homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » And there's another gay bakery case (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  29  30  31 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I find "must be more than an opinion" amusing, as it suggests to me that one is not protected for things that one thinks because of data, but is protected for things that one thinks in spite of data [Snigger]

Well it appears from the slender case law to be the reverse - one has to prove that this thing isn't just some passing opinion you've taken on for the afternoon but something that you honestly and completely believe in. Bizarrely the one case many report was of someone who was discriminated against because of a belief in climate change.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is this an Argument from Authority that I see before me ? In a thread where mousethief keeps referencing Jim Crow for some reason, you're suggesting that it's the law so it must be morally right ?

Come on, you can do better than that.

Excuse me, I thought we were discussing a legal case and human rights law.

quote:

... If I refuse to print for you a t-shirt that says "XXXX" that is not about you It is about me and my belief system and the relationship of the slogan "XXXX" to that belief system. ...

When me and my girlfriend walk into your shop to buy matching "best girlfriend ever!!!" shirts with each other's picture on them, what are you going to say? "Oh, it's not about you, it's about my beliefs about proper sexual behaviour." How is that any different from, "Oh, it's not personal, I just don't like dykes"? How is that not FUCKING PERSONAL?

quote:
quote:

the Catholic church has rights that Tesco doesn't have!!!! Do you think that's wrong?

Yes, I do. But, without knowing exactly what rights you have in mind, it's possible that I would give Tesco more rights rather than the Catholic church fewer rights...
And right before that quote you snipped, I specifically said that religious organizations are allowed to serve only their own members, and can restrict their services according to their beliefs. So St. Mary-up-the-Creek can refuse to marry a Jewish couple, but Tesco still has to sell them a cake. Do you think that is right or do you want to give Tesco the right to refuse service to Jews as well?

--------------------
"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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And right before that quote you snipped, I specifically said that religious organizations are allowed to serve only their own members, and can restrict their services according to their beliefs. So St. Mary-up-the-Creek can refuse to marry a Jewish couple, but Tesco still has to sell them a cake. Do you think that is right or do you want to give Tesco the right to refuse service to Jews as well?

Under most Western legal systems a church is more akin to a private club than a public accommodation. In other words, it can restrict whatever services it provides to members only and determine membership criteria. This doesn't mean, however, that every church-owned enterprise falls under this rubric (e.g. a Catholic hospital still has to provide service to non-Catholics).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well it appears from the slender case law to be the reverse - one has to prove that this thing isn't just some passing opinion you've taken on for the afternoon but something that you honestly and completely believe in.

But that's just it. Data-driven opinions (such as my opinion of climate change) are subject to revision when new data arrive. I don't have a religious faith in climate change - I just think that there's a lot of data to support it. How long I keep that particular opinion depends entirely on how long the data remain constant.

Whereas I could, I suppose, have a quasi-religious belief that it was all a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, or in young Earth Creationism or something. I wouldn't have any real data to support that - in fact, I'd have to believe that with the fire of a true zealot to prevent the existence of conflicting data from causing doubts.

[ 29. November 2016, 15:03: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I thought we were discussing a legal case and human rights law.

And what are your standards or criteria for what is a good law and what is a bad law ?

quote:

When me and my girlfriend walk into your shop to buy matching "best girlfriend ever!!!" shirts with each other's picture on them, what are you going to say?



I'd happily take your money.

But in seeking to be just both to your good self (and girlfriend) and this hypothetical printer with a religious conviction against lesbianism, I'd have to say that:

- if he'll sell a "best girlfriend" shirt to a girl & boy who come into the shop together arm in arm then he shouldn't refuse to sell the same thing to you

- if he'll sell others a shirt with their portrait, he should offer you the same service

- if he'll sell others a shirt with picture plus text, it can hardly be against his conscience to combine the two in your case

- but if his religious beliefs are offended by the word "girlfriend" and he thinks it's a dirty word and refuses to print it for anyone, then you have no moral right to compel him to act against his beliefs.

quote:
[QUOTE]
St. Mary-up-the-Creek can refuse to marry a Jewish couple, but Tesco still has to sell them a cake. Do you think that is right or do you want to give Tesco the right to refuse service to Jews as well? [/QB]

The Catholic church does not sell wedding services. In Catholic thought, the couple marry each other.

Many Catholic churches do sell what I uncharitably think of as Catholic junk - rosary beads, CTS pamphlets, bookmarks with images of saints etc - and in their sales activity they have ISTM the same moral duty - not to discriminate against any Jewish tourists who may have wandered in and want to purchase a souvenir - that Tesco does.

They do not of course have a moral duty to stock Jewish religious stuff.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
then you have no moral right to compel him to act against his beliefs.

He'd have no moral right to refuse as printing isn't a morality based service.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
What would really happen, of course, is that when the two girls come in he will claim he is morally opposed to the word "girlfriend," but after they storm out, the boy and girl who come in will find that word is part of his company's repertory after all.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would really happen, of course, is that when the two girls come in he will claim he is morally opposed to the word "girlfriend," but after they storm out, the boy and girl who come in will find that word is part of his company's repertory after all.

Well, of course. All these hypotheticals are bullshit to allow discrimination.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But in seeking to be just both to your good self (and girlfriend) and this hypothetical printer with a religious conviction against lesbianism, I'd have to say that:

- if he'll sell a "best girlfriend" shirt to a girl & boy who come into the shop together arm in arm then he shouldn't refuse to sell the same thing to you

So earlier in this thread you said
quote:

If I made the laws, I'd have it that icing words onto a cake is a type of speech act, and give cake-icers the same right as printers and newspaper lettercolumns to not publish stuff they don't want to publish.

You want to give t-shirt printers, cake icers and so on freedom to refuse to print a shirt or cake promoting homosexuality. A section 28 for bakers, perhaps?

But now you tell us that the printer is not allowed to think that selling Soror Magna and her girlfriend matching cheezy "best gf ever" shirts is promoting homosexuality.

I don't understand how you think this. You seem to be arguing that a t-shirt saying "I support same-sex marriage" is a political statement that a printer can refuse, whereas a shirt saying "I love my husband" worn by a man is not.

Have I understood your position correctly? If so, can you defend its coherence?

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
.... But in seeking to be just both to your good self (and girlfriend) and this hypothetical printer with a religious conviction against lesbianism, I'd have to say that:...
... if his religious beliefs are offended by the word "girlfriend" and he thinks it's a dirty word and refuses to print it for anyone, then you have no moral right to compel him to act against his beliefs. ...

And why does the printer think "girlfriend" is a dirty word? Just because it has two syllables and lots of consonants? "Oh, it's not about your relationship, it's about the word you use to describe your relationship."

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the printer with a religious conviction against lesbianism will find any word describing a lesbian relationship to be obscene?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... The Catholic church does not sell wedding services. In Catholic thought, the couple marry each other. ...

Well, I only lasted 3 days at Catholic school, so I'll take your word for that. Nonetheless, I don't think this means that any couple of any faith or no faith can walk into any Catholic church and "marry each other".

--------------------
"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
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't think it has to take place in church. I think that so long as the couple declare their intentions in front of witnesses, then they've tied the knot. All that the Church would do is "ratify and bless the bond [they] have contracted, in the name of the Father, etc."

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the printer with a religious conviction against lesbianism will find any word describing a lesbian relationship to be obscene?

Oh no, not any word. Just the positive ones.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Seems to me that what we're talking about here is the pluralist society. A society which, rather than having a common public religion, sets out to be a place where people of all varying private religious convictions can interact and be a part of that society.

Seems to me that such a society needs an accepted meta-ethic, a code of conduct for getting along with people who think differently. Plural society doesn't ask its citizens to believe in this code, only to follow it as part of the social contract, as an act of enlightened self-interest.

So you have all these passionate believers in various religious or political ideas, who'd really prefer society to adopt their ideas wholesale, and live under Sharia law, in a worker's paradise, or whatever. But are prepared to settle for private convictions under a meta-ethic of "live and let live". Because being compelled to act contrary to one's convictions is worse.

Is that where we're at ?

So the question is how to draw up rules of social interaction and market interaction that are neutral to everyone's convictions, that set out a boundary line where person A's right to live by their convictions in their personal space meets person B's right to not have person A's convictions imposed on them in B's personal space.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That's not where I'm at. I don't want to live under Sharia law and force people to follow my religion's specific moral code, other than the what's required for any society to function peacefully and equitably. But peace and equality are hardly the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's not where I'm at. I don't want to live under Sharia law and force people to follow my religion's specific moral code, other than the what's required for any society to function peacefully and equitably. But peace and equality are hardly the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church.

But isn't it the case that the legal culture where you live (USA?) is such that a premium is put on freedom of speech? If that's the case, it can't also be true that traders are forced by the state to trade with specific groups. For one thing, telling someone who they have to trade with would be a against the First Amendment, wouldn't it?

Of course, I'm not trying to have you defend your legal system, but it does seem to me that the balance between equality rights and freedom of speech is different in the UK (and possibly places like Australia etc who have intertwined legal histories) and the USA.

On the general point, the problem with the state determining who can trade with whom is that the "Sharia" situation becomes more not less likely.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

On the general point, the problem with the state determining who can trade with whom is that the "Sharia" situation becomes more not less likely.

Only if the state defines itself by a limited POV. In a democratic society, the state takes in multiple views in its determinations. Sometimes this takes a while, but the result is a distrusted set of rights instead of a limited one.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Only if the state defines itself by a limited POV. In a democratic society, the state takes in multiple views in its determinations. Sometimes this takes a while, but the result is a distrusted set of rights instead of a limited one.

I don't see it like that.

If the state determines that it has a right to read my emails, then one might argue that's ok because my inbox is just filled with junk. And that the current government is fairly benign.

But if that is legal then it opens the door for invasion of privacy by people who are not benign and the control of an ever wider collection of activities.

If the state can determine who I must trade with, that leaves the door open for someone to decide who I mustn't trade with. And if the state then determines that (for example) women in Burkas are a threat to national security, then it isn't much of a step to then tell me that I must not trade with them.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's not where I'm at. I don't want to live under Sharia law and force people to follow my religion's specific moral code, other than the what's required for any society to function peacefully and equitably. But peace and equality are hardly the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church.

But isn't it the case that the legal culture where you live (USA?) is such that a premium is put on freedom of speech? If that's the case, it can't also be true that traders are forced by the state to trade with specific groups. For one thing, telling someone who they have to trade with would be a against the First Amendment, wouldn't it?

Of course, I'm not trying to have you defend your legal system, but it does seem to me that the balance between equality rights and freedom of speech is different in the UK (and possibly places like Australia etc who have intertwined legal histories) and the USA.

On the general point, the problem with the state determining who can trade with whom is that the "Sharia" situation becomes more not less likely.

I don't know that the courts have ever equated trade with speech.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Oh right. Well they have.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
In fact there is a cake appeal in the Supreme Court making an argument based on the First Amendment.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. Well they have.

Ugh. The same old "the rich and the poor are prohibited alike from sleeping in the park" therefore the law doesn't discriminate bullshit.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You know, it strikes me that if they are saying this is a first amendment issue, they are in effect saying that everything a t-shirt printer prints is representative of the opinion of the t-shirt printer. There is no distance between the vendor and the customer; the one's opinion is the other's.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Only if the state defines itself by a limited POV. In a democratic society, the state takes in multiple views in its determinations. Sometimes this takes a while, but the result is a distrusted set of rights instead of a limited one.

I don't see it like that.

If the state determines that it has a right to read my emails, then one might argue that's ok because my inbox is just filled with junk. And that the current government is fairly benign.

But if that is legal then it opens the door for invasion of privacy by people who are not benign and the control of an ever wider collection of activities.

If the state can determine who I must trade with, that leaves the door open for someone to decide who I mustn't trade with. And if the state then determines that (for example) women in Burkas are a threat to national security, then it isn't much of a step to then tell me that I must not trade with them.

The state, every state has some say in what you can and cannot do.
What you describe is what the state has done in the past to minorities. we are moving away from sharia type restrictions and you would have us move back, just in an informal way.

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is probably US jurisprudence on the subject, but at first blush this part of the First Amendment says that there is to be no restriction on what can be said (save for the clear and present danger territory) but says nothing about what a person may be required to say in the protection of another's rights.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You seem to be arguing that a t-shirt saying "I support same-sex marriage" is a political statement that a printer can refuse, whereas a shirt saying "I love my husband" worn by a man is not.

Have I understood your position correctly? If so, can you defend its coherence?

I'm coming from the position that a printer can refuse anything, so long as he refuses it to all customers equally. Which seems entirely coherent.

Because what he will print or not print - and I guess most of us would have some limits, whether related to bad language, explicitly religious belief, political ideology, the name of the person we carry a torch for, whatever - primarily touches him. The printing occurs in his personal space. And for the state or anyone else to dictate to him what he must or must not print is an imposition of someone else's values on him.

For him to decide which customers he will or won't sell particular t-shirts to is him imposing his values on others.

I see the word "discrimination" as having several slightly different senses. Singling out a person for worse treatment because you don't like something about them is the sense that's tied up with prejudice, and that's bad.

Doing something that affects different groups of people unequally is discrimination in a different sense of the word, and is not of itself bad.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You seem to be arguing that a t-shirt saying "I support same-sex marriage" is a political statement that a printer can refuse, whereas a shirt saying "I love my husband" worn by a man is not.

Have I understood your position correctly? If so, can you defend its coherence?

I'm coming from the position that a printer can refuse anything, so long as he refuses it to all customers equally. Which seems entirely coherent.

Just as consistent as forbidding both the rich and the poor to sleep in the park. And just as unjust. You're saying it's somehow equitable to deny both gays AND straights from getting cakes saying "It's good to be gay." It's not coherent to claim that's equitable.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Because what he will print or not print - primarily touches him. The printing occurs in his personal space. And for the state or anyone else to dictate to him what he must or must not print is an imposition of someone else's values on him.

For him to decide which customers he will or won't sell particular t-shirts to is him imposing his values on others.

So consider two shirts. One reads "support marriage" and carries a photograph of a heterosexual couple - perhaps the prospective shirt purchaser and his wife. The second reads "support marriage" and carries a photograph of the prospective shirt purchaser and his husband.

The words are identical. The message is very different. Assuming the printer is happy to make the first shirt, must he make the second?

I don't think you can separate the printer's actions into things that only touch on his values and things that only touch on the customer's values.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That's a hard one.

Because inclusion of the customer's photo blurs the distinction between the product and the customer.

Morally speaking, it seems to me that in his workshop at the back the printer may make or not make whatever products he likes. But in his showroom at the front he can't refuse to sell a product to someone because of who they are.

He's not obliged to print a text that blasphemes against his deeply-held convictions. And if that restriction means that some people or groups in society find it harder than others to promote their message, that doesn't take away from his rights of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. The downstream impact on those others is secondary. When you say that someone has a right to do something you mean that they can do it even when you think the outcome is a bad thing. A right that is conditional on your approval of the outcome is no right at all.

But if one of the texts he does print means in his mind something different according to who wears it, that doesn't grant him the right to choose who he sells it to. Because that's judging other people, prejudicial discrimination, imposing his values on others as the means to his own self-expression.

He doesn't have a right to the outcome of not being offended. His right is to choose not to offer services he doesn't want to offer.

If he offers the service of including the customer's photo, he has to offer that service to everyone.

I stand by both principles.

But you've cleverly come up with an example that's right on the intersection of the two, where the meaning of the material he's being asked to print depends on the identity of the purchaser.

How can these conflicting rights be resolved ?

If it were up to me, I'd rule that the printer should sell a t-shirt with the text ("support marriage") and no photo. And supply a voucher entitling the customer to have a photo added to one of his existing t-shirts. Which voucher the printer should of course honour the next day.

--------------------
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      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... If it were up to me, I'd rule that the printer should sell a t-shirt with the text ("support marriage") and no photo. And supply a voucher entitling the customer to have a photo added to one of his existing t-shirts. Which voucher the printer should of course honour the next day.

quote:
... I see the word "discrimination" as having several slightly different senses. Singling out a person for worse treatment because you don't like something about them is the sense that's tied up with prejudice, and that's bad.

Doing something that affects different groups of people unequally is discrimination in a different sense of the word, and is not of itself bad.

So how do you think the customer will view being denied the product he wants, and being told he can have half of it today and come back tomorrow to get something else of equal value to the other half? Do you think the customer will think you're just happening to "do something" that affects him differently, or that you're singling him out for worse treatment?

--------------------
"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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You seem to be arguing that a t-shirt saying "I support same-sex marriage" is a political statement that a printer can refuse, whereas a shirt saying "I love my husband" worn by a man is not.

Have I understood your position correctly? If so, can you defend its coherence?

I'm coming from the position that a printer can refuse anything, so long as he refuses it to all customers equally. Which seems entirely coherent.

Just as consistent as forbidding both the rich and the poor to sleep in the park. And just as unjust. You're saying it's somehow equitable to deny both gays AND straights from getting cakes saying "It's good to be gay." It's not coherent to claim that's equitable.
I wonder why Russ hasn't answered this point. I wonder if he can.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just as consistent as forbidding both the rich and the poor to sleep in the park. And just as unjust. You're saying it's somehow equitable to deny both gays AND straights from getting cakes saying "It's good to be gay." It's not coherent to claim that's equitable.

I wonder why Russ hasn't answered this point. I wonder if he can.
I may have missed something where Russ said it would be equitable. The point I see him making is that a trader's right to choose what to print overrides any obligation to be non-discriminatory.

The difference from your example of the park bench is that the park bench rule would be a government rule, and government should be equitable in its dealings.

Russ appears to be arguing that a trader can refuse to be involved with publishing any particular message. In which case public pressure and ridicule (along with boycott) may be the only means of influencing that.

I certainly see that logic. But also see the logic of protecting groups from discrimination and denial of service.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
"Gay" means....????
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Gay" means....????

Oh FFS look it up.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm coming from the position that a printer can refuse anything, so long as he refuses it to all customers equally. Which seems entirely coherent.
...

Supposedly, one of the principal differences between progressives and conservatives is the value placed on purity, with an accompanying fear of taint by association. I think that is a huge part of the obsession to deny cakes and mugs to teh gayz: to avoid any impression of supporting that which is unclean. Equating service with approval can lead to all sorts of silly and impractical conclusions. The right to an attorney does not lead everyone to assume that a defense lawyer either believes the client didn't do it or approves of what the client did do. The overwhelming majority of business transactions occur without the owner or the customer knowing whether either is a sinner or a saint and we're all ok with that, whether we're bus drivers or bank tellers or veterinarians. I'm sure that even the most homophobic cashier doesn't lie awake at night wondering how many gay grocery orders s/he rang up that day.


It seems that the cohering principle above is that freedom of the press is reserved only for those who own the press. Individuals may still have freedom of speech, but without access to things like printers and newspapers and the internet and other media, all we can do as individuals is yell ourselves hoarse on the street. The famous quote from not-Voltaire on free speech is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The bakers' / printers' principle seems to be "I disapprove of what you say, and I'm not going to lift a finger to help you say it." How can the personal opinions of a printer be balanced with everyone else's right to speak out, especially when it's actually huge corporations and wealthy individuals that own most of our media and our communications systems?* More broadly, what are any of our rights worth if they expire as soon as someone else's consent or action is required to exercise them?


Unfortunately, I think SCOTUS will probably follow the Hobby Lobby rationale, and rule to allow businesses owned by individuals or families ("closely-held" corporations) to discriminate all they want. The court will let them play the "conscience card" to get out of laws they don't like. Up next: religious principles that conflict with labour laws, environmental laws, fiduciary laws ...


*(At least now I understand why there is a clause in my union contract that allows the union to post notices on bulletin boards at work and allows us to use inter-office mail and our work email addresses for union business, all of which, of course, are the employer's property.)

--------------------
"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      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Supposedly, one of the principal differences between progressives and conservatives is the value placed on purity, with an accompanying fear of taint by association. I think that is a huge part of the obsession to deny cakes and mugs to teh gayz: to avoid any impression of supporting that which is unclean.

Definitely true in my experience - in fact, that's almost the exact words my sister-out-law used to explain her fatwa on (sorry, I mean "declaration of spiritual warfare on behalf of") the former mrs g.

It didn't help to remind her that the gospels seem to tell the story of a chap who pissed the conservatives off by being far to friendly with the so-called sinners, and that perhaps the pharisees were the bad guys...

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Gay" means....????

Oh FFS look it up.
Actually a thesaurus gives dozens and dozens of meanings only one of which is 'homosexual' - unfortunately that one recent and dubious meaning seems to have eclipsed all the others.

And I repeat - you be specific about what 'gay' means, and it will be much easier to work out how 'gays' should properly be treated. The rhetoric of 'gayness' treats it as the same kind of issue as race or disability - but it's really about a different kind of issue.....

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sexuality, like race, eyes, skin or hair colour and sex is something with which you are born. I am attracted to women, so I gather is lilBuddha. The why of either of these is what we don't know. What we do know is that it is not choice.

To revert to the t-shirt example. I may decide to sell both t-shirts that I have tie-dyed or that I leave plain. No-one can complain that I do not sell a t-shirt advocating SSM. Once I start to sell any t-shirts with individually ordered messages of any sort, I cannot refuse to sell one that advocates SSM, is anti-semitic, denigrates those with red hair, or any other of the proscribed areas. But really now, once the argument descends to an example such as this, we'll soon be discussing if a pin-maker can refuse to make a pin on which an angel can dance.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Gay" means....????

I don't know what the statutes may provide where you live, but here none that I am aware of refers to being gay, or offers a definition of gay.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sorry, this sentence"I cannot refuse to sell one that advocates SSM, is anti-semitic, denigrates those with red hair, or any other of the proscribed areas" would be better expressed:

I cannot:
* refuse to sell one that advocates SSM, or
* sell one which is anti-semitic, denigrates those with red hair, or any other of the proscribed areas.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.... one recent and dubious meaning seems to have eclipsed all the others. ... The rhetoric of 'gayness' treats it as the same kind of issue as race or disability - but it's really about a different kind of issue.....

Please explain to me why religiousness is protected but "gayness" shouldn't be. Or else explain why religion is like race or disability. Do it without using the "A" word and I'll give you a gold star.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

And I repeat - you be specific about what 'gay' means, and it will be much easier to work out how 'gays' should properly be treated. The rhetoric of 'gayness' treats it as the same kind of issue as race or disability - but it's really about a different kind of issue.....

You're absolutely right. This whole thread started because some baker refused to bake a cake for people who were planning a joyful and vibrant marriage, as the baker in question believes marriage is a sombre institution. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Gay" means....????

Oh FFS look it up.
Actually a thesaurus gives dozens and dozens of meanings only one of which is 'homosexual' - unfortunately that one recent and dubious meaning seems to have eclipsed all the others.
If you know that that one meaning has eclipsed all others, then you know which one we mean and are being disingenuous when you make like you don't.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So how do you think the customer will view being denied the product he wants, and being told he can have half of it today and come back tomorrow to get something else of equal value to the other half?

Apologies, Soror Magna. Seems I expressed myself badly. I'm suggesting that the customer gets exactly what he wants. But that the transaction gets broken down into 2 transactions. One in which the customer buys a t-shirt with just the words (which product the printer would happily supply to others and therefore has no valid objection to). And one in which the printer prints a photo onto the same t-shirt (which service the printer would happily supply to others and therefore has no valid objection to).

Thereby avoiding a transaction in which the printer is obliged to make a product which goes against his convictions (however irrational they may be) to which he would have a valid objection.

Bit of a cop-out I know. But the best I can do to be fair to both sides.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So how do you think the customer will view being denied the product he wants, and being told he can have half of it today and come back tomorrow to get something else of equal value to the other half?

Apologies, Soror Magna. Seems I expressed myself badly. I'm suggesting that the customer gets exactly what he wants. But that the transaction gets broken down into 2 transactions. One in which the customer buys a t-shirt with just the words (which product the printer would happily supply to others and therefore has no valid objection to). And one in which the printer prints a photo onto the same t-shirt (which service the printer would happily supply to others and therefore has no valid objection to).

Thereby avoiding a transaction in which the printer is obliged to make a product which goes against his convictions (however irrational they may be) to which he would have a valid objection.

Bit of a cop-out I know. But the best I can do to be fair to both sides.

But in what way does it avoid making a product that goes against his convictions? The end result is the same shirt. By adding the picture to the words, the merchant is creating a shirt with exactly the same message. I don't understand your reasoning here.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're saying it's somehow equitable to deny both gays AND straights from getting cakes saying "It's good to be gay." It's not coherent to claim that's equitable.

To prevent the existence of any cakes bearing that debatable slogan, one would need to either be the government and deny freedom of speech, or be the bakers' union and abuse monopoly power.

A Voltairean-minded baker might assert that the customer should be able to have such a cake. (and then eat it). But not from his hands.

You seem unwilling to recognise that there are two parties to the transaction and both of them have rights and both of them are hurt by being coerced.

--------------------
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      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Thereby avoiding a transaction in which the printer is obliged to make a product which goes against his convictions (however irrational they may be) to which he would have a valid objection.

...

So the printer will print an "F" on a shirt, add "uck" to the same shirt some interval of time later, and thus, will not have actually ever printed "Fuck".

I don't know whether to [Ultra confused] or [Killing me]

ETA: xpost with mousethief

[ 04. December 2016, 18:59: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

--------------------
"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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem unwilling to recognise that there are two parties to the transaction and both of them have rights and both of them are hurt by being coerced.

I'm more than willing to admit that. But being hurt in that way is part of the price you pay to be in business in a plural society. Woolworth's had to sell to black diners. However much it hurt them inside. Them's the breaks.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
by Mousethief;
quote:
If you know that that one meaning has eclipsed all others, then you know which one we mean and are being disingenuous when you make like you don't.
OK, just being a bit annoyed that as usual we lose the best of our wonderful language to the worst.... And pointing out in response to your 'look it up' that looking it up produces an interesting result....

But also I think lots of you use the word 'gay' and even to yourselves are not being explicit on its full implications. Spell out what 'gay' means in terms of activity and it may not look so cosy as appears from hijacking all the original associations of those effectively lost meanings - the modern meaning is so removed from the original as to be basically contradictory; pretty much a lie.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But being hurt in that way is part of the price you pay to be in business in a plural society.

Selling to everyone, yes. Selling any words that the customer might ask for, no.

A plural society can cope with different people drawing the line - as to what words they find acceptable - in different places.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  29  30  31 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools