Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAKINAGO SAID:

“I cited the ruling on ACA as an example of the SCOTUS practicing legislation.”

Actually not, what you created was a straw man fallacy, because as a fact of law Supreme Court rulings do not constitute 'legislation.'

 

[sakinago]

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.

What happened under Jim Crow when the states were able to legislate their own intolerance towards blacks and prevent them from voting, living where they wanted, going to school, etc, etc?

In essence that is what the OP topic is saying should be allowed to happen because if tolerance is a "two way street" then racists should be allowed to legislate their racism just as the states were allowed to legislate their bigotry against gays.

And yes, both of those instances were done under the guise of "morals and values".

Oh my, not at all, those are all cases of government stepping out of line and not obeying the negative rights imposed on them in the BOR and constitution

 

[sakinago]

SAKINAGO SAID:

“I cited the ruling on ACA as an example of the SCOTUS practicing legislation.”

Actually not, what you created was a straw man fallacy, because as a fact of law Supreme Court rulings do not constitute 'legislation.'

They re-worded the law in order for it to pass correct??

I know they do not have the power to do so, that was my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FOXFYRE SAID:

“It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.”

No one ever said it was, nor does anyone advocate for any such thing, and this has never been the case since the advent of the Republic – this fails as a straw man fallacy; you seek to contrive and propagate the lie that the Federal government “dictates to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives,” and then proceed to attack this rhetorical contrivance that in no way represents your opponents' position.

Again, states and local jurisdictions are at liberty to enact laws and measures as they see fit, provided those laws and measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, as was the original intent of the Framers.

The reason for this is very simple and easy to understand:

As citizens our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and they can be neither taken or bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Citizens' inalienable right are recognized and acknowledged by the Constitution, its case law, and safeguarded by the rule of law, immune from attack by the state.

Because citizens' rights manifest as a consequence of their humanity, they go wherever a citizens might go, to any state or jurisdiction, as citizens have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction they so desire.

Therefore, citizens do not forfeit their rights merely as a consequence of their state or jurisdiction of residence, their rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the states may not decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and compelling a resident to leave his state as a 'remedy' to his civil rights being violated by the state is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Given these facts of law the Federal government isn't 'dictating' anything when a state or local law is invalidated by the courts because it's repugnant to the Constitution, where the people of that state or local jurisdiction have erred by seeking to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights.

 

[sakinago]

Il

FOXFYRE SAID:

“It is not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government to dictate to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives. And every one of us who values liberty should know and push hard to make that the norm.”

No one ever said it was, nor does anyone advocate for any such thing, and this has never been the case since the advent of the Republic – this fails as a straw man fallacy; you seek to contrive and propagate the lie that the Federal government “dictates to the people how they will organize their societies and live their lives,” and then proceed to attack this rhetorical contrivance that in no way represents your opponents' position.

Again, states and local jurisdictions are at liberty to enact laws and measures as they see fit, provided those laws and measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, as was the original intent of the Framers.

The reason for this is very simple and easy to understand:

As citizens our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and they can be neither taken or bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Citizens' inalienable right are recognized and acknowledged by the Constitution, its case law, and safeguarded by the rule of law, immune from attack by the state.

Because citizens' rights manifest as a consequence of their humanity, they go wherever a citizens might go, to any state or jurisdiction, as citizens have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction they so desire.

Therefore, citizens do not forfeit their rights merely as a consequence of their state or jurisdiction of residence, their rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the states may not decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and compelling a resident to leave his state as a 'remedy' to his civil rights being violated by the state is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Given these facts of law the Federal government isn't 'dictating' anything when a state or local law is invalidated by the courts because it's repugnant to the Constitution, where the people of that state or local jurisdiction have erred by seeking to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights.

how about the case of the baker fined 150,000 for exercising his first, DOMA, slavery, Jim Crow, graduated INCOME tax, asset forfeit seizure, eminent domain (in the name of private business), affirmative action (discrimination), NSA spying, abuse of executive order by every president for the past 50 years, prohibition of drugs without a constitutional amendment, DUI (or whatever) checkpoints, infringements on the 2nd, the dissolution of trial by jury, the IRS targeting, the IRS in general, the federal reserve (private bank issuing currency is a greater threat than a standing army), fisa court used on domestic citizens, licensing for pretty much any business you can think of, unelected bureaus creating laws, and selective taxing?

 

[sakinago]

Is it over?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

 

[Ravi]

Probably most Americans would not get their nose out of joint if Megyn Kelly had suggested Donald Trump was driven by an overdose of testosterone and male arrogance. But a lot of people are apoplectic over Donald Trump referring to Megyn Kelly as 'hormonal' et al. If we truly believe in equality of the sexes, can we believe women are too fragile to be subject to implied misogyny while men are immune to sexist references

It would be the same, childish taunt no matter which gender made it. Trump showed that he is a child.

The thread is not about Donald Trump. His remark was used in an illustration leading up to a specific question related to the OP. Please focus on that question and not Donald Trump. There are plenty of threads already out there to discuss Donald Trump.

You brought him up and I find it interesting that you couldn't address my point.

 

[Bonzi]

There are so many exceptions - it would be nice to have general rules, then, a panel that would decide cases that fall in the middle.

Instead of laws held to the letter.

Common sense to follow the INTENT of the law instead of the LETTER - we all know the difference, but people use the system to their advantage (abusing the intent)

 

[Bonzi]

I'll be leaving soon. Finishing a late dinner (because we were out playing tennis) then to watch "Save My Life" r whatever that show is about real life ER stories... love that!

 

[Coyote]

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

 

[sakinago]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

 

[Coyote]

By denying the right to an abortion they are imposing their values and morals.

Or imposing the right to life protected by the constitution

Oh. I see you are another one who doesn't understand how our constitution and courts work. The supreme court decides what is or isn't allowed by the constitution, and they have long agreed that the right to obtain an abortion is allowed by the constitution. Just because you don't think so doesn't really matter.

Nor does what the Supreme Court rules matter or any other court. Or any other existing law. Existing law is not to be used as argument for purposes of the discussion in this thread. Either make an argument for why abortion must be allowed and pro life values must not be enforced or whatever your position is or let it go please. And your argument must be a rationale and not what the law itself mandates. And ad hominem and/or personal insults are expressly forbidden per the thread rules for this thread.

Ok then, I will say this. The constitution states that you have the right to life, so why did we let Schiavo starve to death. (I promise I will tie this into pro-life, just bear with me)

Just remember friend, the topic is not right to life or Schiavo or pro life. It is tolerance for opposing points of view in a world that would restrict some people's liberties in the interest of political correctness. Be sure to tie or relate your comments to that.

What you call "political correctness" is to some an infringement of THEIR rights. By labeling it "political correctness" you are minimizing the impact.

 

[Coyote]

I agree. Our state and federal governments do not operate under the concept of pure democracy. If 51 percent of the voters in Muleshoe, Texas, vote to ban abortion, they are seeking to impose their intolerance of abortion on the remaining 49 percent. Under our federal constitution (being the supreme law of the land), there are some things, such as individual control over one's own procreative decisions, that are not subject to popular vote. The 49 percent can respect and tolerate the opinions of the 51 percent so long as they apply their beliefs to their own lives and let others make their own decisions ... but when the 51 percent seek to impose their opinions/beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of local law, then the 49 percent are going to rebel and seek the protection of the supreme law of the land through our federal courts.

Phil Robertson is entitled to his own opinions on homosexuality. He is entitled to express those views. He is entitled to give an interview to a national magazine and have his opinions published for the entire world to read. Freedom of thought and expression, however, is not freedom from criticism. Many people might find his opinions to be offensive. They might never watch his show again. They might never buy a product from a company that buys time during the show to advertise. They might join together to express their criticism of Phil Robertson's "intolerance" of people who are different from him.

However, there exists an Orwellian tendency on the part of the far right to reframe the vocabulary. They want to talk about other people being "intolerant" of Phil Robertson's opinion. Why should other people be forced to tolerate other people's intolerance? I understand that "intolerant" people desire to express (both in word and conduct) their intolerance without criticism or repercussions ... and that's why they now attack "political correctness" as an evil concept. Orwellian: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, ...."

If (the generic) you do not tolerate another person's expressed intolerance, meaning that you allow them to hold their opinions and beliefs in peace, then you are as intolerant as the person you accuse? Would you not agree?

No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to their opinions or their beliefs.

They aren't? I'm seeing a lot of arguments here that are saying exactly that.

You have every right to be a racist and a bigot. I have every right to criticize you for those beliefs.

But do you have a right to organize and target me, threaten my customers, threaten my advertisers, threaten my associates, threaten my employees, disrupt my business, and harm me physically and materially because you don't like my beliefs? How do you equate that with tolerance?

Anyone has a right to organize and target - protests, boycotts etc, we have a long history of that in response to things we feel are wrong. It's a legit means expression.

No one has a right to threaten people or attack them physically or destroy their property - that is impinging on their rights.

 

[Coyote]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

 

[Coyote]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

 

[Coyote]

Is it over?

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

Coyote if you followed my posts for any time at all, it become apparent that I don't respond well to chopped up posts like this. It too often takes things out of context and separates them from the whole thought that qualifies the point made.

I have already provided examples of harrassment and bullying incurred by people who have exercised their right of free speech. It is manifested in organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view. I prefer not to repeat them.

At no point have I argued that anybody be discriminated against in a way that affects their rights or liberties. I am only saying that tolerance has to be a two way street. Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral.

And in my opinion, liberty requires that it be left up to the people of the state or community whether Billy Bob should have a say in the public school curriculum. And if they choose him to help with the process, it is quite likely he knows a hell of a lot more about it and what the local kids need than what some faceless bureaucrat in Washington knows. And that principle extends far beyond education to any community's liberty to organize themselves into the sort of society they wish to have.

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Who decides whether it is or isn't freedom of speech or what is ethical or unethical? When is one person's protest "free speech" and another's "sociopoltical bullying"? When is one person's fundamental right labeled as little more than "political correctness"?

For instance Planned Parenthood is being bullied by the pro-birth crowd. Is that "sociopolitical bullying" or is that free speech? I may not like it but I would rather err on the side of free speech than attempt to strangle it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.