|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where should there be "The right to refuse service"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Again, unless the baker could present a compelling argument that supported a reasonable certainty that acts would follow I do not think his refusal could be justified and that he was in fact refusing service. Being racist, though, is not a protected class. And that may indeed allow for a legal justification. Also, I think there is a realistic difference between baking a random cake for people you dislike and writing something on the cake with which you disagree. Should a bakery open to the public be allowed to deny baking a cake for a gay couple? Probably not. Should they be allowed to refuse to write on the cake "Congratulations Nathan and Mark"? That's part of the grey area. I have to admit I am not fully decided on that. And part of it has to do with the comparison between people who might refuse to do it on grounds that we would find culturally acceptable and whether this indicates that perhaps the matter boils down to forcing morality onto others by outlawing things we find morally offensive. Again, we are legally allowed to do such a thing, but should we? Is there a difference between shoving anti-gay morality down someone's throat and shoving anti-racism morality down someone's throat? I can't say "yes" for sure, and so I am very hesitant to start telling people what kind of speech they can and cannot refuse to participate in. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Again, unless the baker could present a compelling argument that supported a reasonable certainty that acts would follow I do not think his refusal could be justified and that he was in fact refusing service. I highly doubt that their would be any legal repercussions from such a refusal to bake a cake inciting racial hatred. Such refusal would not be a discrimination issue; there is no law against personal viewpoint discrimination, and the refusal is not from the government so it is not even a free speech issue. Perhaps The KKK will likely have to bake their own cake. It seems to me that what you are insisting on are rights that don't actually exist. A personal refusal to serve a gentleman based on his political persuasion, for example, is not actionable discrimination, and it is not even censorship that is prohibited by the first amendment. Accordingly such a refusal would not violate any law.
jar writes: For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" What does "support" mean here? I would support not arresting the speaker and I would not call on the government to intervene, but I would not provide the speaker any assistance in delivering his message. Are you saying that you would do more than that?Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
jar writes: What does "support" mean here? I would support not arresting the speaker and I would not call on the government to intervene, but I would not provide the speaker any assistance in delivering his message. Are you saying that you would do more than that? For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" As I said, were I a baker I would write that on a cake I sold them, were I a printer I would print a banner for them to display, were I the owner of a meeting hall I would rent the space to hold a rally. I really believe that it is the speech I very most disagree with that I must allow.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Jar writes: I really believe that it is the speech I very most disagree with that I must allow. By printing the banner, you are not just allowing it, you're enabling it. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
But the baker would be expected to bake a cake for the KKK without the writing - that's just normal business. I am thinking more like a guy comes in and says "Hey, we need a cake for our KKK meeting to celebrate 50 years of keeping this country pure of undesirables." I would be inclined to not want to provide that service. It would not be a cause that I would want to endorse in any way. Now of course, if the guy just came in and wanted a cake, what grounds would there be to refuse? I am just not sure how baking a cake for a gay wedding is significantly different given that a person does not want to endorse such an activity. What if they asked to have "God endorses this wedding" imprinted on the cake? Would that go to far? Personally, I am not really in favor of gay marriage, but I don't think I would refuse to bake a wedding cake or in any way treat them as undesirables. But, I would also not want to give the impression that I endorse (nor condemn) such a wedding . So I don't know... ??? Thank God I don't bake cakes!!!! HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
By printing the banner, you are not just allowing it, you're enabling it. And what is wrong with enabling speech I disagree with? What do you think "Protect Free Speech" means? You do not protect something by doing nothing.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Jar writes: By printing the banner, you are not just allowing it, you're enabling it.And what is wrong with enabling speech I disagree with? What do you think "Protect Free Speech" means? You do not protect something by doing nothing. You're kidding, right? You feel the need to actually *help* the people that want to say these disgusting things? Their right is to say it, your right is to ignore it. There is no requirement to aid and abet them in order for their rights to exist.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It would not be a cause that I would want to endorse in any way. Now of course, if the guy just came in and wanted a cake, what grounds would there be to refuse? "I don't want to", "I don't feel up to it", "I don't have the time", "I just ran out of flour". There's countless ways to refuse service to people. The problem come into play when you clarify your refusal by basing it against a protected class. "I don't want to, because you're black." These Christians who don't want to provide a service to gays can easily not do it and get away with it, but instead the are loudly proclaiming that its the gayness that's the reason they don't want to. It can't just be the performing of the service that they object to, because they could easily get a way with that. That they're making this out to be some sort of stand against something shows that there's a lot more to it than the performing of the service.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You're kidding, right? You feel the need to actually *help* the people that want to say these disgusting things? Nope, certainly not kidding. If my business is printing then yes, it is my duty to print stuff I disagree with. If I am a baker then it is my duty to bake cakes for events I disagree with. If I own a meeting hall then it is my duty to rent to folk holding a rally I disagree with. It is the speech I most disagree with that I must protect. The limit, as I said back in Message 374 is with speech that incites illegal activity or violence.
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
So, putting aside any issue of legality, if asked to print a banner that says 'Kill all the [insert whatever minority they hate]" you'd do it - in order to protect their rights to say it? You'd actually help them to promulgate their hate message? Even though you don't have to?
That's just bizarre. And also morally wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And also morally wrong. What's morally wrong is being in a position of power or advantage and using it to facilitate the silencing of people/groups with whom you disagree.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Nothing. You need to reread what I said.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
So, putting aside any issue of legality, if asked to print a banner that says 'Kill all the [insert whatever minority they hate]" you'd do it - in order to protect their rights to say it? You'd actually help them to promulgate their hate message? Even though you don't have to? That's just bizarre. And also morally wrong. Did you actually read what I have written? from the very message to which you are replying:
jar writes: It is the speech I most disagree with that I must protect. The limit, as I said back in Message 374 is with speech that incites illegal activity or violence.
quote: If they said "All [insert a group] should die" then I would definitely protect and support their right to say that under the conditions I have presented; if a printer it would be my duty to print the banner, if a baker to bake and decorate the cake, if an owner of a meeting hall to rent them the space for a rally. Yes, hate speech is near the top of the list of speech I must work to protect. Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I wasn't asking a question.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I really believe that it is the speech I very most disagree with that I must allow. Allowing simply means letting people alone. You are claiming an obligation to do more than just allow but to actually assist in propagating an odious message. Absent coercion, I would never make a 'kill all homos' cake, and I would very likely express displeasure regarding a bakery that did such work. I assume you would support my right express that position by printing up my banner in your print shop so that I can picket your bakery. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024