|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
Do you often respond to the form and not the content? Do you find this advances your position?
ETA: Oh, and, physician heal thyself.
[ 17. December 2016, 16:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
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:
Do you often respond to the form and not the content? Do you find this advances your position?
ETA: Oh, and, physician heal thyself.
Funny how easily that applies to you given I wrote so much more than your snip above.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, I could have quoted the whole thing, but it's moronic to quote a huge post if you're only responding to part of it. Clogs our servers and costs money.
Nice tu quoque though.
--------------------
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 mr cheesy:
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.
Not sure he is trying to shut down the conversation. I am not, but I am annoyed by the apparent premise that this is an equivalent discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not sure he is trying to shut down the conversation. I am not, but I am annoyed by the apparent premise that this is an equivalent discussion.
Of course I'm not. I'm trying to say that this analogy is a red herring, it has been proven to be so multiple times on this thread, but it keeps coming back up like soup at a bad Italian restaurant. Over and over and over. One grows frustrated. I'm sorry I expressed my frustrations in a way that offended Cheesy, but for God's sake we need to drop that line of digression. It serves no purpose as it's just fucking irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I can hardly argue against discussing hypotheticals and pedantry, it would invalidate most of my posting on SOF.
But one should recognise the difference.
On an individual level, it might well be just as immoral to discriminate against people with large noses, think they are genetically inferior and should take their place behind and away from those with normal noses. However, in the real world such things have an impact approaching zero.
And, again, pretending this is a real argument is a smokescreen for real 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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
I don't think it exists, that wasn't my point. My point was that a feminist bookshop is not obliged to show that mainstream issues are adequately catered for elsewhere in order to justify it's existence. Any more than a Christian bookshop would be expected to show that secular reading was available elsewhere in order to justify its existence.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
I don't think it exists, that wasn't my point. My point was that a feminist bookshop is not obliged to show that mainstream issues are adequately catered for elsewhere in order to justify it's existence. Any more than a Christian bookshop would be expected to show that secular reading was available elsewhere in order to justify its existence.
My bad, then. This is totally not what I thought you were saying. Sometimes the red through which I view these discussions fogs my vision.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, again, pretending this is a real argument is a smokescreen for real discrimination.
This is closer to my meaning. Flogging one horse over and over and over does nothing to further conversation. Then again this is Dead Horses. But if that's all our conversations here ever were, there would be no point in having the board at all.
It's kind of like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch -- argumentation is not the same as contradiction. Here, you could say argumentation is not the same as asserting the same thing repeatedly (X is analogous to Y) without ever demonstrating it or even trying to.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
It's kind of like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch -- argumentation is not the same as contradiction.
Yes it is.
Er, yes thanks, that's mine with the hood and scarf.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Not sure he is trying to shut down the conversation. I am not, but I am annoyed by the apparent premise that this is an equivalent discussion.
Well of course you have a right to be annoyed, but others have a right to explore here the boundaries and the differences between examples of behaviours to attempt to understand how we are making moral decisions.
And it certainly is shutting down the discussion when someone tells someone else that they should stop taking a certain line because it is irrelevant.
I don't think it is irrelevant. I an interested to think about why it might be that different trading conditions might be in different moral categories.
Again, you don't have to engage, but you certainly don't have the right to tell someone else that they shouldn't be voicing the thought because you find that irrelevant or somehow raising a false equivalence. If you don't like it, scroll past.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, you don't have to engage, but you certainly don't have the right to tell someone else that they shouldn't be voicing the thought because you find that irrelevant or somehow raising a false equivalence. If you don't like it, scroll past.
Of course "you" have that right. You don't have the right to compel them to stop. And others have the right (and have exercised it) to say you're wrong. If not, then I might say YOU don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot say. And on, and on, elephants all the way down.
ETA: I was not depriving anyone of their rights.
[ 17. December 2016, 18:12: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
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
Right whatever.
Meanwhile I'm interested in talking about the point, whether or not you like it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right whatever.
Meanwhile I'm interested in talking about the point, whether or not you like it.
Me too. That's why I don't want to talk about Christian bookstores.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Can you tell me why, mr cheesy, these hypothetical rights are as valid as the very real struggle for rights that some of us face?
Again, big nose prejudice probably does exist in the minds of a few. But prejudice against minorities, such as ethnic or gender, not only exist but have real consequences.
One reason I do not scroll past is that this matters to me. You may be arguing theoretical principals, but others are arguing for the right to discriminate, hidden behind discussions such as these. And I am arguing for the right to be allowed to be equal.
If the idea of "just don't discriminate" were a viable one, we would not have need specific acts to be enacted. The equality acts were reactions to real things.
"Just scroll past" isn't the same option for everyone.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Can you tell me why, mr cheesy, these hypothetical rights are as valid as the very real struggle for rights that some of us face?
Again, big nose prejudice probably does exist in the minds of a few. But prejudice against minorities, such as ethnic or gender, not only exist but have real consequences.
One reason I do not scroll past is that this matters to me. You may be arguing theoretical principals, but others are arguing for the right to discriminate, hidden behind discussions such as these. And I am arguing for the right to be allowed to be equal.
If the idea of "just don't discriminate" were a viable one, we would not have need specific acts to be enacted. The equality acts were reactions to real things.
"Just scroll past" isn't the same option for everyone.
Because, like Peter Tatchell and many other campaigners, I don't believe that the minorities are really protected by forcing people to trade. Because I believe there might be a range of thoughts about the morality of trade and the law and the state without needing to deny that minorities face oppression in our societies. Because this is a discussion forum, not a place where anyone gets to tell other people that their thought is irrelevant and should not be written on the basis that it matters to me and therefore I can't scroll past.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because, like Peter Tatchell and many other campaigners, I don't believe that the minorities are really protected by forcing people to trade.
He can make those claims because of the laws that in fact do force people to trade. Laws that he fought for. They demonstrably work or you and I could not shop in all the same places. The law can work to change minds.
BTW, use whoever you wish to make your point, but Tatchell is a tainted moral source, IMO.
quote:
Because I believe there might be a range of thoughts about the morality of trade and the law and the state without needing to deny that minorities face oppression in our societies.
I'll listen to any you have, haven't heard anything workable thus far.
quote:
Because this is a discussion forum, not a place where anyone gets to tell other people that their thought is irrelevant and should not be written on the basis that it matters to me and therefore I can't scroll past.
Not exactly what is happening here. Regardless, stating what one thinks is relevant to the discussion is part of nearly every discussion on this website.
--------------------
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 mr cheesy:
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.
Sure, but a bookshop that chooses only to stock conservative Christian theology, or only "New Age" books about crystals, or only chess books isn't discriminating in the legal sense.
Of course the owner is making a discrimination - he is choosing to stock books on some particular topic - but he is not discriminating against people providing that he sells conservative theology books to the gay couple that comes in. He's not somehow discriminating against Muslims by not having a couple of Korans on the shelf.
Let's go back to the cake shop. If a gay couple comes in for a wedding cake, the cake shop is not breaking the law by failing to include two male figures in its selection of cake toppers. It's possible that the cake shop owner doesn't want to stock that topper because he thinks gay people are disgusting perverts, in which case he is certainly a bigot, or a homophobe or whatever, but isn't breaking the law.
If he refuses to sell the gay couple the cake with a pair of wedding rings on top, he is breaking the law. If the gay couple says "we saw this cute two-guys cake topper online: can you put it on the cake if we buy it?" and the owner says no, he's probably breaking the law.
On the one hand, we have people refusing to perform what is essentially the same service they normally offer because of the nature of the customer or the detail of the service (order a book, print a brochure, ice a message on a cake). The law tells them they can't do that.
On the other hand, we have people choosing not to stock things that some people might want to buy. This may well be for bigotted reasons, but it's not illegal. Your bookshop can choose not to stock gay fiction. Your butcher can choose not to stock halal meat, and of course your greengrocer can refuse to stock wheelbarrows.
And yes, if you're a gay person living in a town where all the bookstores choose not to stock fiction featuring gay characters, you'll have to go elsewhere to browse fiction featuring people like you. In a sense, you are being discriminated against, but I don't think it's illegal discrimination (and I find it hard to construct a workable law that would make it illegal). But if you go in asking to have whatever the gay equivalent of a Mills & Boon novel is ordered, and the shopkeeper (who happily sells straight bodice-rippers) says he won't handle dirty books like that, he's just broken the law.
Which is a whole load of words to restate the same facts. You can't treat customers unfavourably because of their sex, sexuality, race, and so on. The law singles out these particular reasons because we have had widespread problems with people discriminating on those grounds. The law does not, in general, concern itself with trying to fix problems that aren't there, nor does it describe what you may do. You may do anything at all, so long as the law does not prohibit it.
I'm hearing people trying to make something pretty close to the argument that marriage equality means that both straight and gay men have the opportunity to marry the woman of their choice. That's a silly argument that rests on a rather flawed understanding of what "equality" means.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because, like Peter Tatchell and many other campaigners, I don't believe that the minorities are really protected by forcing people to trade.
So would you say it was wrong for the courts to force Woolworth's to serve lunch to coloreds?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
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.
Well-stated, SM. Concise. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So, thinking aloud...
a) Let's say that an Orthodox Jewish bookstore is quietly nestled in an OJ neighborhood, where outsiders rarely go. Sells prayer books, Jewish philosophy, Kabbalah and other esoteric texts, prayer shawls, etc.
One day, an outsider comes in. At a glance, definitely not OJ, and probably not Jewish. Given the secluded and protective nature of this Orthodox community, does the proprietor have to sell to this person?
Does it matter if the person has a very visible swastika tattoo? Or wants to buy a very rare Kabbala, that's kept under lock and key?
b) There's a gay men's bookstore that also functions as a safe place and gathering place for gay men. The Westboro church crew comes in, wander around, but behave pretty well. They want to buy some books and pro-gay t-shirts. Must the store sell to them? What if there's a concern that the books will be burned, and that WC members might wear the shirts to infiltrate an LGBT group?
If a woman, straight or not, comes in, do they have to sell to her? (Given that this is a safe space for gay men.)
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If a woman, straight or not, comes in, do they have to sell to her? (Given that this is a safe space for gay men.)
I question whether any business open to the public can be a "safe space" for people who need to have distance from certain types of people. I think "safe space" and "business open to the public" may be incompatible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mdijon--
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Bookshops specializing in feminism are not OK if there are enough mainstream booksellers in the area and OK if there are.
{Boggle. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) }
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mdijon--
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Bookshops specializing in feminism are not OK if there are enough mainstream booksellers in the area and OK if there are.
{Boggle. }
Yes that's odd. "I was going to start a feminist bookstore here, but there aren't any general interest bookstores, so it would be immoral of me to do so. Guess I'll do something else with Grandpa's inheritance."
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
a bookshop that chooses only to stock conservative Christian theology, or only "New Age" books about crystals, or only chess books isn't discriminating in the legal sense.
Of course the owner is making a discrimination - he is choosing to stock books on some particular topic - but he is not discriminating against people providing that he sells conservative theology books to the gay couple that comes in...
...On the one hand, we have people refusing to perform what is essentially the same service they normally offer because of the nature of the customer or the detail of the service (order a book, print a brochure, ice a message on a cake). The law tells them they can't do that.
On the other hand, we have people choosing not to stock things that some people might want to buy. This may well be for bigotted reasons, but it's not illegal.
So choosing not to stock books on a topic isn't discriminating against people but choosing not to order books on the same topic is discriminating against people ?
A bookshop may choose not to stock a book for reasons of conviction or for commercial reasons (because however much the bookseller admired the book, he doesn't think there's a market for it).
The difference with ordering is that the demand is right there in the shop. So refusing an order can only be based on conviction - not wanting to deal in that particular sort of literature. It rules out the polite lie "no demand for it".
If you think booksellers should have commercial freedom but not freedom to choose the subject matter of the books they sell, then it's rational to make a distinction between stocking and ordering.
But there's no obvious rationale for the law to compel a bookshop to order a book that it allows them to choose not to stock for reasons of political or religious conviction.
--------------------
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 Golden Key:
... One day, an outsider comes in. At a glance, definitely not OJ, and probably not Jewish. Given the secluded and protective nature of this Orthodox community, does the proprietor have to sell to this person? Does it matter if the person has a very visible swastika tattoo? Or wants to buy a very rare Kabbala, that's kept under lock and key?
b) There's a gay men's bookstore that also functions as a safe place and gathering place for gay men. The Westboro church crew comes in, wander around, but behave pretty well. They want to buy some books and pro-gay t-shirts. Must the store sell to them? What if there's a concern that the books will be burned, and that WC members might wear the shirts to infiltrate an LGBT group?
If a woman, straight or not, comes in, do they have to sell to her? (Given that this is a safe space for gay men.)
Look, as has been repeated over and over, in the real-life application of the law, the details and specifics do matter, so all these endless hypotheticals are just that: hypotheticals. What if the person with the tattoo is a reformed white supremacist coming to terms with her Jewish ancestry who can't afford laser tattoo removal and ran out of Band-Aids? How did the Westboro folk identify themselves when they came into the store? And so forth. However, based on the limited information provided:
Yes, they have to sell to strangers of unknown/any religion; yes, they have to sell to wealthy book collectors of unknown/any religion; and yes, they have to sell to women, men, intersex, genderqueer, nonbinary, whatever. The Nazi and the Westboro group can be asked to leave before they even start shopping, on the grounds that their presence drives away regular customers.
And "safe space for gay men" doesn't necessarily mean no women. Ever heard of fag hags?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So choosing not to stock books on a topic isn't discriminating against people but choosing not to order books on the same topic for a customer is discriminating against people ?...
Text in italics added to clarify the situation. Correct. Customers are people. Books are not.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But there's no obvious rationale for the law to compel a bookshop to order a book that it allows them to choose not to stock for reasons of political or religious conviction.
Sure there is. Laws that require booksellers to hold certain stock are unmanageable and unenforceable. How do you tell the difference between 'we don't get many gay men in here, so don't stock "Having a Gay Old Time: A Gay Man's Guide to Great Sex"' and 'no poofery'? You can't.
When Gary shows up and wants to order the book, and gets told "Sod off, you disgusting poof", then we have something that stands a chance of being legally sanctionable.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Bookshops specializing in feminism are not OK if there are enough mainstream booksellers in the area and OK if there are.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mdijon--
{Boggle. }
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes that's odd. "I was going to start a feminist bookstore here, but there aren't any general interest bookstores, so it would be immoral of me to do so. Guess I'll do something else with Grandpa's inheritance."
There's a not in that sentence that applies to the whole of the last clause. My point was exactly that that would be odd. I think it's clearer in the full post. My point was that the morality of running a specialist bookstore was not dependent on availability of mainstream bookstores in the vicinity.
--------------------
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:
So choosing not to stock books on a topic isn't discriminating against people but choosing not to order books on the same topic for a customer is discriminating against people ?...
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Text in italics added to clarify the situation. Correct. Customers are people. Books are not.
I think it is a little more nuanced than that in dividing book from customer within the situation as well. If you refuse to order a book for a customer because you don't do that type of book, don't like the book, or don't think that particular book is your core business then it's fine. If you refuse to order the book because you don't serve black customers then it isn't fine.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Or if you don't have an account with that supplier. There can be all sorts of legitimate reasons for not ordering, but the sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or gender (in each instance actual or perceived) of the customer are not legitimate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yep. I guess one could add that the sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or gender of the author or the protagonist in the book would also not be appropriate reasons.
And if one was apparently a mainstream, stock-and-order-all bookshop then the sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or gender aspects of the subject matter would not be appropriate reasons either.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
I'm confused.
If I've followed this right, we're up to a point where we're discussing whether a one-legged, left-handed African-American Lesbian who runs a bookstore for the deep-sea fishing community is legally or morally obliged to ice a cake wishing a Muslim customer a happy Hannukah.
Or did we resolve that one?
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
I'm confused.
If I've followed this right, we're up to a point where we're discussing whether a one-legged, left-handed African-American Lesbian who runs a bookstore for the deep-sea fishing community is legally or morally obliged to ice a cake wishing a Muslim customer a happy Hannukah.
Or did we resolve that one?
That was on page 8.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
GS--
ROTFL!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
I'm confused.
If I've followed this right, we're up to a point where we're discussing whether a one-legged, left-handed African-American Lesbian who runs a bookstore for the deep-sea fishing community is legally or morally obliged to ice a cake wishing a Muslim customer a happy Hannukah.
Or did we resolve that one?
Brilliantly satirised the ridiculousness. I would quotes file this, but I'm not sure it works outside the context of this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Laws that require booksellers to hold certain stock are unmanageable and unenforceable.
Fair point.
You might conceivably think that is morally wrong for a bookshop to tailor its stock according to the owner's belief system but that prohibiting this is an unworkable law. And that when it comes to ordering books the morality is the sane but the practicality of legal prohibition is different.
Is that your view ? That Christian bookshops and feminist bookshops are morally wrong but impractical to outlaw ?
Or do you think it's fine for beliefs that you approve of to determine which books are stocked, but not beliefs that you disapprove of ?
--------------------
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 Goldfish Stew:
If I've followed this right, we're up to a point where we're discussing whether a one-legged, left-handed African-American Lesbian who runs a bookstore for the deep-sea fishing community is legally or morally obliged to ice a cake wishing a Muslim customer a happy Hannukah.
Wait, they're left-handed? That changes everything. I thought we said right-handed. I'm not sure the principles we described can cope with that change.
It just shows the value of arguing through a series of scenarios to clarify what we believe.
--------------------
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 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.
Subsequently ?
Mangled English aside, you seem to be saying that it's moral to be a bookseller who will sell anything they can make a profit on. And moral to be a Hindu bookseller who only sells books about Hinduism. But immoral to take an intermediate position where you sell books about Hinduism, baseball, cookery, environmental protection and anything else that you find interesting and harmless, but refuse to sell books that you consider to be anti-Hindu ?
Because that "discriminates" against those with anti-Hindu views in a way that neither of the ends of the spectrum does ?
I think that position is vulnerable to the gradualist argument. Take a Hindu bookshop and add one non-religion-related book at a time and tell me when it becomes immoral...
--------------------
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 mdijon:
It just shows the value of arguing through a series of scenarios to clarify what we believe.
It shows the futility of arguing with people who create improbable scenarios to justify their position.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It just shows the value of arguing through a series of scenarios to clarify what we believe.
It shows the futility of arguing with people who create improbable scenarios to justify their position.
If your aim is to come to a general moral rule that you can advocate that everybody abides by, there's value in hypothetical examples to test whether a particular draft rule is adequate to the complexities of life.
If you'e not interested in general moral rules but only care for advancing the interests of the groups that you sympathize with, then what's the point of hypothetical examples ?
--------------------
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 Soror Magna:
Customers are people. Books are not.
Absolutely.
And if you refuse to order a book for one customer but order it for another, you're discriminating against the disappointed customer.
But if you refuse to order a book for any customer, then you're discriminating against the book.
Not difficult.
Customers have a moral right not to be discriminated against. Books don't.
Not difficult.
I'm arguing that groups of people don't have a moral right not to have "their" books discriminated against. Because allowing everyone that right is impractical & contrary to accepted liberties of booksellers, and giving some people more legal rights than others is objectionable.
That seems to be where the main disagreement lies.
The final stage of the argument would be that conclusions about books can be read down to pamphlets and slogans, thereby addressing the original question (which we can all recognise is about text rather than about cakes).
Maybe I'm protesting too much here. But I feel that this impinges on a fundamental freedom that is similar to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association etc, but less well-defined. And these things are worth fighting for.
Does "freedom of thought" cover it ? Not quite - you'd say people can think what they like so long as they don't do anything about it... Free thought doesn't justify doing what is morally wrong.
--------------------
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:
If you'e not interested in general moral rules but only care for advancing the interests of the groups that you sympathize with, then what's the point of hypothetical examples ?
I'm interested in people being treated equally. Your proposition does not do that, as has been explained enough to allow anyone willing to listen to understand.
--------------------
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 mdijon:
It just shows the value of arguing through a series of scenarios to clarify what we believe.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It shows the futility of arguing with people who create improbable scenarios to justify their position.
I thought that sentence looked quite sarcastic in context.
--------------------
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:
And moral to be a Hindu bookseller who only sells books about Hinduism. But immoral to take an intermediate position where you sell books about Hinduism, baseball, cookery, environmental protection and anything else that you find interesting and harmless, but refuse to sell books that you consider to be anti-Hindu ?
Because that "discriminates" against those with anti-Hindu views in a way that neither of the ends of the spectrum does ?
I think that position is vulnerable to the gradualist argument. Take a Hindu bookshop and add one non-religion-related book at a time and tell me when it becomes immoral...
Not at all. It is perfectly legal and non-discriminatory to refuse to sell books that one considers to be offensive.
Unless one's definition of offensive is that anything related to a particular religion is offensive, or anything related to a particular sexual orientation etc.
So a bookseller running a mainstream bookshop can reasonably refuse to sell a book entitled "Why Hinduism is shit" because it offends them. What they can't do is say that the title "What Hijra means to Muslims?" is offensive to them simply because it is a Muslim book.
--------------------
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:
It is perfectly legal and non-discriminatory to refuse to sell books that one considers to be offensive.
Unless one's definition of offensive is that anything related to a particular religion is offensive, or anything related to a particular sexual orientation etc.
You're asserting that as the law stands there is one set of rules for protected characteristics and one set of rules for everything else.
That assertion may be perfectly accurate.
But it doesn't justify that state of affairs, doesn't provide any argument why you think that is the right approach.
If the Sunni think that Shia (just for example - not asserting that this is actually what they think ) religion is blasphemous and vice versa, why is forcing them to sell each others' stuff both a good thing and an appropriate use of the law ? Is that not displaying a secular contempt of their religious beliefs ?
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is perfectly legal and non-discriminatory to refuse to sell books that one considers to be offensive.
Unless one's definition of offensive is that anything related to a particular religion is offensive, or anything related to a particular sexual orientation etc.
You're asserting that as the law stands there is one set of rules for protected characteristics and one set of rules for everything else.
That assertion may be perfectly accurate.
But it doesn't justify that state of affairs, doesn't provide any argument why you think that is the right approach.
If the Sunni think that Shia (just for example - not asserting that this is actually what they think ) religion is blasphemous and vice versa, why is forcing them to sell each others' stuff both a good thing and an appropriate use of the law ? Is that not displaying a secular contempt of their religious beliefs ?
Alright, fuck it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If the Sunni think that Shia (just for example - not asserting that this is actually what they think ) religion is blasphemous and vice versa, why is forcing them to sell each others' stuff both a good thing and an appropriate use of the law ? Is that not displaying a secular contempt of their religious beliefs ?
Again, it depends on their business, doesn't it?
If they are trading in generalist field (e.g. General bookstore) then they should trade on those terms.
If they have a specialist field (e.g. a bookstore called "Keep your Sunni side up" specialising in Sunni literature) then there's a right to remain in that field.
Back to the bakery case - bakers don't sell many books. They provide a food and celebratory message service. If a bakery had a clear policy of only doing celebratory messages, but not political messages, then the baker could (in my view) legitimately refuse to ice a cake saying "Support SSM" - but would also have to refuse to ice a cake saying "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Or one saying "Vote Pedro". But the baker couldn't refuse to ice a cake saying "Congratulations Adam and Steve."
You could probably find oddities around the edges of such an approach, the law of perverse consequences and all that. But none of these as perverse as giving traders the right to refuse service to people on the grounds of bigotry and intolerance.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It just shows the value of arguing through a series of scenarios to clarify what we believe.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It shows the futility of arguing with people who create improbable scenarios to justify their position.
I thought that sentence looked quite sarcastic in context.
I didn't see it either.
--------------------
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:
... I'm arguing that groups of people don't have a moral right not to have "their" books discriminated against. ...
But you just wrote:
quote:
... if you refuse to order a book for one customer but order it for another, you're discriminating against the disappointed customer. ...
And groups of people are composed of customers.
So you're either contradicting yourself or arguing that it shouldn't be considered discrimination if more than one customer is refused service.
Once more with feeling: there is a categorical difference between the bookseller ordering his/her stock, and the bookseller ordering - or refusing to order - a book on behalf of a customer.
I'm a bookseller. I have ordered my stock. My shelves are full of books, and the doors are open, but strictly speaking, I'm not serving the public until I actually start selling books to customers. At that point, I am required - by law, if I have no human decency or business sense - to offer all my products and services to all my customers.
quote:
... giving some people more legal rights than others is objectionable ...
So you should have no objection to everybody having the right to walk into a bookstore and order the book they want. Are we done now?
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
