong and should be equally illegal regardless of the particular characteristic, or whether it's OK to discriminate against people with small hands or large noses.
2) where the customer defines the detail of the service, e.g. by asking for a particular political or religious text to be iced on a cake, or asking to order a particular book (which the merchant might for example consider blasphemous or obscene).
I have some sympathy with you on issue 1, because I think that the law ought to be consistent, and based on coherent principles, and it is quite difficult to see why, when there are two similar things, both equally wrong, the law forbids one and not the other.
This is why I think you're not seeing the full picture: the law is only concerned with right and wrong. It is concerned with public and private rights, with harms and benefits, with the achievable and the inachievable, and with practicalities.
Where I live, for instances, you can be fined for letting your dog crap on the pavement, but there is no legal penalty for having an affair with your neighbours spouse. Few people have a problem with this being the case.
That doesn't mean that we think adultery is morally better than not clearing up after your pet. It means that we think that the law should slow to regulate the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults (because that way lies patchy, arbitrary and unjust oppression) whereas it is very much the law's business to keep shit off the public footpaths.
When it comes to discrimination, the same sort of thing applies. There's no end of possible reasons, idiosyncratic, stupid and unfair reasons, to pick on people. We can't possibly predict and regulate all of them, and a law saying "you must be fair at all times" would be unworkable. That means that from time to time, each of us risks being treated badly because of our tiny hands, bushy eyebrows, youthful good looks, west country accent, or whatever. It sucks. It's wrong. But that's life. Realistically, there's not much the law can do about it.
But some reasons we do take special notice of - where a reason for prejudice is sufficiently common that have a particulat characteristic exposes someone not just to an occasional bad experience, but to lifelong exclusion or marginalisation. Or where a characteristic is a matter of identity, defining a group of people, such that discriminating against them becomes socially divisive, not just individually unpleasant. Discrimination of the grounds of race, gender, sexuality and (possibly) religion may not be more immoral than that based on hands and eyebrows, but in society as it now stands, it is more likely to become institutionalised, and therefore to do more harm, and more harm of the sort that the law should care about.
It is, basically, not merely immoral - it is also shitting on the public pavement. Hence discrimination on those grounds can, for good practical and principled reasons, be treated differently to just as unfair, but more idiosyncratic, forms of prejudice.
The point on your issue 2 is about indirect discrimination. If I say: "This firm has an exciting job opportunity, and we welcome applications from candidates of all backgrounds an religions - the interviews will take place from 7pm every Friday" then I m ostensibly being fair, but in fact skewing the pool of selection away from Jewish applicants. True, some Jews won't necessarily be blocked from attending on Friday evenings, and some gentiles may be unavailable, but the condition I've applied disproportionately impacts Jews, and there's probably no real justification for it.
Similar logic is being applied - if you are prepared to decorate cakes with political slogans that don't necessarily reflect your own views, but exclude such slogans as a gay person is likely to request, then you are indirectly discriminating.
To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with the finding that a request for a slogan like "Support gay marriage" is effectively a proxy for "gay customer", because I suspect most gay people order commercially decorated cakes for the same reason as straight people - to have something that looks and tastes nice on a social occasion - and that explicitly political cakes will be something of a rarity, regardless of the sexuality of the consumer. Also, most supporters of gay marriage are straight (the most vocal ones might well be gay - they have most at stake - but since straights outnumber gays by at least nine to one, the majority of the total number in favour will almost certainly be hetero). Being awkward about an unusual request for a political slogan feels more to be like the baker is just being an arsehole to a particular person than that he's applying a secondary criterion as a way of discriminating against a whole group (or even against a small sub-set of that group).
But on the other hand, I think the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the more victimised party. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for someone complaining that they've been unjustly convicted of shitting on the pavement, when they are arguing so vociferously for the right to shit on the curb. Decent people already know not to shit on the curb, even if the law only specifically bans pavement-directed defecation. If you really want to see how close to the pavement you can crap, then you've got no one to blame but yourself if you suddenly find out that law draws the boundary slightly differently to where you thought it would.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
they can't not order the book because they don't like books written by black people.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But they can choose not to stock books written by black people ?
They can't choose not to stock books written by black people if their main motivation in that choice is because they are written by black people. If they don't have the space, the title wasn't a priority, or they just didn't notice it then that's fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Why is it discrimination to not offer the service of ordering "the end of white world supremacy" but not discrimination to not offer the service of selling from stock the same title ?
I don't get you. If one doesn't order or doesn't stock "the end of white world supremacy" because one thinks the politics is dodgy, doesn't think it is a well written book or just because one doesn't do politics in that bookshop then there's no problem. In either instance (stocking or ordering) if the motivation is racist (i.e. "I don't do books about white people") then that's discrimination.
--------------------
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 mdijon:
Or are you asserting that protected characteristics are a moral reality that the law does not create but merely recognises ?
Partly. I think it is genuinely morally worse to be contributing to a racist society where black people are marginalized and shut out of the market than an taking a silly, petty decision to pick on someone's poor taste in ties as a reason to not serve them. But also because of what Eliab said.
The law is an exercise in pragmatism as well as morality, and we can't force people to be scrupulously fair all the time. There is an overwhelming public interest in intervening with legislation to stop marginalization of particular communities.
It would be nice if everyone was fair all the time as well, but we don't have the legislative tools to do it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re bookstores:
What if someone's bookstore had a tagline of "a carefully curated selection"? Would that allow them to decide they don't want books on violence, flying pigs, capitalism, men, women, creationism, pipe tobacco, unions, 12-step programs, cooking meat, certain kinds of music, or the Kardashians? And/or to allow only certain ones of those categories?
--------------------
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 Russ:
How does it suddenly become discrimination when we're talking about a book-ordering service rather than a book-selling service ?
Can you really not see the distinction?
The issue comes down to why. A book vendor will carry stock they reasonably believe they can sell. And order stock that their vendors provide.
If the answer was "sorry, our suppliers don't hold that title" (and this were true) then fair enough. If the real reason is "sorry, I don't order that kind of book" then we're talking about the kind of person I like to refer to as a knob-head. If said person says " we don't stock that", but doesn't offer to order it in when they offered earlier in the day to order in "Best Needlework of 16th Century Cathedrals" then again the knob-head assessment stands. Or possibly knob-end depending on the weather.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re bookstores:
What if someone's bookstore had a tagline of "a carefully curated selection"? Would that allow them to decide they don't want books on violence, flying pigs, capitalism, men, women, creationism, pipe tobacco, unions, 12-step programs, cooking meat, certain kinds of music, or the Kardashians? And/or to allow only certain ones of those categories?
Yes, if they don't go on to favour particular people. No different from a bakery offering 15 pre-designed phrases to be piped, and no customisation allowed.
If you offer a custom service, allow your customers to customise. (too many customs in that sentence)
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Exactly. They don't even need the tagline to justify it.
The exception is books on men and women. I think you could be caught out if you said "we don't do books by women/ about women".
You could say "We don't do gender-specific books" or "We don't do books on gender as a topic" as those statements aren't discriminatory.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
New depths in discrimination; citing religion as the reason. This only works for Christians (sorry, Buddhists, you are not allowed to deny health care benefits to your Presbyterian employees) and only applies to LGBT issues. I suppose in theory they could extend the legislation, later on, to black people or Asians.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
They can't choose not to stock books written by black people if their main motivation in that choice is because they are written by black people. If they don't have the space, the title wasn't a priority, or they just didn't notice it then that's fine...
...If one doesn't order or doesn't stock "the end of white world supremacy" because one thinks the politics is dodgy, doesn't think it is a well written book or just because one doesn't do politics in that bookshop then there's no problem. In either instance (stocking or ordering) if the motivation is racist (i.e. "I don't do books about white people") then that's discrimination.
You're saying that the act - of limiting the service one provides in a way that can be said to disadvantage a group of people defined by a protected characteristic - is morally wrong if and only if the intention behind the act is an intention to discriminate ? Just to be clear...
Not saying that's unreasonable - a moral theory based on purity of intention.
But your argument that discriminating against people with black skins is morally worse than discriminating against people with large noses seems to be based on consequences rather than intention.
If I've understood it right, you're saying that because at this point in time and space there is a greater chance of lots of people discriminating against black faces than against large noses, that each act of black-face discrimination has wider bad secondary consequences affecting third parties than a corresponding act of large-nose discrimination.
But if the wrongness lies in the bad intention, then is that only the case where those wider consequences are intended ?
And you're happy to say that it's morally wrong to run a feminist bookshop or a gay bookshop or a "black lives matter" bookshop because that involves a clear intention to discriminate ?
--------------------
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 Brenda Clough:
This only works for Christians (sorry, Buddhists, you are not allowed to deny health care benefits to your Presbyterian employees) and only applies to LGBT issues.
As I read the law (rather than the motivations), it also applies to Muslims (for example) who want to discriminate against LGBT people. It's just that 99.99% of those who want to discriminate against LGBT people in Mississippi are Christian.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
That's nice of them. Everybody gets to discriminate against gays!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And you're happy to say that it's morally wrong to run a feminist bookshop or a gay bookshop or a "black lives matter" bookshop because that involves a clear intention to discriminate ?
Those shops do not exist to discriminate, but because of discrimination.
--------------------
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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And you're happy to say that it's morally wrong to run a feminist bookshop or a gay bookshop or a "black lives matter" bookshop because that involves a clear intention to discriminate ?
Let's just leave it at the notion it's morally wrong to be deliberately stupid to evade the point.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No matter how many times how many people say otherwise, Russ keeps saddling them with believing that limited-scope businesses are wrong. I can't help but wonder why. I hope he will tell us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There's no end of possible reasons, idiosyncratic, stupid and unfair reasons, to pick on people. We can't possibly predict and regulate all of them, and a law saying "you must be fair at all times" would be unworkable. That means that from time to time, each of us risks being treated badly because of our tiny hands, bushy eyebrows, youthful good looks, west country accent, or whatever. It sucks. It's wrong. But that's life. Realistically, there's not much the law can do about it.
What am I missing here ?
Why is it so much more difficult to legislate against recruitment selection based on any factor irrelevant to the job than it is to legislate against hiring decisions based on a particular set of protected characteristics ?
Why is it harder to pass a law saying that a merchant has to serve everyone (noting any exceptions such as publicans serving drunks) than to pass a law saying he can't refuse service based on particular characteristics ?
What is this big practical issue that you're seeing that makes it so necessary to restrict protection to particular characteristics?
Sure there are matters the law can and should regulate, and matters the law shouldn't try to or can't regulate effectively. These two matters may be the most important as regards risk of economic marginalization. You may see other issues of similar importance.
But you seem to be saying it's too hard or too intrusive to extend these sort of "protections" to every characteristic, and it's not immediately obvious why.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Why is it harder to pass a law saying that a merchant has to serve everyone (noting any exceptions such as publicans serving drunks) than to pass a law saying he can't refuse service based on particular characteristics ?
Because it has not worked yet.
quote:
it's not immediately obvious why.
If arguments had IQ tests, yours would be remanded to care.
The very reason people wish to remove protected characterises is so they can go back to discriminating freely.
[ 17. December 2016, 00:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Why is it harder to pass a law saying that a merchant has to serve everyone (noting any exceptions such as publicans serving drunks) than to pass a law saying he can't refuse service based on particular characteristics ?
We want shopkeepers to be able to refuse service to obnoxious arseholes. It's one of the little feedback mechanisms that encourages people not to be arseholes.
We don't, in general, want to require the shopkeeper to prove that each and every obnoxious customer was sufficiently obnoxious to be legally excludable. We do, however, have rather strong evidence that left to their own devices, a significant number of shopkeepers would find every gay person or member of some unpopular ethnic minority to be an arsehole, so we require discrimination law to prevent that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And you're happy to say that it's morally wrong to run a feminist bookshop or a gay bookshop or a "black lives matter" bookshop because that involves a clear intention to discriminate ?
It's fine to run a bookshop that carries books on a specific topic provided that doesn't result in discrimination. If a "feminist bookshop" means that only women can write books, or only women can buy the books, then that would be discriminatory. But actually what is usually meant is that the specialist topic is feminist writing, and whether men or women have written or want to buy the books that is fine by the shopowner. Mutatis mutandis for the Gay bookshop. So these aren't discriminatory.
--------------------
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:
But you seem to be saying it's too hard or too intrusive to extend these sort of "protections" to every characteristic, and it's not immediately obvious why.
Just think about the likely case law. Is it "fair" or "unfair" to discriminate against someone for having small hands if you are recruiting an actor and concerned about the physical presence on stage. Or to discriminate against someone for being short joining the police. Which jobs would be OK for which physical characteristics? Is intelligence unfair as a criteria? Ability to speak Spanish? For which jobs?
On this thread you've managed to produce various scenarios to probe the ability to generate a consistent set of responses to a few simple protected characteristics. Imagine that across every imaginable characteristic?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mdijon--
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Exactly. They don't even need the tagline to justify it.
The exception is books on men and women. I think you could be caught out if you said "we don't do books by women/ about women".
You could say "We don't do gender-specific books" or "We don't do books on gender as a topic" as those statements aren't discriminatory.
Then what about a women's bookstore? (Or one for men, though I haven't run into any.) The ones I've been to are generally fairly small. Depending on their emphasis, there may be books and tools for women's spirituality, health, herstory, psychology, women's music, etc. They also may have author events, spiritual teachers, etc. If someone wanted them to order a thoroughly anti-women book, they might not do it. If a man came in and insisted they put in a men's section, they might not do it. A peaceable man would probably be welcome to shop there, though everyone might feel a bit awkward.
--Specific bookstore examples:
===There used to be a beloved bookstore in Berkeley called "GAIA". Spirituality (Pagan focus--though other paths, including Christian), periodicals, some fiction, self-help, musical instruments, recordings, altar supplies, jewelry, gifts...and a wonderful seasonal altar. Plus lots of events. I don't remember if they special-ordered books, but I suspect there might have been some limits. (Not specifically a women's store, by any means, but lots of pertinent books, and very women-friendly.)
===SF used to have Marcus Books, an African-American bookstore. I don't think I ever bought anything there. But if a white person came in and insisted on ordering a vile racist book, I suspect they wouldn't have done it.
===I don't know if SF still has the Bound Together: Anarchist Collective bookstore, but they probably had limits, too.
Re my suggested tagline:
It was intended to forewarn customers, rather like "No shoes, no shirt, no service" or "We reserve the right not to serve anyone". Not, as I understand it, particularly in line with a law, but I think those two are generally respected (or, at least, let slide) by the powers that be.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Issue specific booksellers came to be because mainstream booksellers did not sufficiently, if at all, feed those needs. They are not in themselves discriminatory. A man walking into a bookseller aimed at women and demanding that a men's section be added would have no other reason than harassment to do so because his needs are more than adequately addressed in the mainstream.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Issue specific booksellers came to be because mainstream booksellers did not sufficiently, if at all, feed those needs.
I don't think that matters though. Bookshops specializing in feminism are not OK if there are enough mainstream booksellers in the area and OK if there are.
(Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK by the way).
The point is that if one has a specialist business that is not necessarily discriminatory provided they serve everyone.
Feminist literature is a specialist topic, and feminism isn't only for women. Men can be interested in purchasing feminist literature as well.
--------------------
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 Golden Key:
Then what about a women's bookstore ... there may be books and tools for women's spirituality, health, herstory, psychology, women's music, etc. They also may have author events, spiritual teachers, etc.
Provided they don't throw men out I don't see the problem. Same as the logic above. Like you can have women's clothes stores and men's clothes stores etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re my suggested tagline:
It was intended to forewarn customers, rather like "No shoes, no shirt, no service" or "We reserve the right not to serve anyone". Not, as I understand it, particularly in line with a law, but I think those two are generally respected (or, at least, let slide) by the powers that be.
I doubt the tagline achieves anything. It seems harmless, but reserving the right not to serve anyone doesn't mean one can be discriminatory regarding protected characteristics, and one has the right not to serve anyone based on other criteria with or without the tagline.
All bookstores are selective of necessity - one can't stock everything.
--------------------
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:
Feminist literature is a specialist topic, and feminism isn't only for women. Men can be interested in purchasing feminist literature as well.
You know that I agree with you that people (of either gender) should be able to run a feminist bookshop if they want. And that serving male customers satisfies the moral imperative not to discriminate - that's where the line between OK and not-OK runs.
But feminist literature is not an even-handed category. A book that argues that a woman's place is in the home because that's our cultural tradition (or because that's what will make your man happy and that's what's important in life) would not count as feminist. Feminist literature not only concerns a "protected characteristics" topic but takes one side of the argument.
If you allow (as I agree you should) a feminist bookshop in this sense, you should allow not only a bookshop that chooses to neither stock nor order books about the topic of homosexuality, but also a bookshop that stocks and will order books supporting one side of the argument but not books supporting the other side. Because that's what you're saying is right for the protected characteristic of gender.
Whether the side that the bookshop owner chooses is the side you agree with it not. Because you're even-handed and believe that the law should be.
--------------------
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:
... What am I missing here ? ...
The categorical difference between e.g. selling Jewish books versus refusing to sell said books to Gentiles.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you allow (as I agree you should) a feminist bookshop in this sense, you should allow not only a bookshop that chooses to neither stock nor order books about the topic of homosexuality, but also a bookshop that stocks and will order books supporting one side of the argument but not books supporting the other side. Because that's what you're saying is right for the protected characteristic of gender.
What we are saying is that a GENERALIST bookstore can't refuse to order books for one type of person (and, subsequently, of one sort of subject) and not another. Stop talking about specialty bookshops. They are not the issue. Just stop.
--------------------
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 mdijon:
Feminist literature is a specialist topic, and feminism isn't only for women. Men can be interested in purchasing feminist literature as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You know that I agree with you that people (of either gender) should be able to run a feminist bookshop if they want. And that serving male customers satisfies the moral imperative not to discriminate - that's where the line between OK and not-OK runs.
But feminist literature is not an even-handed category. A book that argues that a woman's place is in the home because that's our cultural tradition (or because that's what will make your man happy and that's what's important in life) would not count as feminist. Feminist literature not only concerns a "protected characteristics" topic but takes one side of the argument.
You are not very far from the "you're discriminating against discriminators" as an argument. Of course categories are not even-handed. We aren't even-handed to hate-speech, murder, prejudice or genocide.
Having said that, I don't think it should be illegal to write books arguing that a woman's place is in the home. Or for a bookseller to stock them. And I don't think that the current legislation has anything to stop this happening either. I really wish people wouldn't write or buy such books, but I don't want the law to intervene to prevent them.
--------------------
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 don't think that matters though. Bookshops specializing in feminism are not OK if there are enough mainstream booksellers in the area and OK if there are.
I do not agree, but I would challenge you to show a place where this exists, this mythical Femlandia (Feministonia?), where women's issues are catered for to the exclusion of men. Why are we wandering the weeds for hypothetical problems when the well-worn path of reality is right over there? The path on which you and I cannot tread as freely as they?
quote:
Men can be interested in purchasing feminist literature as well.
I welcome as many men into feminism as will come. The more men who are feminists, the less need for the movement.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But feminist literature is not an even-handed category.
This is an argument from false equivalence.
quote:
A book that argues that a woman's place is in the home because that's our cultural tradition (or because that's what will make your man happy and that's what's important in life) would not count as feminist. Feminist literature not only concerns a "protected characteristics" topic but takes one side of the argument.
It was cultural tradition for the English to maltreat the Irish, shall we explore removing this modern accretion of Irish rights on the glorious English culture?
A feminist bookshop needn't stock anything expressing the "opposite view" because the world does that on is own.
Your supposed argument for even-handedness is merely a cover for the right to discriminate. The world belongs to straight, white males. All the rest of us are asking is not to be trampled by that.
[ 17. December 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What we are saying is that a GENERALIST bookstore can't refuse to order books for one type of person (and, subsequently, of one sort of subject) and not another. Stop talking about specialty bookshops. They are not the issue. Just stop.
Do you think you could stop telling other people you don't agree with to stop thinking aloud through the issues please? If you don't want to engage, then don't. It isn't your prerogative to tell other people what to talk about or to state that something is self evident that isn't to someone else.
I think the bookshop point is an interesting one. Yes, it isn't quite the issue with regard to cake, but it is worth trying to talk about why there might be a moral difference in limiting the supply of one product over another. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please stop trying to close down the discussion.
I think what is being said is twofold (a) there is a moral difference when a shopkeeper is offering some kind of customisable product compared to one that has been pre-limited (ie specific stock) and (b) there is a moral and legal difference when the effect of limiting the service disproportionally impacts on a group who have been historically excluded from society compared to one that limits service to a different societal group.
I am not really sure about (a). The effect of limiting stock may indeed begin to look very much like discrimination in certain circumstances. For example it is entirely possible that a given Christian bookshop has access to a range of publishers and presumably - in theory - could offer a range of theological views via the book distributors. It might be reasonable for a customer to suppose that one could order books in a bookshop even if that is not made explicitly clear at the till, so I don't think it is too convoluted to imagine a customer asking to order a book that the retailer could obtain but which he does not want to sell.
It appears to be an argument made above that anyone offering this kind of service must offer to sell any book that he is physically able to obtain.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
