Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Carla_Danger]

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

If you're refusing services based on sexual orientation, that's exactly what discrimination is.

Just as I would not participate in your anti-gay rally if you had one, I should have every right to not participate in your same-sex wedding if you had one. Neither has anything to do with who or what you are but has everything to do with not wishing to be associated with a specific event.

No one is asking you to participate in either.

If it requires my time, my skills, my inventory, my staff etc. and/or has my name on it, it is participation.

No it's not. It's you doing business just as you would anyone else.

 

[Foxfyre]

DEFINITIONS that will apply within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, and/or contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION: Giving of one's name, time, talent, labor and/or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

Merriam Webster defines participation as: :to be involved with others in doing something : to take part in an activity or event with others

The Free Dictionary defines contribution as: Noun 1. contribution - the part played by a person in bringing about a result; "I am proud of my contribution in advancing the project"; "they all did their share of the work"

 

[Carla_Danger]

DEFINITIONS within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION: Giving of one's name, time, talent, or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

So this thread is about pretend laws and pretend definitions?

 

[Foxfyre]

DEFINITIONS within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION: Giving of one's name, time, talent, or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

So this thread is about pretend laws and pretend definitions?

This thread is about what the OP says the thread is about. You are free to consider it as you wish to consider it, but you are not free to redefine it or derail the thread. Thank you for understanding.

 

[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?

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.

You're not allowing those who feel is point of view is wrong to express it - you're constraining it. If they decide to call for a boycott of his business. Both sides have the free speech right to speak out, boycott etc. the other. Once you curtail that then whomever has the majority power is going to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable free speech and I see no good coming out of that for anyone.

 

[Nosmo King]

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 if their business is open to the public. And not if that 'repugnant' person is only 'repugnant' because they are a member of a group. If the customer ACTS in a repugnant manner, then yes, the business has a right of refusal. But if that customer does not behave in a repugnant manner, but is seen as repugnant by the shop keeper as repugnant because of her lifestyle or any immutable characteristic, then the shop keeper has no legitimate reason to refuse service.

 

[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.

You're not allowing those who feel is point of view is wrong to express it - you're constraining it. If they decide to call for a boycott of his business. Both sides have the free speech right to speak out, boycott etc. the other. Once you curtail that then whomever has the majority power is going to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable free speech and I see no good coming out of that for anyone.

How could you say that when in my very first sentence I am very explicit that anybody is perfectly free to express whatever point of view they hold?

I just don't want them to be able destroy somebody else's livelihood and/or business with impunity just because the other person doesn't agree with them.

 

[sakinago]

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.

You're not allowing those who feel is point of view is wrong to express it - you're constraining it. If they decide to call for a boycott of his business. Both sides have the free speech right to speak out, boycott etc. the other. Once you curtail that then whomever has the majority power is going to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable free speech and I see no good coming out of that for anyone.

Agreed coyote, even if this law is done for the right reasons like people should not lose their jobs over supporting prop 8...eventually it's going to be used the wrong way and just gives government more power than they need.

 

[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.

If the city has the right to force me to provide products and/or services specifically for an anti-gay rally, I won't be opening a business in that city.

An anti-gay rally would be hate speech and the city also has a right to not protect hate speech.

 

[Valerie]

DEFINITIONS that will apply within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, and/or contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION: Giving of one's name, time, talent, labor and/or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

Merriam Webster defines participation as: :to be involved with others in doing something : to take part in an activity or event with others

The Free Dictionary defines contribution as: Noun 1. contribution - the part played by a person in bringing about a result; "I am proud of my contribution in advancing the project"; "they all did their share of the work"

"hiding behind the rules of this 'debate' forum to insidiously conflate Liberty as it relates to anti-discrimination laws with Political Correctness as it effects bigots in the public sphere, isn't fooling anybody..."




insidious
adjective in·sid·i·ous \in-ˈsi-dē-əs\
: causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed

Insidious Definition of insidious by Merriam-Webster


conflate
verb con·flate \kən-ˈflāt\

transitive verb
1
a : to bring together : fuse

b : confuse
2
: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

 

[Foxfyre]

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 if their business is open to the public. And not if that 'repugnant' person is only 'repugnant' because they are a member of a group. If the customer ACTS in a repugnant manner, then yes, the business has a right of refusal. But if that customer does not behave in a repugnant manner, but is seen as repugnant by the shop keeper as repugnant because of her lifestyle or any immutable characteristic, then the shop keeper has no legitimate reason to refuse service.

Here we are pretty much on the same page I think. I have consistently said that I think it is okay if a non discrimination policy is attached to a business license; i.e. the business owner will provide the products and services he normally has for sale to all customers who meet the same requirements of dress and conduct regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That requires no participation or contribution by the business owner that he does not agree to when he goes into business.

Where I seem to be the lone voice in this discussion is that I do not believe a business license should ever require a business owner to participate in or contribute to an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to be party to. And that ability to choose should apply to anybody whether straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. In other words I can choose to put the rotary emblems on your cupcakes for your event, but I should not have to put swastikas on your cupcakes for a white supremacist rally. I should be able to provide services at your animal rights rally but refuse to provide services at your pro life rally.

And such choices should be available to all business owners, Religious or Atheist, black or white, gay or straight, etc. without fear of organized punishment or retribution even if the choice is to not participate in an event most people champion as a great thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

DEFINITIONS that will apply within the context of this discussion:

PARTICIPATION: Being present at, having one's name associated with, and/or contributing time, talent, inventory, skills.

CONTRIBUTION: Giving of one's name, time, talent, labor and/or anything material to a person, group, or activity.

Merriam Webster defines participation as: :to be involved with others in doing something : to take part in an activity or event with others

The Free Dictionary defines contribution as: Noun 1. contribution - the part played by a person in bringing about a result; "I am proud of my contribution in advancing the project"; "they all did their share of the work"

"hiding behind the rules of this 'debate' forum to insidiously conflate Liberty as it relates to anti-discrimination laws with Political Correctness as it effects bigots in the public sphere, isn't fooling anybody..."




insidious
adjective in·sid·i·ous \in-ˈsi-dē-əs\
: causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed

Insidious Definition of insidious by Merriam-Webster


conflate
verb con·flate \kən-ˈflāt\

transitive verb
1
a : to bring together : fuse

b : confuse
2
: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

Stay on topic or start your own thread elsewhere please.

 

[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.

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.

If the city has the right to force me to provide products and/or services specifically for an anti-gay rally, I won't be opening a business in that city.

An anti-gay rally would be hate speech and the city also has a right to not protect hate speech.

Existing law is off topic for this discussion. Argue the principle or start your own thread to discuss the law.

 

[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.

If the city has the right to force me to provide products and/or services specifically for an anti-gay rally, I won't be opening a business in that city.

An anti-gay rally would be hate speech and the city also has a right to not protect hate speech.

Existing law is off topic for this discussion. Argue the principle or start your own thread to discuss the law.

I didn't state an existing law.

 

[Valerie]

Here we are pretty much on the same page I think. I have consistently said that I think it is okay if a non discrimination policy is attached to a business license; i.e. the business owner will provide the products and services he normally has for sale to all customers who meet the same requirements of dress and conduct regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That requires no participation or contribution by the business owner that he does not agree to when he goes into business.

Where I seem to be the lone voice in this discussion is that I do not believe a business license should ever require a business owner to participate in or contribute to an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to be party to. And that ability to choose should apply to anybody whether straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. In other words I can choose to put the rotary emblems on your cupcakes for your event, but I should not have to put swastikas on your cupcakes for a white supremacist rally. I should be able to provide services at your animal rights rally but refuse to provide services at your pro life rally.

And such choices should be available to all business owners, Religious or Atheist, black or white, gay or straight, etc. without fear of organized punishment or retribution even if the choice is to not participate in an event most people champion as a great thing.

no, you are not a lone voice, our constitution is already in agreement...



To Wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

 

[candycorn]

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 correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

Correction....orchestrated lies about what they do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here we are pretty much on the same page I think. I have consistently said that I think it is okay if a non discrimination policy is attached to a business license; i.e. the business owner will provide the products and services he normally has for sale to all customers who meet the same requirements of dress and conduct regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That requires no participation or contribution by the business owner that he does not agree to when he goes into business.

Where I seem to be the lone voice in this discussion is that I do not believe a business license should ever require a business owner to participate in or contribute to an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to be party to. And that ability to choose should apply to anybody whether straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. In other words I can choose to put the rotary emblems on your cupcakes for your event, but I should not have to put swastikas on your cupcakes for a white supremacist rally. I should be able to provide services at your animal rights rally but refuse to provide services at your pro life rally.

And such choices should be available to all business owners, Religious or Atheist, black or white, gay or straight, etc. without fear of organized punishment or retribution even if the choice is to not participate in an event most people champion as a great thing.

no, you are not a lone voice, our constitution is already in agreement...



To Wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

News flash: the phrase you quoted is not in the Constitution. It is part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. As such, within the thread topic, a member can use it as an illustration for what the law should be but because it is existing law, just citing it is not allowed as an argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 correct opinion violates that person's rights.

Except that it happens to both sides.

Duck dynasty is no different to Planned Parenthood in that both are facing the same degree of censure from people having the right to express themselves.

And yes, that right includes boycotts since those are peaceful ways of acting effectively as opposed to violence which is illegal.

There can be no "new law" that only protects one side and not the other.

And no "new law" should infringe on the right of everyone to express their opinion and to organize peaceful boycotts if they want.

Freedom of expression cannot be infringed for something as petty as demanding that there must be "tolerance" and banning all legitimate protests.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was attacked for no reason other than he expressed an unpopular point of view.

Planned Parenthood is attacked not for opinions they express, but for what they DO.

Is it possible to acknowledge that those are two different things?

Correction....orchestrated lies about what they do.

Different topic for a different thread. This topic is not about the current controversy re Planned Parenthood. Nor did my comment refer specifically to that.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Marriage is a fundamental right - one that is recognized by any civilized nation. Beyond that, there is the expectation that one will not, as a customer, be discrimminated against for reasons of race, religion, gender. That involves established law, and even thought that's barred from discussion it can't be totally omitted because it sets out what would be reasonable expectations for business' and customers. Those reasonable expectations are that anyone should be able to go into a store or to an event planner and be treated like any other customer assuming he can pay for it, behaves reasonably, and that what he is asking for is something the vender normally provides.

Do you go into each and every store wondering - will they sell me eggs? will they serve me lunch? will they rent me a hotel room? will they sell me a cake? I doubt it. You go in, knowing that you have the money to pay for it and expect to be served. If you have an event you want catered, the first thing you do is research venders who do those types of events. A wedding is a wedding and a same sex Christian based wedding is likely the same as a same sex heterosexual wedding in terms of preparation and supplies. The same expectations. There might be rejection based upon cost, unreasonable expectations, etc. or limitations set forth ahead of time by the vender (for example, they only do Hindu weddings).

We have two sets of rights here: the right of the vendor to refuse service for any reason and the right of a customer to be served in accordance to reasonable standards of expectation. None of these are constitutional or legal "rights" since we can't use law but they are rights none the less. Who's right is greater?

In my first post I used Condaleeza Rice's experiences growing up under segregation as an example.

There is no difference between a hotel owner refusing to let rooms to black couple than there is to a same-sex couple. They can claim they don't want their business to be associated with blacks in the same way that the wedding planner doesn't want her business associated with homosexuals. They can claim that they serve blacks in other capacities - they will bring a take out order from their dining room to be eaten in the car, they will let them fill up with gas at the pumps - but they will not rent them a hotel room.

What happens when 99% of the country believes that? According to you, no one is being discriminated against but the de facto situation is that yes - people are being discrimminated against and their rights are being infringed on - the rights that any reasonable person can expect from a business. That is the situation for which anti-discrimmination laws were set up to prevent proposing new laws to allow discrimination against certain classes again is a step backwards.

A business owner, when he operates his business, takes advantage of publically funded amenities - whether it's roads, infrastructure, special tax benefits, etc that allow him to more easily operate. What responsibility does that entail on the business in regards to the public he serves?

Lastly - a business is NOT an individual. An individual person who feels a situation violates his ethics, can refuse. The business can find someone else to fulfill the order in that individuals stead.

 

[Valerie]

Here we are pretty much on the same page I think. I have consistently said that I think it is okay if a non discrimination policy is attached to a business license; i.e. the business owner will provide the products and services he normally has for sale to all customers who meet the same requirements of dress and conduct regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That requires no participation or contribution by the business owner that he does not agree to when he goes into business.

Where I seem to be the lone voice in this discussion is that I do not believe a business license should ever require a business owner to participate in or contribute to an EVENT or ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to be party to. And that ability to choose should apply to anybody whether straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. In other words I can choose to put the rotary emblems on your cupcakes for your event, but I should not have to put swastikas on your cupcakes for a white supremacist rally. I should be able to provide services at your animal rights rally but refuse to provide services at your pro life rally.

And such choices should be available to all business owners, Religious or Atheist, black or white, gay or straight, etc. without fear of organized punishment or retribution even if the choice is to not participate in an event most people champion as a great thing.

no, you are not a lone voice, our constitution is already in agreement...



To Wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

News flash: the phrase you quoted is not in the Constitution. It is part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. As such, within the thread topic, a member can use it as an illustration for what the law should be but because it is existing law, just citing it is not allowed as an argument.

News flash: that existing legal standard of "substantial burden" is upheld by our constitution as well as the crux of the legal matters you choose to ignore... your fears and posts are filled with dishonest straw.