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 May 24, 2016 18:33:58 GMT -5
That's your ignorance speaking. You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about at this point, hence I'm not wasting any more keystrokes. My point stands: you're either sucking air or raging at the churchies with your "theocracy" argument. Q.E.D. 'at this point". Really? This is the point? Shh. It's our little secret. 1. But it is not necessarily true. 2. It is very possible that the harm could be great. 3. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. 4. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. 5. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. 6. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. 1. It is, provided an exception is made for great harm. 2. If there's an immediate foreseeable risk of death or grave injury (assuming a store owner would care about the law either way in such circumstances), I'm amenable to "good Samaritan" laws. Since there are currently no federal laws requiring laypeople to render life-saving necessities to people regardless of any merchant/customer relationship that exists between them (and swamp can confirm this), this is in fact me supporting the creation of a law that doesn't already exist. 3. It is if we're comparing one harm to another, determining the just balance. 4. Agreed. 5. I'm glad you acknowledge this, as it confirms #3. 6. It does. It can. We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 18:34:16 GMT -5
So their only values are to deny the LGBTQ that's their only value? That's what their religion teaches them? Who are you to tell people what their religion should teach them? Do you want to be guided by their religion? It is what bigotry is, no respect for ideas you oppose. I am not sure why the moderators continually allow posters to disparage the religious beliefs of others. If you don't speak for the religious beliefs of anyone but yourself maybe you should limit yourself to talking about your beliefs and if you speak for the religious beliefs of others, could you post your credentials to do so, please.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2016 18:52:22 GMT -5
1. But it is not necessarily true. 2. It is very possible that the harm could be great. 3. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. 4. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. 5. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. 6. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. 1. It is, provided an exception is made for great harm. 2. If there's an immediate foreseeable risk of death or grave injury (assuming a store owner would care about the law either way in such circumstances), I'm amenable to "good Samaritan" laws. Since there are currently no federal laws requiring laypeople to render life-saving necessities to people regardless of any merchant/customer relationship that exists between them (and swamp can confirm this), this is in fact me supporting the creation of a law that doesn't already exist. 3. It is if we're comparing one harm to another, determining the just balance. 4. Agreed. 5. I'm glad you acknowledge this, as it confirms #3. 6. It does. It can. We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. 1. You contradict yourself. You do understand that needing to create an exception MAKES IT not necessarily true, right? 3. and 4. You contradict yourself again. You agree that it is black and white as opposed to many shades of gray, yet you think it is comparative within itself? Seriously? 5. No, it confirms 4, that harm can be comparatively greater or lesser. (I will stipulate that we may be arguing a semantic difference here, where you are calling something right if you think it creates a lesser harm, or, "Right = Less wrong.) I do not equate those two. 6. What harm? He is not being asked to do anything different. He is in fact in business specifically to do those things. And on a personal note, I cannot in any way countenance an act that is not harmful to maybe 99% of business owners being harmful to one merely based on his own biases. As I said, he may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 18:52:58 GMT -5
I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under The younger then 30 generation are much more likely to support anti-religion laws. They are much more likely to support laws that limit free speech. They are much more likely to support anti-gun laws. Those who want to punish business owners for following religious belief are, in my opinion, nothing more then bigots. They might be a bit less hateful then the anti-gay bigots, but their solution is infinitely worse. They want to legislate their anti-religion bigotry into law. You may think you have the high road, but pushing laws to punish people who have a view you disagree with is wrong. People my age are old enough to remember when liberals would support the rights of those they disagreed with no matter how much they abhorred the act. No one wants to do that though... that's why your argument continually fails.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 18:54:32 GMT -5
A religion that teaches someone to ONLY discriminate against the LGBTQ isn't much of a religion at all.
I could say say I believe in a religion that just tells me to discriminate against cisgender white males and i'm sure you'd have an objection to that and call it bigotry.
But here's the thing Hickle discrimination against you a white cisgender male would never happen. You have never been turned away from a business or been fired for simply being a white straight male and you never will be. It's so easy for you to defend discrimination when you've never been discriminated for simply being a white straight male. It will never happen to you. You will never risk losing a job for it or being turned away some where for being a white straight male. So of course you don't care. Of course you call it just "hurt feelings,"
You can tell people to suck it up all you want and support it because it'd never happen to you. You don't have to worry about those kind of things. But it's so easy for you to sit there and tell the people that do have to deal with it to deal with it when you don't have to because you'd be treated just the same as the person in line behind you.
--
As for causing harm it isn't about the first time it happens, it's about the time and time again and the fact that no laws protecting discrimination could very easily make it IMPOSSIBLE for a person to live in a town if a town allows every business to discriminate against that person, it very well could happen.
and that IS harmful.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 19:03:54 GMT -5
A religion that teaches someone to ONLY discriminate against the LGBTQ isn't much of a religion at all. People that discriminate against you because you are transgender are bigots. Probably some of them are really hateful bigots. Probably some are just ignorant bigots. I could say say I believe in a religion that just tells me to discriminate against cisgender white males and i'm sure you'd have an objection to that and call it bigotry. But here's the thing Hickle discrimination against you a white cisgender male would never happen. You have never been turned away from a business or been fired for simply being a white straight male and you never will be. It's so easy for you to defend discrimination when you've never been discriminated for simply being a white straight male. It will never happen to you. You will never risk losing a job for it or being turned away some where for being a white straight male. So of course you don't care. Of course you call it just "hurt feelings," You can tell people to suck it up all you want and support it because it'd never happen to you. You don't have to worry about those kind of things. But it's so easy for you to sit there and tell the people that do have to deal with it to deal with it when you don't have to because you'd be treated just the same as the person in line behind you. I have had my hurts that I have had to accept. How would you know what I have had to just accept and move on?
-- As for causing harm it isn't about the first time it happens, it's about the time and time again and the fact that no laws protecting discrimination could very easily make it IMPOSSIBLE for a person to live in a town if a town allows every business to discriminate against that person, it very well could happen. Oh please, you are not getting discriminated by every business in town. My best friend for ~ 30 years was a gay man in hillbillyville Arkansas. We went to high school together in the 70's. There were hurts and worries, but he lived a calm peaceful life in rural Arkansas as a gay man living with another gay man and anyone who knew him knew he was gay. Make an honest argument if you want to make an argument.and that IS harmful.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 19:09:49 GMT -5
That is an honest argument. People would run blacks out of towns. And small enough towns if they really wanted to run the LGBTQ members out they could. Small towns certainly could, small Christian towns against the LGBTQ. It's possible and it happened to African Americans.
Also, my point was you have never been discriminated against because you were a straight, white male. You never will be. Everyone has had hurts but not everyone has to worry about losing their job, or being denied service, or not being treated like the person in line behind them, and you will never have to experience that because you're a straight, white male.
There's a difference of everyone being hurt and being discriminated for who you are.
Sure someone can be bullied for all sorts of things but even a white, straight male with big ears can't risk losing their job because of those big ears, or not get the "cake." or lose their home for having big ears.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 19:10:13 GMT -5
The company my wife works for hired a black woman to work in their bait processing division yesterday. The foreman said he wouldn't work with black people. He worked all day in the parking lot instead. The boss didn't resolve it as of EOD yesterday. Don't yet know what happened today.
Racism is alive and well, unfortunately.
I'm eminently aware of that. People are astonished how "in this day and age", with all the laws and statutes making it risky and inconvenient to discriminate, racist attitudes are still so prevalent. Surely the society with the most laws is the society with the least racism. It doesn't work that way. Laws don't change people's hearts and minds. The best they can do is to discourage people from acting on their impulses, and when we're talking about laws to prevent hurt feelings and inconvenience, they're a greater evil than they are a good. I 100% agree with the bolded. Newsflash! People that want everyone to have equal rights don't give two tin poops what you think personally or what you do on your own time. We just care that everyone is treated equally when they are treated in any fashion. So bigots can stay bigoted in their hearts and minds all they like. We are fine with that. (it's part and parcel of our "believe what you want... just treat everyone equally" philosophy).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 19:12:58 GMT -5
Umm... no. They actually don't. What the "substantial number" actually do is originate in "best interests of the community". In a lot of cases that MIRRORS scripture... but that doesn't mean it COMES FROM scripture. Case in point: laws against murdering and stealing. Does scripture have tenets against doing those things? Sure it does... BUT... So do the beliefs of the areligious as well as other faiths. And in the limited number of laws and statutes that do come from scripture... they should be removed from the law, if they cannot be reconciled with something non-scriptural. That's your ignorance speaking. You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about at this point, hence I'm not wasting any more keystrokes. My point stands: you're either sucking air or raging at the churchies with your "theocracy" argument. Q.E.D. Au contraire mon frair. I comprehend quite well of what I am speaking. You just disagree with it because it puts religious views in a "backseat position"... where they rightly should be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 19:22:47 GMT -5
That is an honest argument. People would run blacks out of towns. And small enough towns if they really wanted to run the LGBTQ members out they could. Small towns certainly could, small Christian towns against the LGBTQ. It's possible and it happened to African Americans. Why would you want to live in a town where everyone in the town wanted you to leave? I do not believe there is a town in America with a few dozen businesses where every single one wants to deny service to gays. I don't believe that most people really care about straight or gay, certainly not enough to deny them service. The cake baker made news in part because he was an oddity.
Also, my point was you have never been discriminated against because you were a straight, white male. You never will be. Everyone has had hurts but not everyone has to worry about losing their job, or being denied service, or not being treated like the person in line behind them, and you will never have to experience that because you're a straight, white male. The last job I was on, had to have a set number of local neighborhood people working on the jobsite. They also had to have a certain number of minorities hired. The job I am on now had to have a minority owner get part of the job. So white males were not allowed to have a part of the contract no matter their qualifications.
There's a difference of everyone being hurt and being discriminated for who you are. Sure someone can be bullied for all sorts of things but even a white, straight male with big ears can't risk losing their job because of those big ears, or not get the "cake." or lose their home for having big ears. I can lose my job because local unions look out for those who came up through the local union. I have lost jobs before because the locals preferred locals. I am 55 now, doing construction work and worry that I will be discriminated against when layoffs come because of age and because of not being local.
Are you not a white straight male now? You have said you have a girl friend and are a male.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 19:24:50 GMT -5
That is an honest argument. People would run blacks out of towns. And small enough towns if they really wanted to run the LGBTQ members out they could. Small towns certainly could, small Christian towns against the LGBTQ. It's possible and it happened to African Americans. Also, my point was you have never been discriminated against because you were a straight, white male. You never will be. Everyone has had hurts but not everyone has to worry about losing their job, or being denied service, or not being treated like the person in line behind them, and you will never have to experience that because you're a straight, white male. There's a difference of everyone being hurt and being discriminated for who you are. Sure someone can be bullied for all sorts of things but even a white, straight male with big ears can't risk losing their job because of those big ears, or not get the "cake." or lose their home for having big ears. You are the one arguing to use force against those you disagree with. I have read no posts here arguing that force should be used on gays or transgenders.
|
|
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 May 24, 2016 19:57:24 GMT -5
1. It is, provided an exception is made for great harm. 2. If there's an immediate foreseeable risk of death or grave injury (assuming a store owner would care about the law either way in such circumstances), I'm amenable to "good Samaritan" laws. Since there are currently no federal laws requiring laypeople to render life-saving necessities to people regardless of any merchant/customer relationship that exists between them (and swamp can confirm this), this is in fact me supporting the creation of a law that doesn't already exist. 3. It is if we're comparing one harm to another, determining the just balance. 4. Agreed. 5. I'm glad you acknowledge this, as it confirms #3. 6. It does. It can. We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. 1. You contradict yourself. You do understand that needing to create an exception MAKES IT not necessarily true, right? 3. and 4. You contradict yourself again. You agree that it is black and white as opposed to many shades of gray, yet you think it is comparative within itself? Seriously? 5. No, it confirms 4, that harm can be comparatively greater or lesser. (I will stipulate that we may be arguing a semantic difference here, where you are calling something right if you think it creates a lesser harm, or, "Right = Less wrong.) I do not equate those two. 6. What harm? He is not being asked to do anything different. He is in fact in business specifically to do those things. And on a personal note, I cannot in any way countenance an act that is not harmful to maybe 99% of business owners being harmful to one merely based on his own biases. As I said, he may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. 1. Semantics. 3 and 4. Consider loud motorcycles. I could only wish Toronto had strict laws on how loud motorcycles could be, but it doesn't. The city considers it tolerable harm. Suppose I go down to City Hall to make my case. "We need to limit motorcycles to 80 dB because... just imagine... if we don't, motorcycles could be as loud as 120 dB, blowing out store windows and eardrums! Imagine the potential harm!" "We're aware of this potential harm and it is, in fact, illegal to drive a motorcycle so loud that it blows out people's eardrums. 80 dB is far too restrictive. You're not going to get it. Deal with it." Just then, Tallguy rushes in. "Wait! For the love of snow leopards, you can't make an exception for 120 dB but not ban 80 dB too! That would mean you're assessing the magnitude of potential harms, and everyone knows you can't come to different conclusions based on the magnitude of those harms! That would be madness!" 5. In cases where a dilemma exists and two harms conflict, a judgment must take place. The judge can consider many factors, not the least of which is the magnitude of the respective harms. The magnitude of a harm falls on a spectrum (or several). It is a "gray". Suppose the judgment has only two outcomes--'yes' or 'no'. One of these outcomes is the just, ideal tradeoff between the competing harms. One of these outcomes is the inferior and thus unjust tradeoff. If the judgment matches the just outcome, the judgment is right. If not, the judgment is wrong. Its correctness is "black and white". 6. I'll repeat this just this once since the last time we went over it was more than a year ago: Dedicated religious observance has certain requirements. I have to observe the Sabbath, for example. It is the law of my religion. I don't have to explain it to people. I don't have to justify it. It doesn't have to make sense to the world at large. It is a covenant between me and my God; I cannot and will not break it. Now consider a parable about Virgil. My employer has an urgent need for me to work on the Sabbath. Disaster will befall the company if I don't help my team meet a deadline. If I refuse to help by working through the weekend, I'm harming the client, the company, my boss, my coworkers. Even so, convicted of my principles, I tell my employer 'No, I made this clear to you when you hired me.' As a result, disaster befalls the company. My employer has to fire me. My boss wound up with egg on his face, and since the company could easily wind up in a similar situation in future, keeping me on as an employee makes me an unacceptable liability. I leave without a fuss and have to find a new job. (As a disclaimer: this has never happened to me personally, but I do know of several people to whom it has happened.) What can you reasonably claim in this situation? You can claim that my employer was right or wrong to fire me. You can claim my employer should or shouldn't have the right to fire me under these circumstances. You can claim that I harmed the company mildly or harmed it severely. You can claim that I made the wrong decision, that I wound up causing more harm than I prevented by refusing to compromise my principles. You can claim that my principles are harmful and irrational. You can claim that strict Sabbath observance isn't truly a requirement for Christians, that my principles exceed or contradict scripture. You can claim that my employer gave me a choice, I made that choice, and it's only fair that I live with the consequences. You can claim that the situation was resolved in a way that resulted in the least harm overall, and thus the ultimatum and the firing are justified. If a labour law exists that requires employees to work through the Sabbath, you can claim I broke the law. You can reasonably claim all these things. What you cannot reasonably claim is that in giving me the ultimatum--"break your religion's rules, or we have to fire you"--does not harm me, as though my faith, my principles, the keeping or breaking of the law of my religion, is absolutely worthless. If and only if you think these things are worthless, then you can say with confidence to the bakers: there is absolutely no harm done to you. Otherwise, logic compels you to acknowledge there is some harm to the ultimatum. And we can agree to disagree on the magnitude of that harm relative to the harm of discrimination.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 20:01:27 GMT -5
That is an honest argument. People would run blacks out of towns. And small enough towns if they really wanted to run the LGBTQ members out they could. Small towns certainly could, small Christian towns against the LGBTQ. It's possible and it happened to African Americans. Also, my point was you have never been discriminated against because you were a straight, white male. You never will be. Everyone has had hurts but not everyone has to worry about losing their job, or being denied service, or not being treated like the person in line behind them, and you will never have to experience that because you're a straight, white male. There's a difference of everyone being hurt and being discriminated for who you are. Sure someone can be bullied for all sorts of things but even a white, straight male with big ears can't risk losing their job because of those big ears, or not get the "cake." or lose their home for having big ears. You are the one arguing to use force against those you disagree with. I have read no posts here arguing that force should be used on gays or transgenders. No. No one is arguing that! If you choose to open a public business you CHOOSE to serve the PUBLIC. Period. If the law has to make you live up to your obligations... that's not any individual "forcing" anything. It's the law making sure you do what you already agreed to do. Basically it's you forcing yourself to be bound by your choices.
|
|
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 May 24, 2016 20:04:25 GMT -5
We are really talking about the ability of people to live and interact freely in the community in which they are living. If that's the case, why is it that not one of you can made a half-compelling case for it, appeals to the murders and cross burnings of the 1920's notwithstanding?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on May 24, 2016 20:06:36 GMT -5
'at this point". Really? This is the point? Shh. It's our little secret. 1. But it is not necessarily true. 2. It is very possible that the harm could be great. 3. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. 4. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. 5. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. 6. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. 1. It is, provided an exception is made for great harm. 2. If there's an immediate foreseeable risk of death or grave injury (assuming a store owner would care about the law either way in such circumstances), I'm amenable to "good Samaritan" laws. Since there are currently no federal laws requiring laypeople to render life-saving necessities to people regardless of any merchant/customer relationship that exists between them (and swamp can confirm this), this is in fact me supporting the creation of a law that doesn't already exist. 3. It is if we're comparing one harm to another, determining the just balance. 4. Agreed. 5. I'm glad you acknowledge this, as it confirms #3. 6. It does. It can. We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. TL/DR.
|
|
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 May 24, 2016 20:59:23 GMT -5
We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. Then why did you resurrect this thread? Are you just in love with watching yourself pontificate endlessly?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 21:12:07 GMT -5
We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. Then why did you resurrect this thread? Are you just in love with watching yourself pontificate endlessly? I think you meant to say "subject". The thread is literally only three days old (as of right now).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 24, 2016 22:14:28 GMT -5
If we're talking about a cake, sure, I'll grant you that. And in most cases nowadays that may be true. The reason it is true is that most people and most business owners are not so bigoted, or will at least set aside their bigotry long enough to conduct their business. But it is not necessarily true. It is very possible that the harm could be great. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. An action is equally wrong if it creates a minor harm as if it creates a great or greater harm. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. i think it is interesting that the most absolutist members of this board are resorting to what is, in effect, a utilitarian argument. and the people who are constantly being accused of being relativistic are drawing a fairly distinct line around this issue: that the same standard should apply to all, no matter what their race or creed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 24, 2016 22:17:31 GMT -5
If we're talking about a cake, sure, I'll grant you that. And in most cases nowadays that may be true. The reason it is true is that most people and most business owners are not so bigoted, or will at least set aside their bigotry long enough to conduct their business. But it is not necessarily true. It is very possible that the harm could be great. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. An action is equally wrong if it creates a minor harm as if it creates a great or greater harm. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. harm härm/ noun noun: harm
1. physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. "it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else"
No one was harmed. The cake baker initiated no force. Absence of action is not harm. Harm may come if aciton does not happen but it does not happen because of the lack of action. physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. "it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else" synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, trauma; More damage, impairment, mischief "the voltage is not sufficient to cause harm" antonyms: benefit material damage. "it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine" actual or potential ill effect or danger. "I can't see any harm in it" synonyms: evil, wrong, ill, wickedness, iniquity, sin "I can't see any harm in it" antonyms: good first of all, we are not arguing that there was any serious harm done in the bakery situation. in fact, most of us think that the example is fatuous. however, the PRINCIPLE of non-accommodation is immoral, when universally applied.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 24, 2016 22:21:05 GMT -5
We are really talking about the ability of people to live and interact freely in the community in which they are living. If that's the case, why is it that not one of you can made a half-compelling case for it, appeals to the murders and cross burnings of the 1920's notwithstanding? did you not care for the example of denying life saving care?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2016 23:29:15 GMT -5
(Because I like the way they wrote it....)
From the Bureau Of Labor and Industries Final Order in the bakery case:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 25, 2016 0:10:53 GMT -5
it's awfully quiet in here tonight.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 25, 2016 0:26:01 GMT -5
1. You contradict yourself. You do understand that needing to create an exception MAKES IT not necessarily true, right? 3. and 4. You contradict yourself again. You agree that it is black and white as opposed to many shades of gray, yet you think it is comparative within itself? Seriously? 5. No, it confirms 4, that harm can be comparatively greater or lesser. (I will stipulate that we may be arguing a semantic difference here, where you are calling something right if you think it creates a lesser harm, or, "Right = Less wrong.) I do not equate those two. 6. What harm? He is not being asked to do anything different. He is in fact in business specifically to do those things. And on a personal note, I cannot in any way countenance an act that is not harmful to maybe 99% of business owners being harmful to one merely based on his own biases. As I said, he may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else. 1. Semantics. 3 and 4. Consider loud motorcycles. I could only wish Toronto had strict laws on how loud motorcycles could be, but it doesn't. The city considers it tolerable harm. Suppose I go down to City Hall to make my case. "We need to limit motorcycles to 80 dB because... just imagine... if we don't, motorcycles could be as loud as 120 dB, blowing out store windows and eardrums! Imagine the potential harm!" "We're aware of this potential harm and it is, in fact, illegal to drive a motorcycle so loud that it blows out people's eardrums. 80 dB is far too restrictive. You're not going to get it. Deal with it." Just then, Tallguy rushes in. "Wait! For the love of snow leopards, you can't make an exception for 120 dB but not ban 80 dB too! That would mean you're assessing the magnitude of potential harms, and everyone knows you can't come to different conclusions based on the magnitude of those harms! That would be madness!" 5. In cases where a dilemma exists and two harms conflict, a judgment must take place. The judge can consider many factors, not the least of which is the magnitude of the respective harms. The magnitude of a harm falls on a spectrum (or several). It is a "gray". Suppose the judgment has only two outcomes--'yes' or 'no'. One of these outcomes is the just, ideal tradeoff between the competing harms. One of these outcomes is the inferior and thus unjust tradeoff. If the judgment matches the just outcome, the judgment is right. If not, the judgment is wrong. Its correctness is "black and white". 6. I'll repeat this just this once since the last time we went over it was more than a year ago: Dedicated religious observance has certain requirements. I have to observe the Sabbath, for example. It is the law of my religion. I don't have to explain it to people. I don't have to justify it. It doesn't have to make sense to the world at large. It is a covenant between me and my God; I cannot and will not break it. Now consider a parable about Virgil. My employer has an urgent need for me to work on the Sabbath. Disaster will befall the company if I don't help my team meet a deadline. If I refuse to help by working through the weekend, I'm harming the client, the company, my boss, my coworkers. Even so, convicted of my principles, I tell my employer 'No, I made this clear to you when you hired me.' As a result, disaster befalls the company. My employer has to fire me. My boss wound up with egg on his face, and since the company could easily wind up in a similar situation in future, keeping me on as an employee makes me an unacceptable liability. I leave without a fuss and have to find a new job. (As a disclaimer: this has never happened to me personally, but I do know of several people to whom it has happened.) What can you reasonably claim in this situation? You can claim that my employer was right or wrong to fire me. You can claim my employer should or shouldn't have the right to fire me under these circumstances. You can claim that I harmed the company mildly or harmed it severely. You can claim that I made the wrong decision, that I wound up causing more harm than I prevented by refusing to compromise my principles. You can claim that my principles are harmful and irrational. You can claim that strict Sabbath observance isn't truly a requirement for Christians, that my principles exceed or contradict scripture. You can claim that my employer gave me a choice, I made that choice, and it's only fair that I live with the consequences. You can claim that the situation was resolved in a way that resulted in the least harm overall, and thus the ultimatum and the firing are justified. If a labour law exists that requires employees to work through the Sabbath, you can claim I broke the law. You can reasonably claim all these things. What you cannot reasonably claim is that in giving me the ultimatum--"break your religion's rules, or we have to fire you"--does not harm me, as though my faith, my principles, the keeping or breaking of the law of my religion, is absolutely worthless. If and only if you think these things are worthless, then you can say with confidence to the bakers: there is absolutely no harm done to you. Otherwise, logic compels you to acknowledge there is some harm to the ultimatum. And we can agree to disagree on the magnitude of that harm relative to the harm of discrimination. 3. and 4. Your example makes no sense. First, we have already stipulated that potential harms are of different magnitude, so I have no idea from where you invented the conclusion. At any rate, if the law is indeed set at 80, both 90 and 120 are violations of that law. The magnitude of the violation, or the harm, is different. The FACT of the violation is the same. 5. Again, though, there is no dispute about the fact of the harm. The magnitude is gray. The fact is black and white. The judgment, in your example, is another gray. And I'm fine with that. But that does not denote that there was not in fact a harm in the first place. As I put it before, less wrong does not equal right. 6. In your specific example, I would contend that if you did in fact make it clear prior to being hired that working on your Sabbath was not an option, that the employer should not be able to fire you for said refusal. He would be within his rights to lessen your responsibilities in favor of someone who would be willing to work any needed day and to tell you that you may not be considered for advancement because of your restriction, but to fire you would (should) open him up to a wrongful termination suit. What I can claim in the end case is that it does not in fact break your religion's rules. If that were true then NO Christian would be willing to serve the entire public. More damning, however, is that I doubt you could find even one true Christian who would seriously suggest that Jesus himself would ever turn away and then further abuse someone in that situation. Un-Christian behavior is not ever "justified" by true Christian thought. It can't happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 25, 2016 1:47:58 GMT -5
the law doesn't stop the baker to PREVENT something more serious. the baker is just the canary in the coal mine.
|
|
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 May 25, 2016 4:21:42 GMT -5
We've gone over why a million times, and there's no new territory to cover. Then why did you resurrect this thread? Are you just in love with watching yourself pontificate endlessly? Referring to the specific issue of why public accommodation laws aren't harmless. We are, surprisingly enough, covering new ground on the broader thread topic. ETA: Nobody's forcing you (or any of the posters who 'liked' your comment) to be here. And yet here you all are. swamp gets a pass because I tagged her, but the rest of you are obviously here to partake of the endless pontification (a.k.a. "Wicked P"). If that's the case, why is it that not one of you can made a half-compelling case for it, appeals to the murders and cross burnings of the 1920's notwithstanding? did you not care for the example of denying life saving care? No, because it's a specific case with a radically different degree of harm that can be excepted, such as motorcycles loud enough to blow out people's eardrums. 3. and 4. Your example makes no sense. First, we have already stipulated that potential harms are of different magnitude, so I have no idea from where you invented the conclusion. At any rate, if the law is indeed set at 80, both 90 and 120 are violations of that law. The magnitude of the violation, or the harm, is different. The FACT of the violation is the same. 5. Again, though, there is no dispute about the fact of the harm. The magnitude is gray. The fact is black and white. The judgment, in your example, is another gray. And I'm fine with that. But that does not denote that there was not in fact a harm in the first place. As I put it before, less wrong does not equal right. 6. In your specific example, I would contend that if you did in fact make it clear prior to being hired that working on your Sabbath was not an option, that the employer should not be able to fire you for said refusal. He would be within his rights to lessen your responsibilities in favor of someone who would be willing to work any needed day and to tell you that you may not be considered for advancement because of your restriction, but to fire you would (should) open him up to a wrongful termination suit. What I can claim in the end case is that it does not in fact break your religion's rules. If that were true then NO Christian would be willing to serve the entire public. More damning, however, is that I doubt you could find even one true Christian who would seriously suggest that Jesus himself would ever turn away and then further abuse someone in that situation. Un-Christian behavior is not ever "justified" by true Christian thought. It can't happen. 3 and 4. I agree with everything here. I'm also not... quite... sure where it's coming from. According to you, I've misread your argument, so we should probably just quit before we hurt ourselves. 5. Again I agree. Again we don't seem to be talking about the same thing. Are you sure you're not DJ? 6. These are all arguments from the "reasonable to make" list. My sole point in 6 was that the ultimatum indeed harms me (and likewise harms the bakers). It was a rebuttal to your contention that PA laws cause "zero harm". As for "What I can claim in the end case is that it does not in fact break your religion's rules.", we had a lengthy arc on this in days of yore. Here I'll suffice it to say that, within reasonable limits, it isn't up to us to make legally binding judgments on whether others are complying with the rules of the religions they profess to follow. Consider snake handling as a tangential example. Some misguided souls take a verse in Mark 16 as license to tempt God, often hundreds of times, and reap predictable results. Even so, it's not my right to prohibit snake handling, and I indeed deem such a prohibition harmful to these individuals. (Admittedly this is as borderline as such determinations get.) The bakers' belief that they mustn't cater to same-sex weddings isn't nearly as far "out there" as belief in the necessity of snake handling.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 6:08:09 GMT -5
So their only values are to deny the LGBTQ that's their only value? That's what their religion teaches them? Who are you to tell people what their religion should teach them? Do you want to be guided by their religion? It is what bigotry is, no respect for ideas you oppose. I am not sure why the moderators continually allow posters to disparage the religious beliefs of others. If you don't speak for the religious beliefs of anyone but yourself maybe you should limit yourself to talking about your beliefs and if you speak for the religious beliefs of others, could you post your credentials to do so, please. That isn't what bigotry is, bigotry is "intolerance towards those holding different opinions". One does not have to respect an opinion to be tolerant of it. Bold claims require extraordinary evidence and are not above ridicule when it can't be provided. I think Thomas Jeffersons quote fits here: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 6:18:30 GMT -5
That said, if you really want to believe in the trinity, I won't disparage your belief here on this board. Because that actually IS a religious belief.
I wont sell products to gay people, is not a religious belief. Black people are inferior to white people isn't a religious belief. Women need to stay subservient to men is not a religious belief.
You might attempt to use your religion to justify your positions and behaviors about and towards people, but that is not a belief you hold about religion. It's a distinction worth noting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 6:35:58 GMT -5
Who are you to tell people what their religion should teach them? Do you want to be guided by their religion? It is what bigotry is, no respect for ideas you oppose. I am not sure why the moderators continually allow posters to disparage the religious beliefs of others. If you don't speak for the religious beliefs of anyone but yourself maybe you should limit yourself to talking about your beliefs and if you speak for the religious beliefs of others, could you post your credentials to do so, please. That isn't what bigotry is, bigotry is "intolerance towards those holding different opinions". One does not have to respect an opinion to be tolerant of it. Bold claims require extraordinary evidence and are not above ridicule when it can't be provided. I think Thomas Jeffersons quote fits here: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." I worded my post poorly. I did not mean respect for the belief, I meant respect for the right to hold the belief. Those who say Christians have no right to their belief and it is okay to use force to coerce them into an action they choose not to do are bigots. They want to institutionalized that bigotry through laws.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on May 25, 2016 6:42:30 GMT -5
What was happening in the south (and to some degree in the north) during the 1920s was still happening in the 1960s. I was a teenager then so it is well within my lifetime. I saw my state's national guard separating some of my white co-citizens from my black co-citizens. Not that long ago for some of us. the United States Supreme Court, just this week, in Foster v. Chatman, ruled that Foster had probable cause that the striking of black jurors was racially motivated. 7-1.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 25, 2016 6:54:24 GMT -5
That isn't what bigotry is, bigotry is "intolerance towards those holding different opinions". One does not have to respect an opinion to be tolerant of it. Bold claims require extraordinary evidence and are not above ridicule when it can't be provided. I think Thomas Jeffersons quote fits here: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." I worded my post poorly. I did not mean respect for the belief, I meant respect for the right to hold the belief. Those who say Christians have no right to their belief and it is okay to use force to coerce them into an action they choose not to do are bigots. They want to institutionalized that bigotry through laws. No. No one is forcing Christians to abandon their beliefs and forcing them to do anything.
This is the land of religious freedom. You can believe whatever you want.
If you're a Christian baker and don't want to have to make cakes for gay couples, then don't sell wedding cakes at all. Sell fancy white cakes for special occasions, just don't call them wedding cakes.
A smart businessman could have handled this in so many creative ways without insulting his customer and losing a bunch of business from people who sympathized with the gay couple while at the same time, not violating his religious principles. But this wasn't a smart baker, this was someone who wanted to tell a gay couple, to their faces, that they were sinful and evil, even though it cost him customers, business, and brought down government intervention. I don't have sympathy for stupid people.
|
|