[xerxes]

Several States Ban Official Travel To Mississippi Over Anti-Gay Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/several-states-ban-official-travel-to-mississippi-over-anti-gay-law_us_5704f54ce4b0a506064d9a26

[Public_Domain]

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

While I'm not sympathetic to this law, what about a Jewish bakery being asked to decorate a cake with swastikas?

Good point.

Nobody and I mean nobody should have the right to force their beliefs on anyone else and that includes gays, religious nuts or SJW's because, real tolerance isn't group specific.

No, it's not a good point. It's comparing apples to oranges. We're comparing decorating a cake "Happy Wedding Day Bill & Steve" with "Happy Wedding Day Bill & Jenny". Nothing more. If you're selling cake #2, you are obligated to sell cake #1. Otherwise, get out of the business. You are never obligated to promote hatred, like andy's & Bart's silly non-sequiter.

Bullshit. When you are running a business, you are offering a service. You are only obligated to provide it once a transaction or deal has been made between you and the customer. You don't have to make a deal, you can choose any reason not to. If your reason is that heinous, you'll go out of business on your own.

[Lemmy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Bullshit. When you are running a business, you are offering a service. You are only obligated to provide it once a transaction or deal has been made between you and the customer. You don't have to make a deal, you can choose any reason not to. If your reason is that heinous, you'll go out of business on your own.

You're speaking hypothetically. Maybe "wishfully" or "ideally". I'm speaking about the way it us, under the law.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

Several States Ban Official Travel To Mississippi Over Anti-Gay Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/several-states-ban-official-travel-to-mississippi-over-anti-gay-law_us_5704f54ce4b0a506064d9a26

I doubt that they traveled to Mississippi anyway.

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Bullshit. When you are running a business, you are offering a service. You are only obligated to provide it once a transaction or deal has been made between you and the customer. You don't have to make a deal, you can choose any reason not to. If your reason is that heinous, you'll go out of business on your own.

You're speaking hypothetically. Maybe "wishfully" or "ideally". I'm speaking about the way it us, under the law.

What is the specific law?

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Bullshit. When you are running a business, you are offering a service. You are only obligated to provide it once a transaction or deal has been made between you and the customer. You don't have to make a deal, you can choose any reason not to. If your reason is that heinous, you'll go out of business on your own.

You're speaking hypothetically. Maybe "wishfully" or "ideally". I'm speaking about the way it us, under the law.

What is the specific law?

One example is:

$1:

'It is unlawful for an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of said owner or operator, because of the race, creed, color, or national origin of any person, to refuse, with-hold from, or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of such place of public accommodation. For the purpose of this subtitle, a place of public accommodation means any hotel, restaurant, inn, motel or an establishment commonly known or recognized as regularly engaged in the business of providing sleeping accommodations, or serving food, or both, for a consideration, and which is open to the general public

Robert Mack BELL et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF MARYLAND.

[Lemmy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What is the specific law?

In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forbids discrimination, and the various provincial Human Rights Codes, which specifically define discrimination and the grounds upon which it applies.

[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The bullying occurs when a gay activist tries to force a Christian baker to create something that is offensive to the baker.

Gee, that sort of behaviour doesn't sound very Libertarian. What kind of collectivist, authoritarian, social justice warring "Progressive" would condone that?

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What is the specific law?

In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forbids discrimination, and the various provincial Human Rights Codes, which specifically define discrimination and the grounds upon which it applies.

Yet Canada openly discriminates against illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere. Your country also discriminates against people whose opinions your government doesn't like (Ezra Levine and Mark Steyn come to mind).

Meaning that Canada discriminates against people that liberals don't like but they frown on discrimination against the people they like.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yet Canada openly discriminates against illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere. Your country also discriminates against people whose opinions your government doesn't like (Ezra Levine and Mark Steyn come to mind).

Huh? What are you talking about?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Meaning that Canada discriminates against people that liberals don't like but they frown on discrimination against the people they like.

Huh?

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What is the specific law?

In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forbids discrimination, and the various provincial Human Rights Codes, which specifically define discrimination and the grounds upon which it applies.

Cool. So what's the greater crime?

Forcing someone to do something that would cause offence to their freedoms

Or...

Forcing someone to not receive something, the absence of which would cause offence to their freedoms?


When did we start being a country where you forced people to do things against there will, sensibilities, and beliefs?

[Lemmy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Cool. So what's the greater crime?

Forcing someone to do something that would cause offence to their freedoms

Or...

Forcing someone to not receive something, the absence of which would cause offence to their freedoms?

When did we start being a country where you forced people to do things against there will, sensibilities, and beliefs?

I don't think we're talking about crimes in either case.

I suppose you could view this as someone being forced to do something against their will, but play your idea out to the slippery slope:

I'm an ER doctor. I think fags/niggers/short people (whomever I direct my bigotry at) should die. Ergo, I refuse to treat the gay guy who just got fucked up in a car crash.

Or I own a factory, but I refuse to interview or hire women or Chinese or those with red-hair.

I that the freedom you're wishing for?

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Cool. So what's the greater crime?

Forcing someone to do something that would cause offence to their freedoms

Or...

Forcing someone to not receive something, the absence of which would cause offence to their freedoms?

When did we start being a country where you forced people to do things against there will, sensibilities, and beliefs?

I don't think we're talking about crimes in either case.

I suppose you could view this as someone being forced to do something against their will, but play your idea out to the slippery slope:

I'm an ER doctor. I think fags/niggers/short people (whomever I direct my bigotry at) should die. Ergo, I refuse to treat the gay guy who just got fucked up in a car crash.

Or I own a factory, but I refuse to interview or hire women or Chinese or those with red-hair.

I that the freedom you're wishing for?

If you are a doctor you are under oath. To refuse service in that case would be wrong. That said, I had an equally ridiculous comparison in mind but on the other end of the scale. The jist of it is all 5' tall blue eyed blonde haired girls between 18 and 21 must have intercourse with me on my whim because to not do so would violate my basic human need to be sexually satisfied. As far as I can tell this would be rape, and would also be wrong.

Like all things, moderation is key. But there is no absolute center here, you have to fall slightly to one side of center or the other, without delving too far to the extremes you and I suggested. So which direction is it better to go in? The white doctor that refuses medical aid for a nigger, or the direction where sex is a compulsory action when demanded? In other words, is the best alternative that people can say no, or must we always say yes?

I like to think it's better that people have the right to refuse a service or action in all cases but those which they are legally committed. A religious bakery selling a cake to a gay couple shouldn't be a legal commitment, a doctor providing medical aid to the best of his/her ability should be a legal commitment.




Edit - Just because it may be relevant, I hope you understand that I am okay with the concept of people being gay. You can't help how you feel. I also support gay marriage. If I go to a gay architect to have a home designed (proportionally many are), and this architect takes offence to me coming in with my female common law spouse, he/she should be allowed to refuse service based on that. Might not be good business practice as I can always take my business elsewhere, but it's their right as far as I am concerned. As it is I get turned down for enough jobs and services because I'm a white male. The world is a bigoted place. I may not like it, but the onus is on me to adapt to it, not force it to adapt to me.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't think we're talking about crimes in either case.

I suppose you could view this as someone being forced to do something against their will, but play your idea out to the slippery slope:

I'm an ER doctor. I think fags/niggers/short people (whomever I direct my bigotry at) should die. Ergo, I refuse to treat the gay who just got fucked up in a car crash.

If the ER doctor is treating the patient then it should not matter to them what the patient did or believes except to the effect that it may have on their health care outcome. The gay guy with the perforated rectum, for instance, might be advised never to engage in anal sex every again...would that be discrimination against a gay patient or would it simply be sound medical advice?

The way we're going the ER doctor in that case might be better off keeping silent on the matter and letting the gay patient eventually exsanguinate as opposed to risking a visit from the CHRC demanding to know what the doctor has against gay sex.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Or I own a factory, but I refuse to interview or hire women or Chinese or those with red-hair.

IMHO that should be your business.

But if your factory creates gay wedding materials then it would make sense to hire gay men who would have a better understanding of the material than women would and you'd probably want to avoid hiring Chinese unless they're also gay men. As to the red haired folks, I don't think any applicable laws protect gingers so I think you're good on that one.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Is that the freedom you're wishing for?

Yes. It is.

It's always better to err on the side of freedom regardless of how difficult it might be.

For instance, I personally object to porn. But I more strongly object laws that censor it because such laws can be misused to deny other freedoms simply by labeling something as 'pornographic' even if it isn't.

I object to drug use yet I'd rather they be legal.

I don't want to endorse deviant sexual practices but if it's between consenting adults it's none of my business so long as it doesn't affect my liberties.

Likewise I support religious teaching but would strongly object to it being made mandatory.

Capish?