do you support freedom of speech if the speech is hateful

[tallguy]

I am truly surprised that more people don't think I am right on the issues too. Its the way of the world though, people have different values and thoughts.

I for one think it perfectly understandable that people don't think you right on the issues.  

[EVT1]

Mar 15, 2015 18:16:45 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That's okay.  Make the business part of you do those things.  It can have no feelings of moral repugnance.  

Yep- have an employee do it.

And in the simplest terms when you open your doors to the public- you take them as they come. 

You have the right to refuse to write statements on cakes- I can see that- or to make a dick cake- or to outfit a cake with two brides even, but you are still obligated to sell a cake if you are a cake store- it is none of your business what happens to it after the sale. 

I hope in 50 years this kind of stupidity will be looked on as just the last vestiges of hate in America.

But there is one part of the law- when it comes to personal services that should not be forced- for example you cannot force a harp player to play at a gay wedding, or to play anywhere for that matter.  However if said harp player works for a company that provides such services to the public then do it or be fired.  Same with photographers, planners, and the rest. 

I am not buying this new legal plan of action to allow employees to refuse to do their job and be protected.

[Deleted]

Religious conviction can justify whatever thinking you wish it to. It cannot justify whatever actions you wish it to.

If you are free not to act on your religious convictions then they are not very strongly held convictions.  It seems to me that you think the majority should be able to vote laws in that make people violate those convictions or accept fewer freedoms, i.e. the freedom to do business.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 15:24:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 15, 2015 15:05:35 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I doubt that is true.  Incorporation is a legal status regarding structure and treatment of the business.  Private businesses are not necessarily subject to such statutes and they can incorporate just as easily as public ones.  True?

That was the issue with the Hobby Lobby case. Can private or closely held corporations operate on a different set of rules than other corporations. The Supreme Court ruled they can. It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court would rule that a bakery could do the same.

The Supreme Court ruled incorrectly. (and it's not exactly the first time they've done that)

[tallguy]

I hope in 50 years this kind of stupidity will be looked on as just the last vestiges of hate in America.

I hope it doesn't take that long.

It is sadly amusing that those who so loudly claim the moral high ground are usually those inhabiting the valleys.      

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 15, 2015 17:26:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 15, 2015 17:08:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I won't lose everything, but I might end up losing more than I invested, which was pretty much my entire life savings up to that point. I'll lose a hell of a lot more than a customer would by having to drive a whole 2 miles to go shop with a competitor.

But you lose nothing by not being able to discriminate based on your personal feelings. Would you trade risking your house for the right to discriminate?

You say "personal feelings" as though the expulsion of the UOK students isn't based on the personal feelings of the university admin about racism.

In a free society, my personal feelings ought to be paramount when it comes to running my institution. In a society that truly defends freedom of speech and freedom of expression, anyone who doesn't like my personal feelings because they don't share my view of right and wrong can go and take a flying hike. Open up their own business/institution and make a killing selling to whomever they choose to serve.

Unfortunately as usual we have the Axis of Apples n' Oranges arguing in favour of their interests rather than their rights, and we couldn't blast the myth that anti-discrimination laws change people's attitudes or yield a more free and equitable society out of your heads with dynamite.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 18:41:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am truly surprised that more people don't think I am right on the issues too. Its the way of the world though, people have different values and thoughts.

I for one think it perfectly understandable that people don't think you right on the issues.  

Yet you want to mandate your views on others.   Maybe you're right, maybe I am right, maybe neither one of us is.  Why not let the individuals concerned make the decision what to do and how to act for themselves and leave the two of us out of forcing them how to act?

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 17:30:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Mar 15, 2015 17:22:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I was aware of that case.  It is a different one and was not the subject at hand.  But even given that, they have not had a decision go against them, have they?  Until then, your contention of being forced to do anything is baseless.

They've already lost just by having to defend the lawsuit. Have you hired a lawyer lately? That stunt, and it was a stunt on the customers part, is going to cost the owner probably $10k or more even if he "wins".

The lesson to every other business owner is you're fucked either way. Regardless of how repugnant, ridiculous, or insane a customers request, you have to do it unless you're ready to lose thousands in order to "win" the right to say no.

Not necessarily. If their lawyer is worth his/her Bar card, they filed a counter suit for costs as this one is a frivolous case.

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2015 18:48:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 15, 2015 17:26:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

But you lose nothing by not being able to discriminate based on your personal feelings. Would you trade risking your house for the right to discriminate?

You say "personal feelings" as though the expulsion of the UOK students isn't based on the personal feelings of the university admin about racism.

...

What? 

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 18:57:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:48:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You say "personal feelings" as though the expulsion of the UOK students isn't based on the personal feelings of the university admin about racism.

...

What? 

You say "personal feelings" as though the expulsion of the UOK students isn't based on the personal feelings of the university admin about racism.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 15, 2015 18:49:50 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:41:13 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I for one think it perfectly understandable that people don't think you right on the issues.  

Yet you want to mandate your views on others.   Maybe you're right, maybe I am right, maybe neither one of us is.  Why not let the individuals concerned make the decision what to do and how to act for themselves and leave the two of us out of forcing them how to act?

 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.

[tallguy]

Mar 15, 2015 18:43:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Religious conviction can justify whatever thinking you wish it to. It cannot justify whatever actions you wish it to.

If you are free not to act on your religious convictions then they are not very strongly held convictions.  It seems to me that you think the majority should be able to vote laws in that make people violate those convictions or accept fewer freedoms, i.e. the freedom to do business.

Actions can be legally constrained no matter from where the motivation originates.  That constraint has no effect on the strength of those convictions, only the legality of the actions.

You have tremendous freedom in this country.  You do not have the freedom to cause harm to others in violation of law.  Well actually you do, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of that.  And truthfully, there is nothing in the act of baking a cake that violates any religious conviction.  Unless you perhaps worship flour?    

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2015 18:58:53 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:57:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What? 

You say "personal feelings" as though the expulsion of the UOK students isn't based on the personal feelings of the university admin about racism.

I am impressed.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 18:59:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:43:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

If you are free not to act on your religious convictions then they are not very strongly held convictions.  It seems to me that you think the majority should be able to vote laws in that make people violate those convictions or accept fewer freedoms, i.e. the freedom to do business.

Actions can be legally constrained no matter from where the motivation originates.  That constraint has no effect on the strength of those convictions, only the legality of the actions.

You have tremendous freedom in this country.  You do not have the freedom to cause harm to others in violation of law.  Well actually you do, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of that.  And truthfully, there is nothing in the act of baking a cake that violates any religious conviction.  Unless you perhaps worship flour?    

You know that is not true. Speech that supports gay marriage can be seen as violating a religious conviction if your religion is against gay marriage.  Some pithy quip does not change that.  Just because it  doesn't violate your religious convictions doesn't mean it didn't violate the baker's convictions.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 18:07:19 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

But you lose nothing by not being able to discriminate based on your personal feelings.

You lose the ability to not do things that you find morally repugnant.

Actually, no... you don't.

RE: the bakery (ANY bakery)... they are being asked to make a cake. What's repugnant about that?

For a "straight" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.

For a "gay" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.


Funny how similar the process looks...

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:07:19 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

You lose the ability to not do things that you find morally repugnant.

Actually, no... you don't.

RE: the bakery (ANY bakery)... they are being asked to make a cake. What's repugnant about that?

For a "straight" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.

For a "gay" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.


Funny how similar the process looks...

As in much of life, context matters.  I do not think you are making an honest argument.

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2015 19:11:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Actually, no... you don't.

RE: the bakery (ANY bakery)... they are being asked to make a cake. What's repugnant about that?

For a "straight" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.

For a "gay" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.


Funny how similar the process looks...

As in much of life, context matters.  I do not think you are making an honest argument.

I do.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 15, 2015 18:59:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And truthfully, there is nothing in the act of baking a cake that violates any religious conviction.  Unless you perhaps worship flour?    

I'm glad you've explained their religious convictions to them.

Especially impressive considering you can't conceive of a moral objection more sophisticated than "gays are icky".

I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether the courts order the UOK to readmit those icky racists.

[EVT1]

A cake isn't speech anymore than providing a parking space is. Sheesh.

Can I as an employer fire a group of my employees that wear their work uniforms to a Nazi rally and it makes the news? Simple to me- you tarnish the institution you get a ticket out.

I really can't understand the amount of pure hate in this country against homosexuals- WTF is wrong with people?

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2015 19:12:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether the courts order the UOK to readmit those icky racists.

And the basis for their ruling.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:11:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Actually, no... you don't.

RE: the bakery (ANY bakery)... they are being asked to make a cake. What's repugnant about that?

For a "straight" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.

For a "gay" marriage cake: you add cake mix, water, eggs, oil, and whatever other ingredients go in it... put it in the oven to bake. Once it's baked, you remove it from the oven, and then frost it with icing.


Funny how similar the process looks...

As in much of life, context matters.  I do not think you are making an honest argument.

In providing a service, where there's no difference TO the service... it doesn't.

[tallguy]

Mar 15, 2015 18:59:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:49:50 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Yet you want to mandate your views on others.   Maybe you're right, maybe I am right, maybe neither one of us is.  Why not let the individuals concerned make the decision what to do and how to act for themselves and leave the two of us out of forcing them how to act?

 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.    

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:13:32 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

A cake isn't speech anymore than providing a parking space is. Sheesh.

Can I as an employer fire a group of my employees that wear their work uniforms to a Nazi rally and it makes the news? Simple to me- you tarnish the institution you get a ticket out.

I really can't understand the amount of pure hate in this country against homosexuals- WTF is wrong with people?

A person can value freedom of religion and love homosexuals. 

[EVT1]

Well I suppose in OK after their nifty new law passes- the clerk at the local drugstore will get to quiz you on condoms and what you plan to do with them before any sale.

We went here before- "sorry sir we can't repair your car because you have a rainbow bumper sticker"  "I mean our business is repairing cars- not cars that allow gay people to get around town"

At the ER "Sorry, I refuse to  save the life of someone that lives an 'alternate lifestyle' that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs." 

911 call- "I need help, my partner is dying!"   "What do you mean by 'partner?" 

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:16:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Mar 15, 2015 18:59:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

 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.    

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.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:22:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well I suppose in OK after their nifty new law passes- the clerk at the local drugstore will get to quiz you on condoms and what you plan to do with them before any sale.

We went here before- "sorry sir we can't repair your car because you have a rainbow bumper sticker"  "I mean our business is repairing cars- not cars that allow gay people to get around town"

At the ER "Sorry, I refuse to  save the life of someone that lives an 'alternate lifestyle' that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs." 

911 call- "I need help, my partner is dying!"   "What do you mean by 'partner?" 

You have little faith in capitalism or your fellow man, but quite a bit of faith in government.  I am just the opposite.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:22:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well I suppose in OK after their nifty new law passes- the clerk at the local drugstore will get to quiz you on condoms and what you plan to do with them before any sale.

We went here before- "sorry sir we can't repair your car because you have a rainbow bumper sticker"  "I mean our business is repairing cars- not cars that allow gay people to get around town"

At the ER "Sorry, I refuse to  save the life of someone that lives an 'alternate lifestyle' that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs." 

911 call- "I need help, my partner is dying!"   "What do you mean by 'partner?" 

You forgot: Call to the Poison Control Hotline "One of my wives accidentally swallowed rat poison! What do I do? ? ? ?"... "I'm sorry, even though my Holy Book is fine with them, my religion preaches that having multiple wives is wrong... she's just going to have to die, I guess."

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2015 19:25:03 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 15, 2015 19:22:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well I suppose in OK after their nifty new law passes- the clerk at the local drugstore will get to quiz you on condoms and what you plan to do with them before any sale.

We went here before- "sorry sir we can't repair your car because you have a rainbow bumper sticker"  "I mean our business is repairing cars- not cars that allow gay people to get around town"

At the ER "Sorry, I refuse to  save the life of someone that lives an 'alternate lifestyle' that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs." 

911 call- "I need help, my partner is dying!"   "What do you mean by 'partner?" 

You have little faith in capitalism or your fellow man, but quite a bit of faith in government.  I am just the opposite.

I'm not EVT1, but I've dealt with bigots that use religion as an explanation as to why it's o.k. to treat others poorly... so that's why I believe in equality protected by law.


ETA: I should also, in the interests of full disclosure, say that I've met and dealt with many fine upstanding religious folks, of many different religions, that believe their God is the only one that's fit to judge others, so they DON'T... they treat others as equal human beings with great respect for all people... even the gay ones and the black ones, and the ones that eat pork, and the ones that work on the Sabbath, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

[tallguy]

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.

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.    

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2015 19:17:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

... A person can value freedom of religion and love homosexuals. 

A person can value freedom of religion for individuals and not believe that freedom should be extended to corporations.