U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[Journeyman]

Dont get me wrong... I find the people who wont make a wedding cake for a gay couple deplorable. But, if they want to implode their own businesses and not take advantage of business than that is there right.

Ah, so you don't feel there is any moral or legal requirement for people to be treated equally;  it's merely a simple economic business decision.  If people cannot get a wedding cake (or food, gas, internet service, etc, etc).... well then, they should simply move to a more embracing community/province/state.....

      :

 

[kkwd]

When does one persons rights override another persons rights? Is the yardstick what is socially popular at the moment? Or is it best to keep a consistent view of rights?

 

[FJAG]

Ah, so you don't feel there is any moral or legal requirement for people to be treated equally;  it's merely a simple economic business decision.  If people cannot get a wedding cake (or food, gas, internet service, etc, etc).... well then, they should simply move to a more embracing community/province/state.....

      :

In fairness, I don't think that he said that. Over and above the moral and legal requirements for treating people equally there is the business component that you just lost a customer and the word of mouth traffic that customer might generate.

I do sometimes wonder whether a gay person really wants a cake from a closet homophobe considering that you have no idea what may have been baked into it.

I also wonder why anyone should have to leave their home and move elsewhere for the simple reason that your community has individuals who feel bound to make their lives miserable by following two of the 2,600 year-old verses of Leviticus (which incidentally do not forbid a man lying with his daughter - just saying; as a moral code it's got it's problems)

[cheers]

 

[FJAG]

When does one persons rights override another persons rights? Is the yardstick what is socially popular at the moment? Or is it best to keep a consistent view of rights?

I sat on the Manitoba Human Rights Board as an adjudicator for a few years and thought about that issue when it came to conflicting human rights issues.

Unfortunately I never had a case where that came up as a question, however, I was pretty sure that if it had come my way then I would have ruled as much as possible on the basis that the characteristic that should receive higher protection is one that is one that the individual can't modify. As an example skin colour, age, sexual orientation are all biological characteristics that the individual cannot modify while characteristics such as religious beliefs or political beliefs or source of income are all characteristics which in my mind could be modified and therefore fell into a lower tier.  :2c:

 

[Loachman]

If religious beliefs are so easily modified, then why are so many people willing to die for theirs rather than meekly accept forced conversion? Or be willing to fight in court? Or shut down their business rather than compromise their beliefs?

The more easily modified behaviour would be for the gay couple to take their business to a more friendly place than to head for the courts.

Market forces would ultimately decide, and would generate far less controversy in the process. No sides getting all worked up and offended.

I look forward, though, to the day when one of these gay couple targets a Muslim bakery. I'm pretty sure that it's not happened yet, and won't. Social Justice Whiners' heads will explode trying to decide between homophobia and Islamophobia.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ah, so you don't feel there is any moral or legal requirement for people to be treated equally;  it's merely a simple economic business decision.  If people cannot get a wedding cake (or food, gas, internet service, etc, etc).... well then, they should simply move to a more embracing community/province/state.....

      :

In a public sphere and for essential services, than yes there is a definitive social contract that the business owner must accept. However, in a private, non-essential business than I think that there should be some ability for the owner to control their own establishment. It would make economic sense for them to allow any customer who wants to buy a cake, etc to do so. one of my more right views on individual property rights.  Mind you, my consideration is based on a larger community with multiple options for services.

I can see your point in that if one service is offered in a small community than it becomes more problematic than my framing of the issue.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]]
Speakers should be allowed to speak wherever they are legally invited or entitled to do so, no argument. The counter-protestors are also legally entitled to speak and should do so as part of their own democratic rights. These protests, agreed, should be peaceful, but they certainly dont have to be quiet or complacent.
[/quote]

At what point does the actions of the counter-protestors 'not being quiet or complacent' infringe on the speakers right to speak?

 

[mariomike]

In a public sphere and for essential services, than yes there is a definitive social contract that the business owner must accept.

Depending on the employer, accept and embrace. Or, find a new employer.

A  Deputy Chief made these remarks to our probie class at the academy. I was 18 at the time, but they stuck with me.

He said the department was a social group with its own culture. That we were recruited from a society with many prejudices,

"I cannot change your beliefs, but if you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment.”

 

[Loachman]

At what point does the actions of the counter-protestors 'not being quiet or complacent' infringe on the speakers right to speak?

Or, more importantly, the right of the paying audience to listen to the speaker?

 

[mariomike]

Over and above the moral and legal requirements for treating people equally there is the business component that you just lost a customer and the word of mouth traffic that customer might generate.

Over and above the moral, legal and financial considerations, treating people with respect makes your shift go easier.

What's the sense of antagonising somebody if you know how to avoid it?

I worked with a partner who could start a war just by opening his mouth. It usually wasn't anything he said, his tone of voice was enough.

He tended to forget who we were working for - the taxpayers we depended on to support us with the politicians.

 

[Brad Sallows]

For those curious about the numbers on the "hard right", Scott Alexander at slatestarcodex.com took a stab at it late last year (scroll down to section III, first two or three numbered paragraphs).

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Depending on the employer, accept and embrace. Or, find a new employer.

A  Deputy Chief made these remarks to our probie class at the academy. I was 18 at the time, but they stuck with me.

He said the department was a social group with its own culture. That we were recruited from a society with many prejudices,

"I cannot change your beliefs, but if you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment.”

Agree. It's like the lady in the US who became a hero last year for refusing to do a marriage licence for a gay couple. She works for the federal government... if she doesn't feel comfortable with making legal marriage licences than she can not work for the government. Federal employment isn't a right.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

At what point does the actions of the counter-protestors 'not being quiet or complacent' infringe on the speakers right to speak?

A good argument. Both sides have a right to speak and to assemble. But, like on the weekend when the NDP candidate was the victim of a "shout down" by a loonie, you can deal with the shouting any number of ways.

The reality, as I take it, is that everyone has a right to speak in that you have a right to not have your speech lead to internment or punishment from the government. The right to speech is still limited as it pertains to interpersonal speech within society. So, in the case of Ben Shapiro, if he has a venue and people go in and protest than they should be kicked out to maintain the right to assembly. If the protestors buy tickets and interrupt or ask him questions that are designed to make him look bad then honestly I don't see the problem. He has his right to speak, so do they. And the student body makes money.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/03/526615385/gay-couples-lawsuit-against-kentucky-clerk-is-back-on-after-appeals-court-ruling

She is the county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, not a Federal employee.

And: https://patch.com/colorado/across-co/gay-marriage-foe-sues-again-marry-his-computer

Man Sues, Again, to Marry His Computer
A suspended lawyer has already filed suit, in Colorado and other states, to wed his computer, as a protest of gay marriage.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/03/526615385/gay-couples-lawsuit-against-kentucky-clerk-is-back-on-after-appeals-court-ruling

She is the county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, not a Federal employee.

And: https://patch.com/colorado/across-co/gay-marriage-foe-sues-again-marry-his-computer

Man Sues, Again, to Marry His Computer
A suspended lawyer has already filed suit, in Colorado and other states, to wed his computer, as a protest of gay marriage.

Roger that she is a state employee and not a federal employee. As a state employee she is equally responsible to do her job, which includes fling marriage licences for same sex couples, whether she agrees or not. Being federal and state (and I admit the error) is irrelevant.

As for the second guy, his protest sounds, frankly, stupid. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against gay marriage (though there are those who say that those who protest the loudest....) but marrying an inanimate object and claiming there is some relation to gay marriage doesn't make sense. I've read several "slippery slope" questions, and they all boil down to fear mongering to attempt to block gay marriage for religious reasons. Unfortunately for people such as our Kentucky clerk there is a separation of church and state, which some seem to have a hard time grasping (unless it's muslims it seems). Prayer was taken out of school because it had no place in federally funded schools (church and state and all that). Same reason the public service should be religion free.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If religious beliefs are so easily modified, then why are so many people willing to die for theirs rather than meekly accept forced conversion? Or be willing to fight in court? Or shut down their business rather than compromise their beliefs?

The more easily modified behaviour would be for the gay couple to take their business to a more friendly place than to head for the courts.

Market forces would ultimately decide, and would generate far less controversy in the process. No sides getting all worked up and offended.

I look forward, though, to the day when one of these gay couple targets a Muslim bakery. I'm pretty sure that it's not happened yet, and won't. Social Justice Whiners' heads will explode trying to decide between homophobia and Islamophobia.

They tried going to a Muslim bakery and were told to piss off. As for the gay couple going after the bakery, it was a setup, I googled the area and there were several other bakeries in the area offering the same service. The requested writing was designed to create the issue. Frankly the judge should have smelt a rat and told the gays to stop making mischief. The baker should have baked the cake and not written on it at all.

 

[Jarnhamar]

They tried going to a Muslim bakery and were told to piss off. As for the gay couple going after the bakery, it was a setup, I googled the area and there were several other bakeries in the area offering the same service. The requested writing was designed to create the issue. Frankly the judge should have smelt a rat and told the gays to stop making mischief. The baker should have baked the cake and not written on it at all.

I remember reading the same thing. Pretty stupid. Reminds me of some Muslim guys on YouTube who go out of their way to cause shit like saying allah ackbar on airplanes or whispering 'bomb'.

 

[kratz]

Personal opinion is great, “the idea marrying an object is stupid”. Free to hold that thought.
Free to consider gay marriage, but blind to opposing views, shutting down any discussion with a weak non sequitur.
Offering red herring deflection, with over generalization.
Summation: Agree, public workers must provide services within the law. I support, privately owned companies (not corporations), shouldn’t be forced to go against their personal beliefs.  Market forces will determine which companies are successful.

 

[FJAG]

...
Man Sues, Again, to Marry His Computer[/b]
A suspended lawyer has already filed suit, in Colorado and other states, to wed his computer, as a protest of gay marriage.

Certainly not an expert in Colorado law but I believe you are only allowed to marry wetware and not hardware or software.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

...
Summation: Agree, public workers must provide services within the law. I support, privately owned companies (not corporations), shouldn’t be forced to go against their personal beliefs.  Market forces will determine which companies are successful.

I appreciate your views on "privately owned corporations" and perhaps, based on recent US Supreme Court cases one might interpret that that is the state of the law in the US.

In Canada it is quite different. There is a Federal Human Rights Code and one for each province that dictates human rights issues. Just as an example, the Manitoba Code is found here: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/h175e.php

Note in particular s 13(1) which provides:

  13(1)  No person shall discriminate with respect to any service, accommodation, facility, good, right, licence, benefit, program or privilege available or accessible to the public or to a section of the public, unless bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination.

Note that in law, the term "person" refers to both living human organisms as well as corporate entities. (If only humans were involved, the law would use the term "individual"). As far as corporations are concerned there is no distinction between a public or private corporation under this law. There are further sections that deal with responsibilities of officers, directors etc.

S 13(1) is the general provision barring discrimination; there are many exceptions and modifiers in the Act which makes this a complex subject but to put a fine point to it a private bakery in Manitoba that refuses to bake a cake on the grounds that the couple are celebrating a gay wedding would be in breach of the Code and could be run through the system for that.

:cheers: