|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Neither conviction is demonstrably true; neither you nor they can prove rightness to the other's satisfaction. So you and they have to learn to live together peaceably in a plural society, whilst holding your different views.
Hence the discussion as to what constitutes imposing one's convictions on other people.
You've switched from asking what constitutes 'living together peaceably in a plural society' to asking what constitutes 'imposing one's convictions on other people'.
If one person goes into a shop and asks for a service that that shop provides it's hard to argue that they're not trying to live together peaceably. Whereas the shopkeeper by refusing to serve them is expressing a wish not to live together.
But if someone argues that the customer is imposing their convictions on the shopkeeper then that someone can muddy the waters.
--------------------
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
Or a shorter version:
A pluralist society is one where sometimes we decide as a society that we don't care whether a person's conviction is wrong.
But that is not remotely the same thing as not choosing between convictions if we think it matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think the above discussion makes clear that you're using "equal" here in a very particular sense.
A sense that doesn't mean the sort of equal-rights-under-the-law equality that I advocate.
<snip>
Homosexuality is up for discussion. Because people's views do vary in good faith.
Why are you (allegedly) "advocating" equal-rights-under-the-law for those in homosexual relationships? After all, people's views on the proper legal standing for homosexual relationships "do vary in good faith". Doesn't your (supposed) dedication to pluralism require you to advocate for legal discrimination since there are a lot of people arguing in good faith for the re-criminalization of homosexuality?
Though as orfeo points out the standard you seem to be advocating isn't so much 'pluralism' as it is 'anarchy'.
[ 13. January 2017, 16:21: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think the above discussion makes clear that you're using "equal" here in a very particular sense.
A sense that doesn't mean the sort of equal-rights-under-the-law equality that I advocate.
Your conviction is that homosexual relationships should be treated as on every way equal to heterosexual relationships.
No. I haven't even mentioned homosexual relationships, so I don't know where you get that from.
I'm talking about equality for people in society. That includes equal rights under the law, but goes a bit further. Essentially I want a society where a gay guy has no more right to have me approve of his relationship choices and behaviour than I have the right to have him approve mine, but also he no more has to worry about being treated shittily when he goes out to buy a cake than I do.
quote:
Which conviction is opposite to the conviction that some conservative religious people hold, that homosexual relationships are twisted and sinful.
They have every right to believe that. I'll defend that right with as much conviction as I'll maintain my own right to differ.
Also, I can sincerely promise that a homophobe who approaches me professionally will get the same level of service as anyone else, and I will reserve my loathing of their twisted and sinful prejudices to my spare time. Hell, I've even acted for a hotel owner who refused service to a gay couple and was threatened with legal action. I gave him the best advice and representation I could (and as a result he got out of it at the cost of a grudging apology, a pittance paid as a token of feigned sincerity, and no bad publicity at all, because, despite his bigotry, he had the sense to realise that I know my job).
quote:
Homosexuality is up for discussion. Because people's views do vary in good faith. Has your time on the Ship not taught you that ?
We're not talking about people who disagree in good faith, though. People whose ethical convictions make them doubt the morality of fornication, remarriage after divorce, same sex relationships, open marriages, and the like, and do so in good faith, don't generally feel the need to ostracise. We're talking about bigots who want to treat gay people worse than they treat other people with whom they have ethical disagreements. Don't dignify their hate as honest disagreement. You are fooling no one. They, unfortunately, seem to be fooling you.
quote:
Your argument seems to be that gay people aren't being treated "equally" if their homosexuality isn't treated equally. That the conservative view cannot be true because it would be unfair on gay people if it were...
No, I've said no such thing. What does it even mean? How do you treat someone's "homosexuality" equally or not? No one, as far as I'm aware, has ever treated my "heterosexuality" equally or unequally with anything. All I know is, when I buy a cake, no one notices or cares that I'm straight.
quote:
If "inclusive" is just code for your convictions getting to ride roughshod over everybody else's then you can keep it.
My "inclusive" is code for no one having to worry, when walking into a shop, that they won't be told, expressly or by implication, that "people like you" aren't welcome here.
Or, since I try to be a realist, they at least have to worry about it no more than a straight, white, male like me does. I can't force everyone to be nice all the time. I can't guarantee that someone will never be treated badly. But I can support the prohibition of systematic exclusion.
Your "plural" seems to mean that anyone can refuse service to deal with groups of people that they've chosen to hate, and if that means that a gay person can't buy a cake, or a book, or rent a room for the night, or get a job, in this town, then that's just too bad for him.
I prefer my vision of society to yours. Yours has nothing to recommend it, as far as I can see, to anyone who doesn't hate. You've yet to say - though you have been asked - how removing the "protected" status from characteristics that define the groups most likely to be badly treated will improve anyone's life.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Homosexuality is up for discussion. Because people's views do vary in good faith. ...
Sure, let's run with that:
Religion is up for discussion.
Disability is up for discussion.
Race is up for discussion.
Sex is up for discussion.
So what exactly do you think is up for discussion? The right to post a "No faggots, kikes, crips, niggers or hos" sign in good faith [sic]? Or the right to exist?
--------------------
"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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Homosexuality is up for discussion. Because people's views do vary in good faith. Has your time on the Ship not taught you that ?
Not all views are equal. Yours is not for several reasons, an important one being harm. You are arguing that the least harmed should have the most consideration. Again I invite you to your very own Hell thread to discuss why.
--------------------
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:
posted by Leorning Cniht on 8th Jan:
I am completely happy for conservative bookstores to refuse to order biographies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
quote:
posted by Leorning Cniht on 11th Jan:
I do think that booksellers who refuse to order an Obama book, or a Trump book, or whatever, are doing something wrong. To be clear, I think booksellers should order whatever book the customer wants.
You've confused me. You're perfectly happy for people to do something that you think is wrong ?
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Again I invite you to your very own Hell thread to discuss why.
Been there. Done that. Don't see any point in doing it again.
So thank you for your polite invitation, but I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request...
--------------------
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:
I haven't even mentioned homosexual relationships, so I don't know where you get that from...
...We're not talking about people who disagree in good faith, though... ...We're talking about bigots who want to treat gay people worse than they treat other people with whom they have ethical disagreements. Don't dignify their hate as honest disagreement.
The starting point for this is the judgment in the Asher's bakery case.
Which isn't about the sexual orientation of the customer. But is about the legitimacy of the baker's conviction about homosexual relationships (i.e. his belief about whether they should have the same legal status as marriage) and how far he can act on that conviction.
I thought what we were talking about was whether that judgment is just, and the views - of what justice is and what the law should be - that underpin our differing conclusions on that question.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that their refusal to print a slogan supporting gay marriage was based on bigoted hatred for gay people rather than honest disagreement.
You're talking about bigots. Are you asserting that this is a case of bigotry ? On what grounds ? And if not, what exactly is the relevance ?
Apologies if you've said this clearly and I've missed it; I'm reading your posts alongside those of people who seem to think that "bigot" automatically applies to anyone who disagrees with their views on inclusivity.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm talking about equality for people in society.
If you were I might agree with you. You said previously
quote:
posted by Eliab earlier:
There are three possible broad approaches to injustic caused by possible prejudice (the theoretical varieties of which are infinite).
1. We make it a rule that all commerical decisions must be demonstrably and scrupulously fair.
This is unworkable.
2. We allow anyone to be unfair in their business decisions without any rules against this.
Vulnerable groups of people get shafted.
3. We prohibit those forms of systematic injustice that are most socially damaging.
If you'd said "vulnerable people get shafted" and "3. We prohibit those specific acts that are most individually damaging" then we'd be on the same wavelength.
I'm suggesting that unfair dismissal, unfair hiring practices, and refusal to serve people in a shop are wrongs that the law might reasonably prohibit regardless of which of the victim's characteristics is being objected to.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My "inclusive" is code for no one having to worry, when walking into a shop, that they won't be told, expressly or by implication, that "people like you" aren't welcome here.
If that's what you mean, I'm for it. Because you said "no one" rather than "no one who's on my pet list of disadvantaged groups"
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You've yet to say - though you have been asked - how removing the "protected" status from characteristics that define the groups most likely to be badly treated will improve anyone's life.
I'm not arguing from consequences. I'm arguing that certain principles are right, that the law should be just, and that therefore that's the way things should be done regardless of the consequences. On the same sort of basis that it's better to let 9 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent. You may not like those consequences...
--------------------
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:
... I have seen no evidence to suggest that their refusal to print a slogan supporting gay marriage was based on bigoted hatred for gay people rather than honest disagreement. ...
You're right, we can't tell. Just as we will never really know whether or not Woolworth's was bigoted or if they simply "wish everyone well" with their "honest disagreement" "in good faith" over where black people should eat lunch.
--------------------
"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 Russ:
The starting point for this is the judgment in the Asher's bakery case.
The judgement in the Asher's bakery case I believe was due to the fact that the bakery had taken money for the order and only later informed the clients that they weren't fulfilling the order. Which goes further than merely refusing to endorse a message and gets to messing people around.
For what it's worth, I think that had the bakery refused the order upfront they would have had a case. There's an oddity if the law considers it discrimination to (refuse to not) endorse the current state of the law. And as you would no doubt point out consistency requires that to be treated the same way as someone who refuses an order from a white supremacist group.
That is to be distinguished from the case where a baker refuses to ice names for a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In that case, the baker is refusing to provide a service solely on the grounds of sexuality and the customer ought to be protected.
[ 15. January 2017, 17:41: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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 Russ:
quote:
posted by Leorning Cniht on 8th Jan:
I am completely happy for conservative bookstores to refuse to order biographies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
quote:
posted by Leorning Cniht on 11th Jan:
I do think that booksellers who refuse to order an Obama book, or a Trump book, or whatever, are doing something wrong. To be clear, I think booksellers should order whatever book the customer wants.
You've confused me. You're perfectly happy for people to do something that you think is wrong ?
Yes. Perhaps I could have phrased my first statement a bit better. I am perfectly happy that booksellers should be able to refuse to order books by politicians they disagree with. I think it is wrong for them to do so, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to do so.
Also, I don't think people should commit adultery, but I think adultery should be legal.
Does that make my meaning clear?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:...
Vulnerable groups of people get shafted.
3. We prohibit those forms of systematic injustice that are most socially damaging.
If you'd said "vulnerable people get shafted" and "3. We prohibit those specific acts that are most individually damaging" then we'd be on the same wavelength.
...
I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's ridiculous statement that "... there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." I'm not sure why you would think it is important to protect "people" but not "groups of people." People don't stop being people just because they have something in common with other people. Why would you allow socially damaging acts? Don't socially damaging acts also damage the individuals that live in that society?
And you never did answer my question:
quote:
I should have phrased my question more carefully. Mr. Keeper is grossed out by the sight of people in wheelchairs. Mr. Keeper runs a bookstore that stocks dictionaries. Can he refuse to sell a dictionary to a wheelchair user?
And you never responded to what real booksellers think of your argument.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I have seen no evidence to suggest that their refusal to print a slogan supporting gay marriage was based on bigoted hatred for gay people rather than honest disagreement. ...
You're right, we can't tell. Just as we will never really know whether or not Woolworth's was bigoted or if they simply "wish everyone well" with their "honest disagreement" "in good faith" over where black people should eat lunch.
This assumes that being 'gay' is comparable to being 'black'. It isn't. And if the law is based on the idea that it is, then it's a bad law....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The hell it isn't. But we've been over this and your reasoning fails basic logic
--------------------
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
Well, rather than me assuming I remember properly, why don't you outline how being gay isn't like being black?
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I have seen no evidence to suggest that their refusal to print a slogan supporting gay marriage was based on bigoted hatred for gay people rather than honest disagreement.
This seems to be an attempt to create a distinction where one doesn't exist. Most bigots are fairly honest and straightforward about their prejudices. Someone can honestly disagree that black/Muslim/gay/whatever people should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else and still have bigoted hatred for those groups. In fact, the Venn diagram of that is likely to be pretty close to a single circle.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[This assumes that being 'gay' is comparable to being 'black'. It isn't. And if the law is based on the idea that it is, then it's a bad law....
The law is based on the idea it is. And if you have an interpretation of some antique books that says its a bad law, your interpretation or your magic books are bad. And so much for your repeated claims that your religion isn't trying to impose things on the state.
[ 16. January 2017, 03:24: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I have seen no evidence to suggest that their refusal to print a slogan supporting gay marriage was based on bigoted hatred for gay people rather than honest disagreement.
So do motives matter or not?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The law is based on the view that being gay is a characteristic of people in the same way that having dark skin is a characteristic of people.
And yes, that clashes with all the conservative Christians that believe that being gay is some kind of choice, OR that try to create weird distinctions between having homosexual attractions and actually having sex, i.e. distinctions that homosexuals themselves don't recognise.
What the law actually refers to is "sexuality", and it's clearly intended to refer to sexual attraction, rather than actually having sex on the floor of the bakery or bookshop.
So if you personally don't think being gay is like being black, you just have to face the fact that your view isn't the one the law is based on. As I've pointed out before, this is how laws work. They involve policy choices.
--------------------
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
Can I also say, there appears to be a degree of confusion about the basis of the Ashers Bakery case. It would help if people would read it. Part of the point is that disapproval of same sex marriage is so intimately connected to the only people affected by same sex marriage policy, homosexuals, that you can't legitimately maintain the kind of distinction that says you aren't discriminating against homosexuals, just their marriages.
Otherwise you get the same nonsense that says gay men aren't being discriminated against because they are just as free to marry a woman as straight men are.
--------------------
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 put it another way, the bakery tried to run the argument that they wouldn't have written the message for a straight customer either, and the judge rejected that argument. Same sex marriage is a characteristic of homosexual people. You can't discriminate on something that is characteristic of sexuality.
Which is the same reason why sex discrimination law covers pregnancy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[This assumes that being 'gay' is comparable to being 'black'. It isn't. And if the law is based on the idea that it is, then it's a bad law....
The law is based on the idea it is. And if you have an interpretation of some antique books that says its a bad law, your interpretation or your magic books are bad. And so much for your repeated claims that your religion isn't trying to impose things on the state.
That - and another Shipmate's challenge to show what the difference is between being 'gay' and being black or similar - is going to need a long response. But no, it's not an issue of my religion trying to impose things on the state - more that gay people are trying to impose something that goes beyond even their own evidence - and beyond the logic of the secular arguments.
I did in fact start a thread - "Being and Doing" - to discuss this issue. 400+ posts later nobody had refuted my OP and many of the responses which seemed to think themselves cleverest were, on logical examination, if anything supporting my case. On that and other threads I have ended up wondering whether the 'harm' done by so-called 'gayness' is that it interferes really badly with the logical faculties....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I did in fact start a thread - "Being and Doing" - to discuss this issue.
I remember it well. And that's exactly why I've already refuted that very line of thinking.
It's been demonstrated more than once that conservative Christians think of "gay" in terms of doing. And that actual homosexuals simply don't.
Sexuality is not about having sex, in exactly the same way that a "Sex" question on a form is not asking about having sex. When people write "yes please" in response, it's a joke.
I say this because we use the word "sex" in several different ways. And conservative Christians seem to have their mind drawn to sexual acts in a way that I, as a homosexual person, really don't understand.
I've said on this forum many times, and I'll say it again, that my awareness of being homosexual predates my first sexual experience with anyone by well over a decade.
Just because your conclusion is that nobody refuted your argument, doesn't mean that anyone else agreed with your conclusion.
[ 16. January 2017, 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course, the whole point of Dead Horses is that it's a home for things where people are peculiarly resistant to persuasion. 400 posts is a drop in the ocean.
--------------------
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 not even a matter for argument. It's simply a matter of definition. Of initial premises.
If you define "gay" in terms of doing then in one sense that's fine. You can make a heck of a lot of things flow from that.
But you will be completely at odds with the definition that homosexual people themselves use, as well as the definition that the law uses. And that won't be because you're right and they're wrong, it's simply because you've taken a word and decided that you want to use a different definition of it for... reasons.
It's really no different to arguments people have over whether or not "lying" requires conscious knowledge that what you are saying is false. Or one I've recently experienced on a Classical music forum about whether it makes sense to describe certain music as "atonal". It's about perceptions of language more than it is about objective truth.
You can assert that you think "gay" has something to do with "doing" if you wish, but it's not actually an argument about logic at all. There's no logical basis for preferring one meaning of a word over another. It's simply an attempt to get other people to use a word the way you want them to use it, and there is a wealth of evidence that such attempts are doomed to failure because that's not how languages develop.
[ 16. January 2017, 11:17: 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 orfeo:
It's been demonstrated more than once that conservative Christians think of "gay" in terms of doing. And that actual homosexuals simply don't.
ISTM, it is a reaction instead of a formulation. For a long time "God says fags are icky" was sufficient. As science and rational thought came more to show that homosexuality is normal and natural, conservative christians adapted their stance to the being v. doing. Saying they think differently is ascribing to much rationality to their POV.
[ 16. January 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A sense that doesn't mean the sort of equal-rights-under-the-law equality that I advocate.
You're advocating feeding steak to the rabbit.
quote:
Your conviction [..] that homosexual relationships should be treated as on every way equal to heterosexual relationships [..] is opposite to the conviction that some conservative religious people hold, that homosexual relationships are twisted and sinful.
These aren't quite opposites. The opposite of your latter statement would be a conviction that homosexual relationships are in every way equal to hetero ones. Your "should be treated" is a weaker statement.
quote:
Hence the discussion as to what constitutes imposing one's convictions on other people. Ground rules for a plural society are rules that don't start from the position that one person's conviction is right and another's wrong.
The ground rule that human sacrificers don't get to murder people does start from the position that one person's conviction is right and the other's is wrong. Or at least, from an assessment that the harm done to the murdered person is more important than the "harm" done to the human sacrifice cult by preventing them from sacrificing someone.
quote:
Your argument seems to be that gay people aren't being treated "equally" if their homosexuality isn't treated equally.
Yes. This is true.
quote:
That the conservative view cannot be true because it would be unfair on gay people if it were...
Your conservative person who is convinced that homosexuality is wrong is free not to engage in a homosexual relationship. Someone who is convinced that adultery is wrong is free not to have an adulterous relationship.
Each is free to stand and proclaim the harm done by adulterers / homosexuals / whoever.
But if you refuse to rent a room in your hotel to Mr. Smith because you suspect he intends to commit adultery with Mrs. Jones in it, are you just doing what a decent person should do, or are you sticking your nose in?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I did in fact start a thread - "Being and Doing" - to discuss this issue.
I remember it well. And that's exactly why I've already refuted that very line of thinking.
Even if we accept the argument, it fails on its own terms. Religion is also "doing" (people seem to change religions much more easily than they change sexual orientations), but those who cling most tightly to this being/doing dichotomy would be the ones howling the loudest if anyone suggested that religious discrimination was okay.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The judgement in the Asher's bakery case I believe was due to the fact that the bakery had taken money for the order and only later informed the clients that they weren't fulfilling the order. Which goes further than merely refusing to endorse a message and gets to messing people around.
Agreed. If they've contracted to do something and then refuse, I don't see any huge injustice in suing them for breach of contract, seeking compensation for the hassle that their broken promise has caused.
That's different from punishing them for limiting their service according to their convictions, which is what the quote from the judgment implied.
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
I am perfectly happy that booksellers should be able to refuse to order books by politicians they disagree with. I think it is wrong for them to do so, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to do so.
From this I take it that you think it wrong but not punishmentworthy.
I can see sense in the distinction. That it's better that small wrongs go unpunished then that Big Brother is watching your behaviour every minute of the day and night on the lookout for the smallest lack of generosity, the smallest lapse from moral perfection. I don't much like the sort of religion that portrays God as Big Brother.
Do you think it equally a small wrong for a bookseller who doesn"t offer an ordering service to choose not to stock a book by a politician he disagrees with because of that disagreement ? Because you seemed to be saying that stocking was morally totally different from ordering, even when the motive and outcome are the same. If you see a moral difference where I don't, is it one you can explain ?
And I suppose the bigger question is whether you have a philosophy of punishmentworthiness that is noncorrupt, that is independent of the level of sympathy you feel for the people involved ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, rather than me assuming I remember properly, why don't you outline how being gay isn't like being black?
The difference is that it is much easier to spot a black person in your shop and throw them out the door than a gay person. You know how difficult it is to catch all the gays who want to do business with you? Takes training and practice: you have to learn how to identify gay shirt colors (like puce or mauve), gay grooming styles (real men don't clean under their fingernails), gay footwear, voice inflections, and be able to tell a gay gait from a straight guy who has had a few too many pints of cider at the pub. Then maybe talk to him about his work so you can throw out those in gay careers like interior decorating, hair styling, or cooking (but only those from upscale restaurants). It used to be that you could just look for a wedding ring, because if a bloke was married he couldn't be gay, of course. And sometimes you have to chuck out a few more on suspicion because they don't seem blokey enough, just to make sure.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The starting point for this is the judgment in the Asher's bakery case.
That's the starting point, but where I'm disagreeing with you is not about your suggestion that all protected characteristics should be abolished.
As your last post effectively concedes the point that abolishing those categories would not have any beneficial effect whatsoever, I'm going to call this a win for me.
If you'd only argued the strongest point against the decision (that a "Support Gay Marriage" slogan is so obviously one that would appeal to any decent person regardless of sexuality that refusing to print it discriminates not against homosexuals, but against the reasonable and the moral, neither of which is a protected characteristic) then I'd have admitted defeat straightaway.
quote:
Are you asserting that this is a case of bigotry ?
"Support Gay Marriage" belongs in that broad category of slogan that includes rhings like "Make Poverty History", "Vote Labour", "City for the Cup!" and the like - things that maybe not everyone would say, but no civilised person objects to being said. The principle of free speech would ordinarily prevent anyone from being forced to express agreement with those slogans, but they are not such inherently offensive comments that on hearing them you cross yourself and glance nervously at the heavens. If your job includes producing words, in whatever medium, in a way that does not imply that you personally agree with the sentiment they convey, then all those slogans are ones that it would normally be part of your job to produce, if asked, and no one would think that an imposition.
I know that you don't disagree, because that's exactly the position that you think employees of bakers and printers are, and should be, in.
If, of all that vast range of slogans, the only ones a person has a problem with are those asking for gay people to have equal treatment in law - not even equal esteem or moral worth, just equal legal rights - then I think it's entirely fair to conclude that that person is a bigot. Indeed, it's refreshing that this is a case where even the most tired of all defences to the charge of homophobia ("Homophobia? No - not at all, I'm not in the least fearful of homosexuality") fails. Because if a person thinks that having someone in their employ ice the word "Gay" in a positive context onto a bit of sponge that they personally will never need to see, touch, or taste will somehow subject them to some dire moral pollution, then they do indeed have an irrational aversion to homosexuality that makes the word "phobia" apt.
So, yes. Bigots and homophobes. Obviously so.
quote:
If you'd said "vulnerable people get shafted" and "3. We prohibit those specific acts that are most individually damaging" then we'd be on the same wavelength.
Let me explain why this doesn't work.
I was once turned away from a restaurant. Clearly the establishment had space for me, and it was a weekday early evening in a quiet town, and I don't expect that they were awaiting the arrival of a vast number of booked customers. I suspect I was refused service because I was with two quite small children and the proprietor didn't want his clientele disturbed by badly behaved kids, though there was no advertised "No Children" policy.
I was a bit pissed off, mainly because my children are delightful, but also because being refused service is embarrassing and awkward.
I'd recovered from the disappointment by the time I'd reached the end of the street. I'd forgotten the incident until I asked myself on reading this thread what being refused service might feel like, and remembered suddenly that it had once happened to me. So, not traumatic, not damaging, and not the sort of thing that I think should be actionable in law.
Now imagine that you're black. Imagine that you live in a society with no laws against discrimination, and where any racist - or anyone who wants the business of racists, and fears that your presence could deter more custom than you bring with you - can refuse you service. Imagine that there's a real chance that this will happen, that you have to think about it happening, whenever you go to a business that you don't positively know to be safe. Imagine that once a year - or month, or week, or day - you get told that you aren't welcome in this establishment, and you suspect that it's because of your skin, and there's damn all that the law will do about it. Because being refused service in a restaurant isn't "individually damaging". Just ask Eliab. It happened to him once, and he wasn't damaged by it. It's just a restaurant making a business decision. It's not personal. It might annoy you for a quarter of an hour or so, but really, it's too trivial for the law to bother about.
Do you get it yet? The law can't - and shouldn't try to - protect us all from every shitty, rude or unfair experience. But where an identifiable group of people is treated shittily every single day, that's not remotely the same thing as some restaurant owner being a bit mean to me once in my life. Discrimination law addresses that. That's why we need it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
People don't stop being people just because they have something in common with other people.
That's true. But more important is the converse - they don't start being people just because they have in common with other people a characteristic that you find politically significant.
quote:
Don't socially damaging acts also damage the individuals that live in that society?
Not necessarily, no. For example, suppose an employer decides to try to buy out his workers' customary right to belong to a trade union. With a very generous offer. That could conceivably be fatal for the union but good for all the people involved. What's good for people and what's good for the group that they belong to as a group can be two different things.
quote:
Mr. Keeper is grossed out by the sight of people in wheelchairs. Mr. Keeper runs a bookstore that stocks dictionaries. Can he refuse to sell a dictionary to a wheelchair user?
I'm suggesting that he should no more be allowed to refuse to sell to a well-behaved wheelchair user than to a well-behaved person with any other characteristic. And no less.
quote:
And you never responded to what real booksellers think of your argument.
You're right. I didn"t.
--------------------
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:
That could conceivably be fatal for the union but good for all the people involved.
Well, so long as throwing money at people is the only measure of good and the complete loss of any protections for their other rights doesn't matter, sure.
--------------------
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:
... quote:
Mr. Keeper is grossed out by the sight of people in wheelchairs. Mr. Keeper runs a bookstore that stocks dictionaries. Can he refuse to sell a dictionary to a wheelchair user?
I'm suggesting that he should no more be allowed to refuse to sell to a well-behaved wheelchair user than to a well-behaved person with any other characteristic. And no less....
So how would you write that into law?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
In NSW, the Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability, and amongst other areas that includes discrimination in the provision of goods and services. I have no doubt that the sale of a dictionary is the provision of goods. Even if the use of the wheelchair is temporary - eg while recovering from a broken leg - that person is disabled within the definitions of the Act.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm suggesting that he should no more be allowed to refuse to sell to a well-behaved wheelchair user than to a well-behaved person with any other characteristic. And no less.
Having no money is a characteristic. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell goods to a person with no money?
Also, I share Gee D's view that a wheelchair user is firmly covered by disability discrimination laws.
[ 17. January 2017, 05:13: 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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The caveat of well behaved wheelchair user rules out quite a few people who would be covered under disability discrimination. Of the wheelchair users I see around I can think of several who loll and drool and others that shout out inappropriately. It also doesn't cover the young person with ASC and no social skills or Tourette's, both of whom are at risk of not being served.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This is going to head towards Russ's endless questions about what a bookseller may or may not sell, forgetting that the law (and the discussion) is directed towards the person buying. Having said that, what if a person's disability means that they like tearing up books
The answer, of course, is to look to the legislation and see what it says. I can't speak of other jurisdictions, but in NSW discrimination otherwise unlawful is permitted if there would be unjustifiable hardship to the bookseller. There may very well be such hardship. That may not be so in the case of a person lolling around in their wheelchair because they lack the strength to do otherwise, and so forth.
[ 17. January 2017, 07:59: 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 Gee D:
The answer, of course, is to look to the legislation and see what it says.
Depends on what the question is.
It could be useful to know what the law is in one's own country or in a territory one happens to be visiting. And if you or Eliab or orfeo or anyone else who knows what they're talking about says what the statutes or the case law precedents are in their country, I believe it.
The question I'm asking is whether or how far such laws are right or moral or just.
Coming from the position that that is a meaningful and relevant question. Laws should be just.
A statement of what the law is isn't a good enough answer.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That it's better that small wrongs go unpunished then that Big Brother is watching your behaviour every minute of the day and night on the lookout for the smallest lack of generosity, the smallest lapse from moral perfection.
So I think that's true, but that's not the distinction I'm drawing. The distinction I'm drawing is quite stark: the law shouldn't be the morality police.
The law doesn't care about racism because it is immoral (although it is) - the law cares about racism because of the widespread harm it causes.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The question I'm asking is whether or how far such laws are right or moral or just.
Coming from the position that that is a meaningful and relevant question. Laws should be just...
Sure. It seems most of your Shipmates are in favour of anti-discrimination laws, even though we probably have different ideas of justice or morality. Those are not the only criteria by which one can judge a law. Just for starters, is it necessary? Is it effective? Is it enforceable? Does it create an undue burden? Does it conflict with other laws? Are there other means to achieve the same result?
I've been involved in two bylaw reviews for my strata, and this I know: many of our building-specific bylaws are there because someone did something stupid or someone complained about something. We even nick-named some of them - the Judy bylaw says you can't sell building keys, the Frankie bylaw says you can't walk your pets through the hallways (carry or carrier). There's a bylaw that says only white or off-white window coverings are allowed. Bird feeders are not allowed. And so forth.
Is it moral for an owner to make extra cash by selling their spare keys? Is it right to let your cat roam the hallways? Is it just to infringe on my right to hang a flag in my window or feed the birds? As orfeo has pointed out, using language like "moral" or "right" is emotive, ambiguous, and subjective. We didn't address morality or justice; we just don't want cat pee in the hallways, we don't want strangers to have access to the building, we want the building to look nice from the street, and we don't want to attract rodents.
Look at drug laws. They vary widely from country to country. They all infringe on an individual's right to self-determination. In some countries, police organizations are actively lobbying against the "war on drugs"; in others, the death penalty is imposed. Drug laws do absolutely nothing to protect or help the people who use drugs; they do give tremendous power and wealth to criminals. In some countries, they are enforced inconsistently, and poor and marginalized people are disproportionately prosecuted. I'm sure some people think we need drug laws for "morality", but the result has been injustice, as well as more crime and more violence. On the other hand, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are the most widely used drugs in the world, the first two cause more death and misery than all other drugs put together, and they're legal pretty much everywhere. Is that immoral? Is it just? Is it right? Or is it just culture?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
The Federal court judgement that upheld same-sex marriages in the US was decided on the basis of harm. Basically, to permit discrimination (in who can get married) it had to be shown that that discrimination was necessary to avoid causing harm to someone. Those against same-sex marriage failed to identify any harm that would be caused by allowing same-sex marriage, while the proponents presented many examples where that discrimination caused measurable harm: the break-up of families, higher tax burdens, loss of hospital visitation rights, etc. Children were found to be particularly harmed by the discrimination.
To me, such a ruling based on avoiding harm would qualify as right, moral and just. Is there one of those that you don't think applies to it for some reason?
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
You will never get everyone agreeing on what morality is, let alone whether a particular action is moral, immoral, or amoral; right or wrong. The best we can do is see what the majority of legislators can come up with. The majority of legislators in the many jurisdictions represented in posters here have reached a pretty uniform answer.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Laws should be just.
According to whom?
Seriously, how are you supposed to resolve a dispute as to what is just?
When you've got a conservative Christian who thinks that homosexuals ought to be sanctioned because they believe that there's a moral choice involved, opposed against a homosexual who thinks that they shouldn't be punished for the way they were born, how is a law that applies to everyone supposed to resolve that conflict in such a way that everyone's notion of justice is satisfied?
The notion that everyone agrees on what is just can be exploded by spending 10 minutes reading threads in Purgatory. At which point your proposition starts falling apart.
And, as I'm sure I've previously pointed out, if you start saying that everyone should do what is just according to them, you just don't have laws at all. You have anarchy.
[ 18. January 2017, 09:07: 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 Eliab:
As your last post effectively concedes the point that abolishing those categories would not have any beneficial effect whatsoever, I'm going to call this a win for me.
If you're the sort of classical utilitarian who thinks that the greatest good of the greatest number is the last word, then that seems fair enough.
quote:
"Support Gay Marriage" belongs in that broad category of slogan that includes rhings like "Make Poverty History", "Vote Labour", "City for the Cup!" and the like - things that maybe not everyone would say, but no civilised person objects to being said. The principle of free speech would ordinarily prevent anyone from being forced to express agreement with those slogans...
Indeed. Compelling a United supporter to shout "City for the Cup" seems a cruel and unneccessary exercise of arbitrary power.
quote:
If your job includes producing words, in whatever medium, in a way that does not imply that you personally agree with the sentiment they convey, then all those slogans are ones that it would normally be part of your job to produce, if asked, and no one would think that an imposition.
Yes. Because "your job" implies a contractual obligation.
What I dispute is that everyone who sells books has somehow incurred a contractual obligation to you to act as you think a bookseller should.
It's part of the "private" in "private enterprise". People sell whatever goods and services they want to sell. Get over it.
quote:
If, of all that vast range of slogans, the only ones a person has a problem with are those asking for gay people to have equal treatment in law... [quote][qb]
Who said anything about only ones ? If the baker is a conservative Christian then there are likely to be a whole range of slogans - "Burn a Bible today!" "Jesus stinks!" which they would object to. That pretty much no-one in a Christian country would dream of asking for. It's because of the lack of social consensus on homosexuality that this case arises. Not because a few individuals have such extreme views that you can dismiss them as being beyond the pale.
[Quote][qb] ...then I think it's entirely fair to conclude that that person is a bigot.
This shows such a stunning lack of insight into the thinking of the 45% or so who voted against gay marriage in the referendum in the Republic last May that I can only imagine you're doing it for rhetorical effect.
quote:
I suspect I was refused service because I was with two quite small children and the proprietor didn't want his clientele disturbed... ...being refused service in a restaurant isn't "individually damaging". Just ask Eliab. It happened to him once, and he wasn't damaged by it. It's just a restaurant making a business decision. It's not personal. It might annoy you for a quarter of an hour or so, but really, it's too trivial for the law to bother about.
You jump straight from the feeling of being temporarily pissed off by this event to the practical judgment that it's too trivial to warrant legal redress. Without apparently pausing to consider whether you have been genuinely wronged (and what exactly the wrong consists of) or whether the restaurant owner was within his moral rights in adopting a policy of discretionary refusal of children of certain ages at certain times of day.
--------------------
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
It seems odd to both use "get over it" in a post, and then criticise Eliab for getting over 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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... This shows such a stunning lack of insight into the thinking of the 45% or so who voted against gay marriage in the referendum in the Republic last May ...
Yeah, well, it's not like the 45% have demonstrated any insight into the harm their attitudes cause. Or if they do, they just don't care. Read Obergefell, for fuck's sakes.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
