Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Michelle420]

You followed the law in regards to business practices.

Protesting a strip club or a Walmart Super Center that wants to go into an area or any other business people don't want is a very different thing that trying to destroy or hurt a business just because the business owner expresses a point of view or says something others don't like.

Again, is it tolerant to organize or use the law to destroy a business just because the business owner said something offensive?

Protesting any business is not different than a bakery or anything else. It's simply put peoples points of view organized for or against the the product/idea the business is selling/representing. People can do that. But that Business exists because the law has been determined it is allowed to and therefore it has to follow the proper laws that are associated with the business.

It doesn't matter whether protesting a business is being tolerant or not, because people are allowed to protest and express their points of view. and organize their activism against a business, they do that to planned parenthood all the time with the goal of shutting it down.

Remember existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So please state WHY the law should allow people to destroy a person's business/livelihood for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion they did not like. Explain how that does not violate a person's right to be who and what he is when he is requiring no contribution or participation by anybody else.

And if you think it is okay to destroy that person's business livelihood, explain why it should not also be legal and/or okay to disrupt a funeral or wedding or any other activity/event when you don't like an opinion expressed by participants in the activity/event.

Voicing an opinion is not destroying someone's business.

If a business owner wants to discriminate, they should be firm enough in their beliefs to weather the storm of public opinion. If they are not, they are weak and culled from the flock.

Agreed. I really don't get the basic concept here. In fact, my concern is that the basic premise of these PA laws will, eventually, be used against people making these kinds of political statements via economic choices.

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

Yes people can organize to destroy a business that offends by their opinions or business practice marketing in particular counts on influencing people favorably for a business. Business is representing a lot of people shareholders, employees and and peopl have a right to respond to any sentiments a business puts out there.

 

[Michelle420]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person and violates no person's rights.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

He's in business, he can make a choice to discriminate and people have every right to respond to that by orgnanizing not to buy from him.

 

[Valerie]

Ok, I get it now. If people boycott duck dynasty, for example, or their advertisers, FF thinks that should be illegal. Am I right?

meanwhile back in reality the network had every right to drop the show...

and the audience had every right to express their opinion...


"to destroy his business and/or livelihood" is dishonest hyperbolic straw by the OP

 

[Foxfyre]

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

Then I'm confused. I thought you were speaking out against those kinds of protests. I'm I missing something?

I AM speaking out against those kinds of protests. What did I say here different from that?

Maybe I wasn't being clear. What I"m saying is that the PC protests against people who express unpopular opinions are the same sort of thing as a baker protesting gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. Both should be considered fundamental rights.

Oh okay. I did misunderstand you then. And I do disagree with that. I can't see it any other way than as an assault on a person's fundamental rights if people are allowed to organize to destroy his business and/or livelihood for no other reason than they don't like something he said.

We have no right to tolerance. If I say things my neighbors don't like, they're under no obligation to associate with me. I'm honestly surprised you think it ought to be otherwise.

Where did I say anybody was any obligation to associate with anybody? All I said is that I believe it is a fundamental right that we should be able to express an opinion, however much somebody else doesn't like it, without fear that they will destroy our business and/or livelihood. I certainly have not said anybody should be obligated to associate with anybody they don't want to associate with or that anybody cannot express their contempt for our opinion.

I do believe we have a fundamental right to expect tolerance, at least demonstrated by non interference, for our expressed thoughts, beliefs, opinions etc. when we do not require others to appreciate them or act on them and do not violate anybody else's rights.

 

[Coyote]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

 

[Coyote]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person and violates no person's rights.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

You're allowing the baker to make a principled stand but refusing to allow those who oppose that stand to do the same.

 

[dblack]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

 

[Coyote]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

 

[dblack]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

 

[Carla_Danger]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

 

[dblack]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

That's fucked up!

 

[Coyote]

The question I have - when people say that business' have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is where does this lead to?

We know what our country used to be like when there were no anti-discrimmination laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

Again for me the issue is whether anyone's rights are violated by what I say or what choices I make. To refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally, even though I provide products and services for many other kinds of rallies, does not violate your rights in any way. It does not harm you in any way. I am not interfering in any way with your rally or denying you your right to have one.

If I express my opinion that I do not approve of anti-gay rallies, I should be able to do that without fear of being attacked for it. If I choose not to be party in any respect to an anti-gay rally, I should be able to choose that without fear of being attacked for it. I am not interfering in any way with your choices. I am just choosing not to be part of it.

So if it is okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to an anti-gay rally, if we go with tolerance being a two way street, it should be okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to a gay wedding. I am not violating anybody's rights. The gay couple receives any other products or services I provide to anybody and I do not interfere with their right to get married or to have a wedding. I just have a right to choose not to participate in it.

(And again, in actual real life, I would provide the products and services for the gay wedding while I would refuse to provide products and services for the anti-gay rally.)

 

[Coyote]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

Not necessarily within a job. You might be teacher in a school who doesn't like hispanics - you still have to do your job and do it professionally regardless of whether you find them repugnant or not. Or quit.

 

[Coyote]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

Again for me the issue is whether anyone's rights are violated by what I say or what choices I make. To refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally, even though I provide products and services for many other kinds of rallies, does not violate your rights in any way. It does not harm you in any way. I am not interfering in any way with your rally or denying you your right to have one.

If I express my opinion that I do not approve of anti-gay rallies, I should be able to do that without fear of being attacked for it. If I choose not to be party in any respect to an anti-gay rally, I should be able to choose that without fear of being attacked for it. I am not interfering in any way with your choices. I am just choosing not to be part of it.

So if it is okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to an anti-gay rally, if we go with tolerance being a two way street, it should be okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to a gay wedding. I am not violating anybody's rights. The gay couple receives any other products or services I provide to anybody and I do not interfere with their right to get married or to have a wedding. I just have a right to choose not to participate in it.

If you have a business that provides a service for specific events (weddings) - you don't have a right to discriminate based on who that person is. If the couple were not gay - there would be no issue. The service would have been provided without a peep. You are not choosing not to be a part of it - you are choosing to withhold providing a business service. Is the company that provides stationary upon which invitations are printed participating in the wedding?

Why should you be exempt from criticism of the stand you choose to take while the person who you are taking the stand against is required to remain mute? You are interfering with that person's free choice.

 

[Coyote]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

Again for me the issue is whether anyone's rights are violated by what I say or what choices I make. To refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally, even though I provide products and services for many other kinds of rallies, does not violate your rights in any way. It does not harm you in any way. I am not interfering in any way with your rally or denying you your right to have one.

If I express my opinion that I do not approve of anti-gay rallies, I should be able to do that without fear of being attacked for it. If I choose not to be party in any respect to an anti-gay rally, I should be able to choose that without fear of being attacked for it. I am not interfering in any way with your choices. I am just choosing not to be part of it.

So if it is okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to an anti-gay rally, if we go with tolerance being a two way street, it should be okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to a gay wedding. I am not violating anybody's rights. The gay couple receives any other products or services I provide to anybody and I do not interfere with their right to get married or to have a wedding. I just have a right to choose not to participate in it.

(And again, in actual real life, I would provide the products and services for the gay wedding while I would refuse to provide products and services for the anti-gay rally.)

Free speech doesn't work that way - if you take a stand in public (and that is really what this is), you have to deal with the consequences of it as well as with the support you get for taking that stand. That is free speech. You can't arbritrarily cut off someone else's right to free speech.

This goes on all the time in a thousand different ways, most of which never amount to much except to an individual.

You might be the only wedding planner in Podunski Alaska and the nearest alternative is several hundred miles away. Your right to refuse to provide a wedding service to a couple because they are same-sex would, in that case, interfere with their right to have a wedding. To extend that - what if 90% of the wedding industry across the country felt the same way? Can you still say that the couples rights have not been interfered with?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

Again for me the issue is whether anyone's rights are violated by what I say or what choices I make. To refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally, even though I provide products and services for many other kinds of rallies, does not violate your rights in any way. It does not harm you in any way. I am not interfering in any way with your rally or denying you your right to have one.

If I express my opinion that I do not approve of anti-gay rallies, I should be able to do that without fear of being attacked for it. If I choose not to be party in any respect to an anti-gay rally, I should be able to choose that without fear of being attacked for it. I am not interfering in any way with your choices. I am just choosing not to be part of it.

So if it is okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to an anti-gay rally, if we go with tolerance being a two way street, it should be okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to a gay wedding. I am not violating anybody's rights. The gay couple receives any other products or services I provide to anybody and I do not interfere with their right to get married or to have a wedding. I just have a right to choose not to participate in it.

(And again, in actual real life, I would provide the products and services for the gay wedding while I would refuse to provide products and services for the anti-gay rally.)

Free speech doesn't work that way - if you take a stand in public (and that is really what this is), you have to deal with the consequences of it as well as with the support you get for taking that stand. That is free speech. You can't arbritrarily cut off someone else's right to free speech.

This goes on all the time in a thousand different ways, most of which never amount to much except to an individual.

You might be the only wedding planner in Podunski Alaska and the nearest alternative is several hundred miles away. Your right to refuse to provide a wedding service to a couple because they are same-sex would, in that case, interfere with their right to have a wedding. To extend that - what if 90% of the wedding industry across the country felt the same way? Can you still say that the couples rights have not been interfered with?

I certainly can because none of us have a rugh

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

The problem is that reasonable people will disagree on what practices are "hurting people". Saying that it's ok for some reasons, but not for others, is making the same mistake that civil rights laws make. It's setting the government up to decide, for us, which reasons justify such protest and which don't.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

Maybe. But again, it's a matter of personal values and perspective. What we're talking about here is the right of people in society to shun those they believe are deviating from important social norms. As long as they don't actually violate anyone's rights, as long as they're not committing libel, or provoking violence or property destruction, boycotts and organized negative publicity campaigns are legitimate tools for moderating society. They're a hell of a lot better than passing laws to effect social change.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

What rights? Again - I don't see any principled difference between what you're talking about and a baker who makes a stand against gay marriage by refusing to bake a cake. They're both legitimate expressions of disapproval, even if I might personally disagree with them, and should be protected as individual rights.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying. It is exactly the argument I am making. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, his choice should be a protected right. He is not interfering with the people's right to have their wedding or have a cake. He is choosing not to participate in a particular activity/event. He should not have to live in fear of retaliation for exercising a moral choice that requires no participation or contribution of any other person and violates no person's rights.

And that would include having to put up with organized protests and boycotts targeting his business for punishment.

You're allowing the baker to make a principled stand but refusing to allow those who oppose that stand to do the same.

Not at all. Anybody who doesn't believe as the baker believes is perfectly free to also express that point of view and should also be able to do so without fear that an angry mob will organize to destroy his or her business or livelihood. A gay business owned by pro gay rights activists who speak out against Christian prejudices and bigotry should be just as immune to that kind of attack as a Christian baker who does not believe in same sex marriage. And neither should have to participate in an event or activity he/she deems offensive or wrong or unethical or for any other reason he/she does not wish to participate or contribute to an event or activity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let me try one more time to state my argument.

I have NO PROBLEM OF ANY KIND with people expressing their opinion about me, about my business, about any other person, or about any other person's business unless they intentionally libel or slander my or somebody else's person or business. If my business fails to please a customer that customer has every right to say so and to tell everybody he knows and rate me however he thinks I should be rated. He certainly has no obligation to do any further business with me.

I have no problem with boycotts or organized protests against me and/or my business if I am engaged in unethical business practices that are hurting people who have no way to protect or defend themselves.

Both of those things are very different, however, from an angry group who organizes to destroy a business for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like.

If others can legally organize to harass or threaten a business owner's customers, employees, suppliers, advertisers, sponsors and/or whatever for no other reason than the business owner expressed point of view they don't like, do we really have any liberty at all to be who or what we are? Do we really have liberty to say what we think or feel or want? We aren't requiring anybody else to agree with us or adopt our point of view. We aren't imposing our views on anybody. We are violating nobody else's rights. We are simply expressing what we believe and living our life as we believe we should.

I say that trying to destroy somebody for no other reason than he expressed a politically incorrect opinion or said something offensive violates that person's rights.

I think part of the problem in understanding each other's points of view is we don't agree on several key terms.

We all agree that boycotts, protests etc are legitimate free speech.

You want to make an exception based on whether the protest/boycott/etc is " for no other reason than the business owner expressed an opinion or used a word they didn't like."

But the examples you used in the OP aren't that simple nor is the example of providing service to a same-sex wedding.

From the viewpoint of the customer - it is refusing service based on sexual orientation, the same service willingly performed for other weddings. Whether or not you agree with either the customer or the vender it is not simply expressing an opinion or using a word someone didn't like.

"Tolerance" in other areas brought up in the OP - abortion and educational curricula are similar. Tolerating a VIEW is one thing but tolerating an ACTION is another.

Should pro-life people tolerate the views of pro-choice people and vice versa? Yes, they should be respectful and tolerant of a wide array of views because how else will people learn?

But should they be tolerant of actions? Should pro-life people tolerate abortions? No, because they believe an unborn human life is at stake. Should pro-choice people tolerate attempts to make abortion illegal? No, because they believe a woman's right to self-determination and to control her own body is at stake. They have every right to protest in the strongest (legal) ways possible.

Again for me the issue is whether anyone's rights are violated by what I say or what choices I make. To refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally, even though I provide products and services for many other kinds of rallies, does not violate your rights in any way. It does not harm you in any way. I am not interfering in any way with your rally or denying you your right to have one.

If I express my opinion that I do not approve of anti-gay rallies, I should be able to do that without fear of being attacked for it. If I choose not to be party in any respect to an anti-gay rally, I should be able to choose that without fear of being attacked for it. I am not interfering in any way with your choices. I am just choosing not to be part of it.

So if it is okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to an anti-gay rally, if we go with tolerance being a two way street, it should be okay to refuse to participate in or contribute to a gay wedding. I am not violating anybody's rights. The gay couple receives any other products or services I provide to anybody and I do not interfere with their right to get married or to have a wedding. I just have a right to choose not to participate in it.

If you have a business that provides a service for specific events (weddings) - you don't have a right to discriminate based on who that person is. If the couple were not gay - there would be no issue. The service would have been provided without a peep. You are not choosing not to be a part of it - you are choosing to withhold providing a business service. Is the company that provides stationary upon which invitations are printed participating in the wedding?

Why should you be exempt from criticism of the stand you choose to take while the person who you are taking the stand against is required to remain mute? You are interfering with that person's free choice.

Again the business was not discriminating against anybody because they were gay. The bakery, for instance, had frequently cheerfully and without any problems served the same gay couple who came in for products the bakery normally stocked for sale. It was only a request to participate in an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the baker refused. That in no way discriminated against the people because they were gay just as you acknowledged earlier that if I refused to provide products and services for your anti-gay rally, that would in no way be discriminating against you as a person or because of who or what you were. Remember, I cheerfully and competently accommodated all your other rallies. But that one, I would not do.

And I should not be materially or physically punished because of my choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

 

[Ravi]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.