Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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.

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.

If I decline participation in your anti-gay marriage rally which you have every right to have but provide you services and products for any other of your organized rallies, you agreed I would not be discriminating against you as a person.

So how is it discriminating against people because they are gay if I decline to participate in a same sex wedding when I provide services and products for any other event requested by the same people?

In both cases, people have a fundamental right to organize and hold both events. Nobody is suggesting the couple should not be able to have their wedding and everything that goes with it. But what gives them a right to demand that a business owner be party to that when he chooses not to be? What of their rights is being violated? What of your rights has been violated if I won't be party to your anti-gay marriage rally?

 

[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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

 

[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.

But you claiming that I did apparently is just a deflection so you don't need to address my post.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

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.

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.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

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.

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.

Exactly - and the "right reasons" vary depending on who you are talking about especially when they involve issues where each side feels a strong moral imperative. In that sense - no matter how much I dislike the other side and it's tactics - I support their right to free speech within the current legal constrainst. Constraining it further is dangerous.

 

[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.

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.

Even hate speech is free speech. If you legislate against it - then who exactly determines what or what isn't hate speech? Aside from that all you do is drive it underground and away from scrutiny. You give them legitimacy by "persecuting" them. Hate speech is best out in the open.

 

[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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because in a same sex wedding you are discrimminating against a customer's sexual orientation - that is the only difference between that and the other weddings you provide services for.

If you are refusing to supply services to a rally - you are objecting to the content of a rally, not my immutable characteristics. A person can participate in any number of rallies whether he is gay, straight, black or white. A gay person can only participate in one type of wedding.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

 

[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.

Even hate speech is free speech. If you legislate against it - then who exactly determines what or what isn't hate speech? Aside from that all you do is drive it underground and away from scrutiny. You give them legitimacy by "persecuting" them. Hate speech is best out in the open.

My point was more that a city could not require a business to serve a group that wanted to promote hate if it so choose.

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because in a same sex wedding you are discrimminating against a customer's sexual orientation - that is the only difference between that and the other weddings you provide services for.

If you are refusing to supply services to a rally - you are objecting to the content of a rally, not my immutable characteristics. A person can participate in any number of rallies whether he is gay, straight, black or white. A gay person can only participate in one type of wedding.

No. I am NOT discriminating in any way against a person's sexual orientation by my belief that the legitimate definition of marriage is between a man and a woman any more than I am discriminating against a person's gender if I believe abortion is wrong. Non discrimination re race, gender, sexual orientation etc. cannot include anything and everything people choose to DO. If we cannot discriminate and choose to participate or not participate in what people DO, then no moral values can be legal re anything.

 

[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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because in a same sex wedding you are discrimminating against a customer's sexual orientation - that is the only difference between that and the other weddings you provide services for.

If you are refusing to supply services to a rally - you are objecting to the content of a rally, not my immutable characteristics. A person can participate in any number of rallies whether he is gay, straight, black or white. A gay person can only participate in one type of wedding.

No. I am NOT discriminating in any way against a person's sexual orientation by my belief that the legitimate definition of marriage is between a man and a woman any more than I am discriminating against a person's gender if I believe abortion is wrong. Non discrimination re race, gender, sexual orientation etc. cannot include anything and everything people choose to DO. If we cannot discriminate and choose to participate or not participate in what people DO, then no moral values can be legal re anything.

If marriage is a fundamental right, same sex marriage is legal, and same sex marriage is the only marriage option for homosexuals - then yes, that is discrimminating. You can disagree and feel it's wrong - but it is still discrimminating.

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly can because none of us have a rugh
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.

Where do you draw the "free speech" line? A business owner makes a stand - he is going to have his supporters and his oppenents. Will you like wise deny his supporters their ability to protest in support of his stance or just his oppenents ability to protest in opposition to it? It isn't "destroying with impunity" - because most stances involve supporters and opponents.

I draw the free speech line to stop at the point that another's rights are violated. I should not have the right to spread untruths about you in a way that materially or physically harms you and I should not have the right to destroy your business or livelihood for no other reason than that I disagree with your point of view. Otherwise I have every right to hold and express whatever I believe or think and act on that so long as it requires no participation or contribution from any other.

The first one I absolutely agree with. The problem is - what if the one "destroying your business" is doing so with truths?

If it destruction based on a 'truth' re the other person's beliefs or opinions, that would be evil and in my opinion should be illegal. If it is a truth based on the other person's actions that materially or physically harm people who have no way to protect themselves, that is a different debate and a different topic.

 

[Coyote]

Got to run, will try to catch up later - this is a great thread

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because in a same sex wedding you are discrimminating against a customer's sexual orientation - that is the only difference between that and the other weddings you provide services for.

If you are refusing to supply services to a rally - you are objecting to the content of a rally, not my immutable characteristics. A person can participate in any number of rallies whether he is gay, straight, black or white. A gay person can only participate in one type of wedding.

No. I am NOT discriminating in any way against a person's sexual orientation by my belief that the legitimate definition of marriage is between a man and a woman any more than I am discriminating against a person's gender if I believe abortion is wrong. Non discrimination re race, gender, sexual orientation etc. cannot include anything and everything people choose to DO. If we cannot discriminate and choose to participate or not participate in what people DO, then no moral values can be legal re anything.

If marriage is a fundamental right, same sex marriage is legal, and same sex marriage is the only marriage option for homosexuals - then yes, that is discrimminating. You can disagree and feel it's wrong - but it is still discrimminating.

Discriminating against an activity or event that happens to include gays. That should be completely legal for ANYBODY. It is not discrimination against people because they are gay. It is discrimination against an activity or event planned by gays that the person does not believe to be right or ethical or whatever.

Just as your hypothetical anti-gay marriage rally is perfectly legal and you have a fundamental right to hold it. And I should have a fundamental right not to be party to it if I choose not to be party to it. (And again for the record, in real life I would take care of the same-sex wedding but I would not provide products or services for an anti-gay marriage rally and believe I have every right to be allowed those choices. And so should the person who sees it differently than I do.)

There can be no tolerance if only those people endorsing what is politically correct are tolerated and anybody who disagrees is not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Governments don't have "rights".

Really?

Then what are "states rights" all about?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Is a pharmacist filling a prescription for a customer in his shop from existing stocks on his shelf for Plan B (morning after contraception) "participating" in an abortion "activity"?

Yes or no?

 

[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.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

Foxie, I'm trying very hard to stay within the constraints of the topic - however, when de-facto discrimmination occurs in your examples, you can't just ignore it or say it has no relevence. Maybe a different example is needed because you keep contradicting yourself - as I am reading it.

If a business is licensed for specific types of activities - then if they choose not to offer their services for those activities on the basis of class - they
ARE discrimminating. A same-sex wedding is the only wedding a gay couple will have. If the ONLY difference between that and any other wedding is gender orientation then yes - it IS "refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way" but it also IS discrimmination because you have no issue doing hetero weddings.

So what is the difference between my choice to not provide services/products for a same sex wedding and my choice not to provide services/products for an anti-gay marriage rally so long as I do not interfere with that wedding or that rally? On what principle is one unacceptable 'discrimination' and the other is not?

Because, in my view - the wedding is discrimminating against the the customers as a class. A rally, is attended by all classes of people - what's being objected to is the message of the rally. The message of a wedding - any wedding is simple - marriage. The differences are soley gender orientation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

AKA the slippery slope to government imposed censorship based upon whatever someone arbitrarily claims are their "religious beliefs".

Interesting how those that want "smaller government" are pushing to increase the intrusiveness of government with this "new law".