|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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. ...
Because Eliab already explained it on the previous page:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
.... 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. ...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
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?
Well it could be This guy
or someone like this guy
quote:
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.)
Most booksellers will cheerfully sell mass market books to people who are going to burn them. The trick is to sell the remaindered overstock to them at list price. Rare editions of the Kabbalah might require scrutiny of the buyer of any sort if it's irreplaceable.
Finally, any number of straight women might be there to buy something for a sick gay friend. I don't forget that the lesbians were there for gay men during the early days of the Aids crisis. And these days it could just be a pre transition trans person.
[fixed code]
[ 19. December 2016, 18:38: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
I gave my reasons earlier.
quote:
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 prescribe 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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
What they all said. If there weren't going to be specific rules for protected characteristics there would be no point in defining them would there.
The arguments for this have been done endlessly, it seems rather disingenuous to claim that one particular post does nothing to support the existence of protected characteristics in that context.
And if I understand your position correctly, you would prefer a situation where it would be legal to say "we don't serve fags/darkies/women here" because then all characteristics would be treated equally.
(Note not all people treated equally but all characteristics treated equally).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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?
Are you saying that you would like a law that says "you must trade with everyone and be scrupulously fair at all times"? Or that you think that the logic of my position implies that I should want this, and you'd like an explanation of why I don't think it's possible?
Take the Ship of Fools commandments as an example of "law". They don't enforce moral behaviour. They don't require people to be nice, or polite, or reasonable, or fair. They have a much more limited scope - they set minimum standards for behaviour that lets discussion happen. We might think that it would be pleasant if everyone were more polite - but the policy here is that enabling discussion is the more important objective, so rather than try to construct a code of manners that we all agree with, the "rule" for behaviour is much more limited, more focussed, and easier to apply.
Law in society is similar. It doesn't enforce every standard that it would be pleasant for people to keep to. It enforces a standard of behaviour sufficient to let social and commercial interaction take place relatively unimpeded.
Racism, sexism and homophobia are clear impediments to the proper functioning of society. They put certain groups at risk of exclusion, and create harmful divisions. Therefore the law pays particular attention to them.
Could the law say "be fair to everyone"? Yes. Just as the Ship could say "always be polite". And both would be a nightmare to police. Opinions on what's fair and polite differ. And everyone from time to time falls short of their own standards of fairness and politeness (what percentage of your personal, social and workplace decisions could you solemnly swear were entirely objective and free from influence from logically irrelevant factors?). How could you hope to prove freedom from any possibly imaginable fault or bias if challenged?
So we focus - what are the problems that need to be addressed for the purpose of the rule to be achieved? And what we get is in the one case ten commandments banning things that prevent or distract from the discussions we want to have, and in the other, a list of characteristics that tackle the most damaging forms of discrimination that stop society working the way we'd like it to.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Are you saying that you would like a law that says "you must trade with everyone and be scrupulously fair at all times"? Or that you think that the logic of my position implies that I should want this, and you'd like an explanation of why I don't think it's possible?
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable. Is it or isn't it desirable ?
Whilst my natural inclination is that everything should be allowed unless there's a moral wrong involved (because how could it be right to punish someone for doing something that's not morally wrong ?) I am persuaded that there is something morally wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, blackface". And similarly wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, bignose" or any other characteristic. I find I can will that nobody be subject to this form of discrimination. And would therefore be prepared to legislate against it (although not without listening to any case that people might want to make against the idea).
But I agree with you about the law being restricted to regulating the public realm and needing to be well-defined and enforceable and practical, so that "be fair to everybody always" is not a practicable law.
quote:
Racism, sexism and homophobia are clear impediments to the proper functioning of society.
Various societies have functioned relatively successfully for quite long periods of time on the basis of distinct roles for men and women in a way that might today be called sexist. Your idea of "proper functioning" is a well-meaning one, but it is every bit as subjective as the ideas of what is "proper" that other people have held down the ages.
quote:
a list of characteristics that tackle the most damaging forms of discrimination that stop society working the way we'd like it to.
The most harmful forms of discrimination are those that harm individuals the most - what you call "direct discrimination". I'm suggesting that those be tackled by identifying the acts of discrimination that are most morally wrong and protecting everybody from such acts.
A plural society is one in which not everybody shares your ideas about the way you'd like society to work, but where those essentially political differences co-exist within a framework of essentially moral rules.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
The most harmful forms of discrimination are those that harm individuals the most
No. The most harmful forms of discrimination are those that create an underclass of untouchables. That separate out one group of people and say "these people don't deserve to buy cakes" or "it's okay to refuse to serve these people in the name of your god."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Question, guys....
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Question, guys....
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
So you're saying that gay people should protect the tender feelings of the bigots and take their business elsewhere without even being asked?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Question, guys....
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
So you're saying that gay people should protect the tender feelings of the bigots and take their business elsewhere without even being asked?
A Jewish bakery is nicely obvious, usually. Most cake shops don't advertise themselves as being anything other than bakers and decorators of cakes. The only times I've run into trouble are when I haven't known that the vendor (in one case a hotel owner, in the other, a bookshop owner) was a raving homophobe.
Because, yes, I do avoid businesses that advertise themselves as anti-gay. Its called a boycott.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think pig breeders boycott Jewish bakeries. They are just sensitive enough to know that that would be rude. By using this example, Langton is saying it's rude for gays to go to a homophobic cake shop. Not that it's wrong for the cake bakers to discriminate against gays, that's not it at all. Bur rather that gays should not go there, not as a boycott, but to avoid offending the Christian homophobes, out of tender concern for their feelings.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
Well, that depends. How many bakeries are there in town, how many of them are run by Jews, and how are their quality and prices?
If the Jewish baker is the only baker in town, he gets to me me a "Magical Animal" cake. If he's the best baker, or the best value baker, or the nearest baker to my pig breeder's convention meeting, then he probably still gets to bake my cake. But I'm not going to deliberately seek out a Jewish baker to make him bake pig cakes. If I had two fairly equivalent bakers to choose from, it might occur to me not to ask Mr. Cohen to make the pig cake, but it probably wouldn't - I'm probably not thinking about his Jewishness at all.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Question, guys....
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
Just imagining I had call for such a cake, and there was a good bakery in town that offered custom iced messages, then I wouldn't be sitting there thinking "what if he's Jewish?" I'd go in and ask for the advertised custom service. And be surprised if the baker said "i'm a jew and would feel morally responsible for such a message." Because as previously noted, that's silly.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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.
Probably right. I just know that some businesses do manage to create a safe space, whether purposely (some women's bookstores, and the Gaia store I mentioned) or somewhat accidentally (like a single-sex salon/barber).
I've felt very safe in some of these spaces, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also want other people to have what they need and to be safe. **That can result in a tangle.** Some time back (maybe on another thread?), we discussed single-sex salons/barbershops vs. unisex. When and where I grew up women's salons were for women only--both customers and staff. A guy might enter the waiting area to pick up his wife, but that was it. It was its own kind of space, just as barbershops were for men. IIRC, the tenor of the Ship's discussion leaned towards having only unisex salons. TBH, I think that's a loss.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable.
I don't think it is remotely practical. How would you frame the law to insist that I trade with everyone? Does that mean that as a pub landlord I'm obliged to trade with rude customers? That as a nightclub owner I can't keep jean-wearing scruffs out? That as a bookseller I can't decide to stock books A, B and C but not D, E and F without transparent and published criteria for my choice?
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
Question, guys....
Would you go to a Jewish bakery and demand a cake saying "Support farming pigs and eating bacon"??
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
Just imagining I had call for such a cake, and there was a good bakery in town that offered custom iced messages, then I wouldn't be sitting there thinking "what if he's Jewish?" I'd go in and ask for the advertised custom service. And be surprised if the baker said "i'm a jew and would feel morally responsible for such a message." Because as previously noted, that's silly.
Indeed it's silly.
I also don't think most Jews would care in the slightest. Jews don't think that eating pigs is morally wrong for gentiles, they just don't want to do it themselves. The average Jew has no desire to stop others consuming or promoting the consumption of pork, they regard it as a relatively arbitrary element of their law which should be kept by Jews but not others.
Something Christians could learn from.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable. Is it or isn't it desirable ?
It's unworkable.
quote:
I am persuaded that there is something morally wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, blackface". And similarly wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, bignose" or any other characteristic.
For sure. Except that people with big noses aren't seen by our society as a "kind", and people with black faces are.
It might not be absolutely impossible that I will one day face discrimination because of my nose, but it would be extremely rare and surprising. I'm not remotely at risk of being socially excluded on nasal grounds. I don't ever have to ask myself whether my big nose means I won't be able to buy a cake, or get a job, or rent a flat. And because we (sensibly) don't categorise people in terms of nose size in the way that we (stupidly) do in term of skin colour, if some small-nosed arsehole shouts nasal abuse at me in the street, I won't automatically be tempted to think that small-nosed people in general will never accept me, or fear that a significant number of small-nosed people are like that. I'll just think it's one arsehole.
So no, the discrimination that you and I face for our incidental personal characteristics is nothing like the experience of black people, or gay people, either in terms of personal effect or social consequences.
quote:
Various societies have functioned relatively successfully for quite long periods of time on the basis of distinct roles for men and women in a way that might today be called sexist. Your idea of "proper functioning" is a well-meaning one, but it is every bit as subjective as the ideas of what is "proper" that other people have held down the ages.
Seriously? That's your argument? That there's no objective reason to prefer an equal society to a sexist one?
It's bollocks. First, because there are (blindingly obvious) objective arguments against sexism. Second, because unless you are actually planning to defend sexism, we can both agree that it's a bad thing without needing to agree that our reasons for thinking that are 'objective'. Third, because even if we grant that sexist societies can function 'properly', they do so by imposing sexist expectations and reinforcing them with sexist institutions in a way in which our society is (too slowly) ceasing to do, and going back to 'properly functional' sexism from where we are now would be damaging, unproductive and fucking stupid.
quote:
The most harmful forms of discrimination are those that harm individuals the most
What mousethief said.
quote:
A plural society is one in which not everybody shares your ideas about the way you'd like society to work, but where those essentially political differences co-exist within a framework of essentially moral rules.
I haven't defended a plural society in your sense. I'm not sure I completely get what your vision of a plural society is, and I suspect if I did understand it, I wouldn't want it. If it includes safe spaces for bigotry and prejudice then count me out.
Basically, I don't agree with your approach that people who want inequality, and defend the right to hate and exclude, simply have different, but equally respectable, opinions about how society should look, and it's the moral duty of the rest of us to accommodate these wreckers of freedom into our models of liberalism. No, it isn't.
The only reason you can think that is because these poisonous cretins have lost the moral argument so comprehensively that you can't imagine them being any real threat. The problem is that you're wrong about that, as any member of a minority group could tell you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Why is killing unwanted babies by exposure bad? The Romans did it for hundreds of years, well before they went into decline. They had a perfectly functional society. What is the objective reason to become so intolerant of this different point of view?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A couple of parallels. Reproductive medical care. If someone is in a city where there are many doctors, a practitioner may restrict their practice and nor prescribe contraceptives or refer for abortions. If there is no "reasonable access", which has been legally defined as time and travel, then a practitioner may not restrict their practice. Further, the principle of not harming the emotional well-being of the persons served is a factor. Aas far as I know, these principles created a flutter of controversy which died down and are accepted here.
There was a barber shop here which served men only. A woman requested service there. The settlement was that a woman may request service and must be served, but she can't direct the barber shop to develop new services to her preference. Seems fair. She wanted a "regular short cut" which wasn't a novel service for the shop.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've felt very safe in some of these spaces, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also want other people to have what they need and to be safe. **That can result in a tangle.** Some time back (maybe on another thread?), we discussed single-sex salons/barbershops vs. unisex. When and where I grew up women's salons were for women only--both customers and staff. A guy might enter the waiting area to pick up his wife, but that was it. It was its own kind of space, just as barbershops were for men. IIRC, the tenor of the Ship's discussion leaned towards having only unisex salons. TBH, I think that's a loss.
I actually think this is a bad thing. Not that such spaces exist, but that which dives this exists.
--------------------
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 Eliab:
Are you saying that you would like a law that says "you must trade with everyone and be scrupulously fair at all times"? Or that you think that the logic of my position implies that I should want this, and you'd like an explanation of why I don't think it's possible?
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable. Is it or isn't it desirable ?
Whilst my natural inclination is that everything should be allowed unless there's a moral wrong involved (because how could it be right to punish someone for doing something that's not morally wrong ?) I am persuaded that there is something morally wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, blackface". And similarly wrong in "we don't serve your kind here, bignose" or any other characteristic. I find I can will that nobody be subject to this form of discrimination. And would therefore be prepared to legislate against it (although not without listening to any case that people might want to make against the idea).
But I agree with you about the law being restricted to regulating the public realm and needing to be well-defined and enforceable and practical, so that "be fair to everybody always" is not a practicable law.
quote:
Racism, sexism and homophobia are clear impediments to the proper functioning of society.
Various societies have functioned relatively successfully for quite long periods of time on the basis of distinct roles for men and women in a way that might today be called sexist. Your idea of "proper functioning" is a well-meaning one, but it is every bit as subjective as the ideas of what is "proper" that other people have held down the ages.
quote:
a list of characteristics that tackle the most damaging forms of discrimination that stop society working the way we'd like it to.
The most harmful forms of discrimination are those that harm individuals the most - what you call "direct discrimination". I'm suggesting that those be tackled by identifying the acts of discrimination that are most morally wrong and protecting everybody from such acts.
A plural society is one in which not everybody shares your ideas about the way you'd like society to work, but where those essentially political differences co-exist within a framework of essentially moral rules.
PS: thought I posted this yesterday but it's still here on my phone. Senior moment ? Dodgy broadband ? Dunno. Apologies for delay or double post, whichever applies...
--------------------
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
Of course, reading the replies to that when you posted it the first time might be considered too much trouble.
--------------------
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 Russ:
A plural society is one in which not everybody shares your ideas about the way you'd like society to work, but where those essentially political differences co-exist within a framework of essentially moral rules.
All of which is to say, "Jim Crow is good" and "Jim Crow is bad" are equally valid ways of liking society to work.
--------------------
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:
It might not be absolutely impossible that I will one day face discrimination because of my nose, but it would be extremely rare and surprising.
Is an act somehow more or less moral for being rare and surprising ?
Would it be morally OK to murder you so long as I do it with a carrot so that it's a rare and surprising event ?
quote:
What mousethief said.
Funnily enough, the examples of serious discrimination that mousethief gave were the sort of thing I'm suggesting we pass a law to protect everyone from.
quote:
I don't agree with your approach that people who want inequality, and defend the right to hate and exclude, simply have different, but equally respectable, opinions about how society should look, and it's the moral duty of the rest of us to accommodate these wreckers of freedom into our models of liberalism.
You want to be able to hate them and exclude them ? Deny them fundamental freedoms ?
Seems to me most of those you're labelling as hate-filled bigots primarily want to live their own lives by their own religious principles. Given half a chance they'll impose their views on you. But then you're doing your best to impose your views on them...
Truce, anyone ?
quote:
The only reason you can think that is because these poisonous cretins have lost the moral argument so comprehensively that you can't imagine them being any real threat.
I distinguish a real threat to people from a real threat to your social ideas.
Being a real threat to people would seem to involve morally wrong actions against them. So let's identify these morally wrong actions in ways that don't depend on the identity of the victim (because everybody should have equal rights under the law) and don't depend on the motivation (because that's difficult to prove) and give everyone the protection of law.
I think you're making a philosophical error by drawing the line between what's morally wrong and what's contrary to your progressive political ideology in the wrong place.
All this talk of "hate" and "poison" is basically demonizing your political opponents.
Your idea of plural society seems to be the triumph of progressives over conservatives. That's not plural.
Plural is rules for treating those who disagree with you as human beings so that you can peacefully coexist whilst holding different ideas.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me most of those you're labelling as hate-filled bigots primarily want to live their own lives by their own religious principles. Given half a chance they'll impose their views on you. But then you're doing your best to impose your views on them...
Truce, anyone ?
How can there be a truce between people who want to discriminate and people who want there to not be discrimination? Should we let them refuse to serve gays on odd-numbered days? There is no truce here. Either they must serve all customers or they don't have to. There's no in between.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is an act somehow more or less moral for being rare and surprising ?
Would it be morally OK to murder you so long as I do it with a carrot so that it's a rare and surprising event ?
Oh, look, another category error: if it's murder, it's immoral, regardless of the instrument used. The point you evidently missed is that if something is exceedingly rare and unusual, like systematic institutionalized big-nose-prejudice, it is less likely to be a societal problem compared to more common prejudices like sexism, racism, and homophobia.
quote:
... Plural is rules for treating those who disagree with you as human beings so that you can peacefully coexist whilst holding different ideas.
The freedom to impose your prejudices on your fellow citizens is not peaceful coexistence. You're arguing for permission to set up separate lunch counters, or bakeries, or print shops, or whatever, so "moral" shopkeepers won't be forced to serve the wrong sort of customer against their "conscience". However, you've also said the employees of the "moral" shopkeeper shouldn't have that freedom, so what if the employees are decent human beings whose conscience is violated by having to follow their boss' policy of homophobia? That is a dead giveaway that you don't really care about anybody else's morals or conscience or freedom.
But hey, you could still convince me: can I refuse to serve Christians at my job?
--------------------
"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:
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable. Is it or isn't it desirable ?
Eliab and I have both explained why we think it isn't a practical proposition, which makes whether it might be theoretically desirable rather moot.
To recap, my case is that we actively want shopkeepers to discriminate against people who are rude or disruptive, and that such discrimination is one of the little feedback mechanisms that encourages people to behave in a decent, civil fashion. I want to support any shopkeeper who is enforcing his "no arseholes" rule - as long as he's not defining "arsehole" as "anyone with skin darker than mine" or "that pair of queers acting like that in public" and so on.
The price I pay for my selectiveness is that on the Greek Calends, when a storekeeper throws me out of his shop because he takes offense at my unkempt eyebrows, I have no legal recourse.
I can live with that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your idea of plural society seems to be the triumph of progressives over conservatives. That's not plural.
Only if you define conservatives as people who want the right to discriminate against black people and gays and progressives as those who don't. If you do define it like that then there can't be peaceful coexistence. Especially not if I'm black or gay.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is an act somehow more or less moral for being rare and surprising ?
Would it be morally OK to murder you so long as I do it with a carrot so that it's a rare and surprising event ?
That's not only a silly example, but one that's not even well thought-through.
Because, of course, the law where I live does already make allowance for the comparative scarcity of "murder by carrot" - for example by not making it illegal to carry a carrot in a public place, and not requiring me to get a licence to buy or possess a carrot. Not even a concealed, hollowpoint, or sawn-off carrot.
Your suggestion that the law has to prohibit equally all possible grounds of discrimination, no matter how improbable, is unworkable for the same reason that a law regulating the possession and sale of every conceivable potential murder weapon would be unworkable.
Yes, you can kill with a carrot. Yes, you can discriminate against people with big noses. But sensible people, and sensible legislators, will be a little more worried about guns and homophobia.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Yes, you can kill with a carrot. Yes, you can discriminate against people with big noses. But sensible people, and sensible legislators, will be a little more worried about guns and homophobia.
Brilliant distillation and very quotable.
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
my case is that we actively want shopkeepers to discriminate against people who are rude or disruptive, and that such discrimination is one of the little feedback mechanisms that encourages people to behave in a decent, civil fashion...
...The price I pay for my selectiveness is that on the Greek Calends, when a storekeeper throws me out of his shop because he takes offense at my unkempt eyebrows, I have no legal recourse.
I can see you'd want shopkeepers to be able to refuse service to people behaving badly on the premises, and that seems fair enough.
That's not judging people, that's judging their behaviour or their clothes. You might think of it as a comeback rule. Come back when you're sober, come back when you're decently dressed, come back when you're prepared to be polite, come back when you've covered up that swastika tattoo... ...And I'll be prepared to serve you.
Come back when you've trimmed your eyebrows seems a bit extreme, but it's the same general idea. Nobody is excluded or marginalized.
Unless they want to take a principled stand on their right to exuberant eyebrows (or whatever) and then it's a mutual disagreement on relatively trivial matters that either party could end if they want. Nobody's soul is at stake.
But such a law doesn't need a "protected characteristics" list.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But such a law doesn't need a "protected characteristics" list.
Nope. Like other laws, it shouldn't need a protected characteristics list.
There are enough people who believe that gender/sexual identity are choices and so would use such a law to say "come back when you have repented of your wickedness."
There are enough people who will look at the edges of a rule and push it as hard as they can.
We have rules about things like "protected characteristics", "hate speech" etc. not because they are the most parsimonious way to regulate behaviour of sensible adults, but because there's a not-insignificant section of society who won't act responsibly and so need a prescribed level of expectation in the law for the protection of the marginalised.
I'd love it if laws could be simpler. But people are jerks.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
.... Come back when you've trimmed your eyebrows seems a bit extreme, but it's the same general idea. Nobody is excluded or marginalized.
Unless they want to take a principled stand on their right to exuberant eyebrows (or whatever) and then it's a mutual disagreement on relatively trivial matters that either party could end if they want. Nobody's soul is at stake. ....
"Come back when you've stopped being black."
"Come back when you've gotten rid of that wheelchair."
"Come back when you're not Asian."
"Come back when your Down's Syndrome is gone."
"Come back without your guide dog."
"Come back when you're straight."
And my personal favourite,
"Come back when you're not Irish."
Yeah, those are all really trivial matters.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.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 Russ:
But such a law doesn't need a "protected characteristics" list.
Except that you've just defined one. You've defined anything that you can't change as a protected characteristic.
I say defined, to turn that into a workable legal definition would now take some doing.
Is it really reasonable to regard bushy eyebrows as changeable and therefore not protected? What about slitty eyes, you can always have eye surgery? You could lighten your skin with foundation. Would it be reasonable to discriminate against black people until they lightened up? Or white people without blackface? Could someone with a broken leg be asked to come back when they could walk properly?
You have a list of protected characteristics here, just not a very workable one.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A law "Trade with everyone" seems to me a practical proposition if we agree that it's desirable.
That's one of the biggest leaps in logic I've ever seen. I like the sound of that, therefore it's practical?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is it really reasonable to regard bushy eyebrows as changeable and therefore not protected? What about slitty eyes, you can always have eye surgery? You could lighten your skin with foundation. Would it be reasonable to discriminate against black people until they lightened up? Or white people without blackface? Could someone with a broken leg be asked to come back when they could walk properly?
You have a list of protected characteristics here, just not a very workable one.
In logic, you can specify a set by enumerating its members or by defining what's in and what's out.
Leorning Cniht suggested that refusal of service based on behaviour on the premises should be permitted. Someone earlier suggested that having a dress code should be permitted. On the basis presumably that this is a matter of behaviour not identity.
Seems we're agreed that refusal based on characteristics that would require surgery to change is discriminating against the person not the behaviour and should not be permitted.
Feel free to suggest which side of the line matters of personal grooming should fall. That's a detail.
As long as you're defining, it's a principled rule. If you get into enumerating, it starts to sound like an unprincipled rule.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As long as one is throwing up smokescreens instead of facing the real issues, it is an unprincipled ruse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As long as you're defining, it's a principled rule. If you get into enumerating, it starts to sound like an unprincipled rule.
The more relevant question is whether it is a real rule.
I write laws for a living. Much as I'd like to live in a perfectly ordered universe, laws are NOT written for the purpose of constructing a theoretically perfect moral code. They are written to deal with real-life situations. Real people.
Laws against discrimination are written because of the real practicalities of certain kinds of discrimination being prevalent. They are written because of the observable harm caused by that discrimination.
They are written because some people are apparently incapable of behaving like decent human beings without some kind of sanction hanging over their heads.
That doesn't mean that they're UNPRINCIPLED. What it does mean is that there is a point beyond which discussing principles ad infinitum gets in the way of achieving anything (although frankly, I'm beginning to wonder whether preventing the achievement of anything in the field of discrimination isn't exactly what you intend). The perfect is the enemy of the good.
So yeah, Russ, the laws in this area aren't perfect, because they involve choices. Choices about what to address, based on practical realities about what is actually happening. Even as a deeply analytical person who raises questions about possibilities with my instructors ALL THE TIME, there has to be a limit to the number of notional rabbits that get chased down notional rabbit holes.
People can explain ideas to you on this thread until they are blue in the face, and you will always, ALWAYS find a "problem" or "concern" or theoretical kink if you want to. Because the world isn't theoretically perfect.
Which is not to say I agree that all of your "problems" are genuine. Some of them are complete rubbish because they treat people as nothing more than interchangeable abstract concepts.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Seems we're agreed that refusal based on characteristics that would require surgery to change is discriminating against the person not the behaviour and should not be permitted....
No, we're not agreed on that, because that's ridiculous. There's no surgery to turn gay people straight. There's no surgery to turn black people white unless you consider flaying people alive "surgery". I have a friend with spina bifida - he's had several surgeries and uses a wheelchair. There's no surgery to turn Muslims into Pastafarians either. OTOH, there is such a thing as gender confirmation surgery, so presumably you would allow discrimination based on gender or sex.
And you still haven't answered my question: Do I have to serve Christians at my job? After all, being Christian is a choice and a behaviour. "Please come back when you've renounced sexism, homophobia and the god delusion. Kthnxbai."
--------------------
"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
Sorry, I almost forgot about this gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Come back when you've trimmed your eyebrows seems a bit extreme, but it's the same general idea. Nobody is excluded or marginalized ...
If you tell someone to leave, you've just excluded them.
--------------------
"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 Russ:
Feel free to suggest which side of the line matters of personal grooming should fall. That's a detail.
Seems like a pretty important detail whether a requirement to wear whitening make-up is a reasonable criteria. Is looking white enough a matter of personal grooming that is open to discrimination?
My point was that it seems very hard to turn your principle into a workable law. As Orfeo says, one can't legislate for principles. Of course as Orfeo also says no law is perfect, but I think that if you follow this line of argument through you'll find that this particular principle is going to be very much less perfect than most laws, and a lot less perfect than using the list of protected characteristics that we currently have.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This is all just obfuscation of the real issue, which is that society is riven with, and real people are inured even unto DEATH MOTHERFUCKING DEATH by, certain forms of discrimination. Bullshit about eyebrow hair is just throwing sand in your eyes. The issue is GAYS and BLACKS and other categories of people who are really being hurt and driven to suicide while we make silly arguments about fucking EYEBROWS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Two pronged attack. I'll show that the sand doesn't have much value as a substantive argument and you can shout DEATH MOTHERFUCKING DEATH.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The trick is to find a Bible verse that can be interpreted to say something about eyebrows, and then lots of people will start enthusiastically discriminating on the basis of eyebrows. And then we'll need to craft a law to stop them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
And you still haven't answered my question: Do I have to serve Christians at my job?
Yes in the vast majority of cases you should provide Christians the same service you provide others; indeed in the vast majority of cases you shouldn't even be asking "Are you a Christian?" because the customer's beliefs are not going to be relevant to the service you provide.
But if the Christian turns up and specifically asks you to print Bibles or, in an equivalent way appropriate to the nature of your job, produce other pro-Christian propaganda, then it's your choice whether you do that and the Christian should not be able to go to law to force you to do it or to penalise you for not doing it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The trick is to find a Bible verse that can be interpreted to say something about eyebrows, and then lots of people will start enthusiastically discriminating on the basis of eyebrows. And then we'll need to craft a law to stop them.
It's pretty clear to me that the reference to raise their eyebrows haughtily is a pretty stern warning regarding eyebrow grooming and it can only be for this reason that the Lord commanded he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows. in order to be pure again.
I'm surprised that even in a secular society this could be challenged.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
But if the Christian turns up and specifically asks you to print Bibles or, in an equivalent way appropriate to the nature of your job, produce other pro-Christian propaganda, then it's your choice whether you do that and the Christian should not be able to go to law to force you to do it or to penalise you for not doing it.
I don't agree with this, if one has set up as a mainstream printer one would be obliged to not discriminate on religious grounds, but this isn't an exact parallel.
A closer parallel would be if a Christian walked into a bakers, asked for a wedding cake, and the baker was half way through writing it down then said;
"Hang on, this wouldn't be a Christian wedding now would it? Well there's the door then, not interested."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mdijon;
quote:
I don't agree with this, if one has set up as a mainstream printer one would be obliged to not discriminate on religious grounds, but this isn't an exact parallel.
Interesting. My law degree is a bit rusty these days but I think the point here is that the printer can't be forced to print stuff he disagrees with. That effectively coercively discriminates against him. I don't see that the stuff being religious makes any difference to that. The general idea is that if you have the integrity to refuse to print, then you have penalised yourself by refusing the money and no further legal penalty is required.
On the other hand, if the request is for general printing, I don't see that the printer should be able to refuse for a Christian - or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu, etc. - stuff he would cheerfully print for everybody else, just because of the religion of the customer.
Your example of the cake being refused because it is a Christian wedding seems again to be about a cake he would have produced for anyone else and he is clearly discriminating against the customer as a person. In the 'gay bakery' case (a bit of a misnomer as the bakery definitely wasn't 'gay') what was being asked for was not a generic wedding cake but outright propaganda for 'gay' conduct - the discrimination was not against the customer for being gay, but against the content of the product asked for; a significant difference.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
When you say "the point is" are you talking about what you want the law to be or what you think the law actually is? Because however oxidized your law degree is, it seems from this recent case and other cases that once one has set oneself up in business, one can't discriminate against protected characteristics, even if not discriminating does offend one's sensibilities.
On the Christian cake - perhaps take it that the message was something like "God bless the marriage of Ted and Dot."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Two pronged attack. I'll show that the sand doesn't have much value as a substantive argument and you can shout DEATH MOTHERFUCKING DEATH.
Go ahead, make fun of people committing suicide, and others who care about them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
