|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.
But apparently only if they're not an employee. It's okay to coercively discriminate against someone who's not self-employed. If the clerk at the copy shop feels morally opposed to printing flyers for a weekend block party (or whatever, exact content is unimportant) she can be fired if her employer feels differently. Heck, she can be fired if she's okay with taking the job, runs off a bunch of flyers, and finds out later her employer "disagrees" with block parties. At least under your argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.
That's a very fine line. It's okay to coercively discriminate against a printer if he disagrees with Christians or Muslims or a Jews or Hindus etc. being free to do business in society but not if he can show some specific way that his prospective clients are going to use his services in a Christian (or Muslim or a Jewish or Hindu) way? It seems like you'd need an almost Inquisitorial set up to parse questions of intent like that.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
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.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Go ahead, make fun of people committing suicide, and others who care about them.
What high moral ground and protection from mockery all those suicides afford you.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
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.
I don't see why it sounds like an unprincipled rule.
For example, the law could just define a crime as any action whose infringement of other people's legitimate concerns is more weighty than the trouble to prosecute it would be. However, in order to save ambiguity and trouble, it enumerates crimes such as murder, theft, etc etc.
Likewise you could define illegitimate discrimination as discrimination which forms part of systematic society-wide unfair disadvantage to one group compared to another. But for the sake of clarity and to reduce legal wrangling the law specifies which groups have historically been subjected to systematic disadvantage.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Go ahead, make fun of people committing suicide, and others who care about them.
What high moral ground and protection from mockery all those suicides afford you.
What fatuous bullshit.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
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.
That effectively invents a new concept of "coercive discrimination" that is unlikely to be known to the law.
Seriously, I find this whole idea that business people have to enjoy the combination of letters they're creating for someone else a little bit bizarre.
Does my painter get a veto on the shade of green I choose? Are vegetarian chefs absolved from cooking meat? Can I, as a musician, refuse to play any piece of music that I don't like or am sick to death of? That last one would be VERY handy around Christmas time.
Whatever is going on here, it's not "discrimination" because the customer doesn't give a damn about the religion or other defining characteristic of the printer, baker or what have you. They chose the person for being a printer or baker, not for being a Christian.
"Discrimination" does not consist of "being required to do something you don't like". Otherwise millions of people could shout "HELP! HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!" while sitting in their office, standing at a counter, doing their homework, vacuuming the house or just visiting their relatives on Christmas Day.
[ 23. December 2016, 21:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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:
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.
There are two issues here which I'm in danger of confusing.
One is whether it is ever just for a merchant or service provider to refuse to serve a customer.
The other is whether a law to make such refusal of service illegal becomes any more or less practical if it is restricted to discrimination against certain classes of customer or certain aspects of who the customer is.
On the first, the sense I'm getting is that insisting on polite behaviour on the premises or having a clearly-stated dress code is OK, but allowing merchants to judge the customer's grooming and whether they'd look better in makeup is too personal.
On the second, you were saying earlier something to the effect that the existing law relies on the merchant to mention the protected characteristic as a reason, and that if he insists that his objection is to the person as an individual (or their shoes or their attitude) then it's hard to prove otherwise. Isn't that less practical than a law that says you have to serve everyone ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Russ, what you're most in danger of confusing is the difference between principles and the application of principles.
Forget discrimination for a minute. We have laws against murder, yes?
Some of your arguments are along the lines "of maybe we shouldn't have a law against intentionally killing people because it can be quite difficult to prove who did it and whether they meant to do it".
"Maybe we should just have a law that if someone dies, the person we find nearest the body is in trouble."
[ 23. December 2016, 22:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've no doubt said some of this before somewhere in this interminable thread, but I'm going to say it again:
Discrimination law does not forbid you from choosing who you do business with. It starts off with the general position that you do, in fact, have choice.
What it does is forbid you from making certain characteristics the basis of your choice. It does that for 2 reasons. One is that choices made on the basis of those characteristics have caused a great deal of harm and injustice in the past.
The other reason (which is linked to the notion of "injustice") is a judgement by the lawmakers that there is no rational basis for treating those characteristics as relevant to your choice.
Okay? That's it. Simple. IT'S A CHOICE BY THE LAWMAKERS. Arguing about whether some other characteristic, like eyebrows, could be picked as the basis for a discrimination law misses the point entirely. I don't even really care that much about whether eyebrows ought to be selected. It's a theoretical question on which arguments could be made either way.
The reality is that lawmakers in your country have chosen certain characteristics as the ones that have been surrounded by problems and for which a discrimination law should be created. And you, as a citizen of the country, are required to deal with it. In exactly the same way that you are required to deal with the speed limit posted on a road you use, whether or not you would prefer a different speed limit.
The alternative proposition: "you have no choice, serve everybody", is a complete nonsense. In 5 seconds you will be coming up with exceptions to it. Oh, you don't have to serve anyone who doesn't have the money to pay. Oh, you can remove anyone whose behaviour is violent or unpleasant. Oh, you can remove anyone harassing the other customers. Oh, you don't have to serve anyone who asks for a service you don't actually offer.
The law makes choices. It has chosen to say that one of the characteristics that is not be used is sexuality.
Deal with it.
Stop behaving like a child who wants to discuss 50 reasons why it isn't bedtime yet or why everyone else ought to go to bed too, and just deal with the fact that the law exists whether you like it or not.
--------------------
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 Dafyd:
Likewise you could define illegitimate discrimination as discrimination which forms part of systematic society-wide unfair disadvantage to one group compared to another.
If this is your principle, do you consider that "disadvantaged status" once acquired is for all time ? Or is there some statistic that you would look at every year to assess whether your list of disadvantaged groups was still applicable ?
What would some group not on your list (short people ? fat people ?) have to prove to you in order to qualify as having "unfair disadvantage" ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or is there some statistic that you would look at every year to assess whether your list of disadvantaged groups was still applicable ?
How about "number of Bibles sold"?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Number of people in the Forbes 400.
--------------------
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:
If this is your principle, do you consider that "disadvantaged status" once acquired is for all time ? Or is there some statistic that you would look at every year to assess whether your list of disadvantaged groups was still applicable ? ...
Given that some of the prejudices we're talking about have existed for literally tens of thousands of years, year-to-year tracking seems kind of silly. In any case, it's already being done. Constantly. Google "wage gap".
You know when we'll know we don't need laws against discrimination? When nobody complains that someone has broken the law against discrimination. That's one of the nifty things about laws - if everybody is obeying them, it's like they're not even there. That's how we end up with "obsolete" laws. Did you know duels are illegal in Canada?
--------------------
"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:
On the second, you were saying earlier something to the effect that the existing law relies on the merchant to mention the protected characteristic as a reason, and that if he insists that his objection is to the person as an individual (or their shoes or their attitude) then it's hard to prove otherwise. Isn't that less practical than a law that says you have to serve everyone ?
Not really. If you fail to convict a particular merchant of discrimination against a protected characteristic, then you've missed an opportunity but society goes on.
If you enact a law that says you've got to serve everyone then the ability to run a shop breaks down. You couldn't cope if everyone whose order you didn't honour could complain about discrimination, or every difficult customer you threw out could take you to court.
(By the way discriminating against someone based on personal grooming might not be something I would applaud but I don't think it should be illegal).
--------------------
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 orfeo:
The other reason (which is linked
The reality is that lawmakers in your country have chosen certain characteristics as the ones that have been surrounded by problems and for which a discrimination law should be created. And you, as a citizen of the country, are required to deal with it. In exactly the same way that you are required to deal with the speed limit posted on a road you use, whether or not you would prefer a different speed limit.[qb]
I rather suspect that when Trump comes to power his administration may pass laws that you will wish to comment on negatively as not meeting your standards of equity and justice. Will you be saying to all your left-leaning friends "it's the law - deal with it" ? Is there the faintest possibility of a double standard here ?
quote:
[qb]Oh, you don't have to serve anyone who doesn't have the money to pay. Oh, you can remove anyone whose behaviour is violent or unpleasant. Oh, you can remove anyone harassing the other customers. Oh, you don't have to serve anyone who asks for a service you don't actually offer.
All valid points. All of which apply whether the general "right to be served" is limited to protected characteristics or not.
Those who don't want to extend that general right to everyone are making a spurious argument about practicality. Because they don't want a "colourblind" law that prevents a repeat of some past injustices by strengthening the individual rights of everyone. They want something else.
--------------------
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
This is nonsense Russ and we've been through it before. The law on protected characteristics is colour blind. Neither blacks nor whites can be discriminated against.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Likewise you could define illegitimate discrimination as discrimination which forms part of systematic society-wide unfair disadvantage to one group compared to another.
If this is your principle, do you consider that "disadvantaged status" once acquired is for all time ? Or is there some statistic that you would look at every year to assess whether your list of disadvantaged groups was still applicable ?
What a peculiar question. I don't see why you think it matters?
Suppose it were deemed that the Irish are no longer subject to discrimination in Britain. Is it really worth the legislative effort to amend all laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race to read 'except the Irish'? Would you really support such a move?
I would be a bit suspicious of the motives of anyone who suggested it myself.
The fact that discrimination existed in the past shows that discrimination on that basis is possible.
quote:
What would some group not on your list (short people ? fat people ?) have to prove to you in order to qualify as having "unfair disadvantage" ?
Why do you think they would need to prove anything? Why wouldn't sufficient personal testimony with some statistical support be enough?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Russ, I rather suspect any criticism of Trump laws that i make will be just that: criticism.
Not endless going around and around in a passive aggressive quest for some exit via supposed principle.
Frankly, when I say "deal with it", open and direct criticism WOULD be an example of dealing with it. My frustration is because you seem so determined to create hypotheticals instead of addressing real laws and the real circumstances of people.
--------------------
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:
If you enact a law that says you've got to serve everyone then the ability to run a shop breaks down. You couldn't cope if everyone whose order you didn't honour could complain about discrimination, or every difficult customer you threw out could take you to court.
You're saying that refusal of service is really common ? So that almost everyone has to just put up with it because the courts couldn't cope with the flood of cases ?
Are there other injustices that you think society should tolerate because doing something about them is just too much work ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You're saying that refusal of service is really common ? So that almost everyone has to just put up with it because the courts couldn't cope with the flood of cases ?
Are there other injustices that you think society should tolerate because doing something about them is just too much work ?
Enough. Enough questions. Some answers would be nice. So:
You have stated that you believe that a printer should not be forced to print something s/he disagrees with.
Does an employee of the printer have the same right? Can the printer over-ride the employee's right?
Now, one could argue that the employee is required to follow the printer's orders, regardless of the employee's beliefs, because of employment law. The employee's duty to do one's job overrides the employee's freedom of conscience.
How is that any different from human rights law compelling the printer, regardless of the printer's beliefs, to print material the printer disagrees with? Why is it ok for one individual printer to override one employee's conscience, but not ok for the state - on behalf of all citizens - to override the printer's conscience?
If my boss can tell me what to do, and the state can't override that, what are the implications for every other law on the books? In a grotesquely tortured effort to create privilege for prejudice, you've set up a situation where my boss can tell me to rob a bank, and the state can't tell her not to, because employment law overrides my scruples about robbing the Big Five.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are there other injustices that you think society should tolerate because doing something about them is just too much work ?
Dude, don't flip the argument. You are the one who started off saying the laws protecting people from discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, race etc were "just too much work."
You're too busy asking a thousand variations on the same pointless questions to bait others into some assumed contradiction, and not busy enough checking the mirror.
It is because of devil's advocates such as yourself that plain simple laws don't work in this arena. Jerks will find a loophole or counterperspective to exploit. Maybe not to deliberately trample, crush and hurt those on the margins. But happy to do so without any regard or decency because why the hell not.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you enact a law that says you've got to serve everyone then the ability to run a shop breaks down. You couldn't cope if everyone whose order you didn't honour could complain about discrimination, or every difficult customer you threw out could take you to court.
You're saying that refusal of service is really common ? So that almost everyone has to just put up with it because the courts couldn't cope with the flood of cases ?
Are there other injustices that you think society should tolerate because doing something about them is just too much work ?
I just can't understand how you can read that into mdijon's posts. I have not done a count, but my impression is that the number of discrimination cases brought here has dropped substantially over the last 20 years - standards were set, enforced and then obeyed. The current crop of cases has arisen largely in allegations of racial/religious discrimination by shock jocks and the like against those of Middle Eastern background. I suspect that these will be stamped on and behaviour improve. Originally, the gay discrimination cases brought were based on very real and unpleasant abuse of others. Those brought these days seem to revolve around some with a very individual understanding of the law and also of what decent behaviour to your fellows involves.
Russ, as others have said you've ventured into strange ground, picturing strange and unrealistic examples. Nobody seeks to force the owner of a bookshop specialising in medical texts to stock treatises on fine points of anyone's religious beliefs. Nor for that matter can a Jewish deli owner be forced to sell ham, or the owner of a general deli be forced to keep a strictly kosher section. No bookshop can refuse to deal with a customer perceived to be gay/Christian/Hindu/transgender etc. No bookshop can be forced to deal with a drunken customer shouting abuse to all and sundry. How the laws are actually worked out in individual cases may be a bit complicated, but all the general principles are simple and basic.
[ 24. December 2016, 20:59: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My frustration is because you seem so determined to create hypotheticals instead of addressing real laws and the real circumstances of people.
Most of the hypotheticals arise either to try to clarify what principle others are putting forward, or to point out what seems to me to be wrong with such a principle - an example of some unjust or unreasonable conclusion which follows logically from what they've said.
If you say that X is wrong and I say "oh no it isn't" and you say "oh yes it is" then it's not really a very constructive exchange.
If your and my sense of justice are so different that there's no overlap, maybe that's all that can be said.
But if there's actually quite a lot of overlap, then you may judge the same way that I do in some cases, and there's some point in trying to find the common ground.
If I can make you realise that you're giving different answers depending on whether the question is asked about gay weddings (where you identify with the customer), about Sunni and Shia (where I guess you have no particular sympathy on either side) or about a feminist bookshop (where your political sympathy is likely to be with the merchant) then you may just get an inkling that you're allowing your sympathies to distort your judgment.
How else does one criticize a proposition of equity if not to show up the inconsistencies ?
Your sense of justice tells you that discrimination is a Bad Thing. I'm coming from the point of view that some part of that is a real moral insight into right and wrong and some part of that is a political view to do with the relationship between present and past ideas of what a good society looks like.
Disentangling the two is the challenge. To distinguish what's a moral wrong that everyone should be protected from insofar as it's practical to do so, and what's your political agenda which you're entitled to believe in and speak for but not to impose on others.
If an act is morally wrong it's morally wrong for everyone. Right and wrong, if you believe such terms are meaningful, are the same across time and space.
When you say that there are things that no person should have to suffer, you're speaking morally. When you say there are things that your group shouldn't have to suffer but it doesn't matter about other groups, you're into special pleading.
Focussing on the "real experiences of real people" doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff. It encourages the sort of "something must be done" thinking where groups give themselves rights that they're not prepared to grant others.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The law on protected characteristics is colour blind. Neither blacks nor whites can be discriminated against.
If the law attaches significance to a difference in race between two disputing parties then it isn't colourblind. But if the law doesn't care which one is white and which black then it is at least even-handed, and that's no small thing.
--------------------
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 Gee D:
Nor for that matter can a Jewish deli owner be forced to sell ham
But a conservative Christian baker can be forced to sell gay rights propaganda, it seems.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I doubt that that is in fact the law here.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor for that matter can a Jewish deli owner be forced to sell ham
But a conservative Christian baker can be forced to sell gay rights propaganda, it seems.
Not the same. The baker offered a custom icing service and then refused custom. The analogy would be a Jewish deli owner saying that they can source the meat you want if they don't stock it, then refusing to order a Christmas ham.
The baker refused to provide an advertised service based on being up himself, judgemental and a general self righteous arse. He (and you) seem to consider that to be religious freedom.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... When you say there are things that your group shouldn't have to suffer but it doesn't matter about other groups, you're into special pleading.
Well, then, it's a good thing nobody is doing that. As has been stated over and over, stopping discrimination helps everybody. (I ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) automatic doors and low-floor buses.) The only special pleading around here is from those who want use their pwecious widdle mowals as an excuse to break the law and abuse their fellow citizens.
quote:
... Focussing on the "real experiences of real people" doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff. ...
What does that even mean? Does ignoring reality give better results?
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My frustration is because you seem so determined to create hypotheticals instead of addressing real laws and the real circumstances of people.
Most of the hypotheticals arise either to try to clarify what principle others are putting forward, or to point out what seems to me to be wrong with such a principle - an example of some unjust or unreasonable conclusion which follows logically from what they've said.
If you say that X is wrong and I say "oh no it isn't" and you say "oh yes it is" then it's not really a very constructive exchange.
If your and my sense of justice are so different that there's no overlap, maybe that's all that can be said.
But if there's actually quite a lot of overlap, then you may judge the same way that I do in some cases, and there's some point in trying to find the common ground.
If I can make you realise that you're giving different answers depending on whether the question is asked about gay weddings (where you identify with the customer), about Sunni and Shia (where I guess you have no particular sympathy on either side) or about a feminist bookshop (where your political sympathy is likely to be with the merchant) then you may just get an inkling that you're allowing your sympathies to distort your judgment.
How else does one criticize a proposition of equity if not to show up the inconsistencies ?
Your sense of justice tells you that discrimination is a Bad Thing. I'm coming from the point of view that some part of that is a real moral insight into right and wrong and some part of that is a political view to do with the relationship between present and past ideas of what a good society looks like.
Disentangling the two is the challenge. To distinguish what's a moral wrong that everyone should be protected from insofar as it's practical to do so, and what's your political agenda which you're entitled to believe in and speak for but not to impose on others.
If an act is morally wrong it's morally wrong for everyone. Right and wrong, if you believe such terms are meaningful, are the same across time and space.
When you say that there are things that no person should have to suffer, you're speaking morally. When you say there are things that your group shouldn't have to suffer but it doesn't matter about other groups, you're into special pleading.
Focussing on the "real experiences of real people" doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff. It encourages the sort of "something must be done" thinking where groups give themselves rights that they're not prepared to grant others.
Your analysis of my supposed sympathies and the way you think it would change my answers is WAY off base. Certainly, some of your claims are not based on any answer that I have personally given you.
I write laws for a living and so have very strong views about how laws work. I didn't bring "morals" into my discussion. The whole problem with morals is that they end up boiling down to what each individual feels like doing. Laws are about telling people what to do regardless of whether they feel like doing it.
You simply don't seem to know me very well. Have you not noticed how often I have argued on the Ship for the legal position of someone who is NOT sympathetic? Sometimes I've had to point out that I agree the person in question is an idiot or a jerk, precisely because I don't let that get in the way of analysing the situation.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And no, my sense of justice does NOT tell me that discrimination is a Bad Thing. Are we still at that level of babyish understanding after so many pages? Discrimination is a necessary part of life.
What a couple of decades of knowledge about discrimination law tells me is that it matters whether the criteria you use to discriminate are relevant to the decision you are making.
[ 25. December 2016, 05:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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:
.... If an act is morally wrong it's morally wrong for everyone. Right and wrong, if you believe such terms are meaningful, are the same across time and space....
Well, then, explain this.
quote:
... Progressive faith groups are rapidly becoming some of the staunchest supporters of LGBT rights in the Tar Heel State, where roughly 88 percent of the population claims a belief in God and 64 percent support LGBT nondiscrimination laws. ...
So while some "religious" folks want the legal right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, other, equally religious folks think it's wrong. It sure looks like one religious group is asking for "rights" that other groups don't have and don't even want, and they sure don't care about the rights of the groups they want to discriminate against. Special pleading, anyone?
quote:
... Disentangling the two is the challenge. To distinguish what's a moral wrong that everyone should be protected from insofar as it's practical to do so, and what's your political agenda which you're entitled to believe in and speak for but not to impose on others. ...
Yes, there's definitely some disentangling that has to happen. Like disentangling millennia of prejudice from right and wrong.
Russ, your entire argument is that "religious freedom" is the right to pick and choose which laws to obey. As orfeo said, "The whole problem with morals is that they end up boiling down to what each individual feels like doing."
quote:
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Romas 13 (emphasis mine)
I'm also particularly irritated by the Jesus freaks today because my fibre-optic installation was scheduled for today, and then cancelled, because "Christmas is the only day of the year we close." Does anyone really believe that is was out of deep corporate religious convictions or because all their employees are Christian? Help, help, I'm being oppressed by people who don't give a rat's ass about the true meaning of the Nativity.
So happy holidays, Russ.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
If you are quoting Romans 13 you need to start from the beginning - which in a sense is back in Romans 12. If you do that you realise that Paul is NOT teaching simple obedience to the authorities whatever they require.
He is actually teaching that Christians do not militarily rebel against the authorities; but are 'subject to' the authorities even when they cannot obey, and therefore follow a policy of accepting martyrdom if disobedience is necessary.
This is further confirmed by
1) Acts 5;29 Peter saying "We must obey God rather than men".
2) Paul, Peter and others accepting martyrdom.
Which basically means that we sort out from Scripture what is right and wrong and we support the right - even when the world disagrees with us.
And of course the way the world construes and understands 'homosexuality' is wrong; so we say so and we don't support that understanding. And thus the problem....
Although actually quite a bit of the problem rests with the people of the 4th century Church who thought they knew better than the Bible and set up against it the alternative idea of Christian states which don't just disagree with homosexuality but use state power to persecute it. That set up a bad situation in one extreme direction and in the usual way of the world we're currently in a situation of overreaction in the other direction - and again a bad situation....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
In deference to the day, I will phrase this politely.
How is homosexuality a bad thing? How does it affect/threaten straight folk? Without the proof quoting rubbish, if you please.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... Although actually quite a bit of the problem rests with the people of the 4th century Church who thought they knew better than the Bible and set up against it the alternative idea of Christian states ...
Well, that didn't take long. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Those who believe the law is wrong may disobey it. The problem then is that they want a free pass for doing so instead of being willing to face the consequences.
--------------------
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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And of course the way the world construes and understands 'homosexuality' is wrong; so we say so and we don't support that understanding. And thus the problem....
What if the problem is the way you have constructed and understood homosexuality?
And as a secondary issue, how about the notion the way you have constructed faith and martyrdom?
I don't recall any of the biblical martyrs being picked out for arguing a moral standpoint - theirs was for claiming deity for Christ, refusing to disavow that core belief. Not for marching around casting judgement on a sub-section of society.
Arguably one of the reasons Jesus annoyed the establishment enough to get crucified was his insistence on non-judgementally hanging out with people from a variety of "religiously unclean" backgrounds.
Might I remind you that the Pharisees were the bad guys?
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
But they're not supposed to expect a pass, according to Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... He is actually teaching that Christians do not militarily rebel against the authorities; but are 'subject to' the authorities even when they cannot obey, and therefore follow a policy of accepting martyrdom if disobedience is necessary. ....
Go for it, then. The world needs more Christian martyrs. Who don't whine about religious freedom when they get sued in civil court or charged with a federal offence.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no, my sense of justice does NOT tell me that discrimination is a Bad Thing. Are we still at that level of babyish understanding after so many pages? Discrimination is a necessary part of life.
What a couple of decades of knowledge about discrimination law tells me is that it matters whether the criteria you use to discriminate are relevant to the decision you are making.
Orfeo,
I'm sorry for making you feel that I've mischaracterized your position. I'm arguing against half a dozen people here who are coming from different angles to support the same conclusion.
If you were to look back through this thread (I haven't and don't expect you to do it) you'd find posts that depend for their argument on the axiom that discrimination is bad. And I agree that's over-simple.
Your angle seems to be that there is no morality, there is only law. That there is no such thing as a bad law or an unjust law. So that any criticism of a law is no more than an expression of personal distaste.
No debate possible - I say "I don't like this law", mousethief says "I like this law" and we just glare at each other?
Is that where you're coming from ? Or is the term "moral" meaning something different to you then it does to me ? If I instead talk about equity or justice (whilst meaning much the same thing) does that change your answer ?
--------------------
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 Russ:
If you were to look back through this thread (I haven't and don't expect you to do it) you'd find posts that depend for their argument on the axiom that discrimination is bad. And I agree that's over-simple.
I don't remember any. Except at one point you seemed to be arguing all characteristics should be protected, which is the closest I think anyone has come to that position.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your angle seems to be that there is no morality, there is only law.
I can't see how it is possible to get that reading into Orfeo's position. Can you quote anything close to that?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Your angle seems to be that there is no morality, there is only law. That there is no such thing as a bad law or an unjust law. ...
And your angle seems to be that your morality is an absolute, eternally, universally true morality that should be your country's law, followed by a disingenuous plea for "respect" in a plural society.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
The baker refused to provide an advertised service based on being up himself, judgemental and a general self righteous arse.
What's with the anal fixation ? First Eliab and now you...
I agree that it's wrong to choose not to provide an advertised service. That's like breaking a promise.
But if that were the extent of the baker's wrongdoing, the court could tell him to put up a notice to the effect that "it is our policy to politely decline orders for text that in the opinion of the management may prove offensive to some of our customers".
Then the baker is no longer advertising that he will deliver any conceivable text. Problem solved.
But I suspect you wouldn't agree. So perhaps you don't really believe that the issue is what you're saying it is ?
--------------------
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 mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your angle seems to be that there is no morality, there is only law.
I can't see how it is possible to get that reading into Orfeo's position. Can you quote anything close to that?
I suggest you not cease respiration, mdijon.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no, my sense of justice does NOT tell me that discrimination is a Bad Thing. Are we still at that level of babyish understanding after so many pages? Discrimination is a necessary part of life.
What a couple of decades of knowledge about discrimination law tells me is that it matters whether the criteria you use to discriminate are relevant to the decision you are making.
Orfeo,
I'm sorry for making you feel that I've mischaracterized your position. I'm arguing against half a dozen people here who are coming from different angles to support the same conclusion.
If you were to look back through this thread (I haven't and don't expect you to do it) you'd find posts that depend for their argument on the axiom that discrimination is bad. And I agree that's over-simple.
Your angle seems to be that there is no morality, there is only law. That there is no such thing as a bad law or an unjust law. So that any criticism of a law is no more than an expression of personal distaste.
No debate possible - I say "I don't like this law", mousethief says "I like this law" and we just glare at each other?
Is that where you're coming from ? Or is the term "moral" meaning something different to you then it does to me ? If I instead talk about equity or justice (whilst meaning much the same thing) does that change your answer ?
No, my position is that law and morality don't have a lot to do with each other, and that you can't use morals as the basis of the law because everyone's morals differ.
Laws quite often align with the morals of the MAJORITY of the population, and laws that don't are liable to get changed. But "do what your own morals dictate" is no kind of law at all. It defers the law-making process to each person's set of beliefs, whether those beliefs come from a religious source or otherwise.
I think a big part of your issue, actually, is that your morals aren't the same as the majority of the population. And so you're faced with a law that doesn't align with your morals, and you want to find a way out of it.
But it feels like you won't directly address that. You want to come up with various other ways of saying "I think people who don't like homosexuals ought to be able to refuse to do work that would support homosexuality in any way" that don't involve straight up saying "because I think homosexuality is wrong".
Because the answer will simply be that most people these days don't think homosexuality is wrong. And that the law reflects that view.
[ 26. December 2016, 21:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To head off another potential question: even if I believe in absolute morals in theory, that's no use IN PRACTICE because each person who believes in the existence of absolute morality announces different conclusions about its content.
You can get 20 people in a room nodding in furious agreement that they "believe in morality". Then watch the arguments when you pose a moral question to them and they discover that they don't all believe in the same content. "You said you believed in morality!" they'll say to each other, as if what they'd agreed on was the same moral code.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can get 20 people in a room nodding in furious agreement that they "believe in morality". Then watch the arguments when you pose a moral question to them and they discover that they don't all believe in the same content. "You said you believed in morality!" they'll say to each other, as if what they'd agreed on was the same moral code.
Indeed you can get 20 people who believe in Christian morality, and still have similar or identical results.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
my position is that law and morality don't have a lot to do with each other, and that you can't use morals as the basis of the law because everyone's morals differ.
Laws quite often align with the morals of the MAJORITY of the population, and laws that don't are liable to get changed. But "do what your own morals dictate" is no kind of law at all. It defers the law-making process to each person's set of beliefs, whether those beliefs come from a religious source or otherwise.
So you don't see anything wrong with a "tyranny of the majority" whereby a majority group use the law to impose their every whim on a minority group ? Like the Jim Crow laws that mousethief keeps referring to ?
How can such laws be bad if they reflect the moral values of the majority and there is no accessible point of reference other than what the majority think ?
You may personally dislike such laws of course.
If there can be no reason for preferring one person's view of morality over others, what's the point in discussion ?
And the other question is, if you recognise that people in a plural society hold significantly different views of what is moral, why would one not want to maximize the opportunity for people to "do what their own morals dictate" within their own personal space ?
Of course there need to be laws. A minimum framework to prevent people doing things to each other that just about everyone agrees is wrong.
I don't see myself as crusading against homosexuality. I'm probably not on quite the same page as Steve Langdon on this. But I want to do the Voltairean thing of defending his right to hold his beliefs, express his beliefs, and abide by whatever restrictions those beliefs place on his own conduct.
Whilst not wishing to see anyone else have those beliefs imposed on them as regards their conduct.
--------------------
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
Oh, bullshit Russ. Your arguments indicate you are longing for the old tyranny of the majority and are in no way interested in equality of rights.
--------------------
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:
I don't see myself as crusading against homosexuality.
Of course you don't. But you are.
quote:
Whilst not wishing to see anyone else have those beliefs imposed on them as regards their conduct.
That can't be helped. Whenever rights come in conflict, there is the potential that someone will lose and someone else will win. Let's talk about how to carefully craft laws that acknowledge that reality.
And the fact of the matter is, having to bake a cake for people you despise, and being turned away from businesses because you are black, gay, Muslim, etc., are not on a par. There is no danger of Jim Crow laws stomping on the rights of Christian bakers to exist and do business. Let's talk about realistic and historic dangers, not crafting laws with impossibly perfect applicability.
Because the real world isn't like that. The real world is the result of hundreds and thousands of years of discrimination of certain groups of people by certain other people. And the toxic results of that discrimination are still with us, and still disproportionately affect some people's lives more than others.
And the kind of world filled with the kind of hatred expressed by Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for gays creates an atmosphere in which parents kick their gay kids to the curb, and gay kids commit suicide in significantly higher numbers than other teens and young adults. Whether everybody or anybody here believes that or finds it funny or not.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Laws quite often align with the morals of the MAJORITY of the population, and laws that don't are liable to get changed. But "do what your own morals dictate" is no kind of law at all. It defers the law-making process to each person's set of beliefs, whether those beliefs come from a religious source or otherwise.
So you don't see anything wrong with a "tyranny of the majority" whereby a majority group use the law to impose their every whim on a minority group ? Like the Jim Crow laws that mousethief keeps referring to ?
How can such laws be bad if they reflect the moral values of the majority and there is no accessible point of reference other than what the majority think ?
Russ,
You have this amazing ability to turn anything that is set out as a description of how things work into some sort of blanket approval of it.
Reminiscent of the people who think that because Lolita describes pedophilia, Nabokov was in favour of it.
Please, please stop doing it. Every time you want to write "so you don't think there's anything wrong" at the start of a sentence, could you bloody well look for yourself whether the person you're referring to actually said anything about that?
I'm perfectly happy with mousethief's response to you, but let me put some of it in my own words.
First of all, it depends on what the law is saying to the minority. Secondly, there are thankfully a sufficient number of people in our society who aren't completely selfish and who are capable of thinking about laws in terms of the overall benefits rather than purely about how it benefits themselves personally. This is why, for example, as a relatively wealthy person I am thoroughly in favour of paying a decent amount of tax.
So the majority is not that kind of tyranny. Have you actually stopped for a second to think about how laws get made? By a vote, in a legislature, where the majority wins. This shouldn't be news to you. And yet we have laws that are aimed at protecting minorities. We have laws about discrimination about homosexuals despite the great majority of people, and politicians, being heterosexual.
Trying to compare a law that says to a shrinking number of people "treat homosexuals the same way you treat everyone else" with Jim Crow laws is utterly ridiculous once you go beyond a surface notion of "majority tyranny". Why stop there? Why not argue that laws against murder are unfair to the small minority of the population that really want to kill someone? Why aren't psychopaths a protected minority class, I hear you say?
Voltaire is one of the most horribly misused authors in history. First of all, he didn't even say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", that was in a book about him. But more importantly it's a nonsense to extend that anywhere past actual speech.
If your set of beliefs includes ritual sacrifice of non-believers then no, I will not be defending your right to "express your beliefs" at the expense of others. And I will not be defending the right of Christians who interpret the Bible in a certain way to make my life difficult because I'm homosexual. They can do whatever they like within their own personal sphere, but as soon as it's directly affecting OTHER PEOPLE, forget it.
[ 27. December 2016, 02:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if that were the extent of the baker's wrongdoing, the court could tell him to put up a notice to the effect that "it is our policy to politely decline orders for text that in the opinion of the management may prove offensive to some of our customers".
Then the baker is no longer advertising that he will deliver any conceivable text. Problem solved.
There's still the problem of said baker being an insufferable prick.
It's an interesting point, and pages back I did muse about the limits of such laws. There's still the need for any such limitations to be transparent and fair. A management sign that says "I reserve the right to be a dick" doesn't meet that. Such a policy would be inconsistently applied (the baker would likely bake a "Jesus is Wonderful" cake, which is patently offensive to some.)
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
