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 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  29  30  31 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
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 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.

And can cope with different people drawing the line - as to which customer's preferred set of words they find acceptable. They're not just words. You fail to appreciate this. Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group. If that group is a protected group, you will have to suck it up and deal, or go into a different line of work.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

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

Being gay is not a matter of activity, it is simply being. Just as being straight is not an activity, but being.

Part of my being is being attracted to women, as is part of LilBuddha's being. Part of my nephew's being is being attracted to men.

--------------------
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:
OK, just being a bit annoyed that as usual we lose the best of our wonderful language to the worst....

And who, pray tell, are the worst? Anybody who uses a word in a way you don't like? Do you really think people won't know which century you're talking about if you mention the Gay Nineties? Are you worried that people will misunderstand the Flintstones' "we'll have a gay old time!"? Or are you actually claiming that gay people and their allies are "the worst"?

quote:

...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 ...

Bad news, dude: lots of straight folks indulge in those activities 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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm having a hard time seeing that the adjective "gay" is -- or was -- the best part of our language. Also calling gays "the worst" is vomitous. Also whether or not one is "gay" has nothing whatsoever to do with activity. It has to do with attraction.

Somebody remind me, what fucking year is this?

--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
OK, just being a bit annoyed that as usual we lose the best of our wonderful language to the worst....

The worst? Worse than Neo-Nazi's, rapists and paedophiles? Wow.
quote:

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.

In order to be contradictory, it would have to now mean sad and joyless. What we have in this instance is actually a normal shift in usage as explained here.

You wish to complain about abuses in our "wonderful" language, better to crusade against the word irony. It is so misused as to render any specific definition difficult to ascertain.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You wish to complain about abuses in our "wonderful" language, better to crusade against the word irony. It is so misused as to render any specific definition difficult to ascertain.

"Literally."

--------------------
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 
There are many abused words. Though I think literally is on the path trod by decimate. It is the middle of a shift from one usage to another, broader one.
Whereas Irony has as many different meanings as are likely possible (comedic, tragic, coincidental, accidental, fitting, etc) meaning a path through to a change rather than disintegration is difficult.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are many abused words. Though I think literally is on the path trod by decimate. It is the middle of a shift from one usage to another, broader one.
Whereas Irony has as many different meanings as are likely possible (comedic, tragic, coincidental, accidental, fitting, etc) meaning a path through to a change rather than disintegration is difficult.

True. The problem with "literally" shifting to mean "really a whole bunch by golly" is that we are running out of words to mean what is meant by literally, and used to be meant by really. I can't think of any single word that has that meaning. Maybe we need to resurrect "verily."

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
So few have used decimate accurately for decades. Will you decimate SL and if so what shall you be removing?

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

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  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:
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.

Hmm. You must have a fucked up dictionary, because I have no clue what you're on about if you've drawn that conclusion.

To spell out what gay means in terms of activity.

Waking up in the morning, next to the partner whom you love. (Okay, I'll admit the person in question could be alone, or next to last night's fling - but since we started on the topic of marriage, let's stick with that one.)

Breakfast and coffee. Sometimes in bed. Sometimes at the table. Sometimes brunch at a cafe.

Weekdays - off to work, or maybe looking for work. Or perhaps retired. Some will give their lover a goodbye kiss and wish them well. Some will leave their lover sleeping.

Later in the day - maybe walking the dog, or ironing (okay, now the horror is setting in.) Maybe a movie. Dinner - pasta? Roast? Salad? Fuck it, I don't know - there are literally an infinite number of variations. (Spot the irony).

Laughing together. Talking about the problems at work. Maybe volunteering down at the community house? Arguing about whose turn it is to do dishes. Getting it on with the person they love might even feature in the day. Watching tv and complaining about too much reality tv these days. Gardening. Sports. Fixing a car. Browsing the internet.

Those are some of the activities in the day of a life of gays.

Don't see how spelling it out has helped. Hope it helped you.

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

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That seems all well and normal, but what do straight people do?


ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
(Spot the irony).

Actually, no. There are a few possibilities, but nothing that is necessarily ironic.

[ 05. December 2016, 05:37: 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
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That seems all well and normal, but what do straight people do?

I could tell you what I get up to, but you'd be disgusted at how the English language has suffered since someone subverted the word Straight.

quote:

ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
(Spot the irony).

Actually, no. There are a few possibilities, but nothing that is necessarily ironic.
Bahahaha - you had to take the bait

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

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Steve Langton, I don't understand your problem here: you don't have to share someone else's understanding of their self-description and you don't have to use the terms that they use and you don't have to believe the same things that they believe (about themselves, about the world, about anything else) to recognise that they have rights. Surely you must appreciate that the toleration that you enjoy to express your views and life your lifestyle also extends to others who have views and lifestyles you don't understand or approve of.

This is one reason why I prefer the state - for all its faults - to the option that you're offering. I don't want to live in a country where people like you get to determine how other people live.

[ 05. December 2016, 08:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I wonder if Steve Langton is, like me, a child that was born on the Sabbath Day, who can no longer use the days' rhyme comfortably.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Let's cut to the chase. Steve finds willies up bottoms icky, thinks that's what defines gayness, and wants us to find it icky and define gayness that way too.

What else does he mean by "in terms of activity", and then inviting us to really think about that?

[ 05. December 2016, 12:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | 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 lilBuddha:
That seems all well and normal, but what do straight people do?

PIV. All day every day. Like bunnies.

--------------------
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 
Let's not forget that it's straight men who chant "No means yes, and yes means anal!"

--------------------
"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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
All we really know about those men is that they claim to straightness, but do so in a definitely questionable way. And like to hang around in groups of similar males. And have no real attraction to women as people.

[ 05. December 2016, 14:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That is silly. Everyone knows it is men that are not quite people.

--------------------
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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I wouldn't go that far - but I certainly tend to the view that that sort of male is not quite people. I'm sure there are some that are actually men, and people.

I was much saddened the other day when a woman who rang a phone-in about the recently revealed extent of abuse of young footballers showed that she believed that the behaviour of the abusers was so general that it applied to almost all adult males, everywhere.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  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:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

I'll leave you to imagine what slogan if refused would constitute discrimination against paedophiles.

Do you believe that this meaming of "discrimination" is an inherently bad thing ? Or is it only a bad thing when you sympathize with the group being discriminated against ?

And secondly, how big does a group have to be before you're prepared to consider this sort of discrimination against them to be a wrong that should be prohibited ?

If refusing a slogan "Mousethief rocks!" is discrimination against the Mousethief fan club (the only set of people who would ask for such a slogan), is it still discrimination when that fan club has only one member ?

I stress "this type of discrimination" - please don't confuse it with other types...

--------------------
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:
I stress "this type of discrimination" - please don't confuse it with other types...

I'm not going to play the "please say exactly what I want you to say" game.

--------------------
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 
Seems to me that what you believe in is "one law for the good guys and one law for the bad guys".

Where of course the good guys are those who think like you do...

I could be wrong. Maybe you do have a non-partisan belief that anyone who goes into business has no business having any convictions of their own. That if they're not prepared to print blasphemy against whatever beliefs they hold, they shouldn't print anything at all.

But since your style seems to be long on snappy retorts that duck the hard questions, and short on clearly setting out and defending a coherent position, it's kind of hard to tell.

--------------------
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:
... I stress "this type of discrimination" - please don't confuse it with other types...

Well, I have no idea what type of discrimination we're supposedly confusing, because you've posted three wildly different examples - one is a religion, the second is a crime, and the third is a matter of taste.

--------------------
"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:
But since your style seems to be long on snappy retorts that duck the hard questions, and short on clearly setting out and defending a coherent position, it's kind of hard to tell.

At least my style isn't ignoring things in another person's posts that answers my question, then posing my question as if the other person never answered it.

--------------------
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 mousethief:

Somebody remind me, what fucking year is this?

Let's see. Last year was Year of the Missionary. Is this Year of the Dog?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  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 Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Somebody remind me, what fucking year is this?

Let's see. Last year was Year of the Missionary. Is this Year of the Dog?
What was '69?

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

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:
What was '69?
That sounds like a Jeopardy answer.

--------------------
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:
What was '69?
That sounds like a Jeopardy answer.
More like double Jeopardy
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, I have no idea what type of discrimination we're supposedly confusing, because you've posted three wildly different examples - one is a religion, the second is a crime, and the third is a matter of taste.

Same type of act targeted against different groups isn't a different type of discrimination. It's the same meaning of the word.

Mousethief's argument rests on uncritical acceptance of "discrimination" as a bad thing. But the word is used to mean both
- acts of prejudice
- acts which have differential impact on different groups.

Acts of prejudice are a bad thing. If I won't hire you, won't trade with you, won't speak to you, because you're one of those class of people that I disapprove of, then I'm wronging you, unpersoning you. That's bad.

But pretty much anything that the government does has the side-effect of benefiting some people more than others. The criminal justice system aims to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. It used to be that the police deliberately recruited big tall men, discriminating against the short and weedy. The army recruits fit people
. This may or may not be a good policy. But if there's a benefit from it, the fact that it discriminates against the unfit doesn't matter.

Any preference you express is an act of discrimination against those who hold the opposite opinion. Any choice you make is an act of discrimination against the option you reject.

Differential impact is not inherently bad in the way prejudice is.

There's this horrible unprincipled partisan way of looking at the world in which every act is judged on the basis of who wins and who loses, and if the people who gain are those we sympathize with then it's a good thing. Don't go there. Have principles that apply equally to those you like and those you don't.

--------------------
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:

Any preference you express is an act of discrimination against those who hold the opposite opinion. Any choice you make is an act of discrimination against the option you reject.

bullshit. You are advocating that an Opinion has the right to oppress a Person. Gay is what someone
IS. Those are not the same.

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

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Mousethief's argument rests on uncritical acceptance of "discrimination" as a bad thing. But the word is used to mean both
- acts of prejudice
- acts which have differential impact on different groups....

Yes, and human rights law takes both into account:

quote:
Scope
The principle of equal treatment corresponds to the prohibition of direct discrimination * and indirect discrimination * . It applies to everybody in the private or public sector and in public bodies. Its scope covers social protection (including social security and health care), social advantages, education, as well as access to and supply of goods and services, such as housing and transport.
...
Key terms of the Act
•Direct discrimination: discrimination caused when one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation.
•Indirect discrimination: discrimination caused when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would lead to a particular disadvantage compared with other persons. Unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Principle of Equal Treatment

They're both discrimination. Now, one can argue whether or not an instance of indirect discrimination is "objectively justified by a legitimate aim". Your example of fitness requirements for military or police can be objectively justified*. IANAL, but refusal to produce material depicting or advocating criminal acts may be justifiable. What is the objectively justified legitimate aim for preventing the mousethief fan club from getting t-shirts?

Feel free to browse EUR-lex and see if you can find anything to support your argument that a shopkeeper's morals take precedence over the principle of equal treatment.

-----
*And in many places, it has been found that people who might not meet a specific physical standard bring many other important skills to those jobs and can perform effectively. The
Caprica City Police Department doesn't have height or weight requirements; instead, there's an obstacle course and a series of timed running intervals. The department also offers coaching for applicants to prepare for the tests.

[ 07. December 2016, 01:55: 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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Same type of act targeted against different groups isn't a different type of discrimination. It's the same meaning of the word.

There are several definitions of discrimination.

You are mixing up 1 and 2 in your posts. In relation to this thread and in relation to the law, we are often talking about the "especially" bit of definition 1, usually with reference to protected characteristics.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks for the link.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Soror Magna:
IANAL [/quote]

Me neither. They have to be better with words than I am.

quote:
but refusal to produce material depicting or advocating criminal acts may be justifiable.
Various criminal acts are depicted on TV all the time. Or so it seems.

But seems to me that advocating treason is treason, inciting crime is a crime, and advocating acts one believes to be morally wrong is morally wrong.

If someone asks you to print something that the law of your state deems illegal, you have a legal duty not to. If it's something immoral, you have a moral duty not to.

But there's no duty in either case to shun them as a person. Acceptance of the person and the text are two different things.

And whereas if you believe something to be illegal and do it anyway and it turns out not to be, the law lets you go as having no case to answer. But if you believe something to be morally wrong and do it anyway and it turns out not to be, you've still done something morally wrong because you've acted against your conscience.

--------------------
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 
So if (general) you have a choice between breaking the law and harming other people vs. doing something immoral that harms no one except your own sensibilities, which do you choose? And if you choose breaking the law, why should your personal morality be an excuse? Part of civil disobedience is accepting the legal consequences of breaking immoral laws.

Leaving aside the legalese, there's also the Wisdom of the Ship: suffering for your beliefs makes you a martyr. Making other people suffer for your beliefs makes you a prat.

--------------------
"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 
But this distinction between people and words is fake. What you're objecting to is not the words, but the people. You think the existence of these people is immoral, and so you don't want to print their perfectly harmless slogan. Pretending it's the words is disingenuous.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Russ--

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

Well, if the general society and/or its laws held fast to freedom of all religions, that *would* be discrimination against Satanists.

Whether or not that would be wrong is another matter, IMHO.

A lot of this stuff gets really complicated, ISTM. And I think there's a difference between being LGBT and being a Satanist.

I'm more for finding a non-litigious avenue, if possible. TBH, I can think of some things I wouldn't want to be forced to put on a cake, t-shirt, etc. I don't know how I'd handle it--EXCEPT a) keep a list of vendors who'd be happy to print whatever, and refer customers there; b) having good-quality, cake lettering kits on hand, so people could buy an unlettered cake, then put anything they wanted on it; or c) set up a self-serve T-shirt printing shop.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

And yet if a baker iced a cake with that message, a lot of people would shrug and recognise it goes with the territory and not judge the baker for it.

If the same baker iced a pro-gay message many of those same people would be outraged.

Incredibly sad.

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

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

Well, if the general society and/or its laws held fast to freedom of all religions, that *would* be discrimination against Satanists.


No it wouldn't.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 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:
suffering for your beliefs makes you a martyr. Making other people suffer for your beliefs makes you a prat.

Indeed.

But this question is about whether suffering is minimised in a world where printers and bakers can say no (with the consequence that those with unpopular beliefs feel rejected and have to search around a bit for someone to print their text).

Or a world where printers and bakers aren't allowed to say no (but are obliged by law to grit their teeth and produce text that goes against their deep convictions if anyone requests such a text).

The rights of service provider versus customer.

Both cases could be described as one person being disadvantaged by another's belief. In either case it might be better to suffer than to go to law to impose on others. But we're not arguing about that, we're arguing about which is the better law.

In general I believe in the need for consent, so I favour people being allowed to say no.

But if you really want a world where Muslim bakers can be sued for declining to ice pictures of Mohammed, and gay printers jailed for refusing to print posters that say "homosexuality is a sin" then go ahead and make a case for it.

It gets more heated when those who are into special pleading want the law to go one way when a member of a group they sympathize with is in the customer role and the other way when the roles are reversed. And won't admit that's their position...

--------------------
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:
Seems to me that what you believe in is "one law for the good guys and one law for the bad guys".

Where of course the good guys are those who think like you do...

quote:
There's this horrible unprincipled partisan way of looking at the world in which every act is judged on the basis of who wins and who loses, and if the people who gain are those we sympathize with then it's a good thing. Don't go there. Have principles that apply equally to those you like and those you don't.
quote:
It gets more heated when those who are into special pleading want the law to go one way when a member of a group they sympathize with is in the customer role and the other way when the roles are reversed. And won't admit that's their position...
Prove those assertions. Because it sure looks like you're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and unprincipled and won't admit it.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
KLB--

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

Well, if the general society and/or its laws held fast to freedom of all religions, that *would* be discrimination against Satanists.


No it wouldn't.
Why not, please?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you really want a world where Muslim bakers can be sued for declining to ice pictures of Mohammed, and gay printers jailed for refusing to print posters that say "homosexuality is a sin" then go ahead and make a case for it.

That isn't the same thing at all. You can't refuse to print a message if your reason for printing it is discriminatory versus protected characteristics.

Refusing to ice a picture of Mohammed is not discriminating against any group. Refusing to say homosexuality is a sin is not discriminating against a religion, unless you want to adopt the very sad argument that the belief in homosexuality being a sin is emblematic of Christianity. Sadly, I think that may just be the case. That will be what Christians at the turn of the 21st century will be remembered for. They were the ones who really hated the gays with all their heart, their soul and their mind.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  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 mdijon:
That isn't the same thing at all. You can't refuse to print a message if your reason for printing it is discriminatory versus protected characteristics.

Refusing to ice a picture of Mohammed is not discriminating against any group.

Well, possibly not - but that depends on whether the view is accepted by the court as being a philosophical belief. I suppose it is possible that one could be a white supremicist who believes that Islam is evil and who wants a t-shirt printed with Mohammed saying something daft. Of course, the problem for the Muslim may well be the depiction of M rather than what he is saying.

I'm afraid you seem to be taking a very black-and-white view on this whereas the Equalities Act itself looks quite vague (particularly with the inclusion of protection of philosophical and political views) and there is very limited case law showing the things you say are obvious.

In addition there are legal authorities which say the opposite to you. I don't know who is right, but I'm not going to say that you are just because you keep repeating the same mantra.

quote:
Refusing to say homosexuality is a sin is not discriminating against a religion, unless you want to adopt the very sad argument that the belief in homosexuality being a sin is emblematic of Christianity.
Again, it doesn't actually matter whether you think that those who believe homosexuality-is-a-sin are not "true" Christianity or not. What they'd have to prove to the court was that it is a belief with some pedigree and consistency.

I note that in a different context, a family judge criticised an estranged father from an Orthodox Jewish community for enraging his ex-wife by taking his child to a place where he was exposed to evolution in a museum - in a case reported by the media this week.

You might indeed find this an odd judgement. You might indeed say that this sect represents a minority view within Judaism. You might indeed criticise it for treating the belief on its own merits rather than exposing it to the light of scientific truth. But the court, at least in this instance, appears to have determined that the internal consistency - and effect on the child of exposing him/her to something outwith of their worldview - is more important than "normal" exposure to alternative ideas in society. I don't like that, I'm guessing that you probably don't either. But the court (at least in this instance) appears to see that as important.

quote:
Sadly, I think that may just be the case. That will be what Christians at the turn of the 21st century will be remembered for. They were the ones who really hated the gays with all their heart, their soul and their mind.
I suspect that's quite unlikely, actually. I think we're likely to see the religion become increasingly divided in the future, so it may well be true that a conservative "gay-hating" strand continues, but I think an increasingly vocal liberal strand will gain in strength, presumably increasingly being seen as its own religion.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but I'm not going to say that you are just because you keep repeating the same mantra.

You're not? Really? So now what am I supposed to do?

But seriously I am doing my best to take a black-and-white line over it in order to present how I think it works. (Particularly when the same contention keeps coming round). We have discussed the recent case in detail up the thread and I think it doesn't clearly contradict the interpretation I'm taking. I'd like to see if there are other cases or actual judicial opinions that do. The Jewish estranged father sounds quite complicated with other factors.

I agree with you I'm being too pessimistic about the record of Christianity. It does seem a bit dispiriting sometimes but it won't be as bad as that.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
KLB--

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Refusing to print words that only one set of people are going to ask for is de facto discriminating against hat one group.

By that logic, refusing to print "Lucifer is Lord" is discrimination against Satanists.

Well, if the general society and/or its laws held fast to freedom of all religions, that *would* be discrimination against Satanists.


No it wouldn't.
Why not, please?
Why would it? Satanists are generally quite inclined to let everyone else get on with what they like as long as they don't impinge on each other's freedom to do so. So Satanism in general would be quite happy under real freedom of religion.

[ 09. December 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
But the case concerning the Jewish father who hates evolutionary museums is not about a commercial establishment that opens its doors to the public.

--------------------
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 
I'm wondering if Steve will come back and tell us why he thinks the word "gay" is the best word in the English language, and gay people the worst people.

--------------------
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:
it sure looks like you're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and unprincipled and won't admit it.

Seems to me that most people have a moral intuition, a sense of justice. (We don't have to go into how much of it is innate and how much learned).

Being fallible compromised humans (some would say "fallen") that sense is imperfect. The temptation is always to feel keenly any injustice towards ourselves and those we care for or identify with. Whilst seeing as no big deal the same injustice towards those we dislike. That's life.

Trying to resist this temptation, trying to be unbiased and principled, means setting out a coherent and justifiable rule, applicable to every individual whether you like them and sympathize with them or not. In this case a rule as to whether it is morally wrong for a person to refuse to produce words theydon't agree with, that doesn't depend on whether or not you agree with those words.

Whether Voltaire said it or not, some people do believe in free speech - the moral right of others to say or withhold words that one doesn't or does agree with. (Subject to other moral duties such as not threatening other people).

I hope I'm achieving that standard - not giving myself and those I feel for rights of free speech that I wouldn't grant to everyone.

I want to encourage others to do so too. And feel frustrated when they don't seem to be bothered to try.

Not naming any names...

But maybe some of that is misinterpretation.

--------------------
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 
In this you concentrate entirely on the baker and not at all on the customer. (How can I tell? By the fact you don't in the least countenance the possibility that different people's rights might be in conflict.) My consistent position has been that when you put out your shingle to do business with the public, you voluntarily give up some of your rights in deference to those of your clientele.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  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