Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 19:37:46 GMT -5
Because this isn't about rights, freedom, fairness, or consistency. It's about torturing logic to the end of prohibiting thoughts, speech, and discrimination they personally don't like while protecting thoughts, speech, and discrimination they personally do like. Freedom comes up against something they don't like--such as free moral exercise--watch how quickly freedom flies out the window. Watch how quickly the excuses multiply. Nonsense, and this is even a worse conclusion than you are usually led to. I have been consistent for years that individual rights are paramount, subject to the condition that one's exercise of their own rights cannot infringe on the rights of others at the same time. You are promoting the belief that the rights of others are immaterial and not worthy of consideration. In an anarchical society that may be how they choose to go. I would likely do quite well there, being bigger, stronger, and smarter than most. Anyone not going along would be dealt with. Hardly the type of society I would choose though.
Rights are supremely important. But that refers to everybody's rights. You don't get to deny some just because they are different or you don't like them. Disgusting and un-American. My belief system in this area is based on not infringing on the rights of others, and guaranteeing for everyone the same rights I demand for myself. That is the only way that mine can remain secure. Very simple stuff in theory. Apparently not so to some.
I know the "my rights end where yours begin" truism, DJ... I mean Tall. In this case, the line between where a business' (or university's) ends and Joe customer's begins is too bloody close to the business. Where the courts have progressively moved the line to is not a reasonable compromise between the two competing interests. This thread is yet another demonstration of this unreasonableness hitting you like a two-by-four, then watching you fire up all four props on the USS Apples n' Oranges trying to come up with whatever technicalities you can to divorce the two cases so that you can maintain your denial that Oregon was a shoddy ruling. I honestly don't care which way the courts rule in this case if it goes to court. If they uphold the expulsion, universities won't have to put up with grinning and bearing racist fraternities. If they strike it down, at least they're being consistent with the Oregon precedent and we can all appreciate that glimmer of sanity.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 19:38:09 GMT -5
Nonsense, and this is even a worse conclusion than you are usually led to. I have been consistent for years that individual rights are paramount, subject to the condition that one's exercise of their own rights cannot infringe on the rights of others at the same time. You are promoting the belief that the rights of others are immaterial and not worthy of consideration. In an anarchical society that may be how they choose to go. I would likely do quite well there, being bigger, stronger, and smarter than most. Anyone not going along would be dealt with. Hardly the type of society I would choose though.
Rights are supremely important. But that refers to everybody's rights. You don't get to deny some just because they are different or you don't like them. Disgusting and un-American. My belief system in this area is based on not infringing on the rights of others, and guaranteeing for everyone the same rights I demand for myself. That is the only way that mine can remain secure. Very simple stuff in theory. Apparently not so to some.
You believe people have positive rights not just negative rights? Is that correct? I believe that the two often come into conflict and therefore people's negative rights should prevail. I think that is the main difference in our beliefs. No, I agree, but your claim is inconsistent. BOTH sides have both positive and negative rights. You are denying the right of the other side to not have their rights denied. I am elevating that above my own. So in effect, I am advocating your belief system. You just don't realize it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 19:41:49 GMT -5
To respond to this specifically, you could likely find dozens of posts where I have stated that you can hold whatever thoughts or beliefs you wish. Thoughts are protected and we have no Orwellian "thoughtcrime" here. I support almost unlimitedly the idea of free speech. Actions are another matter. Actions such as discrimination do have deleterious effects on society at large, being that they infringe on the rights of others. That does not even count the damage done to the individual. And that is where your exercise of your rights stops. You do not have the right to deny the same rights to others that you demand for yourself. It is logically and societally inconsistent and cannot be a valid belief system. Great. We can have thoughts about right and wrong. We just can't express them, choose our associations based on them, or let our attitudes and actions reflect them. I feel so... free. Am I allowed to say that out loud?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 19:45:35 GMT -5
And I would argue that the business itself does not have a right one way or the other. The individual does. The business exists to serve the public and make money for the owners. That interest is not served by denying service and violating law. It can't be. And again, it cannot infringe on the rights of its customers. The owners can try, but there may be consequences for doing so. If they want to take that risk, it's on them. It is not an indication that the law is wrong.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 19:51:09 GMT -5
To respond to this specifically, you could likely find dozens of posts where I have stated that you can hold whatever thoughts or beliefs you wish. Thoughts are protected and we have no Orwellian "thoughtcrime" here. I support almost unlimitedly the idea of free speech. Actions are another matter. Actions such as discrimination do have deleterious effects on society at large, being that they infringe on the rights of others. That does not even count the damage done to the individual. And that is where your exercise of your rights stops. You do not have the right to deny the same rights to others that you demand for yourself. It is logically and societally inconsistent and cannot be a valid belief system. Great. We can have thoughts about right and wrong. We just can't express them, choose our associations based on them, or let our attitudes and actions reflect them.
I feel so... free. Am I allowed to say that out loud? Why do I so often feel you are trolling me?
Of course you can, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of someone else in doing so. That should be pretty limited to actions toward others as I see it. The rest of it is up to you and the people you choose to be around. I could not possibly manage to care less.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2015 19:53:46 GMT -5
And I would argue that the business itself does not have a right one way or the other. The individual does. The business exists to serve the public and make money for the owners. That interest is not served by denying service and violating law. It can't be. And again, it cannot infringe on the rights of its customers. The owners can try, but there may be consequences for doing so. If they want to take that risk, it's on them. It is not an indication that the law is wrong. Damn right! The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits at all costs regardless of anything else- it is an amoral entity. Just take a look around the country- not a whole lot of 'deeply held religious beliefs' governing what these fuckers do. Pretty sure poisoning your neighbor, killing people, shitting on the poor, usury, bearing false witness, are not the tenets of religion- they are the tenets of unfettered Capitalism.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 20:18:00 GMT -5
Not on point again. Those restaurants are not practicing discrimination or violating the law. And your contention about some customers being more trouble than they are worth is valid, but that is not the issue. The issue is people who did nothing wrong but were denied anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:32:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 20:25:09 GMT -5
Not on point again. Those restaurants are not practicing discrimination or violating the law. And your contention about some customers being more trouble than they are worth is valid, but that is not the issue. The issue is people who did nothing wrong but were denied anyway.Incorrect. Singing "hang ni***rs by the tree" is hate speech and incitement to violence (whether the violence actually gets incited or not). That one line is what makes the issue actionable on the part of the University for me. If they'd limited their ignorant racist song to: "There will never be a ni***r SAE No ni***r will ever sign with me. There will never be a ni***r SAE" I think they would have been fine on "free speech" grounds (still ignorant and offensive, but I would have defended their right to be ignorant and offensive)... but once they suggested violence they crossed the line.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 20:27:49 GMT -5
I was referring to the denial of service in the bakery case. Again, the racism at the UO fraternity is not a discrimination issue so not relevant to the post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:32:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 20:28:53 GMT -5
I'm really late to this thread and haven't read all the pages but here's my take based on the OP and the last page or so.
The thing with the bakery and the cake reminds me of when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, or not at the counter in a restaurant or drink from a different water fountain. The bakery is a business requiring a license to conduct business in whatever city or state. To be issued said license they don't get to make anyone sit at the back of the bus.
As for the hate speech, they are not being censored or thrown in jail. However they are not being allowed to create a dangerous situation for other people. I do think that needs to be an option. There is a difference between being censored from saying something or getting natural consequences for saying it. Without being able to expel these students what options are available? I can easily imagine it turning into a situation with violent retaliation if there were not less violent options available.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:32:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 20:28:58 GMT -5
I was referring to the denial of service in the bakery case. Again, the racism at the UO fraternity is not a discrimination issue so not relevant to the post. Ohhh... sorry. I though you were bringing the thread back on track.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 20:29:21 GMT -5
Great. We can have thoughts about right and wrong. We just can't express them, choose our associations based on them, or let our attitudes and actions reflect them.
I feel so... free. Am I allowed to say that out loud? Why do I so often feel you are trolling me?
Of course you can, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of someone else in doing so. That should be pretty limited to actions toward others as I see it. The rest of it is up to you and the people you choose to be around. I could not possibly manage to care less. I don't care if you call my exercising my right to have nothing to do with you "infringing on your rights" with a cherry on top. The status quo is a lousy compromise between my rights and yours--if it can even be called a "compromise". I suspect that deep down you know this and you're arguing here out of spite. All I can say is: may you never have any thoughts not in lockstep with those of your society or you too may know the joy of having to print up flyers for the August 12th meet n' greet of your local NAMBLA chapter with the courts' gun to your business' head.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 20:45:12 GMT -5
You have every right as a private citizen to have nothing to do with me, or anyone else you wish. Who cares? What you would not have if you owned a business is a right to discriminate toward some members of the public.
The number of times you bring up NAMBLA is at least somewhat concerning. (And no, I don't wish to Google it, but I can't imagine it is anything positive.) I will say, though, that if it is anything contrary to law a business owner would be within their rights to refuse it.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 15, 2015 20:47:53 GMT -5
I'm a bit disappointed that anyone sees the bakery case and the frat case as being related. The bakery case was about discrimination against a class protected by law and some see the frat case as a free speech issue. Different laws so not unexpected the reasoning might be different.
But back to the topic. Some people mistakenly think free speech means all speech is OK in every location, situation for whatever reason. Some might modify that and feel that all speech should be free if government is somehow involved even tangentially.
I'm not a law scholar, so my reasoning might be off, but I believe the intention of the free speech law was to prevent people from being jailed for saying something a government might dislike. It was not intended to allow all speech anywhere under any conditions. The law was not intended to allow people to say whatever they bloody well feel like it and have no consequences from what they say. If one acknowledges that screaming fire in a public place when there is not a fire is to be discouraged instead of an unintended consequence of free speech then the question becomes not if there is a line, because there is, but what that line is or should be.
Also, I think its possible to get distracted by the content of what was said and realize there are likely examples that would surprise no one if a similar action was taken. There is a term FB fired for what happens to people who post stupid crap about their company or something really ill-advised that get fired because the company decides this public post(s) reflect badly on the company and they no longer want to employ them. It is non obvious to most, but their free speech wasn't infringed in as much as they 1) were able to post it and 2) were not jailed. 3) staying employed is not guaranteed in the US constitution any more than staying a member of a frat or a student on a college campus.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 20:48:36 GMT -5
You specifically said a business exists to make money and that interest can't be served by denying service to customers. I pointed out a real world example that completely disproves that. denying service and violating law.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 20:56:22 GMT -5
Who's definition of wrong are we basing this on? How do you know I don't include gay sex in mine? More specifically, what if I, as a business owner, want to make the decision to purposely not do gay weddings because I think it will help me get more business from the Rush Limbaugh crowd? The business exists to make money, and that should be my only concern, remember? I've already said that if they are having sex in your business you can have them removed. Hell, have them arrested!
I said serve the public and make money for the owners. Dual concerns, one compelled by law. You can ignore the serve the public part if you choose, but there may be consequences for it. Best bet would be to target your advertising toward the Rush Limbaugh crowd, but you still would not be able to deny those others.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 21:01:01 GMT -5
Even easier. Complying with certain laws is far more expensive than violating them. Businesses do this all the time. Look at the number of them that are routinely fined for hiring illegal workers. They've decided it's definitely in their best interest monetarily to keep hiring illegals and deal with the occasional slap on the wrist when caught. Easier for me too. You've already admitted they are willing to pay the consequences if caught. So should other business owners in the case of discrimination complaints. Discriminate if you want to, but be accountable for the consequences if it comes to that. If you are fined, or forced to close your business, you took that risk. And lost. No sympathy.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 21:20:19 GMT -5
The number of times you bring up NAMBLA is at least somewhat concerning. (And no, I don't wish to Google it, but I can't imagine it is anything positive.) I will say, though, that if it is anything contrary to law a business owner would be within their rights to refuse it. It's a group that celebrates love and fights discrimination. It also happens to have lower sexual moral standards than you do, hence it can give you some perspective on why we can't all just get along. What a gold standard for freedom! If the government mandates that grocers must never eat or sell peanuts due to health concerns for the minority that's deathly allergic, the grocers who disagree are "free" to shut down their profitable business. ...or "free" to move abroad, which is looking like a better and better option all the time. That may be one of the reasons the number of US businesses created fell below the number of businesses that shut down or left last year, for the first time ever during a non-recessionary period in your nation's history.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 21:26:57 GMT -5
I just realized... If the University of Oklahoma doesn't want to readmit its troupe of musical racists, it's free to shut down and cease to exist! The freedom was staring us in the face all along! All of this debate was for nothing! That's a load off my mind. Sorry for the false alarm.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 21:43:52 GMT -5
... If the government mandates that grocers must never eat or sell peanuts due to health concerns for the minority that's deathly allergic, the grocers who disagree are "free" to shut down their profitable business. ...or "free" to move abroad, which is looking like a better and better option all the time. ... If the American people, through our government, decide that we are going to make those with severe peanut allergies a protected class and talk steps to protect them, so be it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 22:28:25 GMT -5
... If the government mandates that grocers must never eat or sell peanuts due to health concerns for the minority that's deathly allergic, the grocers who disagree are "free" to shut down their profitable business. ...or "free" to move abroad, which is looking like a better and better option all the time. ... If the American people, through our government, decide that we are going to make those with severe peanut allergies a protected class and talk steps to protect them, so be it. Yeah. So be it. And hey, the west doesn't have all that long left to go anyway, so at least reality will put us out of our misery sooner rather than later.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 16, 2015 8:59:45 GMT -5
If the American people, through our government, decide that we are going to make those with severe peanut allergies a protected class and talk steps to protect them, so be it. Yeah. So be it. And hey, the west doesn't have all that long left to go anyway, so at least reality will put us out of our misery sooner rather than later. i don't think that is true at all. the overwhelming evidence suggests that capitalism will triumph over Democracy, however.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 16, 2015 9:52:37 GMT -5
Yeah. So be it. And hey, the west doesn't have all that long left to go anyway, so at least reality will put us out of our misery sooner rather than later. i don't think that is true at all. the overwhelming evidence suggests that capitalism will triumph over Democracy, however. I appreciate your optimism.
|
|
Михайло Ніколук
New Member
Ukrainian Patriot! Свобода для України!!!
Joined: Mar 16, 2015 18:01:50 GMT -5
Posts: 19
Today's Mood: Scared
Location: Lviv, Ukrainia (Was Dnipropetrovsk)
Favorite Drink: Vodka
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02883/Ukraine_Ukrainian__2883120b.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: fff800
Mini-Profile Text Color: b0c001
|
Post by Михайло Ніколук on Mar 16, 2015 18:17:27 GMT -5
is it true that nationalist socialist groups have free spech in US? the ones like we have over except they are the Ukrainia Patriots or something.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 16, 2015 18:21:25 GMT -5
is it true that nationalist socialist groups have free spech in US? the ones like we have over except they are the Ukrainia Patriots or something. Yes
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 16, 2015 18:21:23 GMT -5
is it true that nationalist socialist groups have free spech in US? the ones like we have over except they are the Ukrainia Patriots or something. Yes, it's true. They do have free speech in the US.
|
|
Михайло Ніколук
New Member
Ukrainian Patriot! Свобода для України!!!
Joined: Mar 16, 2015 18:01:50 GMT -5
Posts: 19
Today's Mood: Scared
Location: Lviv, Ukrainia (Was Dnipropetrovsk)
Favorite Drink: Vodka
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02883/Ukraine_Ukrainian__2883120b.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: fff800
Mini-Profile Text Color: b0c001
|
Post by Михайло Ніколук on Mar 16, 2015 18:22:49 GMT -5
over here before our war it was banned, and well persucuted for.. so as eastern propaganda it has always been called a terrorism which needs destroying. some US laws need to come here since well ours are decimating and now gone.. except in lviv and kyiv regions
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:32:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 18:40:11 GMT -5
so were there any liberals posting here who supported the students right to free speech without official repercussons from the school? It seems to me that on this issue and the cake baker issue, it is the conservatives and libertarians who most strongly support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is that a fair assessment?
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 16, 2015 19:05:37 GMT -5
Well many people on this board have tagged me as a liberal (which is funny, because I hate both political parties and while I vote in every election, I have never registered with any political party).
I believe deeply in free speech, but I also believe in personal responsibility: one may be free to speak or act, but one is not free from any negative consequences of one's speech or actions. The students may have said what they felt/believed and they had the right to say it out loud, but they don't have the right to be shielded from dismissal for creating a hostile learning environment.
Same with the baker. They have an absolute right to their religious beliefs - FOR THEM. They also have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their cohorts who believe like they do. They do NOT have the right to impose their religious beliefs in a civil, non-sectarian arena on others who are not like them or do not think like them by denying services that are held out to the general public under civil law and licensing.
Your rights end where my nose begins. To me, that is not liberal OR conservative.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 16, 2015 19:22:11 GMT -5
so were there any liberals posting here who supported the students right to free speech without official repercussons from the school? It seems to me that on this issue and the cake baker issue, it is the conservatives and libertarians who most strongly support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Is that a fair assessment? The cake baker broke state law (the two lesbians who asked for a wedding cake). Overturn the law if you don't like it. The two women wanting the cake did nothing wrong. Tennessee has no such laws so the baker can move here and many other states without these laws and discriminate against gays who want wedding cakes to her twisted heart's desire. The cake baker who declined to ice biased/bigoted comments on two bible-shaped cakes offered the customer a reasonable accomadtion by offering to bake the cakes and give an icing bag to the customer to write the comments themselves. The university sees the two students as having broken their Code of Conduct. Start your own university if you want the students to freely sing about n***ers hanging from trees while mentioning their fraternity name in their hanging song and additionally acknowledging they block blacks from joining their fraternity simply because of the color of their skin. Welcome back to the 1950s and 60s.
|
|