|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The problem would indeed to a considerable extent be solved, by a bakery with such a sign going out of business as customers avoid the trouble of worrying about whether their chosen cake text will risk being declared to be "offensive" and go to some other bakery without such convoluted hang-ups.
--------------------
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
I don't know about that orfeo. I think these signs would become a byword for thinly veiled homophobia, and I think enough people wouldn't feel impacted by that (or even think they should support the "freedom of speech rights" of the baker) to keep it operating. Wish it weren't so...
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It would depend where it is, as to whether that would be a viable business model.
In any case, if the text treated as "offensive" turned out to be consistently text that expressed support for homosexuals, the law would still be being broken.
[ 27. December 2016, 05:51: 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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Exactly what I was thinking. I wonder if anyone actually thought it was possible to be discriminatory and get away with it based on a coy up-front declaration.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]]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?
Russ is engaging in a variant of the strawman fallacy when he does this. It's incredibly frustrating and unlikely to stop.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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 ? ...
And you apparently don't see anything wrong with a tyrannical printer using "morality" to impose their every whim on their employees and customers.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's with the anal fixation ? First Eliab and now you...
Seriously, what the fuck?
Go on, please explain why you think I have an anal fixation (...because I'm thinking ... "projection?").
quote:
So perhaps you don't really believe that the issue is what you're saying it is ?
The principle, I think, is that while the law cannot guarantee complete equality of treatment and absolute fairness, particularly if it also seeks to respect personal and commercial freedoms, it can at least aim at giving every group of people an approximately equal degree of social inclusion.
The problem is the many minority groups haven't in the past had anything like approximately equal inclusion, and the groups thus disadvantage have been defined because of certain identifiable characteristics.
The (imperfect - we all, I think, agree that it is necessarily imperfect) solution is to prohibit discrimination based on those characteristics (direct discrimination), or on criteria which are effectively proxies for those characteristics (indirect discrimination).
Why is that difficult to grasp? And why is it not, in principle, a sensible approach to a real practical problem?
I do think that there is an issue for discussion whether ordering a slogan "Support gay marriage" is, properly considered, a proxy for "being gay" - to that extent I think the particular case under discussion isn't an absolutely obvious one. But I can't see that you've had anything to say that would be an improvement on the current law, and (as others have pointed out) the fact that you apparently want to give business owners the right to refuse service to gay people if the service the gay person asks for offends whatever it is they have in lieu of a conscience, whereas you would give employees no similar right to withdraw their labour, makes me believe your position is probably not a principled one.
[ 27. December 2016, 14:38: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In any case, if the text treated as "offensive" turned out to be consistently text that expressed support for homosexuals, the law would still be being broken.
Note that Russ is arguing for a different kind of law that doesn't specify characteristics or grounds on which discrimination ought not occur. My response was based on cynicism of human nature regarding such an open-ended law.
Regarding such notices - a policy of "no political statements" would have been acceptable in my view, provided it were consistently applied. A policy of "no messages we reasonably believe could cause general offence" sounds feasible, but it's that kind of broadbrush statement that gives significant wiggle room for exploitation and undermining of rights.
To be honest, I'm not sure that I like a law that spells out protected characteristics any more than Russ appears to. It's just that my reason for not liking such a law is based on utter sadness that we live in a world where such things need to be spelled out. (A bit like my views on domestic violence shelter - I prefer they didn't have to exist, but so long as they do, I support them, donate and defend the work they are doing.)
But right now, society is divided and there are too many people who would deny services to others based on unacceptable discriminatory grounds. Russ's most telling point so far was:
"Focussing on the "real experiences of real people" doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff."
For some reason, he doesn't want law makers to consider the real experience of real people, but instead focus on an intellectually pleasing law. To paraphrase someone else, "Dudes, people weren't made to serve the law. The law was made to serve people..."
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
quote:
For some reason, he doesn't want law makers to consider the real experience of real people, but instead focus on an intellectually pleasing law
And again I say no. That is not the intent derived from his posts. His posts indicate a desire to be allowed to discriminate. It is difficult to conclude anything else.
I am not psychic and cannot know his actual intent, but that is the direction his "arguments" lead.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
It appears to me that you've decided in advance of reading what anyone writes for partisan reasons that this is what is going on. And now you're trying to provoke evidence to establish your prejudgement rather than trying to assess what people are saying on its own merits.
I notice that you use 'political sympathy' in a denigratory sense. As if political sympathies are reasons that can be discounted. In my experience, people who use the word 'political' in the way you do are usually trying to jettison moral principles to score partisan points. Political sympathies being moral principles applied to a whole society.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And again I say no. That is not the intent derived from his posts. His posts indicate a desire to be allowed to discriminate. It is difficult to conclude anything else.
I am not psychic and cannot know his actual intent, but that is the direction his "arguments" lead.
I think it has been stated correctly that the law obviously allows discrimination, I think what Russ is arguing is that the support (or lack of) for Single Sex Marriage is a political position which someone can fairly have a conscience objection to - and that someone providing a printed service is (in some sense) lending support to that position if asked to provide that service that he is not if (for example) he is providing a tray of cornish pasties to a "support SSM" campaign.
What you and others are arguing seems to be that as sexuality is one of the protected characteristics under British law - because of historic inequalities homosexuals have suffered - they deserve protection that other kinds of categories discrimination do not get and therefore whilst one might fairly discrimiate against certain cake or printed phrases on various other grounds, one cannot use sexuality as a reason for that choice.
Which seems to boil down to one side saying that homosexuals should be free to obtain any service and the other side saying that service providers who make printed materials should be allowed to make conscience decisions about who to trade with.
One point that occurs to me is that it isn't true that publishers are not responsible for the phrases that appear in the materials they produce. In fact in many other legal areas, such as libel, they may indeed have responsibility even if the phrase was not written by them. I don't know what would happen if libel was written on a cake, but if a newspaper publisher is responsible for journalist's libellous words and a blog provider can be responsible of a third party's work, it is possible that a baker does retain some responsibility too.
But then it does seem a stretch to say that because a publisher is potentially responsible for publishing libel, he can therefore choose to refuse to print something that is perfectly legal and cannot be libellous. The complication in the NI case being that SSM is not legal in NI..
Which seems to me to be a blow to the argument apparently made above that the law in a democracy reflects some kind of public moral consensus on this issue. Here we seem to have a place where the moral consensus reflected in the law is that SSM is not legal (which would appear to be a pretty serious inequality to me) and yet at the sane time the local law makes it illegal to refuse to print a slogan in favour of SSM. That's quite a confusing form of consensus which appears to have produced laws with opposite legal conclusions on the same issue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
When same sex marriage was enacted in New Zealand, the lament in the conservative lobby was "if only we'd had more cakes"
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
quote:
For some reason, he doesn't want law makers to consider the real experience of real people, but instead focus on an intellectually pleasing law
And again I say no. That is not the intent derived from his posts. His posts indicate a desire to be allowed to discriminate. It is difficult to conclude anything else.
I am not psychic and cannot know his actual intent, but that is the direction his "arguments" lead.
Fair enough. I was dissecting the component parts, rather than the overall picture...
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder if anyone actually thought it was possible to be discriminatory and get away with it based on a coy up-front declaration.
I used to know a bar where the owner regularly refused service apparently on a whim. IIRC there was some kind of sign to this effect and I suppose as long as the reasons he gives when challenged are nothing to do with protected characteristics, I guess he can get away with it.
Understandably it had something of a reputation, particularly as friends found that one could be served when another was not, and I think he lost a lot of business. Someone once told me she was refused service there and that she thought it was to do with her hair colour or style of clothing, but the owner refused to be specific about why service was not offered.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Heh, I read that particular bar got into trouble in the end because the owner refused to serve people in military uniform, was boycotted to near bankruptcy and was eventually sold. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
Fair enough. I was dissecting the component parts, rather than the overall picture...
This, IMO, allows avoidance of addressing the big picture. Which is what he appears to be doing.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
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.
I have this frustration the other way around. I try to make an argument that this ruling is unjust, and get the reply "it's the law". As if that makes it automatically OK.
Of course I think that saying that a law is just or unjust is saying something meaningful. And not merely expressing a personal taste.
I'm not sure whether you believe that. On the one hand you seem to be saying that we can't agree on what morality or justice is so that's not something that the law can be expected to be governed by. On the other hand you seem to agree that Jim Crow laws are a Bad Thing despite having gone through due process and been approved of by a majority at the time. Perhaps you can clarify why you think there's no tension between these two views ?
Of course you're right that people don't always agree about what is just.
quote:
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.
Clearly not every majority vote is tyrannical. Wikipedia gives a quote identifying the tyranny of the majority with "a decision which bases it's claim to rule on numbers, not upon rightness" . Which seems to me pretty close to the view of law that I understood you to be expressing. But maybe I misread you...
quote:
And yet we have laws that are aimed at protecting minorities.
But not all minorities. Only those minorities that your progressive political tradition identities as disadvantaged groups. And there seems to be some doubt over whether religious minorities qualify or not.
quote:
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?
Yes. If I couldn't tell the difference between hating the people and thinking that what they do is morally wrong, then I might be confused into thinking that having laws against murder amounted to persecution of psychopaths. Good job you and I are mature adults who can appreciate these distinctions.
quote:
he didn't even say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'll take your word for it. But it's still an inspiring quote.
quote:
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.
I tend to agree. The issue in dispute in this case can be seen as how we interpret that "directly".
I'm suggesting that if I run a bookshop, the (possibly quite eccentric) set of books that I choose to sell is a decision for me in my "personal sphere" which only indirectly impacts you.
Whereas refusing to sell you any of the books that I do offer counts as "direct"
I would never turn you away from my bookshop, orfeo. If I had one. And have no desire to make your life difficult. But I'd refuse to order "50 shades of gay" if such a title existed. For you or anyone else.
--------------------
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 Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's with the anal fixation ? First Eliab and now you...
Seriously, what the fuck?
Reference to a previous post which fell below your usual high standard by being full of arseholes and shitting on pavements.
I thought, "Eliab's had a bad day".
And then others started to copy you...
quote:
it can at least aim at giving every group of people an approximately equal degree of social inclusion.
I don't consider that a valid aim of the criminal law.
I see the law as there to protect people from the harm of morally wrong acts like theft and murder. Not as a policy instrument to bring about outcomes you think it would be nice to have.
If people have freedom of association and most people choose not to hang out with people from group X (for whatever reason) then group X will be less-than-averagely socially included. You can't ensure you achieve that aim in a free society.
quote:
the fact that you apparently want to give business owners the right to refuse service to gay people if the service the gay person asks for offends whatever it is they have in lieu of a conscience, whereas you would give employees no similar right to withdraw their labour, makes me believe your position is probably not a principled one.
Not making any distinction with regard to gay people - I'm saying that any business owner has the moral right to choose what goods and services they will or won't sell in line with their own convictions. (Unless they have acquired some monopoly which imposes particular obligations).
They also have the moral right, I suggest, to make willingness to sell those goods and services a condition of employment for those staff that the business employs.
Or would you force the butcher to employ someone from a Jewish sect whose conscience forbids him from having anything to do with pork ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... But I'd refuse to order "50 shades of gay" if such a title existed. For you or anyone else.
You know, Russ, booksellers are among the people who are most committed to letting people read what they want:
quote:
The freedom to choose what we read does not, however, include the freedom to choose for others. We accept that courts alone have the authority to restrict reading material, a prerogative that cannot be delegated or appropriated. Prior restraint demeans individual responsibility; it is anathema to freedom and democracy.
quote:
Freedom to Read Week is a project of the Book and Periodical Council (BPC), the umbrella organization for Canadian associations that are or whose members are primarily involved with the writing, editing, translating, publishing, producing, distributing, lending, marketing, reading and selling of written words.
Freedom to Read
That's from people in the biz, Russ. People who write books, publish books, and actually run bookstores. Refusal to order a book for a customer because you think gay sex is icky would be contrary to the ethics of the industry (as well as being sanctimonious and illegal).
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...he didn't even say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ...
... I'll take your word for it. But it's still an inspiring quote. ...
But not inspiring enough for you to also defend the right of others to hear (read) it.
--------------------
"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:
I see the law as there to protect people from the harm of morally wrong acts like theft and murder. Not as a policy instrument to bring about outcomes you think it would be nice to have.
Denial of service, exclusion and marginalisation of people based on gender identity, sexual identity, religion and race is very much a morally wrong act, not a nice to have. Therefore, by your standards, such laws are valid. Thanks.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, I have to say I'm quite interested myself as to how we can definitively say that murder and theft are morally wrong, but treating people badly for being homosexual is 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, if you murder a homosexual, do the acts cancel out?
--------------------
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:
quote:
And yet we have laws that are aimed at protecting minorities.
But not all minorities. Only those minorities that your progressive political tradition identities as disadvantaged groups. And there seems to be some doubt over whether religious minorities qualify or not.
Because, of course, Christians are a religious minority in....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
And yet we have laws that are aimed at protecting minorities.
But not all minorities. Only those minorities that your progressive political tradition identities as disadvantaged groups.
From this it follows, then, that your conservative political tradition doesn't identify blacks as a disadvantaged group. How not surprising.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
So, if you murder a homosexual, do the acts cancel out?
According to some people, yes. It's delivering God's judgment, or something.
--------------------
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
Also, the more I read this:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't consider that a valid aim of the criminal law.
I see the law as there to protect people from the harm of morally wrong acts like theft and murder. Not as a policy instrument to bring about outcomes you think it would be nice to have.
The more I think it's spectacularly wrong-headed.
First of all, we're not even talking about criminal law. At least, not as far as I know. I don't know of any anti-discrimination law that involves a criminal offence. I'll try and chalk that one down to being as generally clueless about different kinds of laws as most of the population, but you don't go to jail for discriminating. You get sued.
The bit that really bemuses me, though, is this bit that the law isn't a policy instrument.
Um, excuse me, that is EXACTLY what law is. It's entire purpose is to shape behaviour. Why reducing the rate of killing by having a law against murder doesn't count as "a policy instrument to bring about outcomes you think it would be nice to have" - i.e. fewer people dying - is utterly beyond me.
Protecting against "morally wrong acts like theft and murder" IS A POLICY.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's with the anal fixation ? First Eliab and now you...
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Seriously, what the fuck?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Reference to a previous post which fell below your usual high standard by being full of arseholes and shitting on pavements.
A post with one reference to an arsehole and an illustration about shitting on a pavement as an example of public interest and that's an anal fixation?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying that any business owner has the moral right to choose what goods and services they will or won't sell in line with their own convictions. (Unless they have acquired some monopoly which imposes particular obligations).
I can't keep up. You wanted everyone to be legally obliged to serve everyone a while back, now you want no legal obligation at all. Both positions are wrong-headed but which should we argue against?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't see how it is possible to get that reading into Orfeo's position. Can you quote anything close to that?
quote:
Helpfully advised by mousethief:
I suggest you not cease respiration, mdijon.
<Gasp, pant>
--------------------
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 mdijon:
I can't keep up. You wanted everyone to be legally obliged to serve everyone a while back, now you want no legal obligation at all. Both positions are wrong-headed but which should we argue against?
It's perfectly simple: Russ will argue for either zero protection OR total protection, because the one thing Russ doesn't want is a list of protected kinds of people that doesn't include him.
As previously discussed (I honestly can't remember if it was here or in the equivalent Hell thread), privileged people see efforts at equality as a kind of persecution. Because they deny that they were in a privileged position, they see anything aimed at raising others up in terms of pushing themselves down.
And so picking out particular kinds of people, such as homosexuals, for protection by the law is A Bad Thing. The poor heterosexuals are missing out on protection.
This also lies at the heart of the question about how long you keep the protection for disadvantaged groups in place. Russ wants to let you know that the disadvantaged groups are no longer disadvantaged. He believes they are now getting unfair advantage.
All of this is utterly laughable to anyone who understands the difference between form and substance and the way the world actually works, but Russ will happily accept either zero protection or total protection because both create FORMAL equality.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And so picking out particular kinds of people, such as homosexuals, for protection by the law is A Bad Thing. The poor heterosexuals are missing out on protection.
As I understand it, if a bakery refuses to serve me because I want 'Congratulations Adam and Barbara' on my wedding cake, they're just as much foul of the law preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as the one across town that refuses 'Adam and Brian'.
The unfairness in the law is that while both groups are getting protection, only the homosexuals are getting protection that they actually need.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Only those minorities that your progressive political tradition identities as disadvantaged groups. And there seems to be some doubt over whether religious minorities qualify or not.
Are there circumstances in which religious minorities are not protected? I believe it is equally against the law to discriminate on the basis of religion as on the basis of sexual orientation.
Are there any other groups that you think progressive groups ought to identify as disadvantaged but don't?
quote:
I see the law as there to protect people from the harm of morally wrong acts like theft and murder. Not as a policy instrument to bring about outcomes you think it would be nice to have.
Are signs saying 'No Coloured, No Irish' not morally wrong acts that cause harm?
quote:
I'm saying that any business owner has the moral right to choose what goods and services they will or won't sell in line with their own convictions. (Unless they have acquired some monopoly which imposes particular obligations).
Why does having a monopoly impose obligations in your view?
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I understand it, if a bakery refuses to serve me because I want 'Congratulations Adam and Barbara' on my wedding cake, they're just as much foul of the law preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as the one across town that refuses 'Adam and Brian'.
The unfairness in the law is that while both groups are getting protection, only the homosexuals are getting protection that they actually need.
Practically speaking that's quite unlikely to happen and much harder to prove motivation. If Adam and Barbara have a cake order refused, it seems highly unlikely the baker is going to come out and say that it is because they're heterosexuals - and even if that was the reason, I'm not sure whether the courts would act to protect anti heterosexual discrimination in the same way that they act to ensure fairness to homosexuals. The only similar issue I can think of is the couple who wanted a Civil Partnership in England but were refused by the court on the basis that they were not applicants of the same gender.
Surely we want the laws to extend the rights of particular minorities and not to extend the already extensive rights of the majority, don't we?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I suppose there could be a specialist cake shop which served people wanting to celebrate SSM and which refused point blank to make cakes for other events and kinds of weddings. I still think that shop is pretty unlikely to fall foul of this law.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
His posts indicate a desire to be allowed to discriminate. It is difficult to conclude anything else.
I am not psychic and cannot know his actual intent, but that is the direction his "arguments" lead.
In a sense you're right, lilBuddha.
What you mean by "discriminate" includes both actions I consider morally wrong ways for one human to treat another and actions I consider morally innocent.
All choices discriminate against the rejected alternative and by extension against those who choose to identify with the rejected alternative.
I'm arguing that all people should be free to take morally innocent actions.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Reference to a previous post which fell below your usual high standard by being full of arseholes and shitting on pavements.
The serious point - which you appear to have missed - was about the relationship of practical law to absolute morality. You seemed to be suggesting that if an act reached some sort of threshold of immorality, it should be a crime, but if it didn't, it shouldn't.
Whereas in reality it is (and ought to be) more complicated than that. There are acts which many of us we consider very immoral, such as adultery, which we can also think that the law should be very slow to notice, because of the interference in personal privacy and autonomy. There are other acts which are much less immoral, but much more the law's business. Such as fouling the pavement.
The relevance to discrimination law is that the sort of silly, idiosyncratic examples you were citing as "just as immoral" as racism, homophobia, sexism and the like, aren't as socially divisive or damaging. There is therefore a justification for treating the forms of discrimination that have a wider social dimension differently to ones which do not.
quote:
If people have freedom of association and most people choose not to hang out with people from group X (for whatever reason) then group X will be less-than-averagely socially included. You can't ensure you achieve that aim in a free society.
Firstly, it doesn't have to be "most". It doesn't even have to be very many. It just needs to happen often enough that whenever you walk through a shop door, you are conscious that there is a real possibility of being badly treated by someone who notices that you are black, gay or female.
Try to get some empathy. Suppose you visit shops about a hundred times a year. On how many of those times would you need to encounter abuse, insult or exclusion because of a fundamental part of your identity before you began to feel that ordinary social and commercial engagement was hazardous for you?
Secondly, I agree that the law can't eradicate discrimination, any more than it can eradicate theft, or ensure that all pavements are free of excrement, but it can decree that there is a cost to damaging and anti-social behaviour. That's what I am saying is a legitimate aim.
quote:
I'm saying that any business owner has the moral right to choose what goods and services they will or won't sell in line with their own convictions. [...]
They also have the moral right, I suggest, to make willingness to sell those goods and services a condition of employment for those staff that the business employs.
Or would you force the butcher to employ someone from a Jewish sect whose conscience forbids him from having anything to do with pork ?
That's just stupid. We aren't talking about forcing business owners to employ people who won't want to do a fundamental part of the job.
We're talking about treating gay people less favourably than straight people in a commercial context, and why you say that's OK for a business owner (regardless of the views of the person who will actually be doing the work) but not an employee (unless the business owner shares his prejudice).
Icing - or not icing - a particular slogan onto a cake is not fundamental to baking in the way that handling meat is fundamental to a butcher's shop. When the butcher started business and advertised for staff, they knew that they would be selling pork sausages. But when the baker opened his shop, and employed people, it is quite possible that no one even considered whether icing a pro-SSM slogan was something that they would ever be asked to do. But you'd allow the owner to refuse that service, but if he had no objection, give no similar right to his workers.
As I've said, I think the 'slogan' cake is a genuinely arguable case. There are principled reasons (which I agree with) for saying that a baker who provides political slogans in general should not be allowed to refuse a pro-gay one. There are principled reasons (which I think are outweighed by those on the other side) for allowing complete freedom to produce or not produce any slogan at all. There are no principled reasons for acknowledging an employers freedom of speech and conscience, but not an employees.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The serious point - which you appear to have missed - was about the relationship of practical law to absolute morality. You seemed to be suggesting that if an act reached some sort of threshold of immorality, it should be a crime, but if it didn't, it shouldn't.
Whereas in reality it is (and ought to be) more complicated than that. There are acts which many of us we consider very immoral, such as adultery, which we can also think that the law should be very slow to notice, because of the interference in personal privacy and autonomy. There are other acts which are much less immoral, but much more the law's business. Such as fouling the pavement.
There is therefore a justification for treating the forms of discrimination that have a wider social dimension differently to ones which do not.
I don't think this is really a fair comparison. On the one hand, rightly, the law often does not take a view on various personal behaviours. I don't see that as being because something is more (or less) immoral, but because of the effects on wider society. One might take a principled view about adultery, but it is hard to make the argument that heavy-handed legal responses to adultery make anything better.
I'd also dispute that public hygiene is somehow less immoral. The issue is not about morality but about spread of disease. The problem with a filthy restaurant is not (just) that it is immoral, but that it is unsafe to unsuspecting customers.
I think the debate here is more about the extent to which the law should help one group to regulate the otherwise legal behaviour of another. For understandable ons, the law were discussing has been enacted to protect groups who have historically faced discrimination in society. That's not really about whether discriminating against redheads is worse than discriminating against black people (partly because on various scales, racial discrimination is clearly worse) but about whether redheads are really a group in need of protection.
[ 28. December 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the one hand, rightly, the law often does not take a view on various personal behaviours. I don't see that as being because something is more (or less) immoral, but because of the effects on wider society.
I don't know if you are intending to disagree with me, but what you say is basically the point I was trying to make.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
To me this is much less about whether homosexuals should be full members of society with various protections from the law (which to me seems inarguable even if one has some conscience objection to somethingorother about other people's personal behaviour) and much more about whether trying to force people to trade via this law really gives people the protections that they want and deserve.
I don't believe it does. I don't believe that anything much is gained by trying to force people with unfashionable or ignorant views to conform to something which can so easily be legally flouted anyway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And so picking out particular kinds of people, such as homosexuals, for protection by the law is A Bad Thing. The poor heterosexuals are missing out on protection.
As I understand it, if a bakery refuses to serve me because I want 'Congratulations Adam and Barbara' on my wedding cake, they're just as much foul of the law preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as the one across town that refuses 'Adam and Brian'.
The unfairness in the law is that while both groups are getting protection, only the homosexuals are getting protection that they actually need.
This is true.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm arguing that all people should be free to take morally innocent actions.
And whose morals are we using to decide this?
--------------------
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
In any case, it's a somewhat peculiar view of the law that says it should place no restrictions on "morally innocent" actions, whatever the heck they are.
There's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible about obeying earthly authorities, which doesn't seem to get a look-in in this thread (Russ seems horrified any time I suggest that obeying the law because it's the law might be at least a basic starting point).
Most of the times that Christians have a problem with the law, it isn't because it somehow restricts "morally innocent" actions. It's either because:
1. It mandates an action that is considered immoral; or
2. It prevents an action that is considered morally obligatory.
But now Russ seems to want a system of law that does nothing more than forbid things he wouldn't want to do anyway. He thinks that earthly authorities should do nothing more than repeat some of God's own commandments.
Where this leaves something like speeding limits, I've no idea. God not having been reported to have expressed much of a view on the appropriate movements of motorised transport.
[ 28. December 2016, 10:59: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this is much less about whether homosexuals should be full members of society with various protections from the law (which to me seems inarguable even if one has some conscience objection to somethingorother about other people's personal behaviour) and much more about whether trying to force people to trade via this law really gives people the protections that they want and deserve.
I don't believe it does. I don't believe that anything much is gained by trying to force people with unfashionable or ignorant views to conform to something which can so easily be legally flouted anyway.
It does though. That is why black people can now shop in the same shops as you and as this has become more normal, acceptance grows. It isn't a perfect or complete solution, but it is part of what shapes behaviour.
Racism isn't over because of equality legislation, but it is lessened because of them. Laws are the grownup version of the rules your parents gave you as a child, unless you believe children are not shaped by that either.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Define "morally innocent" Russ. And then tell me what actions here qualify.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this is much less about whether homosexuals should be full members of society with various protections from the law (which to me seems inarguable even if one has some conscience objection to somethingorother about other people's personal behaviour) and much more about whether trying to force people to trade via this law really gives people the protections that they want and deserve.
I don't believe it does. I don't believe that anything much is gained by trying to force people with unfashionable or ignorant views to conform to something which can so easily be legally flouted anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It does though. That is why black people can now shop in the same shops as you and as this has become more normal, acceptance grows. It isn't a perfect or complete solution, but it is part of what shapes behaviour.
Racism isn't over because of equality legislation, but it is lessened because of them. Laws are the grownup version of the rules your parents gave you as a child, unless you believe children are not shaped by that either.
I agree with lilBuddha. I can understand why one might intuitively think that there's no point if the clever bigot can just think up an excuse, but there are two parts of the minority experience that I see that are relevant.
First it makes a huge difference having legislation that delivers the message "discrimination is not OK and here are some legal teeth". The second is that many bigots seem lazy and can't be bothered to come up with clever explanations. Simply the threat that they might have to will be enough to deter many.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It does though. That is why black people can now shop in the same shops as you and as this has become more normal, acceptance grows. It isn't a perfect or complete solution, but it is part of what shapes behaviour.
Nope, that was almost entirely due to community pressure and boycott and almost nothing to do with the law.
It's not only imperfect, it is perverse. If one is determined not to serve homosexuals, one can give any other reason for refusing service (clothing, hair colour, not feeling like it) so this law it literally only affecting those who have a conscience position about SSM and are honest about it. Why any homosexual wants to buy a cake from someone who is not keen to sell them one because of squeamishness about SSM- given that there are thousands of other bakers who are ready to take their orders - I have not been able to fathom.
quote:
Racism isn't over because of equality legislation, but it is lessened because of them. Laws are the grownup version of the rules your parents gave you as a child, unless you believe children are not shaped by that either.
I don't know whether there really is evidence that equality legislation has much effect on discrimination for persecuted minorities, I doubt it given that in the main it has only been around for a while. I suspect that campaigning by gay rights groups together with societal acceptance of difference and the understanding that public services are for all, rather than the standard white male has had a much bigger impact.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It does though. That is why black people can now shop in the same shops as you and as this has become more normal, acceptance grows. It isn't a perfect or complete solution, but it is part of what shapes behaviour.
Nope, that was almost entirely due to community pressure and boycott and almost nothing to do with the law...
Yeah, no, not really. When black kids were escorted to school by federal troops, that wasn't because the soldiers were just well-dressed freedom riders individually protesting segregation. It was federal enforcement of a federal law.
If you follow voting rights in the USA, you will have noticed that there were many changes to voting practices in states known for racially discriminatory policies within days of the Supreme Court wiping out the pre-clearance section Voting Rights Act. Clearly behaviour was being shaped by the law, and as soon as it was gone, "community pressure" showed its true face.
Community pressure and boycotts are effective, but unsustainable, and there are plenty of places where racism, sexism and homophobia are perfectly normal. Look who the USA just selected as their next president. Many people are genuinely terrified that the President and his supporters will wipe out their hard-won legal protection from, um, "community pressure".
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But now Russ seems to want a system of law that does nothing more than forbid things he wouldn't want to do anyway. He thinks that earthly authorities should do nothing more than repeat some of God's own commandments.
I think insofar as Russ has a consistent position it is nothing theocratic but secular libertarianism. Possibly even Randwank.
Libertarianism is I think inconsistent, unworkable, and unethical. And of course wants no empirical input from real problems faced by real people since any empirical input would prick its theoretical bubble. But I don't think you can blame God's commandments for it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why any homosexual wants to buy a cake from someone who is not keen to sell them one because of squeamishness about SSM- given that there are thousands of other bakers who are ready to take their orders - I have not been able to fathom.
Where on earth do you live that you have easy access to "thousands" of bakery shops?
As for why "any homosexual" wants to buy a cake from a bigot, the answer is obviously that there are not thousands of alternative bakers within his easy reach. Perhaps the bigot is the best baker in town, or the closest to the customer's house, or the only one that doesn't close early on Monday, or there's some other reason that means that the customer only has a limited number of reasonable choices.
Because you're right. Given a large choice of equivalent shops, no reasonable person would choose to patronize the bigot. Everyone - of whatever sexuality - would choose to give their business to the decent shopkeeper next door.
But the whole reason that we have discrimination law is that we're not in that situation and have never been in that situation. The specific categories enumerated in discrimination law are precisely those on which discrimination has been widespread.
Most of the headline cases about gay couples being denied service have not been gay couples trying to find a bigot to catch out - they have been couples seeking wedding services in a normal way, just like anyone else.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's not only imperfect, it is perverse. If one is determined not to serve homosexuals, one can give any other reason for refusing service (clothing, hair colour, not feeling like it) so this law it literally only affecting those who have a conscience position about SSM and are honest about it.
If one person is refused, it could be difficult, but it is patterns that reveal the underlying cause. And the law that gives teeth to do something about it.
quote:
Why any homosexual wants to buy a cake from someone who is not keen to sell them one because of squeamishness about SSM- given that there are thousands of other bakers who are ready to take their orders - I have not been able to fathom.
There are thousands of bakeries willing to serve black people. This was not the case before legislation. Having to trade with people gives one exposure, exposure can lessen prejudice.
There is this idea, especially among Christians, that the good inside can prevail. This is a fair amount of bullshit. Much of our behaviour is not innate, but taught. In a wildlife park in Africa, the number of elephants was too great for the space available, so the decision was made to cull the herd. They chose the older males since they had less time left anyway. The result was that the juveniles went wild, attacking vehicles, killing rhinos, etc. Older elephants teach behaviour that was once thought part of their nature.
We are no different in that respect. The law, throughout human history, has been used to modify behaviour, not just enforce rules.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
