by russell
as anyone who hasn't sworn off of TV, the internet, social media, print, and water cooler conversation knows, the state of Indiana passed their own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
lots of religious conservatives are applauding it, lots of liberal / progressive folks are decrying it.
the feds already have an RFRA of long standing, many other states also have RFRA's, so why is this a big deal?
folks who are against it say it's a thinly disguised pretext for discrimination against gays, Mike Pence says it's a simple matter of extending the protections against federal overreach that are provided by the federal RFRA to the state level.
who's right?
more after the jump….
I came across this piece in the Atlantic that calls out two points where the IN law differs from the federal RFRA and most state versions:
- the IN law extends the protection not just to people, but to for-profit businesses
- the IN law extends the protection to cases where the government is not a party
the significance of (1) will be clear to anyone who remembers the Hobby Lobby case.
the significance of (2) is that the law doesn't just enjoin the state of IN from passing laws that interfere with people's free exercise of religion, it (may) prevent civil actions from being initiated against people (or their businesses) who refuse to provide otherwise required goods or services to other people who are not members of some protected class.
and, among other things, gays are not a protected class in the state of IN.
a remarkable number of people and institutions, including businesses, have come out strongly against the law, which appears to have shocked – shocked! – Pence and the IN legislature. most who have come out against it have done so because they see it as a thin but obvious justification for legalizing discrimination against gays.
folks who defend it seem, at least in my somewhat informal sample set, to see it as (a) a righteous blow against big government telling them what to do, and/or (b) liberal elites hating on the earnest, hardworking people who live in flyover land.
to be honest, I see some merit in both points of view, or at least more or less the (b) part of the second. but also to be honest, IMO the gays have the stronger case, if only because they have actually and tangibly and repeatedly been the obvious targets of discrimination, over and over again, like forever.
religious people, less so, unless baking cakes and taking pictures really and truly are, somehow, profound expressions of religion sentiment.
what I really wish is that folks could just sort this stuff out without recourse to the law. baking a cake or taking pictures really violates your religious faith? conversely, can't you just find another photographer and let it go?
that said, when it's your ox being gored, it's not always so easy to just move on.
as far was what I, personally make of it all, my intuition is that the IN law actually is an attempt to legalize discriminating against, minimally, gays, and perhaps lots of other kinds of un-american weirdos, in the name of religious liberty. so, IMO Pence and the state of IN will have to take their lumps, whatever those turn out to be.
more personally, i'm not in favoring of hating on the gays, for lots and lots and lots of reasons, most notably because they're human beings and as far as I can tell their being gay creates exactly zero problems for you that you don't create for yourself.
but, i'm not Mike Pence and I don't live in IN, so my personal druthers only go so far.
times have changed. the CEO of Apple Corp., the single largest bucket of lovely green money in the whole freaking world, is gay and out. that's the kind of tail that wags the dog, like it or not. the IN legislature appears to be desperately trying to walk this back, without looking too much like they're desperately trying to walk this back.
we'll see where it lands.
and, on the flip side of the culture wars….
and, on the flip side of the culture wars….
and, on the flip side of the culture wars….
Just another obvious government plot.
“….can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
As a member of the liberal oppressor class, I get this. But still, the ideologues on the right have no shame. All the time they have feces throwing hissy fits about some people forcing others to pay for stuff they don’t care to pay for. Yet here we have a class of folks (gays) who are forced to pay taxes so some bigoted cretin can shop their wares in public (roads ain’t free), but they cannot avail themselves of the services.
Pretty shitty if you ask me. And discrimination….of course.
Just another obvious government plot.
“….can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
As a member of the liberal oppressor class, I get this. But still, the ideologues on the right have no shame. All the time they have feces throwing hissy fits about some people forcing others to pay for stuff they don’t care to pay for. Yet here we have a class of folks (gays) who are forced to pay taxes so some bigoted cretin can shop their wares in public (roads ain’t free), but they cannot avail themselves of the services.
Pretty shitty if you ask me. And discrimination….of course.
Just another obvious government plot.
“….can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
As a member of the liberal oppressor class, I get this. But still, the ideologues on the right have no shame. All the time they have feces throwing hissy fits about some people forcing others to pay for stuff they don’t care to pay for. Yet here we have a class of folks (gays) who are forced to pay taxes so some bigoted cretin can shop their wares in public (roads ain’t free), but they cannot avail themselves of the services.
Pretty shitty if you ask me. And discrimination….of course.
plot?
He did sign the bill in secret, did he not?
plot?
He did sign the bill in secret, did he not?
plot?
He did sign the bill in secret, did he not?
the IN legislature appears to be desperately trying to walk this back, without looking too much like they’re desperately trying to walk this back.
They’re flying casually, like Chewbacca.
conversely, can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?
Sure. I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
the IN legislature appears to be desperately trying to walk this back, without looking too much like they’re desperately trying to walk this back.
They’re flying casually, like Chewbacca.
conversely, can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?
Sure. I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
the IN legislature appears to be desperately trying to walk this back, without looking too much like they’re desperately trying to walk this back.
They’re flying casually, like Chewbacca.
conversely, can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?
Sure. I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
I hear you.
Gay people have taken enough crap off of the straight world. I’m not recommending or suggesting that they stand down from insisting on their rights under the law. Or, if their rights aren’t actually available under the law, that they stand down from insisting that they be secured under the law.
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
If it takes the law to make it happen, so be it.
I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
I hear you.
Gay people have taken enough crap off of the straight world. I’m not recommending or suggesting that they stand down from insisting on their rights under the law. Or, if their rights aren’t actually available under the law, that they stand down from insisting that they be secured under the law.
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
If it takes the law to make it happen, so be it.
I recommend they pick up the gay version of this to make it easier on themselves.
I hear you.
Gay people have taken enough crap off of the straight world. I’m not recommending or suggesting that they stand down from insisting on their rights under the law. Or, if their rights aren’t actually available under the law, that they stand down from insisting that they be secured under the law.
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
If it takes the law to make it happen, so be it.
I understand the sentiment russell, but I like Epps’ better at the end of his piece:
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Separately, I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
That said, it’s horrible, and I can see how it acts as a signal that it’s “okay” to discriminate gays, even if it was already legal there.
I understand the sentiment russell, but I like Epps’ better at the end of his piece:
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Separately, I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
That said, it’s horrible, and I can see how it acts as a signal that it’s “okay” to discriminate gays, even if it was already legal there.
I understand the sentiment russell, but I like Epps’ better at the end of his piece:
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Separately, I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
That said, it’s horrible, and I can see how it acts as a signal that it’s “okay” to discriminate gays, even if it was already legal there.
I predict the Christianists who pushed this law because they think, “Gay? Ewww…,” will regret the day it was signed into law. Their goal may have been narrowly focused, but the law itself is very broad.
Imagine the uproar that will happen when some family is told they can’t sue a funeral home for burying their Uncle Lou before the family could get into town, because the new undertaker is a Moslem and his right to follow Sharia law trumps their right to have the service a few days later.
I predict the Christianists who pushed this law because they think, “Gay? Ewww…,” will regret the day it was signed into law. Their goal may have been narrowly focused, but the law itself is very broad.
Imagine the uproar that will happen when some family is told they can’t sue a funeral home for burying their Uncle Lou before the family could get into town, because the new undertaker is a Moslem and his right to follow Sharia law trumps their right to have the service a few days later.
I predict the Christianists who pushed this law because they think, “Gay? Ewww…,” will regret the day it was signed into law. Their goal may have been narrowly focused, but the law itself is very broad.
Imagine the uproar that will happen when some family is told they can’t sue a funeral home for burying their Uncle Lou before the family could get into town, because the new undertaker is a Moslem and his right to follow Sharia law trumps their right to have the service a few days later.
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Amen.
I’d go further, and say that if you’re able to summon that much personal distress at the thought of baking somebody a cake, or taking pictures of their wedding, you might want to consider that a signal that it’s time to reflect on where you’re at.
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Amen.
I’d go further, and say that if you’re able to summon that much personal distress at the thought of baking somebody a cake, or taking pictures of their wedding, you might want to consider that a signal that it’s time to reflect on where you’re at.
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
Amen.
I’d go further, and say that if you’re able to summon that much personal distress at the thought of baking somebody a cake, or taking pictures of their wedding, you might want to consider that a signal that it’s time to reflect on where you’re at.
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
…
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
I’m sure people move on all the time without resorting to lawyers at 10 paces, but you wouldn’t hear about those cases. Think of them as deaf-mute invisible unicorns. 🙂
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
…
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
I’m sure people move on all the time without resorting to lawyers at 10 paces, but you wouldn’t hear about those cases. Think of them as deaf-mute invisible unicorns. 🙂
I just sometimes wish we could all sort it out without even getting the law involved.
We all have our own personal unicorns.
…
I don’t expect to find any unicorns.
I’m sure people move on all the time without resorting to lawyers at 10 paces, but you wouldn’t hear about those cases. Think of them as deaf-mute invisible unicorns. 🙂
a remarkable number of people and institutions, including businesses, have come out strongly against the law, which appears to have shocked – shocked! – Pence and the IN legislature.
It’s one thing when the openly gay CEO of Apple makes a public statement against something like this. Even other businesses, with less obvious personal stake in the issue coming out against it. But when the NCAA starts making noises about not letting the national basketball championships happen in Indiana? THAT will get big time attention in fly-over country!
a remarkable number of people and institutions, including businesses, have come out strongly against the law, which appears to have shocked – shocked! – Pence and the IN legislature.
It’s one thing when the openly gay CEO of Apple makes a public statement against something like this. Even other businesses, with less obvious personal stake in the issue coming out against it. But when the NCAA starts making noises about not letting the national basketball championships happen in Indiana? THAT will get big time attention in fly-over country!
a remarkable number of people and institutions, including businesses, have come out strongly against the law, which appears to have shocked – shocked! – Pence and the IN legislature.
It’s one thing when the openly gay CEO of Apple makes a public statement against something like this. Even other businesses, with less obvious personal stake in the issue coming out against it. But when the NCAA starts making noises about not letting the national basketball championships happen in Indiana? THAT will get big time attention in fly-over country!
I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
I think that is part of why the Indiana legislature (and governor) are so shocked at the reaction. Because this didn’t actually change anything as far as gays’ legal position in Indiana. It was just a little empty pandering to their ultra-conservative base. But they can’t really stand up and say out loud that the law didn’t actually do anything, can they? So now they have to defend the pre-existing situation, where before they were getting a pass. Ouch!
I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
I think that is part of why the Indiana legislature (and governor) are so shocked at the reaction. Because this didn’t actually change anything as far as gays’ legal position in Indiana. It was just a little empty pandering to their ultra-conservative base. But they can’t really stand up and say out loud that the law didn’t actually do anything, can they? So now they have to defend the pre-existing situation, where before they were getting a pass. Ouch!
I’m having a hard time seeing what the law in Indiana accomplished, at least from a purely legal standpoint. If gays aren’t a protected class in Hoosierland, it’s already legal to discriminate against them for any reason or no reason, barring some other statute that might prohibit it (e.g., a common carrier statute or some other state/federal law).
I think that is part of why the Indiana legislature (and governor) are so shocked at the reaction. Because this didn’t actually change anything as far as gays’ legal position in Indiana. It was just a little empty pandering to their ultra-conservative base. But they can’t really stand up and say out loud that the law didn’t actually do anything, can they? So now they have to defend the pre-existing situation, where before they were getting a pass. Ouch!
… (b) liberal elites hating on the earnest, hardworking people who live in flyover land.
I am an elitist who is not in any way elite. (“Success has not spoiled me.” “Have you had any success?” “None whatever.”) So maybe I don’t qualify as one of the “liberal elites”. Still, I am willing to allow that I mildly dislike certain people who live in “flyover land”.
But I categorically deny that “earnest” or “hardworking” are the qualities I dislike them for. Bigotry and religiosity are neither the same qualities as, nor invariable correlates to, earnestness and hardworkingness.
Bigots who care for my good opinion need only stop being bigots. God-botherers who feel that their deity’s good opinion of them is not enough, so my opinion of them matters, need only grow up.
My TV just spewed Mike Pence at me, plaintively asking The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs: “Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.
–TP
… (b) liberal elites hating on the earnest, hardworking people who live in flyover land.
I am an elitist who is not in any way elite. (“Success has not spoiled me.” “Have you had any success?” “None whatever.”) So maybe I don’t qualify as one of the “liberal elites”. Still, I am willing to allow that I mildly dislike certain people who live in “flyover land”.
But I categorically deny that “earnest” or “hardworking” are the qualities I dislike them for. Bigotry and religiosity are neither the same qualities as, nor invariable correlates to, earnestness and hardworkingness.
Bigots who care for my good opinion need only stop being bigots. God-botherers who feel that their deity’s good opinion of them is not enough, so my opinion of them matters, need only grow up.
My TV just spewed Mike Pence at me, plaintively asking The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs: “Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.
–TP
… (b) liberal elites hating on the earnest, hardworking people who live in flyover land.
I am an elitist who is not in any way elite. (“Success has not spoiled me.” “Have you had any success?” “None whatever.”) So maybe I don’t qualify as one of the “liberal elites”. Still, I am willing to allow that I mildly dislike certain people who live in “flyover land”.
But I categorically deny that “earnest” or “hardworking” are the qualities I dislike them for. Bigotry and religiosity are neither the same qualities as, nor invariable correlates to, earnestness and hardworkingness.
Bigots who care for my good opinion need only stop being bigots. God-botherers who feel that their deity’s good opinion of them is not enough, so my opinion of them matters, need only grow up.
My TV just spewed Mike Pence at me, plaintively asking The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs: “Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.
–TP
This was meant to be a firewall against the inevitable inclusion of gay people as a protected class. They know that in the end this law won’t stop that, but they really only care about inflicting as much pain and humiliation on gay people and their families while they still can at this point. Don’t forget, they really are bigots. It’s not just name calling. They despise gay people and relish in their suffering. I’m a 45 year old gay man. I remember how these same people used the pain and suffering of people with AIDS as a weapon against us. They wanted to deport us to a deserted island, or tattoo us. They let thousands of people die in squalor by convincing people that it was the result of sin. Why the hell should we trust them now?
This was meant to be a firewall against the inevitable inclusion of gay people as a protected class. They know that in the end this law won’t stop that, but they really only care about inflicting as much pain and humiliation on gay people and their families while they still can at this point. Don’t forget, they really are bigots. It’s not just name calling. They despise gay people and relish in their suffering. I’m a 45 year old gay man. I remember how these same people used the pain and suffering of people with AIDS as a weapon against us. They wanted to deport us to a deserted island, or tattoo us. They let thousands of people die in squalor by convincing people that it was the result of sin. Why the hell should we trust them now?
This was meant to be a firewall against the inevitable inclusion of gay people as a protected class. They know that in the end this law won’t stop that, but they really only care about inflicting as much pain and humiliation on gay people and their families while they still can at this point. Don’t forget, they really are bigots. It’s not just name calling. They despise gay people and relish in their suffering. I’m a 45 year old gay man. I remember how these same people used the pain and suffering of people with AIDS as a weapon against us. They wanted to deport us to a deserted island, or tattoo us. They let thousands of people die in squalor by convincing people that it was the result of sin. Why the hell should we trust them now?
Neighboring states should shut down the borders to Hoosiers.
Construct checkpoints.
Vermont, for example, should turn back Hoosier terrorists at their airports. Divert to Riyadh, where they might fit in.
Enlightened Hoosiers who run businesses should bar conservatives from entering their establishments.
Bring out the shotgun from underneath the counter, because that is the only language armed ax-handling Lester Maddox conservatives understand.
Mike Pence is a dumb shit,, born of low IQ talk radio, by all accounts, some even conservative.
Businesses across Indiana who find this law despicable should deny access to pig vermin lawmakers, including Pence, and their dumb shit families, who voted for this law.
Point guns at them.
Speak their filthy, f&cking anti-American language, the gospel of bullets meeting flesh.
It’s all they understand.
They’ve said so themselves.
The Bellmore Cruz-Paul plot ticket is all for this law.
Neighboring states should shut down the borders to Hoosiers.
Construct checkpoints.
Vermont, for example, should turn back Hoosier terrorists at their airports. Divert to Riyadh, where they might fit in.
Enlightened Hoosiers who run businesses should bar conservatives from entering their establishments.
Bring out the shotgun from underneath the counter, because that is the only language armed ax-handling Lester Maddox conservatives understand.
Mike Pence is a dumb shit,, born of low IQ talk radio, by all accounts, some even conservative.
Businesses across Indiana who find this law despicable should deny access to pig vermin lawmakers, including Pence, and their dumb shit families, who voted for this law.
Point guns at them.
Speak their filthy, f&cking anti-American language, the gospel of bullets meeting flesh.
It’s all they understand.
They’ve said so themselves.
The Bellmore Cruz-Paul plot ticket is all for this law.
Neighboring states should shut down the borders to Hoosiers.
Construct checkpoints.
Vermont, for example, should turn back Hoosier terrorists at their airports. Divert to Riyadh, where they might fit in.
Enlightened Hoosiers who run businesses should bar conservatives from entering their establishments.
Bring out the shotgun from underneath the counter, because that is the only language armed ax-handling Lester Maddox conservatives understand.
Mike Pence is a dumb shit,, born of low IQ talk radio, by all accounts, some even conservative.
Businesses across Indiana who find this law despicable should deny access to pig vermin lawmakers, including Pence, and their dumb shit families, who voted for this law.
Point guns at them.
Speak their filthy, f&cking anti-American language, the gospel of bullets meeting flesh.
It’s all they understand.
They’ve said so themselves.
The Bellmore Cruz-Paul plot ticket is all for this law.
oh now, you’re just mad because you’re a liberty hating liberal.
oh now, you’re just mad because you’re a liberty hating liberal.
oh now, you’re just mad because you’re a liberty hating liberal.
“… can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
Now, imagine you live in a small town where you have the choice of the obnoxiously Christian wedding photographer or the barely competent one that tends to show up to jobs drunk, if you are lucky to have a choice at all.
“… can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
Now, imagine you live in a small town where you have the choice of the obnoxiously Christian wedding photographer or the barely competent one that tends to show up to jobs drunk, if you are lucky to have a choice at all.
“… can’t you just find another photographer and let it go?”
Now, imagine you live in a small town where you have the choice of the obnoxiously Christian wedding photographer or the barely competent one that tends to show up to jobs drunk, if you are lucky to have a choice at all.
My thoughts on this likely diverge from the majority here on the substance of RFRAs.
In general, I’m for them. I think running a diverse, inclusive society often means you need to include people whose conscience doesn’t line up with yours, mine, or majority, etc.
To the extent possible, I’d like to allow people their conscience, even when I disagree with it. I think that’s probably not an uncommon sentiment, although ‘extent possible’ is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, and is likely where the sticking point is in many cases.
I also generally feel laws are blunt instruments. We criminalize too much, and we litigate too much. Writing narrowly tailored laws is difficult, and it seems this law is good example of that, although I haven’t read the text thoroughly myself.
And I think the response to this is pretty much where the fight should be: in the public space. Discrimination needs to be fought be individuals and organizations, and I think that is happening here, which is a heartening thing to see.
My thoughts on this likely diverge from the majority here on the substance of RFRAs.
In general, I’m for them. I think running a diverse, inclusive society often means you need to include people whose conscience doesn’t line up with yours, mine, or majority, etc.
To the extent possible, I’d like to allow people their conscience, even when I disagree with it. I think that’s probably not an uncommon sentiment, although ‘extent possible’ is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, and is likely where the sticking point is in many cases.
I also generally feel laws are blunt instruments. We criminalize too much, and we litigate too much. Writing narrowly tailored laws is difficult, and it seems this law is good example of that, although I haven’t read the text thoroughly myself.
And I think the response to this is pretty much where the fight should be: in the public space. Discrimination needs to be fought be individuals and organizations, and I think that is happening here, which is a heartening thing to see.
My thoughts on this likely diverge from the majority here on the substance of RFRAs.
In general, I’m for them. I think running a diverse, inclusive society often means you need to include people whose conscience doesn’t line up with yours, mine, or majority, etc.
To the extent possible, I’d like to allow people their conscience, even when I disagree with it. I think that’s probably not an uncommon sentiment, although ‘extent possible’ is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, and is likely where the sticking point is in many cases.
I also generally feel laws are blunt instruments. We criminalize too much, and we litigate too much. Writing narrowly tailored laws is difficult, and it seems this law is good example of that, although I haven’t read the text thoroughly myself.
And I think the response to this is pretty much where the fight should be: in the public space. Discrimination needs to be fought be individuals and organizations, and I think that is happening here, which is a heartening thing to see.
thompson, do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
russell, I get what you’re saying about “can’t you just find another photographer?”, but is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get. If they said “we won’t work with mixed race people getting married because miscegenation is against our religion ” or “we won’t work with Jews, Christ-killers that they are”, no one would be suggesting that they could blow of civil rights law: everyone would recognize that the bigots need to STFU and do their damn job, no matter how much it hurt their racist feelings.
thompson, do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
russell, I get what you’re saying about “can’t you just find another photographer?”, but is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get. If they said “we won’t work with mixed race people getting married because miscegenation is against our religion ” or “we won’t work with Jews, Christ-killers that they are”, no one would be suggesting that they could blow of civil rights law: everyone would recognize that the bigots need to STFU and do their damn job, no matter how much it hurt their racist feelings.
thompson, do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
russell, I get what you’re saying about “can’t you just find another photographer?”, but is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get. If they said “we won’t work with mixed race people getting married because miscegenation is against our religion ” or “we won’t work with Jews, Christ-killers that they are”, no one would be suggesting that they could blow of civil rights law: everyone would recognize that the bigots need to STFU and do their damn job, no matter how much it hurt their racist feelings.
Turb, that highlights the real potential of these laws. There is nothing in these laws (that I can see, anyway) to prevent someone saying “My religion says I must discriminate based on race (or gender or anything else).” And given that exactly that position was taken in the 1950s and early 1960s by those supporting racial discrimination, it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
Turb, that highlights the real potential of these laws. There is nothing in these laws (that I can see, anyway) to prevent someone saying “My religion says I must discriminate based on race (or gender or anything else).” And given that exactly that position was taken in the 1950s and early 1960s by those supporting racial discrimination, it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
Turb, that highlights the real potential of these laws. There is nothing in these laws (that I can see, anyway) to prevent someone saying “My religion says I must discriminate based on race (or gender or anything else).” And given that exactly that position was taken in the 1950s and early 1960s by those supporting racial discrimination, it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
it’s not even a leap to think that was precisely the intent.
IN made it legal to say “we don’t serve your kind.”
fuck IN.
it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
it’s not even a leap to think that was precisely the intent.
IN made it legal to say “we don’t serve your kind.”
fuck IN.
it isn’t really a leap to think that somebody will.
it’s not even a leap to think that was precisely the intent.
IN made it legal to say “we don’t serve your kind.”
fuck IN.
do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
No, I do not. I think they are limits of absolute freedom of association that are, in many cases, required for function of a just society.
However, I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal, even when I disagree with it. I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding, for example. Social condemnation, boycott, etc, I think are all far more appropriate responses.
I think it is worth considering the federal RFRA was advocated for by a broad coalition spanning both liberal and conservative groups. And, in my mind, it sticks true to many liberal ideals. Building an inclusive and diverse society often means granting leeway to people’s beliefs and conscience.
Finally, I would note that the federal RFRA, at least, just mandates strict scrutiny for burdens on religious exercise. That is not the same as banning laws or regulations that burden religious exercise, just heightens the standards for doing so. I believe the IN bill is similar in that regard, although again my understanding is that the bill may be written in an overbroad and poorly tailored way.
Personally, I think the strict scrutiny standard is a good one for balancing the concerns of governing a diverse society.
do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
No, I do not. I think they are limits of absolute freedom of association that are, in many cases, required for function of a just society.
However, I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal, even when I disagree with it. I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding, for example. Social condemnation, boycott, etc, I think are all far more appropriate responses.
I think it is worth considering the federal RFRA was advocated for by a broad coalition spanning both liberal and conservative groups. And, in my mind, it sticks true to many liberal ideals. Building an inclusive and diverse society often means granting leeway to people’s beliefs and conscience.
Finally, I would note that the federal RFRA, at least, just mandates strict scrutiny for burdens on religious exercise. That is not the same as banning laws or regulations that burden religious exercise, just heightens the standards for doing so. I believe the IN bill is similar in that regard, although again my understanding is that the bill may be written in an overbroad and poorly tailored way.
Personally, I think the strict scrutiny standard is a good one for balancing the concerns of governing a diverse society.
do you think that civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve all comers are wrong in general?
No, I do not. I think they are limits of absolute freedom of association that are, in many cases, required for function of a just society.
However, I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal, even when I disagree with it. I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding, for example. Social condemnation, boycott, etc, I think are all far more appropriate responses.
I think it is worth considering the federal RFRA was advocated for by a broad coalition spanning both liberal and conservative groups. And, in my mind, it sticks true to many liberal ideals. Building an inclusive and diverse society often means granting leeway to people’s beliefs and conscience.
Finally, I would note that the federal RFRA, at least, just mandates strict scrutiny for burdens on religious exercise. That is not the same as banning laws or regulations that burden religious exercise, just heightens the standards for doing so. I believe the IN bill is similar in that regard, although again my understanding is that the bill may be written in an overbroad and poorly tailored way.
Personally, I think the strict scrutiny standard is a good one for balancing the concerns of governing a diverse society.
It is just terrible how unscrupulous people hold a gun to the heads of good Christians and FORCE them to become wedding photographers. Or bakers. Or pharmacists. When actually doing that job would put them in danger of damnation.
Martyrs, that’s what they are. Or should be. I’ll provide the nails.
It is just terrible how unscrupulous people hold a gun to the heads of good Christians and FORCE them to become wedding photographers. Or bakers. Or pharmacists. When actually doing that job would put them in danger of damnation.
Martyrs, that’s what they are. Or should be. I’ll provide the nails.
It is just terrible how unscrupulous people hold a gun to the heads of good Christians and FORCE them to become wedding photographers. Or bakers. Or pharmacists. When actually doing that job would put them in danger of damnation.
Martyrs, that’s what they are. Or should be. I’ll provide the nails.
is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
No, it isn’t. And, “can’t you just find another photographer?” isn’t something I would actually say to gay people, to tell you the truth.
Yes, I know I said that in a comment upthread, but no, I can’t imagine actually saying it to any of the actual gay people I know.
To be honest, I’m not sure how to address this stuff without making it a matter of law.
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get.
I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward folks, who do in fact exist, who can’t wait to take the opportunity of the IN RFRA to turn gays away as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward people to can’t bring themselves to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, mostly because IMO the “religious scruple” thing in that case seems overly selective. Would they refuse to bake a cake for the wedding of a divorced person?
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
All of that said, I agree with thompson that there has to be room for conscience.
The question I have is how far that “room” extends.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
And, it seems to me that operating a business open to, nominally, all comers falls into that category.
Nobody is requiring anyone to invite anybody else over for dinner. Folks are being asked to make whatever goods or services they offer to some in the public sphere, available to all who participate in the public sphere.
The original RFRA was passed at the federal level to protect the rights of folks who participate in native American religions to take peyote as a sacrament.
What was protected was a *sacramental practice, which was inherent and central to the practice of their faith*.
I see a strong argument for conscience there.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
The law doesn’t carve out an exemption for “this offends me”, or “I think this is wrong”, or “I find these people very annoying”.
The exemption is for an undue burden on the exercise of religion. Not your customer’s exercise of religion, yours. Your religious practice and expression.
I understand that conscience can be very personal, but IMO baking a cake falls somewhere outside the scope of religious practice and expression.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay, as opposed to participants in any of the other ten thousand practices that someone’s religion might find “sinful”.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
No, it isn’t. And, “can’t you just find another photographer?” isn’t something I would actually say to gay people, to tell you the truth.
Yes, I know I said that in a comment upthread, but no, I can’t imagine actually saying it to any of the actual gay people I know.
To be honest, I’m not sure how to address this stuff without making it a matter of law.
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get.
I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward folks, who do in fact exist, who can’t wait to take the opportunity of the IN RFRA to turn gays away as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward people to can’t bring themselves to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, mostly because IMO the “religious scruple” thing in that case seems overly selective. Would they refuse to bake a cake for the wedding of a divorced person?
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
All of that said, I agree with thompson that there has to be room for conscience.
The question I have is how far that “room” extends.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
And, it seems to me that operating a business open to, nominally, all comers falls into that category.
Nobody is requiring anyone to invite anybody else over for dinner. Folks are being asked to make whatever goods or services they offer to some in the public sphere, available to all who participate in the public sphere.
The original RFRA was passed at the federal level to protect the rights of folks who participate in native American religions to take peyote as a sacrament.
What was protected was a *sacramental practice, which was inherent and central to the practice of their faith*.
I see a strong argument for conscience there.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
The law doesn’t carve out an exemption for “this offends me”, or “I think this is wrong”, or “I find these people very annoying”.
The exemption is for an undue burden on the exercise of religion. Not your customer’s exercise of religion, yours. Your religious practice and expression.
I understand that conscience can be very personal, but IMO baking a cake falls somewhere outside the scope of religious practice and expression.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay, as opposed to participants in any of the other ten thousand practices that someone’s religion might find “sinful”.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
is that really a thing you’d say to black civil rights protesters? Can’t you just find another lunch counter?
No, it isn’t. And, “can’t you just find another photographer?” isn’t something I would actually say to gay people, to tell you the truth.
Yes, I know I said that in a comment upthread, but no, I can’t imagine actually saying it to any of the actual gay people I know.
To be honest, I’m not sure how to address this stuff without making it a matter of law.
I’m deeply confused by the sympathy that these bakers and photographers get.
I think providing space for people’s conscience is also a worthy goal
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward folks, who do in fact exist, who can’t wait to take the opportunity of the IN RFRA to turn gays away as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
I’m not particularly sympathetic toward people to can’t bring themselves to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, mostly because IMO the “religious scruple” thing in that case seems overly selective. Would they refuse to bake a cake for the wedding of a divorced person?
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
All of that said, I agree with thompson that there has to be room for conscience.
The question I have is how far that “room” extends.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
And, it seems to me that operating a business open to, nominally, all comers falls into that category.
Nobody is requiring anyone to invite anybody else over for dinner. Folks are being asked to make whatever goods or services they offer to some in the public sphere, available to all who participate in the public sphere.
The original RFRA was passed at the federal level to protect the rights of folks who participate in native American religions to take peyote as a sacrament.
What was protected was a *sacramental practice, which was inherent and central to the practice of their faith*.
I see a strong argument for conscience there.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
The law doesn’t carve out an exemption for “this offends me”, or “I think this is wrong”, or “I find these people very annoying”.
The exemption is for an undue burden on the exercise of religion. Not your customer’s exercise of religion, yours. Your religious practice and expression.
I understand that conscience can be very personal, but IMO baking a cake falls somewhere outside the scope of religious practice and expression.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay, as opposed to participants in any of the other ten thousand practices that someone’s religion might find “sinful”.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
What I don’t understand is a bakery or photographer could have told anyone “No, I’m too busy to fulfill this order.” and that would have been the end of it in most cases. Is it REALLY necessary to have a law that allows them to say, “I don’t serve YOUR kind here.”?
Isn’t that about all this law does?
What I don’t understand is a bakery or photographer could have told anyone “No, I’m too busy to fulfill this order.” and that would have been the end of it in most cases. Is it REALLY necessary to have a law that allows them to say, “I don’t serve YOUR kind here.”?
Isn’t that about all this law does?
What I don’t understand is a bakery or photographer could have told anyone “No, I’m too busy to fulfill this order.” and that would have been the end of it in most cases. Is it REALLY necessary to have a law that allows them to say, “I don’t serve YOUR kind here.”?
Isn’t that about all this law does?
“”Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.”
No, no.
Tolerance isn’t a two-way street. One is either tolerant or intolerant.
OTOH, this is Indiana–a state that apparently idolizes Mississippi. These GOPers thought they could pander to their own worst instincts and now they can’t backtrack fast enough.
“”Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.”
No, no.
Tolerance isn’t a two-way street. One is either tolerant or intolerant.
OTOH, this is Indiana–a state that apparently idolizes Mississippi. These GOPers thought they could pander to their own worst instincts and now they can’t backtrack fast enough.
“”Is tolerance a two-way street or not, George?” Why yes, guv’nor. Yes, it is.”
No, no.
Tolerance isn’t a two-way street. One is either tolerant or intolerant.
OTOH, this is Indiana–a state that apparently idolizes Mississippi. These GOPers thought they could pander to their own worst instincts and now they can’t backtrack fast enough.
I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding
Please demonstrate to the peanut gallery how this passes the Sherbert Test. The compelling government interest is clear; and your “least restrictive method” strikes me as no less than public license to discriminate on whatever basis one choses.
I would argue that it doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding
Please demonstrate to the peanut gallery how this passes the Sherbert Test. The compelling government interest is clear; and your “least restrictive method” strikes me as no less than public license to discriminate on whatever basis one choses.
I would argue that it doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
I would not use the force of law to penalize someone who didn’t wish to photograph a wedding
Please demonstrate to the peanut gallery how this passes the Sherbert Test. The compelling government interest is clear; and your “least restrictive method” strikes me as no less than public license to discriminate on whatever basis one choses.
I would argue that it doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
Certainly it has to be said that, if it is really a matter of conscience, the fact that it is going to cost you money should be a total non-issue. In fact, saying that it is seems identical to saying that morality is for sale — if you pay me, I’ll ignore my conscience and do what you want. One has to ask: Would that extend to rape and murder, if someone offered to pay you? Because that is the path you seem to be taking.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
Certainly it has to be said that, if it is really a matter of conscience, the fact that it is going to cost you money should be a total non-issue. In fact, saying that it is seems identical to saying that morality is for sale — if you pay me, I’ll ignore my conscience and do what you want. One has to ask: Would that extend to rape and murder, if someone offered to pay you? Because that is the path you seem to be taking.
The folks in IN are taking a beating over this, and some serious money is now involved, which leads me to believe the law is likely to be changed as soon as folks in the IN legislation can make that happen.
Which, again, tells me how deep the issue of “conscience” runs in this case.
Certainly it has to be said that, if it is really a matter of conscience, the fact that it is going to cost you money should be a total non-issue. In fact, saying that it is seems identical to saying that morality is for sale — if you pay me, I’ll ignore my conscience and do what you want. One has to ask: Would that extend to rape and murder, if someone offered to pay you? Because that is the path you seem to be taking.
Just to be clear, by “you” I meant the members of the Indiana Legislature who are backtracking. In case that wasn’t obvious.
Just to be clear, by “you” I meant the members of the Indiana Legislature who are backtracking. In case that wasn’t obvious.
Just to be clear, by “you” I meant the members of the Indiana Legislature who are backtracking. In case that wasn’t obvious.
Bill Black puts his view up on Naked Capitalism
He has several points about why this is just a VERY bad law.
Bill Black puts his view up on Naked Capitalism
He has several points about why this is just a VERY bad law.
Bill Black puts his view up on Naked Capitalism
He has several points about why this is just a VERY bad law.
In case that wasn’t obvious.
I thought maybe my evil twin had escaped again…
🙂
In case that wasn’t obvious.
I thought maybe my evil twin had escaped again…
🙂
In case that wasn’t obvious.
I thought maybe my evil twin had escaped again…
🙂
Yikes. From the Naked Capitalism link, there is this item from the IN law:
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
Yikes. From the Naked Capitalism link, there is this item from the IN law:
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
Yikes. From the Naked Capitalism link, there is this item from the IN law:
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
I would agree with this.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
I would also agree the case in thinner. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. However, I have some understanding towards the wedding case specifically, because marriage is a fairly serious rite both in society and many religions, so I can understand how it might come front and center to some people’s minds. While I don’t approve of not providing services for a gay wedding, I could understand someone have a conscientious objection to a child wedding (still legal in parts of the US), and not wanting to be part of it. Or baking a neo-nazi themed cake. Or, hell, hiring a band to play at a political fundraiser.
My point, perhaps poorly phrased, is that there are many things I could understand wanting to take a conscientious stand on abd would want to protect people’s abilities to do so, and I don’t see a clear way of doing that without, to some extent, also protecting conscientious stands I don’t approve of.
Freedom of speech comes up when the speech is unpopular. 4th amendment rights frequently are asserted to let the guilty go free. The disturbing, saddening, and offensive use of rights are where they are eroded.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay
I think that’s probably true. Do I think its shallow and hateful? Yes. However, I don’t think we can have a realistic legal standard that tests the broad theological consistency of someone’s beliefs.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
I would agree with this.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
I would also agree the case in thinner. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. However, I have some understanding towards the wedding case specifically, because marriage is a fairly serious rite both in society and many religions, so I can understand how it might come front and center to some people’s minds. While I don’t approve of not providing services for a gay wedding, I could understand someone have a conscientious objection to a child wedding (still legal in parts of the US), and not wanting to be part of it. Or baking a neo-nazi themed cake. Or, hell, hiring a band to play at a political fundraiser.
My point, perhaps poorly phrased, is that there are many things I could understand wanting to take a conscientious stand on abd would want to protect people’s abilities to do so, and I don’t see a clear way of doing that without, to some extent, also protecting conscientious stands I don’t approve of.
Freedom of speech comes up when the speech is unpopular. 4th amendment rights frequently are asserted to let the guilty go free. The disturbing, saddening, and offensive use of rights are where they are eroded.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay
I think that’s probably true. Do I think its shallow and hateful? Yes. However, I don’t think we can have a realistic legal standard that tests the broad theological consistency of someone’s beliefs.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
The animus toward gays seems, to me, obviously and specifically directed *toward gays*, and not generally toward folks who are engaged in other activities that their particular religion frowns on.
I would agree with this.
The argument that baking a cake for someone’s wedding who your religion says shouldn’t be getting married is an undue burden on the practice of your religion seems, to me, considerably thinner.
I would also agree the case in thinner. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. However, I have some understanding towards the wedding case specifically, because marriage is a fairly serious rite both in society and many religions, so I can understand how it might come front and center to some people’s minds. While I don’t approve of not providing services for a gay wedding, I could understand someone have a conscientious objection to a child wedding (still legal in parts of the US), and not wanting to be part of it. Or baking a neo-nazi themed cake. Or, hell, hiring a band to play at a political fundraiser.
My point, perhaps poorly phrased, is that there are many things I could understand wanting to take a conscientious stand on abd would want to protect people’s abilities to do so, and I don’t see a clear way of doing that without, to some extent, also protecting conscientious stands I don’t approve of.
Freedom of speech comes up when the speech is unpopular. 4th amendment rights frequently are asserted to let the guilty go free. The disturbing, saddening, and offensive use of rights are where they are eroded.
Especially if the issue of conscience only seems to come up when the parties in question are gay
I think that’s probably true. Do I think its shallow and hateful? Yes. However, I don’t think we can have a realistic legal standard that tests the broad theological consistency of someone’s beliefs.
For a society that includes different kinds of people to function, there has to be some space where private concerns give way to public ones. There has to be a res publica.
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
How, exactly, do we evaluate whether an exercise of religion is actually an exercise of religion, if it is not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief?
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
Thompson makes an excellent point. At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion? Does it require more than one person? More than one family? How many is the threshold for becoming a real religion?
Further, can you claimm to be part of a “recognized” religious sect (whatever we decide that means), but hold specific beliefs which are different from the general view of that sect, but nonetheless religious?
Thompson makes an excellent point. At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion? Does it require more than one person? More than one family? How many is the threshold for becoming a real religion?
Further, can you claimm to be part of a “recognized” religious sect (whatever we decide that means), but hold specific beliefs which are different from the general view of that sect, but nonetheless religious?
Thompson makes an excellent point. At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion? Does it require more than one person? More than one family? How many is the threshold for becoming a real religion?
Further, can you claimm to be part of a “recognized” religious sect (whatever we decide that means), but hold specific beliefs which are different from the general view of that sect, but nonetheless religious?
At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion?
when an IN court says so.
At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion?
when an IN court says so.
At what point does a personal belief become a recognized religion?
when an IN court says so.
That would probably have to be the Indiana Supreme Court. Because it seems certain that various courts in Indiana would come up with non-identical answers. (And even then, would a court in Texas, for example, care what a court in Indiana said?)
That would probably have to be the Indiana Supreme Court. Because it seems certain that various courts in Indiana would come up with non-identical answers. (And even then, would a court in Texas, for example, care what a court in Indiana said?)
That would probably have to be the Indiana Supreme Court. Because it seems certain that various courts in Indiana would come up with non-identical answers. (And even then, would a court in Texas, for example, care what a court in Indiana said?)
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
As I read the IN law, the question is not how prevalent, or well documented, or of long standing, the belief system is.
What I’m reading there is that, *whatever your system of belief is and however you come by it*, you can claim a religious exemption that isn’t actually something demanded by your system of belief.
The peyote church folks who prompted the original RFRA would certainly qualify as “minority”, but I see their claim as completely legitimate, because taking peyote is a sacrament in that church.
Rastafarians wear dreads, and Sikhs also don’t cut their hair. To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
So, a much more attenuated connection to the “exercise of religion”. Somebody else failing to properly exercise your religion is not the same as *you* failing to do so.
The IN law appears to take that an additional step. It’d be like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to bake a cake for someone for religious reasons.
What religious reason? There’s no apparent cake-related religious imperative (or, let’s assume there isn’t for the moment) in either of those faiths.
What the heck is an “exercise of religion” that isn’t compelled by your religious belief? I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
As I read the IN law, the question is not how prevalent, or well documented, or of long standing, the belief system is.
What I’m reading there is that, *whatever your system of belief is and however you come by it*, you can claim a religious exemption that isn’t actually something demanded by your system of belief.
The peyote church folks who prompted the original RFRA would certainly qualify as “minority”, but I see their claim as completely legitimate, because taking peyote is a sacrament in that church.
Rastafarians wear dreads, and Sikhs also don’t cut their hair. To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
So, a much more attenuated connection to the “exercise of religion”. Somebody else failing to properly exercise your religion is not the same as *you* failing to do so.
The IN law appears to take that an additional step. It’d be like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to bake a cake for someone for religious reasons.
What religious reason? There’s no apparent cake-related religious imperative (or, let’s assume there isn’t for the moment) in either of those faiths.
What the heck is an “exercise of religion” that isn’t compelled by your religious belief? I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs? Can someone form a system of beliefs that’s not based on a religious book or existing tradition? Or are beliefs only valid if they are associated with a major religion?
As I read the IN law, the question is not how prevalent, or well documented, or of long standing, the belief system is.
What I’m reading there is that, *whatever your system of belief is and however you come by it*, you can claim a religious exemption that isn’t actually something demanded by your system of belief.
The peyote church folks who prompted the original RFRA would certainly qualify as “minority”, but I see their claim as completely legitimate, because taking peyote is a sacrament in that church.
Rastafarians wear dreads, and Sikhs also don’t cut their hair. To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
So, a much more attenuated connection to the “exercise of religion”. Somebody else failing to properly exercise your religion is not the same as *you* failing to do so.
The IN law appears to take that an additional step. It’d be like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to bake a cake for someone for religious reasons.
What religious reason? There’s no apparent cake-related religious imperative (or, let’s assume there isn’t for the moment) in either of those faiths.
What the heck is an “exercise of religion” that isn’t compelled by your religious belief? I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
Arkansas, clearly fearing that they are to be outdone in the stupid stakes, have come up with their own particular stupid…
http://asmp.org/SB79#.VRrykBikqrW
Or could this all just be a grand exercise is legislative experimentalism ?
A new kind of science… ?
Arkansas, clearly fearing that they are to be outdone in the stupid stakes, have come up with their own particular stupid…
http://asmp.org/SB79#.VRrykBikqrW
Or could this all just be a grand exercise is legislative experimentalism ?
A new kind of science… ?
Arkansas, clearly fearing that they are to be outdone in the stupid stakes, have come up with their own particular stupid…
http://asmp.org/SB79#.VRrykBikqrW
Or could this all just be a grand exercise is legislative experimentalism ?
A new kind of science… ?
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
In the baker case I could imagine a legal line to be drawn reasonably between off-the-shelf cakes and custom made cakes.
In the former case the cake is not made specifically for anybody, so a religious claim could not apply to the baking. If the cake was ordered by and baked for a specific person that would be different. The former case could only be about the act of selling and there imo society should show zero tolerence as a far as selective refusal of service goes.
In the case of the photographer an option would be that general services (like e.g. passport photos) cannot be refused but individualized ones could (e.g. event photography and certain in-shop things like intimate photos*).
*I would see no problem with a photographer putting up a sign “no erotic photography here of any kind” but with “only non-gay/only gay erotic photography here” because the latter would be discriminatory while the former is not ‘general service’.
In the baker case I could imagine a legal line to be drawn reasonably between off-the-shelf cakes and custom made cakes.
In the former case the cake is not made specifically for anybody, so a religious claim could not apply to the baking. If the cake was ordered by and baked for a specific person that would be different. The former case could only be about the act of selling and there imo society should show zero tolerence as a far as selective refusal of service goes.
In the case of the photographer an option would be that general services (like e.g. passport photos) cannot be refused but individualized ones could (e.g. event photography and certain in-shop things like intimate photos*).
*I would see no problem with a photographer putting up a sign “no erotic photography here of any kind” but with “only non-gay/only gay erotic photography here” because the latter would be discriminatory while the former is not ‘general service’.
In the baker case I could imagine a legal line to be drawn reasonably between off-the-shelf cakes and custom made cakes.
In the former case the cake is not made specifically for anybody, so a religious claim could not apply to the baking. If the cake was ordered by and baked for a specific person that would be different. The former case could only be about the act of selling and there imo society should show zero tolerence as a far as selective refusal of service goes.
In the case of the photographer an option would be that general services (like e.g. passport photos) cannot be refused but individualized ones could (e.g. event photography and certain in-shop things like intimate photos*).
*I would see no problem with a photographer putting up a sign “no erotic photography here of any kind” but with “only non-gay/only gay erotic photography here” because the latter would be discriminatory while the former is not ‘general service’.
cleek, in case of doubt you could be expected to bake your own and the one selling you the ingredients would be the one that cannot legally refuse. I assume that baking bagels is a wee bit less difficult than an elaborate wedding cake and could be done without undue effort even by laypeople.
—
I think the standard cop-out to the question ‘what exactly is your religious objection to doing X while X is not a general anti-tenet of your religious group?’ would be ‘It is a tenet of my and many other religions not to do business with sinners/outsiders, it’s not about X in specific.’. Like Catholics until quite recently being banned from any contact with excommunicated people and strongly discouraged from contact with non-Catholics in general. In case of shops a ‘solution’ could be to make them membership-only establishments. Then a shop could refuse to do business with anyone not a registered member of a specific registered club access to which could be legally denied. Of course only suitable for a shop with a limited customer base, not a big one like Walmart.
There are many ways of legal abuse not in need of a specfic law enabling effortless discrimination.
cleek, in case of doubt you could be expected to bake your own and the one selling you the ingredients would be the one that cannot legally refuse. I assume that baking bagels is a wee bit less difficult than an elaborate wedding cake and could be done without undue effort even by laypeople.
—
I think the standard cop-out to the question ‘what exactly is your religious objection to doing X while X is not a general anti-tenet of your religious group?’ would be ‘It is a tenet of my and many other religions not to do business with sinners/outsiders, it’s not about X in specific.’. Like Catholics until quite recently being banned from any contact with excommunicated people and strongly discouraged from contact with non-Catholics in general. In case of shops a ‘solution’ could be to make them membership-only establishments. Then a shop could refuse to do business with anyone not a registered member of a specific registered club access to which could be legally denied. Of course only suitable for a shop with a limited customer base, not a big one like Walmart.
There are many ways of legal abuse not in need of a specfic law enabling effortless discrimination.
cleek, in case of doubt you could be expected to bake your own and the one selling you the ingredients would be the one that cannot legally refuse. I assume that baking bagels is a wee bit less difficult than an elaborate wedding cake and could be done without undue effort even by laypeople.
—
I think the standard cop-out to the question ‘what exactly is your religious objection to doing X while X is not a general anti-tenet of your religious group?’ would be ‘It is a tenet of my and many other religions not to do business with sinners/outsiders, it’s not about X in specific.’. Like Catholics until quite recently being banned from any contact with excommunicated people and strongly discouraged from contact with non-Catholics in general. In case of shops a ‘solution’ could be to make them membership-only establishments. Then a shop could refuse to do business with anyone not a registered member of a specific registered club access to which could be legally denied. Of course only suitable for a shop with a limited customer base, not a big one like Walmart.
There are many ways of legal abuse not in need of a specfic law enabling effortless discrimination.
cleek, better yet, my religion requires that we convert everyone to it. Your religion does not allow anyone to leave it. Which religion wins?
cleek, better yet, my religion requires that we convert everyone to it. Your religion does not allow anyone to leave it. Which religion wins?
cleek, better yet, my religion requires that we convert everyone to it. Your religion does not allow anyone to leave it. Which religion wins?
Nigel, at least the Arkansas bill would pretty obviously fall before the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. That is, they can (perhaps) regulate how people in Arkansas take and use photographs. But they cannot try to tell anyone else how to do so.
And to think, like every other state, a big portion of those Arkanasa legislators are lawyers. How did they get through law school without learning about that? For that matter, how did they get thru high school?
Nigel, at least the Arkansas bill would pretty obviously fall before the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. That is, they can (perhaps) regulate how people in Arkansas take and use photographs. But they cannot try to tell anyone else how to do so.
And to think, like every other state, a big portion of those Arkanasa legislators are lawyers. How did they get through law school without learning about that? For that matter, how did they get thru high school?
Nigel, at least the Arkansas bill would pretty obviously fall before the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. That is, they can (perhaps) regulate how people in Arkansas take and use photographs. But they cannot try to tell anyone else how to do so.
And to think, like every other state, a big portion of those Arkanasa legislators are lawyers. How did they get through law school without learning about that? For that matter, how did they get thru high school?
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
The seller’s. You’re just a consumer and thus your importance is second (if you’re lucky) to that of the business owner. Your religion too.
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
The seller’s. You’re just a consumer and thus your importance is second (if you’re lucky) to that of the business owner. Your religion too.
what if my religion requires me to eat freshly made bagels every Tuesday, but the only bagel shop in town refuses to sell bagels to people of my religion? whose religion wins?
The seller’s. You’re just a consumer and thus your importance is second (if you’re lucky) to that of the business owner. Your religion too.
I guess you get to bake your own fresh bagels…
I guess you get to bake your own fresh bagels…
I guess you get to bake your own fresh bagels…
my religion does not allow that.
my religion does not allow that.
my religion does not allow that.
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs?
You do the best you can.
But you do not “draw a line” that gives carte blanche for not even barely disguised bigotry against a class of people who have historically suffered greatly at the hands of a great deal of it.
That would make no sense.
We are products of our history, and we, and especially the religious believers among us, should be adult enough to own up to it.
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs?
You do the best you can.
But you do not “draw a line” that gives carte blanche for not even barely disguised bigotry against a class of people who have historically suffered greatly at the hands of a great deal of it.
That would make no sense.
We are products of our history, and we, and especially the religious believers among us, should be adult enough to own up to it.
How exactly do you protect minority or offshoot beliefs?
You do the best you can.
But you do not “draw a line” that gives carte blanche for not even barely disguised bigotry against a class of people who have historically suffered greatly at the hands of a great deal of it.
That would make no sense.
We are products of our history, and we, and especially the religious believers among us, should be adult enough to own up to it.
my religion does not allow that.
Heresy!
my religion does not allow that.
Heresy!
my religion does not allow that.
Heresy!
OK, I’m officially putting this down as an own goal on Pence et al’s part.
When you’ve lost NASCAR, you’ve lost the heartland.
OK, I’m officially putting this down as an own goal on Pence et al’s part.
When you’ve lost NASCAR, you’ve lost the heartland.
OK, I’m officially putting this down as an own goal on Pence et al’s part.
When you’ve lost NASCAR, you’ve lost the heartland.
The NCAA and NASCAR??? Man, how bad can you screw up?!?
Perhaps all the Indiana state legislators who voted for this, and Pence, will do the decent thing and resign in shame. (Or whatever politicians use in place of it.)
The NCAA and NASCAR??? Man, how bad can you screw up?!?
Perhaps all the Indiana state legislators who voted for this, and Pence, will do the decent thing and resign in shame. (Or whatever politicians use in place of it.)
The NCAA and NASCAR??? Man, how bad can you screw up?!?
Perhaps all the Indiana state legislators who voted for this, and Pence, will do the decent thing and resign in shame. (Or whatever politicians use in place of it.)
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
These are all really good points and I’d like to try to make a reply to them.
First, yes, I agree that for better or worse, stuff like this ends up being a matter of drawing a line somewhere.
Which means, most likely, that the result will be somewhat unfair to at least some people. Lines that don’t cause that result are really hard, and often impossible, to draw.
Two lines that we’ve decided to draw are:
1. Public accommodations
2. Protected classes
For good or ill, if you decide to operate something that falls under the category of public accommodation, you’re obliged to do stuff that other folks aren’t.
For good or ill, we’ve decided to single out certain categories as being off limits for discrimination for a variety of purposes, including access to public accommodations. So, race, gender, etc. – including, it’s worth noting, religion.
As an aside, in IN, sexual orientation is not a protected category, so I’m not sure what Pence et al thought this law would accomplish. Sometimes people do dumb things.
It’s true that we all have to do something for a living, but you don’t have to open a store, or restaurant, or hotel.
I actually am sympathetic to people who, for reasons of conscience, find themselves running up against the requirements of law or regulation. And that’s whether their conscience is motivated by religious faith, or by some other source.
But at some point it behooves people with sensitive consciences to take the burden of figuring out how to fit themselves into the larger society onto themselves, rather than demanding that the larger society accommodate them.
Some people don’t eat meat, some people have to have separate plates for meat and dairy.
Some people don’t cut their hair, some people eat peyote, some people need to sacrifice animals, some people can’t drive on the Sabbath.
Some people can’t be in the company of the opposite sex in public, some people need to cover their faces when they’re in public.
Some people need to shelter illegal immigrants, some people need to vandalize nuclear weapon sites, some people need to not pay whatever portion of their taxes would go to military spending.
All points of legitimate religious scruple. Each and every one.
How do we accommodate all of that?
At some point it falls to the person with the issue of conscience to make whatever arrangements are necessary to make it work.
It might even cost them something, in terms of employment opportunities among other things. If so, that may be the price of conscience.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
These are all really good points and I’d like to try to make a reply to them.
First, yes, I agree that for better or worse, stuff like this ends up being a matter of drawing a line somewhere.
Which means, most likely, that the result will be somewhat unfair to at least some people. Lines that don’t cause that result are really hard, and often impossible, to draw.
Two lines that we’ve decided to draw are:
1. Public accommodations
2. Protected classes
For good or ill, if you decide to operate something that falls under the category of public accommodation, you’re obliged to do stuff that other folks aren’t.
For good or ill, we’ve decided to single out certain categories as being off limits for discrimination for a variety of purposes, including access to public accommodations. So, race, gender, etc. – including, it’s worth noting, religion.
As an aside, in IN, sexual orientation is not a protected category, so I’m not sure what Pence et al thought this law would accomplish. Sometimes people do dumb things.
It’s true that we all have to do something for a living, but you don’t have to open a store, or restaurant, or hotel.
I actually am sympathetic to people who, for reasons of conscience, find themselves running up against the requirements of law or regulation. And that’s whether their conscience is motivated by religious faith, or by some other source.
But at some point it behooves people with sensitive consciences to take the burden of figuring out how to fit themselves into the larger society onto themselves, rather than demanding that the larger society accommodate them.
Some people don’t eat meat, some people have to have separate plates for meat and dairy.
Some people don’t cut their hair, some people eat peyote, some people need to sacrifice animals, some people can’t drive on the Sabbath.
Some people can’t be in the company of the opposite sex in public, some people need to cover their faces when they’re in public.
Some people need to shelter illegal immigrants, some people need to vandalize nuclear weapon sites, some people need to not pay whatever portion of their taxes would go to military spending.
All points of legitimate religious scruple. Each and every one.
How do we accommodate all of that?
At some point it falls to the person with the issue of conscience to make whatever arrangements are necessary to make it work.
It might even cost them something, in terms of employment opportunities among other things. If so, that may be the price of conscience.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
Yes, I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m drawing the line in a different point. Most people don’t have the luxury of not working publicly: you either are independently wealthy or have some way of earning money. Since most people aren’t fabulously wealthy, pretty much everybody’s work comes under the public sphere. Because of that, I think society should grant some leeway to nominally public interactions.
These are all really good points and I’d like to try to make a reply to them.
First, yes, I agree that for better or worse, stuff like this ends up being a matter of drawing a line somewhere.
Which means, most likely, that the result will be somewhat unfair to at least some people. Lines that don’t cause that result are really hard, and often impossible, to draw.
Two lines that we’ve decided to draw are:
1. Public accommodations
2. Protected classes
For good or ill, if you decide to operate something that falls under the category of public accommodation, you’re obliged to do stuff that other folks aren’t.
For good or ill, we’ve decided to single out certain categories as being off limits for discrimination for a variety of purposes, including access to public accommodations. So, race, gender, etc. – including, it’s worth noting, religion.
As an aside, in IN, sexual orientation is not a protected category, so I’m not sure what Pence et al thought this law would accomplish. Sometimes people do dumb things.
It’s true that we all have to do something for a living, but you don’t have to open a store, or restaurant, or hotel.
I actually am sympathetic to people who, for reasons of conscience, find themselves running up against the requirements of law or regulation. And that’s whether their conscience is motivated by religious faith, or by some other source.
But at some point it behooves people with sensitive consciences to take the burden of figuring out how to fit themselves into the larger society onto themselves, rather than demanding that the larger society accommodate them.
Some people don’t eat meat, some people have to have separate plates for meat and dairy.
Some people don’t cut their hair, some people eat peyote, some people need to sacrifice animals, some people can’t drive on the Sabbath.
Some people can’t be in the company of the opposite sex in public, some people need to cover their faces when they’re in public.
Some people need to shelter illegal immigrants, some people need to vandalize nuclear weapon sites, some people need to not pay whatever portion of their taxes would go to military spending.
All points of legitimate religious scruple. Each and every one.
How do we accommodate all of that?
At some point it falls to the person with the issue of conscience to make whatever arrangements are necessary to make it work.
It might even cost them something, in terms of employment opportunities among other things. If so, that may be the price of conscience.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
I think, before going too much into the weeds on this, Hartmut has succinctly captured a lot of what I’m trying to say.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
Sure, I would stipulate to that. I think where it gets hazy is what is related to beliefs, when as you say ” I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.” I think more to the heart of the issue is this:
To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
I think I see the distinction you are drawing, but I think you can burden a conscientious belief by compelling contribution to an event or action you disagree with. To give what I hope is a more understandable/less offensive example, Thomas v. Review Board:
Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer’s roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer’s remaining departments to which transfer might have been sought were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division
His religious beliefs didn’t allow him to contribute to tank fabrication. Nobody was preventing exercise of his religion on his personal time, or inhibiting activities central to his belief (like using peyote as a sacrament). However, he was being compelled (economically, by denial of unemployment benefits) to participate in something he found unethical, and he wanted consideration for his religious convictions. I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
Again, ‘reasonable’ carries a lot of weight, but strict scrutiny and assessment by the courts is, imo, the best option.
I think, before going too much into the weeds on this, Hartmut has succinctly captured a lot of what I’m trying to say.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
Sure, I would stipulate to that. I think where it gets hazy is what is related to beliefs, when as you say ” I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.” I think more to the heart of the issue is this:
To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
I think I see the distinction you are drawing, but I think you can burden a conscientious belief by compelling contribution to an event or action you disagree with. To give what I hope is a more understandable/less offensive example, Thomas v. Review Board:
Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer’s roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer’s remaining departments to which transfer might have been sought were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division
His religious beliefs didn’t allow him to contribute to tank fabrication. Nobody was preventing exercise of his religion on his personal time, or inhibiting activities central to his belief (like using peyote as a sacrament). However, he was being compelled (economically, by denial of unemployment benefits) to participate in something he found unethical, and he wanted consideration for his religious convictions. I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
Again, ‘reasonable’ carries a lot of weight, but strict scrutiny and assessment by the courts is, imo, the best option.
I think, before going too much into the weeds on this, Hartmut has succinctly captured a lot of what I’m trying to say.
But whatever belief you’re claiming, it seems like the exemption would have to be, in some way, related to that belief in order to qualify as an “exercise of religion”.
Right?
Sure, I would stipulate to that. I think where it gets hazy is what is related to beliefs, when as you say ” I’m not talking about it having to be orthodox, you could make it up that morning as far as I’m concerned.” I think more to the heart of the issue is this:
To me, the thing with the cake is like a Rasta or a Sikh refusing to sell a pair of scissors to somebody, because *they* might use it to cut their own hair.
I think I see the distinction you are drawing, but I think you can burden a conscientious belief by compelling contribution to an event or action you disagree with. To give what I hope is a more understandable/less offensive example, Thomas v. Review Board:
Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer’s roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer’s remaining departments to which transfer might have been sought were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division
His religious beliefs didn’t allow him to contribute to tank fabrication. Nobody was preventing exercise of his religion on his personal time, or inhibiting activities central to his belief (like using peyote as a sacrament). However, he was being compelled (economically, by denial of unemployment benefits) to participate in something he found unethical, and he wanted consideration for his religious convictions. I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
Again, ‘reasonable’ carries a lot of weight, but strict scrutiny and assessment by the courts is, imo, the best option.
I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
As can I.
And, had the court not found in Thomas’ favor, it would have been Thomas’ responsibility to find another way to make a living.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion. As a simple pragmatic matter, it is not possible to accommodate every issue of conscience to the full satisfaction of the person with the scruple.
I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
As can I.
And, had the court not found in Thomas’ favor, it would have been Thomas’ responsibility to find another way to make a living.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion. As a simple pragmatic matter, it is not possible to accommodate every issue of conscience to the full satisfaction of the person with the scruple.
I can understand and respect that, and think the law should provide reasonable accommodation.
As can I.
And, had the court not found in Thomas’ favor, it would have been Thomas’ responsibility to find another way to make a living.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion. As a simple pragmatic matter, it is not possible to accommodate every issue of conscience to the full satisfaction of the person with the scruple.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
Yeah, and I think a lot of work is done by what is or is not a public accommodation. A lot of that is varies from state to state. CA, for example, has a very expansive one: basically any business. Other states are more restrictive, and it gets limited more towards stores, lodgings, and walk service types. I’d lean more towards the more restrictive version.
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility. For example, I think the local hardware store has to sell building materials to everybody, but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
No, there isn’t. One of things I respect and appreciate about the US is that we allow accommodation for activities that we find distasteful or offensive. But the corollary to that is that there will always be people that offend the common sensibilities of society.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
Yeah, and I think a lot of work is done by what is or is not a public accommodation. A lot of that is varies from state to state. CA, for example, has a very expansive one: basically any business. Other states are more restrictive, and it gets limited more towards stores, lodgings, and walk service types. I’d lean more towards the more restrictive version.
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility. For example, I think the local hardware store has to sell building materials to everybody, but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
No, there isn’t. One of things I respect and appreciate about the US is that we allow accommodation for activities that we find distasteful or offensive. But the corollary to that is that there will always be people that offend the common sensibilities of society.
I don’t know exactly where the best place for the line to be is, but I’m not sure that being able to pick and choose who you serve in a public accommodation because of the use *the other party* is going to make of your good or service is the best choice.
Yeah, and I think a lot of work is done by what is or is not a public accommodation. A lot of that is varies from state to state. CA, for example, has a very expansive one: basically any business. Other states are more restrictive, and it gets limited more towards stores, lodgings, and walk service types. I’d lean more towards the more restrictive version.
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility. For example, I think the local hardware store has to sell building materials to everybody, but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
But, I recognize that wherever the line gets drawn, somebody somewhere experiences it as unfair.
I don’t think there’s a way to fix that.
No, there isn’t. One of things I respect and appreciate about the US is that we allow accommodation for activities that we find distasteful or offensive. But the corollary to that is that there will always be people that offend the common sensibilities of society.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion.
I would agree they would not have been persecuting him. But IMO, the court struck a balance and society accommodated his religious beliefs. I think its a good thing society does so.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion.
I would agree they would not have been persecuting him. But IMO, the court struck a balance and society accommodated his religious beliefs. I think its a good thing society does so.
And, had they done so, IMO they would not have been persecuting Thomas for his religion.
I would agree they would not have been persecuting him. But IMO, the court struck a balance and society accommodated his religious beliefs. I think its a good thing society does so.
…but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
The meat industry is not a protected class.
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
The pragmatic solution is to let the contractor decline to build the slaughterhouse.
The pragmatic solution to Thomas would be eligibility for benefits or a different job.
The pragmatic solution for Nazis desiring to holding a public meeting in Skokie is to let them have their meeting.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Many lines.
You draw one. If we are limited to drawing one, I would argue you are drawing it in the wrong place for all the reasons that others here have pointed out.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
The way Selective Service determined Conscientious Objector status back in the day aside, that does not strike me as a pragmatic way to fashion public policy on matters such as these.
…but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
The meat industry is not a protected class.
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
The pragmatic solution is to let the contractor decline to build the slaughterhouse.
The pragmatic solution to Thomas would be eligibility for benefits or a different job.
The pragmatic solution for Nazis desiring to holding a public meeting in Skokie is to let them have their meeting.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Many lines.
You draw one. If we are limited to drawing one, I would argue you are drawing it in the wrong place for all the reasons that others here have pointed out.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
The way Selective Service determined Conscientious Objector status back in the day aside, that does not strike me as a pragmatic way to fashion public policy on matters such as these.
…but the individual contractor could decline to build a slaughterhouse if they felt the meat industry was unethical.
The meat industry is not a protected class.
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
The pragmatic solution is to let the contractor decline to build the slaughterhouse.
The pragmatic solution to Thomas would be eligibility for benefits or a different job.
The pragmatic solution for Nazis desiring to holding a public meeting in Skokie is to let them have their meeting.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Many lines.
You draw one. If we are limited to drawing one, I would argue you are drawing it in the wrong place for all the reasons that others here have pointed out.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
The way Selective Service determined Conscientious Objector status back in the day aside, that does not strike me as a pragmatic way to fashion public policy on matters such as these.
Let me see if I can summarize where I think several of us are going here.
— If you run a business which provides generic stuff (whether rooms or materials or services), you pretty much have to serve everybody who comes in and asks to buy.
— If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.), you can pick and choose which custom stuff you will do.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason. If you are a photographer, you can choose to work any particular event or not — again for any reason or no reason. But if you run a barber shop, you have to serve anyone who comes in the door — you can tell them that you do not know how to provide the style that they ask for, but if they say “what can you do?” and pick one, you have to do it.
Which brings us to employees.
— If you object to serving some people, but your employer serves them (whether voluntarily or because required to by law), you either do it or you find other employment. Your employer is under no obligation to accomodate your beliefs.
— If there are no employers in your area who will let you avoid people you want to avoid, you move. If you can’t find anywhere in the country where you can pick and choose as you desire, maybe you get to emigrate.
Let me see if I can summarize where I think several of us are going here.
— If you run a business which provides generic stuff (whether rooms or materials or services), you pretty much have to serve everybody who comes in and asks to buy.
— If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.), you can pick and choose which custom stuff you will do.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason. If you are a photographer, you can choose to work any particular event or not — again for any reason or no reason. But if you run a barber shop, you have to serve anyone who comes in the door — you can tell them that you do not know how to provide the style that they ask for, but if they say “what can you do?” and pick one, you have to do it.
Which brings us to employees.
— If you object to serving some people, but your employer serves them (whether voluntarily or because required to by law), you either do it or you find other employment. Your employer is under no obligation to accomodate your beliefs.
— If there are no employers in your area who will let you avoid people you want to avoid, you move. If you can’t find anywhere in the country where you can pick and choose as you desire, maybe you get to emigrate.
Let me see if I can summarize where I think several of us are going here.
— If you run a business which provides generic stuff (whether rooms or materials or services), you pretty much have to serve everybody who comes in and asks to buy.
— If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.), you can pick and choose which custom stuff you will do.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason. If you are a photographer, you can choose to work any particular event or not — again for any reason or no reason. But if you run a barber shop, you have to serve anyone who comes in the door — you can tell them that you do not know how to provide the style that they ask for, but if they say “what can you do?” and pick one, you have to do it.
Which brings us to employees.
— If you object to serving some people, but your employer serves them (whether voluntarily or because required to by law), you either do it or you find other employment. Your employer is under no obligation to accomodate your beliefs.
— If there are no employers in your area who will let you avoid people you want to avoid, you move. If you can’t find anywhere in the country where you can pick and choose as you desire, maybe you get to emigrate.
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility.
Yes, I am fine with that as well. MA is like CA, basically any business is public accommodation.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Agreed, because there is no way to accommodate your need to not have to sit on a bus with women without making the women walk.
Not just be offended or upset, but have to walk.
It’s your issue, you walk.
In wj’s world, I would land on (a) you have to sell the cake, and (b) you don’t have to take the pictures. Assuming that by “take the pictures” we mean attend the wedding, be involved at some level in the ceremony, etc.
If it’s just studio shots, you have to take the pictures.
That’s just me. My basis for drawing the line there is basically just my sense of how much of a “burden” any of it might create for somebody’s religious expression.
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility.
Yes, I am fine with that as well. MA is like CA, basically any business is public accommodation.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Agreed, because there is no way to accommodate your need to not have to sit on a bus with women without making the women walk.
Not just be offended or upset, but have to walk.
It’s your issue, you walk.
In wj’s world, I would land on (a) you have to sell the cake, and (b) you don’t have to take the pictures. Assuming that by “take the pictures” we mean attend the wedding, be involved at some level in the ceremony, etc.
If it’s just studio shots, you have to take the pictures.
That’s just me. My basis for drawing the line there is basically just my sense of how much of a “burden” any of it might create for somebody’s religious expression.
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
In that, I’d err on the side of letting people doing contract based work a little more flexibility.
Yes, I am fine with that as well. MA is like CA, basically any business is public accommodation.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
Agreed, because there is no way to accommodate your need to not have to sit on a bus with women without making the women walk.
Not just be offended or upset, but have to walk.
It’s your issue, you walk.
In wj’s world, I would land on (a) you have to sell the cake, and (b) you don’t have to take the pictures. Assuming that by “take the pictures” we mean attend the wedding, be involved at some level in the ceremony, etc.
If it’s just studio shots, you have to take the pictures.
That’s just me. My basis for drawing the line there is basically just my sense of how much of a “burden” any of it might create for somebody’s religious expression.
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
Given the compelling government interest, I believe the “protected class” is plenty narrow. Both of the “strict scrutiny” criteria are met. Those photographers should show up at the wedding (they can also subcontract the work out to free lancers).
As to “they gotta’ make a living somehow” I can only reply that right wingers and free market libertarians never, ever tire of telling some classes of folks (i.e., those who agitate for union representation in the work place) that “this is a free country…you can just go get a job somewhere else”.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
Pragmatic, no?
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
Given the compelling government interest, I believe the “protected class” is plenty narrow. Both of the “strict scrutiny” criteria are met. Those photographers should show up at the wedding (they can also subcontract the work out to free lancers).
As to “they gotta’ make a living somehow” I can only reply that right wingers and free market libertarians never, ever tire of telling some classes of folks (i.e., those who agitate for union representation in the work place) that “this is a free country…you can just go get a job somewhere else”.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
Pragmatic, no?
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
Given the compelling government interest, I believe the “protected class” is plenty narrow. Both of the “strict scrutiny” criteria are met. Those photographers should show up at the wedding (they can also subcontract the work out to free lancers).
As to “they gotta’ make a living somehow” I can only reply that right wingers and free market libertarians never, ever tire of telling some classes of folks (i.e., those who agitate for union representation in the work place) that “this is a free country…you can just go get a job somewhere else”.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
Pragmatic, no?
If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.)
You are a developer. You build custom homes or tracts of housing where the client gets to select “custom” features.
Make your case for discrimination in this instance.
My sense is this: Some who would otherwise condemn this sort of bigoted behavior under just about any other circumstance weaken when the circumstances appear, well, inconsequential.
But you get enough of this, and at some point it no longer is. At which point is it easier to draw the line?
I’d lean toward the beginning.
That, for me, is the rub.
If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.)
You are a developer. You build custom homes or tracts of housing where the client gets to select “custom” features.
Make your case for discrimination in this instance.
My sense is this: Some who would otherwise condemn this sort of bigoted behavior under just about any other circumstance weaken when the circumstances appear, well, inconsequential.
But you get enough of this, and at some point it no longer is. At which point is it easier to draw the line?
I’d lean toward the beginning.
That, for me, is the rub.
If you run a business which provides custom stuff (building to the owners plans, taking pictures of an event, etc.)
You are a developer. You build custom homes or tracts of housing where the client gets to select “custom” features.
Make your case for discrimination in this instance.
My sense is this: Some who would otherwise condemn this sort of bigoted behavior under just about any other circumstance weaken when the circumstances appear, well, inconsequential.
But you get enough of this, and at some point it no longer is. At which point is it easier to draw the line?
I’d lean toward the beginning.
That, for me, is the rub.
My vague recollection is that the law makes a distinction between a contract for personal services and a contract for goods, in that if you’re hiring the person (e.g., a photographer), then that person is allowed more leeway when it comes to refusing to perform services for someone based upon protected criteria. Kind of like what is discussed above.
This may all be statutory, however, and not Constitutional (although there is the 13th Amendment and all).
I may also be confusing remedies for nonperformance of contracts with up-front contract decision making.
My vague recollection is that the law makes a distinction between a contract for personal services and a contract for goods, in that if you’re hiring the person (e.g., a photographer), then that person is allowed more leeway when it comes to refusing to perform services for someone based upon protected criteria. Kind of like what is discussed above.
This may all be statutory, however, and not Constitutional (although there is the 13th Amendment and all).
I may also be confusing remedies for nonperformance of contracts with up-front contract decision making.
My vague recollection is that the law makes a distinction between a contract for personal services and a contract for goods, in that if you’re hiring the person (e.g., a photographer), then that person is allowed more leeway when it comes to refusing to perform services for someone based upon protected criteria. Kind of like what is discussed above.
This may all be statutory, however, and not Constitutional (although there is the 13th Amendment and all).
I may also be confusing remedies for nonperformance of contracts with up-front contract decision making.
bobbyp:
Many lines is true. I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be, IMO. It’s always easy to draw lines based on things that society broadly agrees are correct. It’s much harder to carve out consistent legal protections for ‘worthwhile’ things that current society deems worthless, while abolishing things that are inherently toxic, such as anti-homosexual discrimination.
Just as a note:
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
As I noted above, that depends on jurisdiction. In CA, that likely would be covered by ‘public accommodation’. As it would in MA, according to russell.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
I would tell them not to disrupt the driver or disturb other passengers, and I don’t particularly think ‘fuck’ is a good foundation for public policy, but broadly, yes, everybody has a right to ride a public bus. And everybody has a right to a marriage recognized by the state. etc. I’m not trying to argue otherwise.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
Well, I’ve never claimed to be compelling. But honestly, no, my argument really has nothing to do with how ‘deep’ and ‘deeply held’ belief is. I’ve gone back and scanned my comments, and I’m unclear on what you are referring to.
My argument has to do with accommodating beliefs and conscience that conflict with my own, or with majoritarian views. I think that that accommodation is important aspect to fostering a diverse society. Balancing that concern with a functioning, just society is not an easy thing to do.
wj has, imo, summed up my views nicely.
and russell:
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
My mileage does vary, mostly on road condition, but also on this. Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree. Various people take their jobs, their art, their whatever, very seriously. If a baker thinks making a custom wedding cake a labor of love that deeply involves them in the end use of the cake, I’m not going to contradict them. I’m not part of the ‘creative class’, but I know people that are, and they take things like their art very seriously.
And again, just to stress the point, I don’t find your position unreasonable, I just disagree on an admittedly very fuzzy ‘where I would draw the line’.
bobbyp:
Many lines is true. I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be, IMO. It’s always easy to draw lines based on things that society broadly agrees are correct. It’s much harder to carve out consistent legal protections for ‘worthwhile’ things that current society deems worthless, while abolishing things that are inherently toxic, such as anti-homosexual discrimination.
Just as a note:
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
As I noted above, that depends on jurisdiction. In CA, that likely would be covered by ‘public accommodation’. As it would in MA, according to russell.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
I would tell them not to disrupt the driver or disturb other passengers, and I don’t particularly think ‘fuck’ is a good foundation for public policy, but broadly, yes, everybody has a right to ride a public bus. And everybody has a right to a marriage recognized by the state. etc. I’m not trying to argue otherwise.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
Well, I’ve never claimed to be compelling. But honestly, no, my argument really has nothing to do with how ‘deep’ and ‘deeply held’ belief is. I’ve gone back and scanned my comments, and I’m unclear on what you are referring to.
My argument has to do with accommodating beliefs and conscience that conflict with my own, or with majoritarian views. I think that that accommodation is important aspect to fostering a diverse society. Balancing that concern with a functioning, just society is not an easy thing to do.
wj has, imo, summed up my views nicely.
and russell:
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
My mileage does vary, mostly on road condition, but also on this. Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree. Various people take their jobs, their art, their whatever, very seriously. If a baker thinks making a custom wedding cake a labor of love that deeply involves them in the end use of the cake, I’m not going to contradict them. I’m not part of the ‘creative class’, but I know people that are, and they take things like their art very seriously.
And again, just to stress the point, I don’t find your position unreasonable, I just disagree on an admittedly very fuzzy ‘where I would draw the line’.
bobbyp:
Many lines is true. I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be, IMO. It’s always easy to draw lines based on things that society broadly agrees are correct. It’s much harder to carve out consistent legal protections for ‘worthwhile’ things that current society deems worthless, while abolishing things that are inherently toxic, such as anti-homosexual discrimination.
Just as a note:
The contractor is not engaged in a business that is characterized by public accommodation.
As I noted above, that depends on jurisdiction. In CA, that likely would be covered by ‘public accommodation’. As it would in MA, according to russell.
The practical solution for somebody who demands women not ride on public transit in their presence is to tell them to get the fuck off the bus.
I would tell them not to disrupt the driver or disturb other passengers, and I don’t particularly think ‘fuck’ is a good foundation for public policy, but broadly, yes, everybody has a right to ride a public bus. And everybody has a right to a marriage recognized by the state. etc. I’m not trying to argue otherwise.
Your case does not strike me as compelling, and is based (at its nub) on a judgment as to how “deep” is the “deeply held” moral belief at issue.
Well, I’ve never claimed to be compelling. But honestly, no, my argument really has nothing to do with how ‘deep’ and ‘deeply held’ belief is. I’ve gone back and scanned my comments, and I’m unclear on what you are referring to.
My argument has to do with accommodating beliefs and conscience that conflict with my own, or with majoritarian views. I think that that accommodation is important aspect to fostering a diverse society. Balancing that concern with a functioning, just society is not an easy thing to do.
wj has, imo, summed up my views nicely.
and russell:
Having to participate seems different, to me, then just selling a cake.
YMMV
My mileage does vary, mostly on road condition, but also on this. Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree. Various people take their jobs, their art, their whatever, very seriously. If a baker thinks making a custom wedding cake a labor of love that deeply involves them in the end use of the cake, I’m not going to contradict them. I’m not part of the ‘creative class’, but I know people that are, and they take things like their art very seriously.
And again, just to stress the point, I don’t find your position unreasonable, I just disagree on an admittedly very fuzzy ‘where I would draw the line’.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
As I invoked that principle in this thread, I think it’s only fair to agree: an employer should be able to terminate an employee for discrimination. Absolutely.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
As I invoked that principle in this thread, I think it’s only fair to agree: an employer should be able to terminate an employee for discrimination. Absolutely.
So if you are going to invoke this principle, at the very least, you should be willing to abide by it when it goes against you.
As I invoked that principle in this thread, I think it’s only fair to agree: an employer should be able to terminate an employee for discrimination. Absolutely.
Ah yes, courts do not grant specific performance of personal services contracts as a breach of contract remedy. They do award monetary damages, however.
Ah yes, courts do not grant specific performance of personal services contracts as a breach of contract remedy. They do award monetary damages, however.
Ah yes, courts do not grant specific performance of personal services contracts as a breach of contract remedy. They do award monetary damages, however.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason.
so, one counter for normal people, and another counter for those people? those people can pick from whatever generic whatevers the baker makes. but if you want something nice, we’ll need a personal history and a sworn affidavit, just to make sure you’re not violating whichever deeply-held selectively chosen commandments or penumbras the baker feels are the most important that week.
no thanks.
it’s a straight-up license to discriminate. and we’ve done that. and many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason.
so, one counter for normal people, and another counter for those people? those people can pick from whatever generic whatevers the baker makes. but if you want something nice, we’ll need a personal history and a sworn affidavit, just to make sure you’re not violating whichever deeply-held selectively chosen commandments or penumbras the baker feels are the most important that week.
no thanks.
it’s a straight-up license to discriminate. and we’ve done that. and many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Thus, if you run a cake shop, you have to let anyone who wants one buy one of your standard wedding cakes. But you don’t have to make a custom wedding cake — for any reason or for no reason.
so, one counter for normal people, and another counter for those people? those people can pick from whatever generic whatevers the baker makes. but if you want something nice, we’ll need a personal history and a sworn affidavit, just to make sure you’re not violating whichever deeply-held selectively chosen commandments or penumbras the baker feels are the most important that week.
no thanks.
it’s a straight-up license to discriminate. and we’ve done that. and many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree.
No worries.
I think a fairly significant subtext here is that a lot of people are finding themselves left behind by the truly remarkable change in public opinion toward gays.
20, 15, 10, maybe even 5 years ago, the idea that freaking NASCAR or the NCAA would bail out of an entire state because of anything connected in even the most indirect way to gay marriage would have been mind-boggling.
The world is changing, and people feel threatened by that.
The flip side of that is the fact that gay people have, not felt threatened, but literally been threatened, for basically ever. Denied housing, denied jobs, denied any protection under the law whatsoever, prey to any kind of physical abuse from any random asshole.
So, there’s that.
It’s not hard for me to see some socially conservative baker would feel put upon at being required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but it is miles and miles and miles beyond not hard for me to understand why a gay person would just be so damned sick of taking shit from everybody, about everything, every single day of their lives, that they would decide that they are just not putting up with it anymore.
Gays actually have been persecuted. Really and truly persecuted. Social conservative people have not. Nobody to my knowledge has been denied a place to live, or a job, because they believe in Jesus in a particular way, nor have they been arrested, or beaten up on the street, or any of the other million things that gays have been subject to.
There aren’t a lot of teenage socially conservative Christian kids killing themselves because everyone, including their own families, rejects and bullies them daily.
The experience and history of the two groups here – gays, and socially conservative Christians – really are not commensurate.
It’s interesting, and (IMO) useful to discuss these things in the abstract, or as a matter of principle, but I think it’s also fairly obvious that the RFRA in IN, specifically, was motivated by a desire to make it possible for people to discriminate against gay people.
For some reason, all of the points of deep religious scruple that socially conservative Christians seem to bump up against when marriage is involved seem to involve gay people. Not divorced people wanting to enter into a second marriage while the ex is still alive, not marriages between a believer and a non-believer. Just gay people.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it. Not that they don’t sincerely believe in what they believe, not they don’t sincerely believe that gays shouldn’t marry, just that the only time they get worked up about it enough to want to take it to the law is when gays are involved.
So, my take-away is that sincere religious belief is not the whole enchilada. To the degree that that is so, it strikes me that there is something fraudulent about the insistence on a religious exemption.
My two cents, nothing more.
Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree.
No worries.
I think a fairly significant subtext here is that a lot of people are finding themselves left behind by the truly remarkable change in public opinion toward gays.
20, 15, 10, maybe even 5 years ago, the idea that freaking NASCAR or the NCAA would bail out of an entire state because of anything connected in even the most indirect way to gay marriage would have been mind-boggling.
The world is changing, and people feel threatened by that.
The flip side of that is the fact that gay people have, not felt threatened, but literally been threatened, for basically ever. Denied housing, denied jobs, denied any protection under the law whatsoever, prey to any kind of physical abuse from any random asshole.
So, there’s that.
It’s not hard for me to see some socially conservative baker would feel put upon at being required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but it is miles and miles and miles beyond not hard for me to understand why a gay person would just be so damned sick of taking shit from everybody, about everything, every single day of their lives, that they would decide that they are just not putting up with it anymore.
Gays actually have been persecuted. Really and truly persecuted. Social conservative people have not. Nobody to my knowledge has been denied a place to live, or a job, because they believe in Jesus in a particular way, nor have they been arrested, or beaten up on the street, or any of the other million things that gays have been subject to.
There aren’t a lot of teenage socially conservative Christian kids killing themselves because everyone, including their own families, rejects and bullies them daily.
The experience and history of the two groups here – gays, and socially conservative Christians – really are not commensurate.
It’s interesting, and (IMO) useful to discuss these things in the abstract, or as a matter of principle, but I think it’s also fairly obvious that the RFRA in IN, specifically, was motivated by a desire to make it possible for people to discriminate against gay people.
For some reason, all of the points of deep religious scruple that socially conservative Christians seem to bump up against when marriage is involved seem to involve gay people. Not divorced people wanting to enter into a second marriage while the ex is still alive, not marriages between a believer and a non-believer. Just gay people.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it. Not that they don’t sincerely believe in what they believe, not they don’t sincerely believe that gays shouldn’t marry, just that the only time they get worked up about it enough to want to take it to the law is when gays are involved.
So, my take-away is that sincere religious belief is not the whole enchilada. To the degree that that is so, it strikes me that there is something fraudulent about the insistence on a religious exemption.
My two cents, nothing more.
Not that I find your stance unreasonable, just that I disagree.
No worries.
I think a fairly significant subtext here is that a lot of people are finding themselves left behind by the truly remarkable change in public opinion toward gays.
20, 15, 10, maybe even 5 years ago, the idea that freaking NASCAR or the NCAA would bail out of an entire state because of anything connected in even the most indirect way to gay marriage would have been mind-boggling.
The world is changing, and people feel threatened by that.
The flip side of that is the fact that gay people have, not felt threatened, but literally been threatened, for basically ever. Denied housing, denied jobs, denied any protection under the law whatsoever, prey to any kind of physical abuse from any random asshole.
So, there’s that.
It’s not hard for me to see some socially conservative baker would feel put upon at being required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but it is miles and miles and miles beyond not hard for me to understand why a gay person would just be so damned sick of taking shit from everybody, about everything, every single day of their lives, that they would decide that they are just not putting up with it anymore.
Gays actually have been persecuted. Really and truly persecuted. Social conservative people have not. Nobody to my knowledge has been denied a place to live, or a job, because they believe in Jesus in a particular way, nor have they been arrested, or beaten up on the street, or any of the other million things that gays have been subject to.
There aren’t a lot of teenage socially conservative Christian kids killing themselves because everyone, including their own families, rejects and bullies them daily.
The experience and history of the two groups here – gays, and socially conservative Christians – really are not commensurate.
It’s interesting, and (IMO) useful to discuss these things in the abstract, or as a matter of principle, but I think it’s also fairly obvious that the RFRA in IN, specifically, was motivated by a desire to make it possible for people to discriminate against gay people.
For some reason, all of the points of deep religious scruple that socially conservative Christians seem to bump up against when marriage is involved seem to involve gay people. Not divorced people wanting to enter into a second marriage while the ex is still alive, not marriages between a believer and a non-believer. Just gay people.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it. Not that they don’t sincerely believe in what they believe, not they don’t sincerely believe that gays shouldn’t marry, just that the only time they get worked up about it enough to want to take it to the law is when gays are involved.
So, my take-away is that sincere religious belief is not the whole enchilada. To the degree that that is so, it strikes me that there is something fraudulent about the insistence on a religious exemption.
My two cents, nothing more.
Dale Carpenter has a good article about this on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post. According to him:
The Indiana legislature considered and rejected a provision, similar to provisions in the Texas and Missouri RFRA laws, that would exempt civil rights laws.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation legal at the state level in Indiana, but many localities have laws prohibiting it, and these laws could now be challenged.
Dale Carpenter has a good article about this on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post. According to him:
The Indiana legislature considered and rejected a provision, similar to provisions in the Texas and Missouri RFRA laws, that would exempt civil rights laws.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation legal at the state level in Indiana, but many localities have laws prohibiting it, and these laws could now be challenged.
Dale Carpenter has a good article about this on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post. According to him:
The Indiana legislature considered and rejected a provision, similar to provisions in the Texas and Missouri RFRA laws, that would exempt civil rights laws.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation legal at the state level in Indiana, but many localities have laws prohibiting it, and these laws could now be challenged.
russell:
I have nor real objection to anything in your last.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it.
I’d agree. And I’ve attempted to refrain from discussing the IN law specifically, because as I’ve stated I haven’t had a chance to familiarize myself with its text.
But yes, my impression from various reports is that it has reached prominence because Pence and various lawmakers wanted to burnish their social conservative cred by bashing gays. It’s not a position I respect, but I’m not a mind reader, I’d prefer to pass my response to the actual text, as that’s what people need to live with.
But for various reasons, I don’t really care what the IN law says. Mostly because there isn’t a chance in hell that it will stand as is. Regardless of what it is or isn’t, the perception is very much that it is targeted to LGBT, and US culture at large has, quite rightly, condemned that.
And to me, that’s the win, and the indicator of what will ultimately relieve the discrimination targeted at LGBT members of society. Not to say there is not a role of law in preventing discrimination, but discrimination will exist until society erodes it by making it archaic and socially unacceptable. That is happening now, and that is a heartening development.
russell:
I have nor real objection to anything in your last.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it.
I’d agree. And I’ve attempted to refrain from discussing the IN law specifically, because as I’ve stated I haven’t had a chance to familiarize myself with its text.
But yes, my impression from various reports is that it has reached prominence because Pence and various lawmakers wanted to burnish their social conservative cred by bashing gays. It’s not a position I respect, but I’m not a mind reader, I’d prefer to pass my response to the actual text, as that’s what people need to live with.
But for various reasons, I don’t really care what the IN law says. Mostly because there isn’t a chance in hell that it will stand as is. Regardless of what it is or isn’t, the perception is very much that it is targeted to LGBT, and US culture at large has, quite rightly, condemned that.
And to me, that’s the win, and the indicator of what will ultimately relieve the discrimination targeted at LGBT members of society. Not to say there is not a role of law in preventing discrimination, but discrimination will exist until society erodes it by making it archaic and socially unacceptable. That is happening now, and that is a heartening development.
russell:
I have nor real objection to anything in your last.
So, it all does have a bit of a whiff of bullshit about it.
I’d agree. And I’ve attempted to refrain from discussing the IN law specifically, because as I’ve stated I haven’t had a chance to familiarize myself with its text.
But yes, my impression from various reports is that it has reached prominence because Pence and various lawmakers wanted to burnish their social conservative cred by bashing gays. It’s not a position I respect, but I’m not a mind reader, I’d prefer to pass my response to the actual text, as that’s what people need to live with.
But for various reasons, I don’t really care what the IN law says. Mostly because there isn’t a chance in hell that it will stand as is. Regardless of what it is or isn’t, the perception is very much that it is targeted to LGBT, and US culture at large has, quite rightly, condemned that.
And to me, that’s the win, and the indicator of what will ultimately relieve the discrimination targeted at LGBT members of society. Not to say there is not a role of law in preventing discrimination, but discrimination will exist until society erodes it by making it archaic and socially unacceptable. That is happening now, and that is a heartening development.
And to me, that’s the win
Yes, I agree.
And to me, that’s the win
Yes, I agree.
And to me, that’s the win
Yes, I agree.
I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be…
I believe you are incorrect. You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
To take this law into consideration is legally consistent. To advocate some kind of “personal exemption” is inconsistent, and at odds with current policy.
We can all be for protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, association, all that wonderful stuff, even for assholes, but when it comes down to legally sanctioning their right to inflict their bigotry on others, that’s where I draw the line.
It is a relatively clear and easy line to draw as these kinds of things go.
Like cleek said, people fought and died for this.
It’s damned simple.
I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be…
I believe you are incorrect. You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
To take this law into consideration is legally consistent. To advocate some kind of “personal exemption” is inconsistent, and at odds with current policy.
We can all be for protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, association, all that wonderful stuff, even for assholes, but when it comes down to legally sanctioning their right to inflict their bigotry on others, that’s where I draw the line.
It is a relatively clear and easy line to draw as these kinds of things go.
Like cleek said, people fought and died for this.
It’s damned simple.
I think doing it in a legally consistent way is more difficult than you are making it to be…
I believe you are incorrect. You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
To take this law into consideration is legally consistent. To advocate some kind of “personal exemption” is inconsistent, and at odds with current policy.
We can all be for protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, association, all that wonderful stuff, even for assholes, but when it comes down to legally sanctioning their right to inflict their bigotry on others, that’s where I draw the line.
It is a relatively clear and easy line to draw as these kinds of things go.
Like cleek said, people fought and died for this.
It’s damned simple.
many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Yes, quite so.
There is a real difference in the moral or ethical weight of the claims being made on the two sides of the issue here. At least, it seems so to me.
On one side, some people are being required to sell somebody a cake – or even bake someone a special cake – to celebrate something they think is wrong. The baker isn’t being required to *do* the thing they think is wrong, just to make and sell a cake, that will be served at the event they find offensive.
On the other side, people have been beaten up, denied housing, fired from jobs, refused service or even entry into places that any other person can freely go. And so on.
I understand that we want to try to think about things like this in terms of principle, but there is also an actual, concrete history here, that really has to be part of the equation. In my opinion.
many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Yes, quite so.
There is a real difference in the moral or ethical weight of the claims being made on the two sides of the issue here. At least, it seems so to me.
On one side, some people are being required to sell somebody a cake – or even bake someone a special cake – to celebrate something they think is wrong. The baker isn’t being required to *do* the thing they think is wrong, just to make and sell a cake, that will be served at the event they find offensive.
On the other side, people have been beaten up, denied housing, fired from jobs, refused service or even entry into places that any other person can freely go. And so on.
I understand that we want to try to think about things like this in terms of principle, but there is also an actual, concrete history here, that really has to be part of the equation. In my opinion.
many people fought and died to get rid of that bullshit.
Yes, quite so.
There is a real difference in the moral or ethical weight of the claims being made on the two sides of the issue here. At least, it seems so to me.
On one side, some people are being required to sell somebody a cake – or even bake someone a special cake – to celebrate something they think is wrong. The baker isn’t being required to *do* the thing they think is wrong, just to make and sell a cake, that will be served at the event they find offensive.
On the other side, people have been beaten up, denied housing, fired from jobs, refused service or even entry into places that any other person can freely go. And so on.
I understand that we want to try to think about things like this in terms of principle, but there is also an actual, concrete history here, that really has to be part of the equation. In my opinion.
As personal note, I’ll add that it angers me when people take what is actually a very important principle – the integrity of individual conscience, freedom of religious practice – and use it as a fairly obvious pretext to beat up on people that they basically just don’t like, or who make them uncomfortable for reasons that have not much to do with their actual religious faith.
And if you don’t think that’s a big part of what’s going on, I’ll be happy to point you to a flood of social media chat, among other things, that will set you straight.
Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
All of that is just my personal opinion, full stop.
As personal note, I’ll add that it angers me when people take what is actually a very important principle – the integrity of individual conscience, freedom of religious practice – and use it as a fairly obvious pretext to beat up on people that they basically just don’t like, or who make them uncomfortable for reasons that have not much to do with their actual religious faith.
And if you don’t think that’s a big part of what’s going on, I’ll be happy to point you to a flood of social media chat, among other things, that will set you straight.
Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
All of that is just my personal opinion, full stop.
As personal note, I’ll add that it angers me when people take what is actually a very important principle – the integrity of individual conscience, freedom of religious practice – and use it as a fairly obvious pretext to beat up on people that they basically just don’t like, or who make them uncomfortable for reasons that have not much to do with their actual religious faith.
And if you don’t think that’s a big part of what’s going on, I’ll be happy to point you to a flood of social media chat, among other things, that will set you straight.
Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
All of that is just my personal opinion, full stop.
So, when do you take the obvious next step, and mandate that customers, too, not discriminate? Remember, EVERYTHING that’s not mandatory is supposed to be forbidden. Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Are businessmen the only acceptable underclass?
So, when do you take the obvious next step, and mandate that customers, too, not discriminate? Remember, EVERYTHING that’s not mandatory is supposed to be forbidden. Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Are businessmen the only acceptable underclass?
So, when do you take the obvious next step, and mandate that customers, too, not discriminate? Remember, EVERYTHING that’s not mandatory is supposed to be forbidden. Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Are businessmen the only acceptable underclass?
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job. That would at least be comparable.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job. That would at least be comparable.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job. That would at least be comparable.
Not that it matters, really, but what would be comparable would be someone ordering a cake to celebrate their 2nd marriage when their ex was still alive, and they hadn’t divorced for reason of infidelity.
Or, to celebrate a marriage between a “believer” and an “unbeliever”.
Nobody is going to court about either of those things, to my knowledge.
Not that it matters, really, but what would be comparable would be someone ordering a cake to celebrate their 2nd marriage when their ex was still alive, and they hadn’t divorced for reason of infidelity.
Or, to celebrate a marriage between a “believer” and an “unbeliever”.
Nobody is going to court about either of those things, to my knowledge.
Not that it matters, really, but what would be comparable would be someone ordering a cake to celebrate their 2nd marriage when their ex was still alive, and they hadn’t divorced for reason of infidelity.
Or, to celebrate a marriage between a “believer” and an “unbeliever”.
Nobody is going to court about either of those things, to my knowledge.
Freedom of religion.
I like their “Deity Dozen”.
Sacramental partaking of the sacred weed (item #12) wouldn’t really work for me, the kind bud turns my normal everyday introversion into something approaching catatonia, but the first 11 points all look good to me.
Freedom of religion.
I like their “Deity Dozen”.
Sacramental partaking of the sacred weed (item #12) wouldn’t really work for me, the kind bud turns my normal everyday introversion into something approaching catatonia, but the first 11 points all look good to me.
Freedom of religion.
I like their “Deity Dozen”.
Sacramental partaking of the sacred weed (item #12) wouldn’t really work for me, the kind bud turns my normal everyday introversion into something approaching catatonia, but the first 11 points all look good to me.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job.
the law says nothing about celebrations. a bakery could refuse to serve a gay man at any time.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job.
the law says nothing about celebrations. a bakery could refuse to serve a gay man at any time.
Might ask what happened the last time somebody asked for a cake to celebrate their tenth adulterous affair, or a successful 2nd story job.
the law says nothing about celebrations. a bakery could refuse to serve a gay man at any time.
the first 11 points all look good to me.
Looks good to me as well. The establishment of that guys church is an example of why I like RFRAs.
It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it. My opinion, fwiw.
the first 11 points all look good to me.
Looks good to me as well. The establishment of that guys church is an example of why I like RFRAs.
It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it. My opinion, fwiw.
the first 11 points all look good to me.
Looks good to me as well. The establishment of that guys church is an example of why I like RFRAs.
It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it. My opinion, fwiw.
Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Maybe because society couldn’t function otherwise? Maybe because making people partonize every business in the country would be utterly impractical? Unless you mean something else by “discriminate,” which I guess is a distinct possibility, given your recent trend of wordsmithing.
Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Maybe because society couldn’t function otherwise? Maybe because making people partonize every business in the country would be utterly impractical? Unless you mean something else by “discriminate,” which I guess is a distinct possibility, given your recent trend of wordsmithing.
Why is it ok to discriminate against a baker or florist, when they’re not allowed to discriminate?
Maybe because society couldn’t function otherwise? Maybe because making people partonize every business in the country would be utterly impractical? Unless you mean something else by “discriminate,” which I guess is a distinct possibility, given your recent trend of wordsmithing.
What absolutist words would Tench Coxe have for a gun salesman who refused to sell a weapon to a gay man or lesbian who had no criminal record?
What if a libertarian gay man asked a baker to bake a semi-automatic pistol into a cake to be presented to Cliven Bundy in celebration of the latter’s successful armed standoff with the BLM?
Why is it against the law under Second Amendment absolutism to deny a gay man the right to conceal a loaded weapon in his pants when in public, but it is legal to deny him the right to walk out of a bakery with the purchased banana cream pie of his choice on his person?
My country needs to think through this notion of both arming the citizenry and then denying certain members of that citizenry the right to purchase pastry.
Someone’s going to get hurt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4-spBDcJyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axERGIC5K8s
What absolutist words would Tench Coxe have for a gun salesman who refused to sell a weapon to a gay man or lesbian who had no criminal record?
What if a libertarian gay man asked a baker to bake a semi-automatic pistol into a cake to be presented to Cliven Bundy in celebration of the latter’s successful armed standoff with the BLM?
Why is it against the law under Second Amendment absolutism to deny a gay man the right to conceal a loaded weapon in his pants when in public, but it is legal to deny him the right to walk out of a bakery with the purchased banana cream pie of his choice on his person?
My country needs to think through this notion of both arming the citizenry and then denying certain members of that citizenry the right to purchase pastry.
Someone’s going to get hurt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4-spBDcJyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axERGIC5K8s
What absolutist words would Tench Coxe have for a gun salesman who refused to sell a weapon to a gay man or lesbian who had no criminal record?
What if a libertarian gay man asked a baker to bake a semi-automatic pistol into a cake to be presented to Cliven Bundy in celebration of the latter’s successful armed standoff with the BLM?
Why is it against the law under Second Amendment absolutism to deny a gay man the right to conceal a loaded weapon in his pants when in public, but it is legal to deny him the right to walk out of a bakery with the purchased banana cream pie of his choice on his person?
My country needs to think through this notion of both arming the citizenry and then denying certain members of that citizenry the right to purchase pastry.
Someone’s going to get hurt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4-spBDcJyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axERGIC5K8s
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
The narrow question here is not whether service wholesale can be denied to gays (a general refusal to serve gay people is not protected); rather it is whether people in commerce can be required to render services in aid of a gay marriage.
This is a clash of competing rights and a difficult constitutional question. That so many here blow by the issue at the intellectual equivalent of light speed is troubling. The lack of respect for others’ rights–others already held in contempt by many here–is the polar opposite of what liberals claim to be.
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
If you understood Christianity, you would understand why your statement is incorrect in this context. Things like forgiveness and redemption are high on the list of people who live quiet lives of faith. Loudmouths on the outside looking in seldom change anyone’s minds and often reveal their ignorance in their zeal to score rhetorical points.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
The narrow question here is not whether service wholesale can be denied to gays (a general refusal to serve gay people is not protected); rather it is whether people in commerce can be required to render services in aid of a gay marriage.
This is a clash of competing rights and a difficult constitutional question. That so many here blow by the issue at the intellectual equivalent of light speed is troubling. The lack of respect for others’ rights–others already held in contempt by many here–is the polar opposite of what liberals claim to be.
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
If you understood Christianity, you would understand why your statement is incorrect in this context. Things like forgiveness and redemption are high on the list of people who live quiet lives of faith. Loudmouths on the outside looking in seldom change anyone’s minds and often reveal their ignorance in their zeal to score rhetorical points.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
If being required to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, the best response is probably to be grateful.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
The narrow question here is not whether service wholesale can be denied to gays (a general refusal to serve gay people is not protected); rather it is whether people in commerce can be required to render services in aid of a gay marriage.
This is a clash of competing rights and a difficult constitutional question. That so many here blow by the issue at the intellectual equivalent of light speed is troubling. The lack of respect for others’ rights–others already held in contempt by many here–is the polar opposite of what liberals claim to be.
i’d believe these clowns gave a rat’s ass about their religious principles if they had already refused to serve adulterers, people who have disrespected their parents, convicted thieves, people who work on Sunday, liars, sculptors, the covetous and those who take the Lord’s name in vain. but they haven’t, have they.
If you understood Christianity, you would understand why your statement is incorrect in this context. Things like forgiveness and redemption are high on the list of people who live quiet lives of faith. Loudmouths on the outside looking in seldom change anyone’s minds and often reveal their ignorance in their zeal to score rhetorical points.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
I’m an unusual liberal, if not liberally unusual, in that I believe it should be mandatory to love one’s neighbor, but optional to fornicate with them.
Some believe the reverse, but they take the cake.
Where?
Down to the bakery to visit with the other cakes.
Tench Coxe and George Carlin together in one thread.
That’ll do me.
I’m an unusual liberal, if not liberally unusual, in that I believe it should be mandatory to love one’s neighbor, but optional to fornicate with them.
Some believe the reverse, but they take the cake.
Where?
Down to the bakery to visit with the other cakes.
Tench Coxe and George Carlin together in one thread.
That’ll do me.
I’m an unusual liberal, if not liberally unusual, in that I believe it should be mandatory to love one’s neighbor, but optional to fornicate with them.
Some believe the reverse, but they take the cake.
Where?
Down to the bakery to visit with the other cakes.
Tench Coxe and George Carlin together in one thread.
That’ll do me.
russell: Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
thompson: It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it.
Once again, the question arises: who gets to say whether anybody’s religion and/or conscience is being abused — or merely exercised and/or followed — when people claim that their religion requires bigotry?
It’s an expensive and hard-won coin to discard, all right, but it has two sides. You can neither spend nor discard just one side of it.
McKinney: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
I believe that McKinney understands Christianity as well anybody. If (some) other Christians understand it differently, who am I to say that they understand it less well? For that matter, who is McKinney to say so?
–TP
russell: Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
thompson: It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it.
Once again, the question arises: who gets to say whether anybody’s religion and/or conscience is being abused — or merely exercised and/or followed — when people claim that their religion requires bigotry?
It’s an expensive and hard-won coin to discard, all right, but it has two sides. You can neither spend nor discard just one side of it.
McKinney: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
I believe that McKinney understands Christianity as well anybody. If (some) other Christians understand it differently, who am I to say that they understand it less well? For that matter, who is McKinney to say so?
–TP
russell: Freedom of religion and/or conscience is also something that people have fought and died for. It’s a very expensive and hard-won coin to spend on hating on gays.
thompson: It’s also a very expensive and hard won coin to discard because someone abuses it.
Once again, the question arises: who gets to say whether anybody’s religion and/or conscience is being abused — or merely exercised and/or followed — when people claim that their religion requires bigotry?
It’s an expensive and hard-won coin to discard, all right, but it has two sides. You can neither spend nor discard just one side of it.
McKinney: If (some) heterosexual Christians truly believe that gay marriage should be against the law, then in good conscience they should subject themselves in a similar manner to laws that reach *their* sins, i.e. adultery, fornication, covetousness, divorce, not loving one’s neighbor and so on.
I believe that McKinney understands Christianity as well anybody. If (some) other Christians understand it differently, who am I to say that they understand it less well? For that matter, who is McKinney to say so?
–TP
You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
This overstates the case considerably. Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act. But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance. The focus is on bakeries, but what about catering, etc?
There are arguments on both sides and it isn’t simple bigotry that informs religious concerns about gay marriage. Jesus never once said a harsh word about homosexuals but was very harsh on adulterers–points I make frequently when arguing for gay civil marriage. However, he did address marriage. For Christians, marriage is a sacrament and it is between a man and a woman who, when married, become one flesh. Most Christians do not expect non-Christians to buy into their view of marriage; however, they do expect to be left alone to follow that view. Compelling a Christian to serve at a function that runs counter to a fundamental belief that was never intended to be discriminatory is not a small matter to be summarily dismissed as bigotry.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult. For one thing, it raises the fair question of whether, in time, the left will want churches that fail to recognize and perform gay marriage will be subject to some kind of state sanction.
You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
This overstates the case considerably. Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act. But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance. The focus is on bakeries, but what about catering, etc?
There are arguments on both sides and it isn’t simple bigotry that informs religious concerns about gay marriage. Jesus never once said a harsh word about homosexuals but was very harsh on adulterers–points I make frequently when arguing for gay civil marriage. However, he did address marriage. For Christians, marriage is a sacrament and it is between a man and a woman who, when married, become one flesh. Most Christians do not expect non-Christians to buy into their view of marriage; however, they do expect to be left alone to follow that view. Compelling a Christian to serve at a function that runs counter to a fundamental belief that was never intended to be discriminatory is not a small matter to be summarily dismissed as bigotry.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult. For one thing, it raises the fair question of whether, in time, the left will want churches that fail to recognize and perform gay marriage will be subject to some kind of state sanction.
You are advocating a position that enables legally sanctioned and enforceable rank discrimination that is wholly unacceptable and in direct conflict with prevailing civil right law.
This overstates the case considerably. Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act. But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance. The focus is on bakeries, but what about catering, etc?
There are arguments on both sides and it isn’t simple bigotry that informs religious concerns about gay marriage. Jesus never once said a harsh word about homosexuals but was very harsh on adulterers–points I make frequently when arguing for gay civil marriage. However, he did address marriage. For Christians, marriage is a sacrament and it is between a man and a woman who, when married, become one flesh. Most Christians do not expect non-Christians to buy into their view of marriage; however, they do expect to be left alone to follow that view. Compelling a Christian to serve at a function that runs counter to a fundamental belief that was never intended to be discriminatory is not a small matter to be summarily dismissed as bigotry.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult. For one thing, it raises the fair question of whether, in time, the left will want churches that fail to recognize and perform gay marriage will be subject to some kind of state sanction.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites. they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
when i was in church school, they didn’t teach us that selective literalism, picking and choosing specific parts of the Bible for the purpose of justifying your own prejudices and bigotry is how it works.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites. they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
when i was in church school, they didn’t teach us that selective literalism, picking and choosing specific parts of the Bible for the purpose of justifying your own prejudices and bigotry is how it works.
If you wanted to make a salient point, it would be something like this
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites. they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
when i was in church school, they didn’t teach us that selective literalism, picking and choosing specific parts of the Bible for the purpose of justifying your own prejudices and bigotry is how it works.
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
It didn’t go over my head, it just wasn’t much of a point.
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites.
And where are these hypocrites? You paint, ignorantly, with a very broad brush. And you do a lot of mind reading and name-calling.
they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely. This is bigoted ranting.
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
It didn’t go over my head, it just wasn’t much of a point.
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites.
And where are these hypocrites? You paint, ignorantly, with a very broad brush. And you do a lot of mind reading and name-calling.
they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely. This is bigoted ranting.
i made my salient point, and i’ll repeat it since it obviously went right over your head:
It didn’t go over my head, it just wasn’t much of a point.
Christians who don’t give a crap about people who violate the 10 Commandments or innumerable other Biblical rules but do get very excited about backing a cake for a marriage they don’t approve of are hypocrites.
And where are these hypocrites? You paint, ignorantly, with a very broad brush. And you do a lot of mind reading and name-calling.
they’ll bake a cake for an adulterer but not a gay man? they’ll bake a cake for a murderer, but not a gay woman? make a pizza for a lying serial fornicator but not two women who live together? hypocrites.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely. This is bigoted ranting.
I don’t quite see the difference in cleek’s and McKT’s list of sins, except the manner of phrasing.
I suggest as a way of mitigating some of these differences that Catholic bakers, at least, install a confessional booth in their entry ways manned by a priest, who will forgive all patrons’ sins after a certain number of Hail Marys and such, and then every patron may proceed to the cake counter on an equal footing.
What could possibly happen in the short distance between the entry and the counter?
Even the most incorrigible sinner walks at least a block from the confessional before renewing their bids for eternal damnation.
If the priest is a woman, well, no one gets cake. What’s with that?
What happens to the left-over frozen wedding cake when a closeted gay man marries a woman and then years later comes out of the closet and the marriage ends?
Is it returned to the bakery as restitution or can the baker, if he holds gaiety among the leity to be sinful, demand some sort of pay back because his services were rendered under false pretense?
I don’t quite see the difference in cleek’s and McKT’s list of sins, except the manner of phrasing.
I suggest as a way of mitigating some of these differences that Catholic bakers, at least, install a confessional booth in their entry ways manned by a priest, who will forgive all patrons’ sins after a certain number of Hail Marys and such, and then every patron may proceed to the cake counter on an equal footing.
What could possibly happen in the short distance between the entry and the counter?
Even the most incorrigible sinner walks at least a block from the confessional before renewing their bids for eternal damnation.
If the priest is a woman, well, no one gets cake. What’s with that?
What happens to the left-over frozen wedding cake when a closeted gay man marries a woman and then years later comes out of the closet and the marriage ends?
Is it returned to the bakery as restitution or can the baker, if he holds gaiety among the leity to be sinful, demand some sort of pay back because his services were rendered under false pretense?
I don’t quite see the difference in cleek’s and McKT’s list of sins, except the manner of phrasing.
I suggest as a way of mitigating some of these differences that Catholic bakers, at least, install a confessional booth in their entry ways manned by a priest, who will forgive all patrons’ sins after a certain number of Hail Marys and such, and then every patron may proceed to the cake counter on an equal footing.
What could possibly happen in the short distance between the entry and the counter?
Even the most incorrigible sinner walks at least a block from the confessional before renewing their bids for eternal damnation.
If the priest is a woman, well, no one gets cake. What’s with that?
What happens to the left-over frozen wedding cake when a closeted gay man marries a woman and then years later comes out of the closet and the marriage ends?
Is it returned to the bakery as restitution or can the baker, if he holds gaiety among the leity to be sinful, demand some sort of pay back because his services were rendered under false pretense?
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
the pizza place in IN who just declared that they will not cater gay weddings: do they say they will not cater to parties hosted by adulterers, liars or people who disrespect their parents? no, they do not. so much for their very deep and very important Christianity.
This is bigoted ranting.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
the pizza place in IN who just declared that they will not cater gay weddings: do they say they will not cater to parties hosted by adulterers, liars or people who disrespect their parents? no, they do not. so much for their very deep and very important Christianity.
This is bigoted ranting.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
the pizza place in IN who just declared that they will not cater gay weddings: do they say they will not cater to parties hosted by adulterers, liars or people who disrespect their parents? no, they do not. so much for their very deep and very important Christianity.
This is bigoted ranting.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
Again, the real counterpart would be refusing to cater an orgy. They aten,y refusing service to gays. None of these places would refuse to sell a gay a generic cake. Do you understand the difference between a taxi driver refusing to drive someone who frequents prostitutes, and refusing to drive somebody TO a prostitute?
Liberals seem determined to prove that positive ‘rights’ are the death of liberty.
Again, the real counterpart would be refusing to cater an orgy. They aten,y refusing service to gays. None of these places would refuse to sell a gay a generic cake. Do you understand the difference between a taxi driver refusing to drive someone who frequents prostitutes, and refusing to drive somebody TO a prostitute?
Liberals seem determined to prove that positive ‘rights’ are the death of liberty.
Again, the real counterpart would be refusing to cater an orgy. They aten,y refusing service to gays. None of these places would refuse to sell a gay a generic cake. Do you understand the difference between a taxi driver refusing to drive someone who frequents prostitutes, and refusing to drive somebody TO a prostitute?
Liberals seem determined to prove that positive ‘rights’ are the death of liberty.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board. They are not the same. And your clear animosity to Christianity is bigoted. It is approved bigotry on the left, but it is bigotry nonetheless.
If someone was making the argument that, in commerce, they had the right under their religion to refuse service to gay people, I would agree that this is not only wrong but probably bigoted, although I would leave open the possibility that the refusal was based on a belief that they were required to withhold service.
Some Christians deny themselves things, out of their belief, that many of us do not: alcohol, sex outside of marriage, divorce being some examples.
Some number of Christians would refuse to administer the death penalty, some refuse military service, some refuse blood transfusions. I’m a Christian and I don’t subscribe to any of those beliefs, but I understand that some number of Christians feel bound not to do certain things.
Hypocrisy is insisting on sensitivity for some and denying it to others. Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board. They are not the same. And your clear animosity to Christianity is bigoted. It is approved bigotry on the left, but it is bigotry nonetheless.
If someone was making the argument that, in commerce, they had the right under their religion to refuse service to gay people, I would agree that this is not only wrong but probably bigoted, although I would leave open the possibility that the refusal was based on a belief that they were required to withhold service.
Some Christians deny themselves things, out of their belief, that many of us do not: alcohol, sex outside of marriage, divorce being some examples.
Some number of Christians would refuse to administer the death penalty, some refuse military service, some refuse blood transfusions. I’m a Christian and I don’t subscribe to any of those beliefs, but I understand that some number of Christians feel bound not to do certain things.
Hypocrisy is insisting on sensitivity for some and denying it to others. Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
so the only bigots you’ll stand up for are those who want refuse service to gays. got it.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board. They are not the same. And your clear animosity to Christianity is bigoted. It is approved bigotry on the left, but it is bigotry nonetheless.
If someone was making the argument that, in commerce, they had the right under their religion to refuse service to gay people, I would agree that this is not only wrong but probably bigoted, although I would leave open the possibility that the refusal was based on a belief that they were required to withhold service.
Some Christians deny themselves things, out of their belief, that many of us do not: alcohol, sex outside of marriage, divorce being some examples.
Some number of Christians would refuse to administer the death penalty, some refuse military service, some refuse blood transfusions. I’m a Christian and I don’t subscribe to any of those beliefs, but I understand that some number of Christians feel bound not to do certain things.
Hypocrisy is insisting on sensitivity for some and denying it to others. Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
This overstates the case considerably.
Nope.
Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act.
Insofar as the bigotry is shielded from civil action, it is implicitly sanctioned by the state.
But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event…
Nobody is being compelled to participate. Some bigots may be compelled to show up in court and defend their public bigotry. Nothing more.
…that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance.
Openly bigoted discrimination offends me to the very core of my being.
This overstates the case considerably.
Nope.
Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act.
Insofar as the bigotry is shielded from civil action, it is implicitly sanctioned by the state.
But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event…
Nobody is being compelled to participate. Some bigots may be compelled to show up in court and defend their public bigotry. Nothing more.
…that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance.
Openly bigoted discrimination offends me to the very core of my being.
This overstates the case considerably.
Nope.
Nothing is enforced because Christian is refusing to act.
Insofar as the bigotry is shielded from civil action, it is implicitly sanctioned by the state.
But more fundamentally, compelled participation in an event…
Nobody is being compelled to participate. Some bigots may be compelled to show up in court and defend their public bigotry. Nothing more.
…that is freighted with religious symbolism is a special and very close to unique circumstance.
Openly bigoted discrimination offends me to the very core of my being.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
A great opening, guaranteed to win hearts and minds.
An odd opening to a series of comments that takes others to task for their judgemental and intemperate language toward others.
Just saying.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
Yes. Specific points of the law have been either cited via links, or explicitly included, in comments throughout this thread.
You’re late to the party, so a brief review for your benefit:
The IN RFRA extends the 1st A right of exercise of religion to for-profit corps, which no other RFRA does except SC’s.
The IN RFRA extends its protections not only to laws passed by the state government, but to disputes in which the government is not a party at all. No other RFRA does that except TX.
And most bizarre, in my mind, is the language that allows a religious exemption under the heading of “free exercise of religion” for things that are not a part of, or compelled by, the actual system of belief in question.
So, a somewhat unique, and uniquely expansive, definition of “exercise of religion”, for purposes of exempting people from doing business with folks whose personal beliefs or practices they object to.
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Gays are not a protected class in IN, so they start from a position of being vulnerable to discrimination.
The evidence that the motivation behind passing the law was, specifically, to exempt business people from having to serve gays is basically circumstantial, rather that in the text of the law, but it is abundant.
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Since the point of the law is to exempt business and professional people from being compelled to do things they object to on religious grounds, this seems unlikely.
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
No.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
No, those things are not likely. And, were you to follow the line of argument in the thread, *that’s a large part of the point*.
Nobody is going to court to force bakers to bake cakes for adulterers, because apparently no bakers are refusing to bake cakes for adulterers.
Conversely, no bakers are going to court to defend their right to not have to bake cakes for adulterers, because, again, bakers apparently have little problem baking cakes for adulterers.
It’s only the gays that seem to bring out the need to stand on religious scruple.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
A great opening, guaranteed to win hearts and minds.
An odd opening to a series of comments that takes others to task for their judgemental and intemperate language toward others.
Just saying.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
Yes. Specific points of the law have been either cited via links, or explicitly included, in comments throughout this thread.
You’re late to the party, so a brief review for your benefit:
The IN RFRA extends the 1st A right of exercise of religion to for-profit corps, which no other RFRA does except SC’s.
The IN RFRA extends its protections not only to laws passed by the state government, but to disputes in which the government is not a party at all. No other RFRA does that except TX.
And most bizarre, in my mind, is the language that allows a religious exemption under the heading of “free exercise of religion” for things that are not a part of, or compelled by, the actual system of belief in question.
So, a somewhat unique, and uniquely expansive, definition of “exercise of religion”, for purposes of exempting people from doing business with folks whose personal beliefs or practices they object to.
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Gays are not a protected class in IN, so they start from a position of being vulnerable to discrimination.
The evidence that the motivation behind passing the law was, specifically, to exempt business people from having to serve gays is basically circumstantial, rather that in the text of the law, but it is abundant.
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Since the point of the law is to exempt business and professional people from being compelled to do things they object to on religious grounds, this seems unlikely.
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
No.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
No, those things are not likely. And, were you to follow the line of argument in the thread, *that’s a large part of the point*.
Nobody is going to court to force bakers to bake cakes for adulterers, because apparently no bakers are refusing to bake cakes for adulterers.
Conversely, no bakers are going to court to defend their right to not have to bake cakes for adulterers, because, again, bakers apparently have little problem baking cakes for adulterers.
It’s only the gays that seem to bring out the need to stand on religious scruple.
I don’t remember who said it, but it goes like this: progressives are open to pretty much anything as long as it’s mandatory.
A great opening, guaranteed to win hearts and minds.
An odd opening to a series of comments that takes others to task for their judgemental and intemperate language toward others.
Just saying.
Has anyone looked at the text of the law in question and asked whether the same law is on the books in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut?
Yes. Specific points of the law have been either cited via links, or explicitly included, in comments throughout this thread.
You’re late to the party, so a brief review for your benefit:
The IN RFRA extends the 1st A right of exercise of religion to for-profit corps, which no other RFRA does except SC’s.
The IN RFRA extends its protections not only to laws passed by the state government, but to disputes in which the government is not a party at all. No other RFRA does that except TX.
And most bizarre, in my mind, is the language that allows a religious exemption under the heading of “free exercise of religion” for things that are not a part of, or compelled by, the actual system of belief in question.
So, a somewhat unique, and uniquely expansive, definition of “exercise of religion”, for purposes of exempting people from doing business with folks whose personal beliefs or practices they object to.
What statutory language is it, specifically, that seems to open the door to discriminating against gays?
Gays are not a protected class in IN, so they start from a position of being vulnerable to discrimination.
The evidence that the motivation behind passing the law was, specifically, to exempt business people from having to serve gays is basically circumstantial, rather that in the text of the law, but it is abundant.
Can a doctor be required to perform an elective abortion?
Since the point of the law is to exempt business and professional people from being compelled to do things they object to on religious grounds, this seems unlikely.
Can a priest be required to perform a gay marriage?
No.
You’ve seen this happen? You have evidence of this? Not likely.
No, those things are not likely. And, were you to follow the line of argument in the thread, *that’s a large part of the point*.
Nobody is going to court to force bakers to bake cakes for adulterers, because apparently no bakers are refusing to bake cakes for adulterers.
Conversely, no bakers are going to court to defend their right to not have to bake cakes for adulterers, because, again, bakers apparently have little problem baking cakes for adulterers.
It’s only the gays that seem to bring out the need to stand on religious scruple.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult.
Physician, put your own damned broad brush away.
Thanks.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult.
Physician, put your own damned broad brush away.
Thanks.
Another point worth making: the vitriol many on the left aim at organized religion and the lack of respect for views the left doesn’t even understand makes the conversation more difficult.
Physician, put your own damned broad brush away.
Thanks.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
nonsense. a bigoted belief is a belief like any other.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
more nonsense. my comment, twice, refers to ‘catering’, which is what the IN pizza place talks about in their public statements.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
the law says absolutely nothing about “ceremonies” or any other special occasion. go read it.
Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
being bigoted towards hypocritical, selectively-literal bigots is a hypocrisy i’m more than happy to indulge myself in.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
nonsense. a bigoted belief is a belief like any other.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
more nonsense. my comment, twice, refers to ‘catering’, which is what the IN pizza place talks about in their public statements.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
the law says absolutely nothing about “ceremonies” or any other special occasion. go read it.
Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
being bigoted towards hypocritical, selectively-literal bigots is a hypocrisy i’m more than happy to indulge myself in.
Refusing to participate in something that runs counter to one’s beliefs is not bigotry.
nonsense. a bigoted belief is a belief like any other.
Did the pizza person say they would not serve gays at all, because that is your bogus analogy.
more nonsense. my comment, twice, refers to ‘catering’, which is what the IN pizza place talks about in their public statements.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
the law says absolutely nothing about “ceremonies” or any other special occasion. go read it.
Hypocrisy is denouncing bigotry while simultaneously practicing it.
being bigoted towards hypocritical, selectively-literal bigots is a hypocrisy i’m more than happy to indulge myself in.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays. If they were selling cakes specifically to celebrate adultery, you’d have a point. As it is, you don’t.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays. If they were selling cakes specifically to celebrate adultery, you’d have a point. As it is, you don’t.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays. If they were selling cakes specifically to celebrate adultery, you’d have a point. As it is, you don’t.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
again, the law says nothing about WEDDINGs, or ceremonies, or special occasions. it’s about “burdening” a person’s “exercise of religion”, and those terms are left essentially undefined.
if Mary Q Bigot thinks serving lemonade from her roadside lemonade stand to gays is a burden on her religion, that’s cool with IN law.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
again, the law says nothing about WEDDINGs, or ceremonies, or special occasions. it’s about “burdening” a person’s “exercise of religion”, and those terms are left essentially undefined.
if Mary Q Bigot thinks serving lemonade from her roadside lemonade stand to gays is a burden on her religion, that’s cool with IN law.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
again, the law says nothing about WEDDINGs, or ceremonies, or special occasions. it’s about “burdening” a person’s “exercise of religion”, and those terms are left essentially undefined.
if Mary Q Bigot thinks serving lemonade from her roadside lemonade stand to gays is a burden on her religion, that’s cool with IN law.
If you think bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay people or pizzeria owners refusing to make pizzas for gay people are examples of organized religion, I have to wonder who is more contemptous of organized religion. Your high horse may have thrown a shoe.
If you think bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay people or pizzeria owners refusing to make pizzas for gay people are examples of organized religion, I have to wonder who is more contemptous of organized religion. Your high horse may have thrown a shoe.
If you think bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay people or pizzeria owners refusing to make pizzas for gay people are examples of organized religion, I have to wonder who is more contemptous of organized religion. Your high horse may have thrown a shoe.
And ought to be, so long as not buying that lemonade for the exact same motive is cool with the law. And you can’t call the baker a hypocrite on the basis of a law he didn’t write.
And ought to be, so long as not buying that lemonade for the exact same motive is cool with the law. And you can’t call the baker a hypocrite on the basis of a law he didn’t write.
And ought to be, so long as not buying that lemonade for the exact same motive is cool with the law. And you can’t call the baker a hypocrite on the basis of a law he didn’t write.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
It’s entirely possible that the focus on wedding cakes is that they serve as the tip-off that there are homosexuals involved. Birthday cakes don’t usually provide any indication of the celebrants’ sexuality.
It’s probably also relevant that the number of cakes ordered for the purposes of celebrating adultery is not far from zero.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
It’s entirely possible that the focus on wedding cakes is that they serve as the tip-off that there are homosexuals involved. Birthday cakes don’t usually provide any indication of the celebrants’ sexuality.
It’s probably also relevant that the number of cakes ordered for the purposes of celebrating adultery is not far from zero.
And, AGAIN, they’re not refusing to sell cakes to gays, they’re refusing to sell WEDDING cakes to gays.
It’s entirely possible that the focus on wedding cakes is that they serve as the tip-off that there are homosexuals involved. Birthday cakes don’t usually provide any indication of the celebrants’ sexuality.
It’s probably also relevant that the number of cakes ordered for the purposes of celebrating adultery is not far from zero.
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
There is one limited issue that has, so far, resulted in well-known court cases.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board.
The law as written permits a business to refuse to serve gays, across the board. Amply so.
There is no constraint on what good or service may be refused, nor to whom it may be refused (with the exception of protected classes), nor in what contexts the refusal may be made, nor the specific reasons for which refusal may be made.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
That is sufficient ground for refusing to provide a good or service to anyone, excepting only folks belonging to protected classes.
Perhaps you would like to look at the text of the law before making further comment.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
There is one limited issue that has, so far, resulted in well-known court cases.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board.
The law as written permits a business to refuse to serve gays, across the board. Amply so.
There is no constraint on what good or service may be refused, nor to whom it may be refused (with the exception of protected classes), nor in what contexts the refusal may be made, nor the specific reasons for which refusal may be made.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
That is sufficient ground for refusing to provide a good or service to anyone, excepting only folks belonging to protected classes.
Perhaps you would like to look at the text of the law before making further comment.
There is one limited issue here: compelled participation in a ceremony that runs counter to beliefs that are two thousand years old.
There is one limited issue that has, so far, resulted in well-known court cases.
You conflate that issue with refusing service to gays across the board.
The law as written permits a business to refuse to serve gays, across the board. Amply so.
There is no constraint on what good or service may be refused, nor to whom it may be refused (with the exception of protected classes), nor in what contexts the refusal may be made, nor the specific reasons for which refusal may be made.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
That is sufficient ground for refusing to provide a good or service to anyone, excepting only folks belonging to protected classes.
Perhaps you would like to look at the text of the law before making further comment.
I don’t understand how that’s an appropriate response to a comment regarding “organized religion,” as opposed to “religious liberty.”
I don’t understand how that’s an appropriate response to a comment regarding “organized religion,” as opposed to “religious liberty.”
I don’t understand how that’s an appropriate response to a comment regarding “organized religion,” as opposed to “religious liberty.”
My last in response to:
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
I’ll expand on this by asking what anyone might think about my religious liberty were I of the belief that it was my mission, as compelled by God, to decapitate anyone my senses told me was animated by demonic forces.
A silly example, I know, but consider the audience. In any case, we draw lines somewhere, no? Don’t tut-tut suggested limitations on religious liberty, in general, when we all are willing to place them somewhere, in particular, as we each see fit.
My last in response to:
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
I’ll expand on this by asking what anyone might think about my religious liberty were I of the belief that it was my mission, as compelled by God, to decapitate anyone my senses told me was animated by demonic forces.
A silly example, I know, but consider the audience. In any case, we draw lines somewhere, no? Don’t tut-tut suggested limitations on religious liberty, in general, when we all are willing to place them somewhere, in particular, as we each see fit.
My last in response to:
Hairshirt, if religious liberty were only for.people who agreed with.me, what a dad thing it would be.
I’ll expand on this by asking what anyone might think about my religious liberty were I of the belief that it was my mission, as compelled by God, to decapitate anyone my senses told me was animated by demonic forces.
A silly example, I know, but consider the audience. In any case, we draw lines somewhere, no? Don’t tut-tut suggested limitations on religious liberty, in general, when we all are willing to place them somewhere, in particular, as we each see fit.
Perhaps it will help clarify things in everyone’s mind if we look at an analogy.
Many of the religious arguments being made on this subject are identical to those made half a century ago with respect to interracial marriages. So consider, in what circumstances would you consider refusing to provide XXX to an interracial couple to be acceptable? And in what circumstances would you consider that it should not be allowed?
Any answers are fine, of course. But they really ought to be the same with a gay couple as with an interracial couple. Because, after all, the same arguments are being raised this time, too.
Perhaps it will help clarify things in everyone’s mind if we look at an analogy.
Many of the religious arguments being made on this subject are identical to those made half a century ago with respect to interracial marriages. So consider, in what circumstances would you consider refusing to provide XXX to an interracial couple to be acceptable? And in what circumstances would you consider that it should not be allowed?
Any answers are fine, of course. But they really ought to be the same with a gay couple as with an interracial couple. Because, after all, the same arguments are being raised this time, too.
Perhaps it will help clarify things in everyone’s mind if we look at an analogy.
Many of the religious arguments being made on this subject are identical to those made half a century ago with respect to interracial marriages. So consider, in what circumstances would you consider refusing to provide XXX to an interracial couple to be acceptable? And in what circumstances would you consider that it should not be allowed?
Any answers are fine, of course. But they really ought to be the same with a gay couple as with an interracial couple. Because, after all, the same arguments are being raised this time, too.
I’d think that’d be more of a pie thing. Or possibly even Haagen-Dazs.
I’d think that’d be more of a pie thing. Or possibly even Haagen-Dazs.
I’d think that’d be more of a pie thing. Or possibly even Haagen-Dazs.
As a recent re-entry into the realm of Indiana residency, I haven’t had much to say on this because I don’t think I understand it well enough to form an opinion.
I’ve been the headless chicken enough times, already, I think.
As a recent re-entry into the realm of Indiana residency, I haven’t had much to say on this because I don’t think I understand it well enough to form an opinion.
I’ve been the headless chicken enough times, already, I think.
As a recent re-entry into the realm of Indiana residency, I haven’t had much to say on this because I don’t think I understand it well enough to form an opinion.
I’ve been the headless chicken enough times, already, I think.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
also, it’s worth re-iterating that “my” can refer to a person or a business.
so there is now a situation where it’s not impossible that a IN-based supermarket chain could refuse to sell onions and grapes to gays.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
also, it’s worth re-iterating that “my” can refer to a person or a business.
so there is now a situation where it’s not impossible that a IN-based supermarket chain could refuse to sell onions and grapes to gays.
“It’s against my religion”, where “my religion” can be as idiosyncratic as you like, and where the connection between the actual beliefs of the religion and the good or service not being rendered need not be demonstrated or presumably even exist.
also, it’s worth re-iterating that “my” can refer to a person or a business.
so there is now a situation where it’s not impossible that a IN-based supermarket chain could refuse to sell onions and grapes to gays.
Or gays could refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby, but you’ve got no problem with that.
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever. Race, religion what the magic 8 ball.says. Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
Or gays could refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby, but you’ve got no problem with that.
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever. Race, religion what the magic 8 ball.says. Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
Or gays could refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby, but you’ve got no problem with that.
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever. Race, religion what the magic 8 ball.says. Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
To encapsulate, Brett:
You don’t think that people should discriminate, but they should have a right to discriminate if they choose?
To encapsulate, Brett:
You don’t think that people should discriminate, but they should have a right to discriminate if they choose?
To encapsulate, Brett:
You don’t think that people should discriminate, but they should have a right to discriminate if they choose?
Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
As always, great on paper, in real life not so much.
Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
As always, great on paper, in real life not so much.
Doesn’t mean I think they should discriminate, just that I think people should be FREE.
As always, great on paper, in real life not so much.
And, to be clear, positive ‘rights’ sre the death of liberty. This was clear on a theoretical basis all along, today we see the empirical proof, as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia. Next up, I suppose, is proving that Harrison Bergeron wasn’t satire.
And, to be clear, positive ‘rights’ sre the death of liberty. This was clear on a theoretical basis all along, today we see the empirical proof, as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia. Next up, I suppose, is proving that Harrison Bergeron wasn’t satire.
And, to be clear, positive ‘rights’ sre the death of liberty. This was clear on a theoretical basis all along, today we see the empirical proof, as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia. Next up, I suppose, is proving that Harrison Bergeron wasn’t satire.
Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
In a lot of these discussions, we seem to be somewhat blinded by our own situations. Understandable, but it limits our understanding of the implications.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker. No problem . . . however irritating/infuriating/etc. it may be.
But suppose I am in a small town in rural eastern Montana (to pick a place outside the current dust-up). There may not be another baker for a couple hundred miles. So suddenly it isn’t a trivial matter to “just shop elsewhere.”
In a lot of these discussions, we seem to be somewhat blinded by our own situations. Understandable, but it limits our understanding of the implications.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker. No problem . . . however irritating/infuriating/etc. it may be.
But suppose I am in a small town in rural eastern Montana (to pick a place outside the current dust-up). There may not be another baker for a couple hundred miles. So suddenly it isn’t a trivial matter to “just shop elsewhere.”
In a lot of these discussions, we seem to be somewhat blinded by our own situations. Understandable, but it limits our understanding of the implications.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker. No problem . . . however irritating/infuriating/etc. it may be.
But suppose I am in a small town in rural eastern Montana (to pick a place outside the current dust-up). There may not be another baker for a couple hundred miles. So suddenly it isn’t a trivial matter to “just shop elsewhere.”
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever.
we tried that. it didn’t work.
like it or not, homo libertarians is an mythological creature, and is a terrible model to use as the basis for laws governing actual people.
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever.
we tried that. it didn’t work.
like it or not, homo libertarians is an mythological creature, and is a terrible model to use as the basis for laws governing actual people.
I think anybody should be permitted to refuse to buy from or sell to anybody they please, on any basis whatsoever.
we tried that. it didn’t work.
like it or not, homo libertarians is an mythological creature, and is a terrible model to use as the basis for laws governing actual people.
…as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia.
I think this is where we must ask, “What color is the sky in Brettworld?” This isn’t a rational basis for a political discussion. This is the stuff of the ravings of a madman.
…as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia.
I think this is where we must ask, “What color is the sky in Brettworld?” This isn’t a rational basis for a political discussion. This is the stuff of the ravings of a madman.
…as liberals battle to establish their “All that’s not forbidden is mandatory” dystopia.
I think this is where we must ask, “What color is the sky in Brettworld?” This isn’t a rational basis for a political discussion. This is the stuff of the ravings of a madman.
This was clear on a theoretical basis all along
From a fellow traveler of a movement where they believe debating whether or not it is OK to sell yourself or your children into slavery is some kind of serious intellectual exercise.
The libertarian dystopia: If it’s not mine, it should be.
This was clear on a theoretical basis all along
From a fellow traveler of a movement where they believe debating whether or not it is OK to sell yourself or your children into slavery is some kind of serious intellectual exercise.
The libertarian dystopia: If it’s not mine, it should be.
This was clear on a theoretical basis all along
From a fellow traveler of a movement where they believe debating whether or not it is OK to sell yourself or your children into slavery is some kind of serious intellectual exercise.
The libertarian dystopia: If it’s not mine, it should be.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker.
I’m not gay, so I’m not really in a position to make a proper reply to this.
What I can say, based on simple observation of the lives of people I know, and from listening to them talk about their lives, is that gay people have put up with a great big mountain of crap from the rest of the world, for a very very long time.
It’s true, you can just go buy a cake somewhere else. But it’s not just about the cake.
After a while, people get tired of putting up with crap.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker.
I’m not gay, so I’m not really in a position to make a proper reply to this.
What I can say, based on simple observation of the lives of people I know, and from listening to them talk about their lives, is that gay people have put up with a great big mountain of crap from the rest of the world, for a very very long time.
It’s true, you can just go buy a cake somewhere else. But it’s not just about the cake.
After a while, people get tired of putting up with crap.
For example, if a baker in my town refuses to provide a cake for my wedding because I’m gay, I can just go to another baker.
I’m not gay, so I’m not really in a position to make a proper reply to this.
What I can say, based on simple observation of the lives of people I know, and from listening to them talk about their lives, is that gay people have put up with a great big mountain of crap from the rest of the world, for a very very long time.
It’s true, you can just go buy a cake somewhere else. But it’s not just about the cake.
After a while, people get tired of putting up with crap.
“We trid that. It didn’t work.”
Like Hell we tried it.
“We trid that. It didn’t work.”
Like Hell we tried it.
“We trid that. It didn’t work.”
Like Hell we tried it.
Like Hell we tried it.
yes, for many it was hell.
Like Hell we tried it.
yes, for many it was hell.
Like Hell we tried it.
yes, for many it was hell.
“Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.
Do you have any support for your theory?
Both before and after the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, numerous northern communities had no de jure segregation and yet still had de facto racial segregation. That’s one point against your theory.
Another point against your theory is that you have posited no explanation for how on earth the South managed to pass and maintain so many segregationist laws for so long if the voting white people in the South didn’t want them there. They were, after all, able to vote those damned segregationist politicians out of office if they chose–but they didn’t. They did quite the opposite.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
“Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.
Do you have any support for your theory?
Both before and after the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, numerous northern communities had no de jure segregation and yet still had de facto racial segregation. That’s one point against your theory.
Another point against your theory is that you have posited no explanation for how on earth the South managed to pass and maintain so many segregationist laws for so long if the voting white people in the South didn’t want them there. They were, after all, able to vote those damned segregationist politicians out of office if they chose–but they didn’t. They did quite the opposite.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
“Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.
Do you have any support for your theory?
Both before and after the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, numerous northern communities had no de jure segregation and yet still had de facto racial segregation. That’s one point against your theory.
Another point against your theory is that you have posited no explanation for how on earth the South managed to pass and maintain so many segregationist laws for so long if the voting white people in the South didn’t want them there. They were, after all, able to vote those damned segregationist politicians out of office if they chose–but they didn’t. They did quite the opposite.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
Russell, you missed the point.
The point was that even if, in a big city or suburb, you have alternative suppliers, in large areas of the country you may not. So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
Russell, you missed the point.
The point was that even if, in a big city or suburb, you have alternative suppliers, in large areas of the country you may not. So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
Russell, you missed the point.
The point was that even if, in a big city or suburb, you have alternative suppliers, in large areas of the country you may not. So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
You mean when we abolished slavery and terminated Reconstruction? Which is where we saw what free people would do — they mandated discrimination. Is there any evidence, any at all, that people have changed in this respect (not just in who they wish to discriminate against) since then?
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
You mean when we abolished slavery and terminated Reconstruction? Which is where we saw what free people would do — they mandated discrimination. Is there any evidence, any at all, that people have changed in this respect (not just in who they wish to discriminate against) since then?
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
You mean when we abolished slavery and terminated Reconstruction? Which is where we saw what free people would do — they mandated discrimination. Is there any evidence, any at all, that people have changed in this respect (not just in who they wish to discriminate against) since then?
What exactly to you want to try, Brett, and for what purpose? You have these abstract notions of liberty and freedom, meanwhile people have lives to live and don’t want other people to sh1t on them.
It’s easy to be a Straight White (Christian?)Male and suggest these niftly little experiments in ahistorical freedom in a vacuum. It’s also obtuse.
What exactly to you want to try, Brett, and for what purpose? You have these abstract notions of liberty and freedom, meanwhile people have lives to live and don’t want other people to sh1t on them.
It’s easy to be a Straight White (Christian?)Male and suggest these niftly little experiments in ahistorical freedom in a vacuum. It’s also obtuse.
What exactly to you want to try, Brett, and for what purpose? You have these abstract notions of liberty and freedom, meanwhile people have lives to live and don’t want other people to sh1t on them.
It’s easy to be a Straight White (Christian?)Male and suggest these niftly little experiments in ahistorical freedom in a vacuum. It’s also obtuse.
homo libertarians cannot fail, he can only be failed.
homo libertarians cannot fail, he can only be failed.
homo libertarians cannot fail, he can only be failed.
“It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.”
This is a not at all uncommon trope in some not so rarified parts of the libertarian troposphere. Brett has propounded this hypothesis here more than once.
But proof? Who needs proof when your theory is surrounded by an interlocking web of impenetrable assumptions?
So yes, Jim Crow was all the fault of “government” according to that viewpoint.
“It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.”
This is a not at all uncommon trope in some not so rarified parts of the libertarian troposphere. Brett has propounded this hypothesis here more than once.
But proof? Who needs proof when your theory is surrounded by an interlocking web of impenetrable assumptions?
So yes, Jim Crow was all the fault of “government” according to that viewpoint.
“It looks to me like you’re confusing cause and effect–you think that the laws that enforced segregation were the cause of segregation, rather than an effect or symptom of a desire to segregate.”
This is a not at all uncommon trope in some not so rarified parts of the libertarian troposphere. Brett has propounded this hypothesis here more than once.
But proof? Who needs proof when your theory is surrounded by an interlocking web of impenetrable assumptions?
So yes, Jim Crow was all the fault of “government” according to that viewpoint.
So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
Fair enough.
Basically, I ran over your point with a truck to make my own.
Sorry about that.
So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
Fair enough.
Basically, I ran over your point with a truck to make my own.
Sorry about that.
So any argument based on “just go do business with someone else” is not recognizing reality.
Fair enough.
Basically, I ran over your point with a truck to make my own.
Sorry about that.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care.
“We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.”–Brett Bellmore
The law mandating segregation was passed as the behest of white voting population that wanted segregation. You seem to think that the law, and only the law, was why Rosa Parks got in trouble for refusing to surrender her seat.
Your mistake is in failing to recognize that the law is often an expression of privately-held beliefs. The reason Alabama had laws mandating segregation was because the private citizens of Alabama wanted segregation.
In a jurisdiction where private people want segregation, striking down the laws mandating segregation will not solve the problems of private segregation.
“We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.”–Brett Bellmore
The law mandating segregation was passed as the behest of white voting population that wanted segregation. You seem to think that the law, and only the law, was why Rosa Parks got in trouble for refusing to surrender her seat.
Your mistake is in failing to recognize that the law is often an expression of privately-held beliefs. The reason Alabama had laws mandating segregation was because the private citizens of Alabama wanted segregation.
In a jurisdiction where private people want segregation, striking down the laws mandating segregation will not solve the problems of private segregation.
“We didn’t try it. I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.”–Brett Bellmore
The law mandating segregation was passed as the behest of white voting population that wanted segregation. You seem to think that the law, and only the law, was why Rosa Parks got in trouble for refusing to surrender her seat.
Your mistake is in failing to recognize that the law is often an expression of privately-held beliefs. The reason Alabama had laws mandating segregation was because the private citizens of Alabama wanted segregation.
In a jurisdiction where private people want segregation, striking down the laws mandating segregation will not solve the problems of private segregation.
I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
Yes, absent the oppressive hand of government, the powerful hand of liberty would have secured Rosa Parks a seat on the bus, anywhere she wanted, in Montgomery AL in 1955.
Hold on to the dream, brother.
It’s an interesting point of fact that Parks was actually already sitting in the colored section. The driver wanted her to give her seat, in the colored section, to a white person, because the white section was full.
I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
Yes, absent the oppressive hand of government, the powerful hand of liberty would have secured Rosa Parks a seat on the bus, anywhere she wanted, in Montgomery AL in 1955.
Hold on to the dream, brother.
It’s an interesting point of fact that Parks was actually already sitting in the colored section. The driver wanted her to give her seat, in the colored section, to a white person, because the white section was full.
I suppose you think the bus driver had any choice about Rosa Park’s seating, too.
Yes, absent the oppressive hand of government, the powerful hand of liberty would have secured Rosa Parks a seat on the bus, anywhere she wanted, in Montgomery AL in 1955.
Hold on to the dream, brother.
It’s an interesting point of fact that Parks was actually already sitting in the colored section. The driver wanted her to give her seat, in the colored section, to a white person, because the white section was full.
Serious question for Brett: assuming all other conditions had remained the same in the south, would repealing Jim Crow laws have stopped white supremacist terrorists (i.e. the KKK) from murdering people?
If you say yes, I’m going to ask you why–the KKK was not officially sanctioned by law, so it’s not like the laws were what gave them power.
Serious question for Brett: assuming all other conditions had remained the same in the south, would repealing Jim Crow laws have stopped white supremacist terrorists (i.e. the KKK) from murdering people?
If you say yes, I’m going to ask you why–the KKK was not officially sanctioned by law, so it’s not like the laws were what gave them power.
Serious question for Brett: assuming all other conditions had remained the same in the south, would repealing Jim Crow laws have stopped white supremacist terrorists (i.e. the KKK) from murdering people?
If you say yes, I’m going to ask you why–the KKK was not officially sanctioned by law, so it’s not like the laws were what gave them power.
The KKK was an armed guerilla movement swimming in the sea of bigoted white people who overwhelmingly shared their mission.
Egads! Mao was right! Power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.
The KKK was an armed guerilla movement swimming in the sea of bigoted white people who overwhelmingly shared their mission.
Egads! Mao was right! Power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.
The KKK was an armed guerilla movement swimming in the sea of bigoted white people who overwhelmingly shared their mission.
Egads! Mao was right! Power does grow out of the barrel of a gun.
I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%. And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
Instead we took a less principled path. And are less free for it, even if it’s cost the freedom of people ypu don’t like.
I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%. And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
Instead we took a less principled path. And are less free for it, even if it’s cost the freedom of people ypu don’t like.
I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%. And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
Instead we took a less principled path. And are less free for it, even if it’s cost the freedom of people ypu don’t like.
Speaking of Rosa Parks, she was fired from her seamstress job for refusing to give up her seat.
Was that because of the segregation laws?
She also received death threats for years after that.
Segregation laws again?
Thousands of people were lynched in the Jim Crow south. Was that all because of segregation laws? If so, please explain how, because I am confident that no segregation law authorized summary executions without trial for, among other offenses, allegedly whistling at white women.
Under chattel slavery, slaveowners were not REQUIRED by law to rape, beat, and murder their slaves. But they did.
Let me guess, the segregation laws did that too.
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
Speaking of Rosa Parks, she was fired from her seamstress job for refusing to give up her seat.
Was that because of the segregation laws?
She also received death threats for years after that.
Segregation laws again?
Thousands of people were lynched in the Jim Crow south. Was that all because of segregation laws? If so, please explain how, because I am confident that no segregation law authorized summary executions without trial for, among other offenses, allegedly whistling at white women.
Under chattel slavery, slaveowners were not REQUIRED by law to rape, beat, and murder their slaves. But they did.
Let me guess, the segregation laws did that too.
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
Speaking of Rosa Parks, she was fired from her seamstress job for refusing to give up her seat.
Was that because of the segregation laws?
She also received death threats for years after that.
Segregation laws again?
Thousands of people were lynched in the Jim Crow south. Was that all because of segregation laws? If so, please explain how, because I am confident that no segregation law authorized summary executions without trial for, among other offenses, allegedly whistling at white women.
Under chattel slavery, slaveowners were not REQUIRED by law to rape, beat, and murder their slaves. But they did.
Let me guess, the segregation laws did that too.
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
of course we don’t need to wade into the meta-legal-politics of Jim Crow to see what a libertarian employment paradise looks like: “No Irish Need Apply” didn’t have the sanction of law. it was just straight-up bigotry.
of course we don’t need to wade into the meta-legal-politics of Jim Crow to see what a libertarian employment paradise looks like: “No Irish Need Apply” didn’t have the sanction of law. it was just straight-up bigotry.
of course we don’t need to wade into the meta-legal-politics of Jim Crow to see what a libertarian employment paradise looks like: “No Irish Need Apply” didn’t have the sanction of law. it was just straight-up bigotry.
“I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%.”
So what? Don’t make us solve riddles–spit out what you think. If less then 100% of Alabama wanted black people as second-class citizens to be murdered when they stepped out of line, that means antidiscrimination laws are an overreaction?
“And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.”
Provide support for your theory. You have not yet done so.
“I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%.”
So what? Don’t make us solve riddles–spit out what you think. If less then 100% of Alabama wanted black people as second-class citizens to be murdered when they stepped out of line, that means antidiscrimination laws are an overreaction?
“And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.”
Provide support for your theory. You have not yet done so.
“I seem to think that majorities are seldom 100%.”
So what? Don’t make us solve riddles–spit out what you think. If less then 100% of Alabama wanted black people as second-class citizens to be murdered when they stepped out of line, that means antidiscrimination laws are an overreaction?
“And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.”
Provide support for your theory. You have not yet done so.
…given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
Really? Simply removing the segregation laws would have eliminated segragation in the South? In what universe?
…given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
Really? Simply removing the segregation laws would have eliminated segragation in the South? In what universe?
…given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
Really? Simply removing the segregation laws would have eliminated segragation in the South? In what universe?
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
It’s really always just the same contribution, repeated ad infinitum.
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
It’s really always just the same contribution, repeated ad infinitum.
So glad Brett’s contributions to this blog are still plentiful!
It’s really always just the same contribution, repeated ad infinitum.
Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.
Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.
Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.
The frustrating thing is that Brett is, whatever his faults, clearly a smart and thoughtful person, and a good writer. But on this and many other topics, my main beef with him is NOT that he is wrong. It is that we struggle to even confront him about where we disagree, and we do so precisely because he is so smart, and because he deliberately evades what I see as the best criticisms of his worldview. Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate–it’s no fun to lose.
The frustrating thing is that Brett is, whatever his faults, clearly a smart and thoughtful person, and a good writer. But on this and many other topics, my main beef with him is NOT that he is wrong. It is that we struggle to even confront him about where we disagree, and we do so precisely because he is so smart, and because he deliberately evades what I see as the best criticisms of his worldview. Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate–it’s no fun to lose.
The frustrating thing is that Brett is, whatever his faults, clearly a smart and thoughtful person, and a good writer. But on this and many other topics, my main beef with him is NOT that he is wrong. It is that we struggle to even confront him about where we disagree, and we do so precisely because he is so smart, and because he deliberately evades what I see as the best criticisms of his worldview. Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate–it’s no fun to lose.
and then:
given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
same person wrote that!
good stuff.
and then:
given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
same person wrote that!
good stuff.
and then:
given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen.
same person wrote that!
good stuff.
Well, cleek, in a universe populated only by libertarians, it might actually work out that way. But, as Brett would no doubt be the first to tell us, that isn’t what we have today.
Well, cleek, in a universe populated only by libertarians, it might actually work out that way. But, as Brett would no doubt be the first to tell us, that isn’t what we have today.
Well, cleek, in a universe populated only by libertarians, it might actually work out that way. But, as Brett would no doubt be the first to tell us, that isn’t what we have today.
Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate
No, he’s just getting warmed up.
Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate
No, he’s just getting warmed up.
Even now I can sense him losing interest in this debate
No, he’s just getting warmed up.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
Hahaha….”government” is indeed a capricious mistress! Why one moment it comes up with the 14th amendment, a huge expansion of federal power, and the next it just ignores it.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
Hahaha….”government” is indeed a capricious mistress! Why one moment it comes up with the 14th amendment, a huge expansion of federal power, and the next it just ignores it.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.
Hahaha….”government” is indeed a capricious mistress! Why one moment it comes up with the 14th amendment, a huge expansion of federal power, and the next it just ignores it.
“Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.”
You said, and I quote, “Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
As you damn well know, the KKK was not murdering people because of laws mandating discrimination. They were free to not murder blacks and civil rights workers, but they chose to do so. That was the point I was making. I assume that your silence on this topic is all the concession I’ll ever get.
Gotta love the ol’ “better enforcement” line coming from an avowed anti-federal-government libertarian. How would “better enforcement” of the 14th Amendment been achieved? Well we don’t have to wonder–it was achieved through federal military occupation of the South. Mysteriously, all federal constitutional rights, including rights under the 14th Amendment, vanished for black people the instant the occupation ended.
But do tell me what you think would have been a good way to “better enforce” the 14th Amendment in the Jim Crow South. Seriously–what concrete steps would you have suggested? Elect some black politicians to represent black constituents? Nicely ask the white supremacist law enforcement to stop participating in lynchings and to arrest men who lynched black citizens?
“But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.”
The 14th Amendment does not touch private discrimination. That does not mean, however, that other laws (such as laws passed by a state or federal legislature) cannot touch private discrimination.
Lastly, this isn’t support for your theory, it’s another assertion. So, as they say in the South, Brett, bless your heart.
“Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.”
You said, and I quote, “Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
As you damn well know, the KKK was not murdering people because of laws mandating discrimination. They were free to not murder blacks and civil rights workers, but they chose to do so. That was the point I was making. I assume that your silence on this topic is all the concession I’ll ever get.
Gotta love the ol’ “better enforcement” line coming from an avowed anti-federal-government libertarian. How would “better enforcement” of the 14th Amendment been achieved? Well we don’t have to wonder–it was achieved through federal military occupation of the South. Mysteriously, all federal constitutional rights, including rights under the 14th Amendment, vanished for black people the instant the occupation ended.
But do tell me what you think would have been a good way to “better enforce” the 14th Amendment in the Jim Crow South. Seriously–what concrete steps would you have suggested? Elect some black politicians to represent black constituents? Nicely ask the white supremacist law enforcement to stop participating in lynchings and to arrest men who lynched black citizens?
“But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.”
The 14th Amendment does not touch private discrimination. That does not mean, however, that other laws (such as laws passed by a state or federal legislature) cannot touch private discrimination.
Lastly, this isn’t support for your theory, it’s another assertion. So, as they say in the South, Brett, bless your heart.
“Julian, the 14th amendment said that all men were to get equal protection of the law. Do you imagine that the KKK’s attacks.were legal? Of coursr they weren’t.
What gave them power was the failure to enforce the 14th amendment.”
You said, and I quote, “Exactly, Slart. We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.”
As you damn well know, the KKK was not murdering people because of laws mandating discrimination. They were free to not murder blacks and civil rights workers, but they chose to do so. That was the point I was making. I assume that your silence on this topic is all the concession I’ll ever get.
Gotta love the ol’ “better enforcement” line coming from an avowed anti-federal-government libertarian. How would “better enforcement” of the 14th Amendment been achieved? Well we don’t have to wonder–it was achieved through federal military occupation of the South. Mysteriously, all federal constitutional rights, including rights under the 14th Amendment, vanished for black people the instant the occupation ended.
But do tell me what you think would have been a good way to “better enforce” the 14th Amendment in the Jim Crow South. Seriously–what concrete steps would you have suggested? Elect some black politicians to represent black constituents? Nicely ask the white supremacist law enforcement to stop participating in lynchings and to arrest men who lynched black citizens?
“But the 14th amendment, explicitly, did not reach private discrimination. What it expressly had to do with was government refusing to protect anyone from illegal attacks.
And that, I maintain, would have ended segregation for all practical purposes.”
The 14th Amendment does not touch private discrimination. That does not mean, however, that other laws (such as laws passed by a state or federal legislature) cannot touch private discrimination.
Lastly, this isn’t support for your theory, it’s another assertion. So, as they say in the South, Brett, bless your heart.
I’m not losing interest, but I am somewhat distracted. I’m visiting my sis, (Who has stage 4 melanoma.) and my cousin dragged me off to her favorite sub joint Monday, where I got food poisoning.
At least we’re good company, we’re both lying around moaning
That’s true, state laws can do a lot of things neither state nor federal governments should do
I’m not losing interest, but I am somewhat distracted. I’m visiting my sis, (Who has stage 4 melanoma.) and my cousin dragged me off to her favorite sub joint Monday, where I got food poisoning.
At least we’re good company, we’re both lying around moaning
That’s true, state laws can do a lot of things neither state nor federal governments should do
I’m not losing interest, but I am somewhat distracted. I’m visiting my sis, (Who has stage 4 melanoma.) and my cousin dragged me off to her favorite sub joint Monday, where I got food poisoning.
At least we’re good company, we’re both lying around moaning
That’s true, state laws can do a lot of things neither state nor federal governments should do
best of luck, Brett. sorry to hear about your sister.
best of luck, Brett. sorry to hear about your sister.
best of luck, Brett. sorry to hear about your sister.
What Russell said, Brett.
What Russell said, Brett.
What Russell said, Brett.
Sorry to hear that, Brett.
Sorry to hear that, Brett.
Sorry to hear that, Brett.
I’m a little mystified to be pretty much on the same side as NASCAR regarding this Indiana law, but i relish the thought that that Vlad Putin and various Jihadi-types would be in favor of this imposition of Sharia law in Indiana, in fact the latter might declare this move as proof that Indiana yearns for the Caliphate.
If a Muslim baker refused to provide cake to a gay wedding, Tucker Carlson would probably drop his bow tie into the urinal:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tucker-carlson-indiana-gay-jihadis
Then we have this difficult constitutional question in California:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/matthew-gregory-mclaughlin-employer-bridgman
I’m a little mystified to be pretty much on the same side as NASCAR regarding this Indiana law, but i relish the thought that that Vlad Putin and various Jihadi-types would be in favor of this imposition of Sharia law in Indiana, in fact the latter might declare this move as proof that Indiana yearns for the Caliphate.
If a Muslim baker refused to provide cake to a gay wedding, Tucker Carlson would probably drop his bow tie into the urinal:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tucker-carlson-indiana-gay-jihadis
Then we have this difficult constitutional question in California:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/matthew-gregory-mclaughlin-employer-bridgman
I’m a little mystified to be pretty much on the same side as NASCAR regarding this Indiana law, but i relish the thought that that Vlad Putin and various Jihadi-types would be in favor of this imposition of Sharia law in Indiana, in fact the latter might declare this move as proof that Indiana yearns for the Caliphate.
If a Muslim baker refused to provide cake to a gay wedding, Tucker Carlson would probably drop his bow tie into the urinal:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tucker-carlson-indiana-gay-jihadis
Then we have this difficult constitutional question in California:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/matthew-gregory-mclaughlin-employer-bridgman
Get well soon, Brett!
Get well soon, Brett!
Get well soon, Brett!
I’d trade the food poisoning for my sister getting better, but I’m afraid that’s not likely. Just trying to buy time, and hope something comes along. Which I’m told is not unreasonable to hope for. Thanks tor tje.well wishes.
I’d trade the food poisoning for my sister getting better, but I’m afraid that’s not likely. Just trying to buy time, and hope something comes along. Which I’m told is not unreasonable to hope for. Thanks tor tje.well wishes.
I’d trade the food poisoning for my sister getting better, but I’m afraid that’s not likely. Just trying to buy time, and hope something comes along. Which I’m told is not unreasonable to hope for. Thanks tor tje.well wishes.
My sister-in-law got told she had maybe 3 months. Two years later, she finally went. So there is some hope for more time.
(I think they deliberately set short lengths of time, on the theory that nobody will complain if the prediction was pessimistic.)
My sister-in-law got told she had maybe 3 months. Two years later, she finally went. So there is some hope for more time.
(I think they deliberately set short lengths of time, on the theory that nobody will complain if the prediction was pessimistic.)
My sister-in-law got told she had maybe 3 months. Two years later, she finally went. So there is some hope for more time.
(I think they deliberately set short lengths of time, on the theory that nobody will complain if the prediction was pessimistic.)
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
This is wrong, for reasons Julian is doing a good job of explaining. Let me add that if you want evidence that Jim Crow laws were effect, not cause, of southern racism you need only look at southern political campaigns of the time. They were almost entirely concerned with which candidate was the strongest supporter of segregation. That’s what th voters – virtually all of them – wanted.
And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
No. Here’s another point. There were areas of southern life where segregation and discrimination were not mandated by law. Yet racist practice was widespread – the norm.
Consider employment. There were hardly any laws requiring discrimination in employment practices. Legally, a southern employer was perfectly free to have an integrated work force, even to appoint black supervisors and so on. But it didn’t happen. Why? Partly because the employers themselves were racist, and partly because those who weren’t nonetheless recognized that their employees were, and that making a black worker the supervisor of whites was a recipe for disaster.
Underlying your idea is, I think, the notion that “the market” will take care of things. But it won’t. In a racist society the market reinforces discrimination, because even the few non-racists find it in their economic interests to discriminate.
There are other examples one could cite to show this. For example, Jim Crow practices were also common in many northern areas whcih ahd no segregation laws. Hotels and restaurants in these places did often refuse black customers. Not mandated. In many clothing stores blacks were prohibited from trying on clothes before buying them, because once a pair of pants, say, had been put on, even for five minutes, by a black man it was considered unsaleable to whites.
In other words, your are just mistaken. There is no evidence in support of them, and plenty against.
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
This is wrong, for reasons Julian is doing a good job of explaining. Let me add that if you want evidence that Jim Crow laws were effect, not cause, of southern racism you need only look at southern political campaigns of the time. They were almost entirely concerned with which candidate was the strongest supporter of segregation. That’s what th voters – virtually all of them – wanted.
And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
No. Here’s another point. There were areas of southern life where segregation and discrimination were not mandated by law. Yet racist practice was widespread – the norm.
Consider employment. There were hardly any laws requiring discrimination in employment practices. Legally, a southern employer was perfectly free to have an integrated work force, even to appoint black supervisors and so on. But it didn’t happen. Why? Partly because the employers themselves were racist, and partly because those who weren’t nonetheless recognized that their employees were, and that making a black worker the supervisor of whites was a recipe for disaster.
Underlying your idea is, I think, the notion that “the market” will take care of things. But it won’t. In a racist society the market reinforces discrimination, because even the few non-racists find it in their economic interests to discriminate.
There are other examples one could cite to show this. For example, Jim Crow practices were also common in many northern areas whcih ahd no segregation laws. Hotels and restaurants in these places did often refuse black customers. Not mandated. In many clothing stores blacks were prohibited from trying on clothes before buying them, because once a pair of pants, say, had been put on, even for five minutes, by a black man it was considered unsaleable to whites.
In other words, your are just mistaken. There is no evidence in support of them, and plenty against.
We went straight from mandating discrimination to forbidding it, without pausing to see what free people would do.
This is wrong, for reasons Julian is doing a good job of explaining. Let me add that if you want evidence that Jim Crow laws were effect, not cause, of southern racism you need only look at southern political campaigns of the time. They were almost entirely concerned with which candidate was the strongest supporter of segregation. That’s what th voters – virtually all of them – wanted.
And that, given merely equal protection of the law, segregation would have fallen. But we didn’t try that, no matter how certain you are it wouldn’t work.
No. Here’s another point. There were areas of southern life where segregation and discrimination were not mandated by law. Yet racist practice was widespread – the norm.
Consider employment. There were hardly any laws requiring discrimination in employment practices. Legally, a southern employer was perfectly free to have an integrated work force, even to appoint black supervisors and so on. But it didn’t happen. Why? Partly because the employers themselves were racist, and partly because those who weren’t nonetheless recognized that their employees were, and that making a black worker the supervisor of whites was a recipe for disaster.
Underlying your idea is, I think, the notion that “the market” will take care of things. But it won’t. In a racist society the market reinforces discrimination, because even the few non-racists find it in their economic interests to discriminate.
There are other examples one could cite to show this. For example, Jim Crow practices were also common in many northern areas whcih ahd no segregation laws. Hotels and restaurants in these places did often refuse black customers. Not mandated. In many clothing stores blacks were prohibited from trying on clothes before buying them, because once a pair of pants, say, had been put on, even for five minutes, by a black man it was considered unsaleable to whites.
In other words, your are just mistaken. There is no evidence in support of them, and plenty against.
I think maybe you don’t understand “equal protection of the law”. Sure, triviality it means the law doesn’t discriminate. It also means equal protection by law enforcement. Which means no night riders, no illegal violence against businesses that don’t go along with discrimination. And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
I think maybe you don’t understand “equal protection of the law”. Sure, triviality it means the law doesn’t discriminate. It also means equal protection by law enforcement. Which means no night riders, no illegal violence against businesses that don’t go along with discrimination. And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
I think maybe you don’t understand “equal protection of the law”. Sure, triviality it means the law doesn’t discriminate. It also means equal protection by law enforcement. Which means no night riders, no illegal violence against businesses that don’t go along with discrimination. And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
Brett,
I understand it just fine.
It’s not entirely, or mostly, a question of protection against businesses against violence. That overlooks the larger problem. The simpler, more common issue was satying in business.
That’s what I mean when I say the market can reinforce discrimination. Even without the threat of violence you will not, in a racist society, serve blacks in your restaurant if it means, which it does, that you will lose most of your white customers. You will not hire a black worker if the white workers will not cooperate with him, or if customers don’t want to buy from him, etc.
The threat of Klan violence would have been only a small part of the concern.
And how exactly would you have stopped such violence? Remember, it didn’t much trouble southern state governments. So you need a large federal law enforcement presence, running over local sheriffs and police departments. I know exactly how much support that would have gotten on the right.
So spare me the pieties.
Brett,
I understand it just fine.
It’s not entirely, or mostly, a question of protection against businesses against violence. That overlooks the larger problem. The simpler, more common issue was satying in business.
That’s what I mean when I say the market can reinforce discrimination. Even without the threat of violence you will not, in a racist society, serve blacks in your restaurant if it means, which it does, that you will lose most of your white customers. You will not hire a black worker if the white workers will not cooperate with him, or if customers don’t want to buy from him, etc.
The threat of Klan violence would have been only a small part of the concern.
And how exactly would you have stopped such violence? Remember, it didn’t much trouble southern state governments. So you need a large federal law enforcement presence, running over local sheriffs and police departments. I know exactly how much support that would have gotten on the right.
So spare me the pieties.
Brett,
I understand it just fine.
It’s not entirely, or mostly, a question of protection against businesses against violence. That overlooks the larger problem. The simpler, more common issue was satying in business.
That’s what I mean when I say the market can reinforce discrimination. Even without the threat of violence you will not, in a racist society, serve blacks in your restaurant if it means, which it does, that you will lose most of your white customers. You will not hire a black worker if the white workers will not cooperate with him, or if customers don’t want to buy from him, etc.
The threat of Klan violence would have been only a small part of the concern.
And how exactly would you have stopped such violence? Remember, it didn’t much trouble southern state governments. So you need a large federal law enforcement presence, running over local sheriffs and police departments. I know exactly how much support that would have gotten on the right.
So spare me the pieties.
one wonders what mr. bellmore’s position would be if it was a gun dealer who refused to sell to gays.
one wonders what mr. bellmore’s position would be if it was a gun dealer who refused to sell to gays.
one wonders what mr. bellmore’s position would be if it was a gun dealer who refused to sell to gays.
And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
Please explain: What is “that” and what is “it”? If you are referring to “equal protection” you stated previously that “it” was “never tried”…so how could it have “resumed”?
Or was that the bad pulled pork talking? And how did that establishment sneak under the omnipotent FDA radar? Maybe the New Deal state, like pure communism, has “never been tried”?
I think maybe you do not understand “history”.
Best wishes to your sister-in-law.
Regards,
And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
Please explain: What is “that” and what is “it”? If you are referring to “equal protection” you stated previously that “it” was “never tried”…so how could it have “resumed”?
Or was that the bad pulled pork talking? And how did that establishment sneak under the omnipotent FDA radar? Maybe the New Deal state, like pure communism, has “never been tried”?
I think maybe you do not understand “history”.
Best wishes to your sister-in-law.
Regards,
And I do think that never got a fair trial before reconstruction ended, and wasn’t the route we took when it finally resumed.
Please explain: What is “that” and what is “it”? If you are referring to “equal protection” you stated previously that “it” was “never tried”…so how could it have “resumed”?
Or was that the bad pulled pork talking? And how did that establishment sneak under the omnipotent FDA radar? Maybe the New Deal state, like pure communism, has “never been tried”?
I think maybe you do not understand “history”.
Best wishes to your sister-in-law.
Regards,
hope something comes along
What you said, Brett.
hope something comes along
What you said, Brett.
hope something comes along
What you said, Brett.
What is covered by “equal protection”?
Why is it legitimate for “equal protection” under the 14th A to ensure that Joe’s Pizza in greater Bloomington IN must serve black patrons, but not gay patrons?
Does anyone get to say “my religious faith prevents me from selling pizza to black people”? Or blind people? Or Jewish people?
Why not?
If not, why should it let you make that claim as regards gay people?
Are gays less deserving of the most basic protections under the law than blacks, or disabled people, or religious people?
Why do we have to through the freaking headache of spelling out each and every “protected class” of person in order for the 14th A to apply to them?
Why isn’t it sufficient to just say, if you’re gonna open your pizza pie making, or cake baking, or picture taking, doors to THE PUBLIC, then you have to serve pizza, cake, or pictures, to whoever walks in?
Seriously, WTF. We have to enumerate every specific subset of the population who are going to be covered by “equal protection”?
Providing pizza to somebody’s wedding ceremony is an EXPRESSION OF YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH? Really?
A freaking pizza?
Whose wedding is it, anyway?
I’ve read a great deal of the Bible, probably more than most folks, and have read many parts of it many times. I’ve read most of the Koran. I’ve even read a sutra or two.
There is no mention of pizza in any of those documents. I assure you of this.
If you open your doors to provide goods and services to THE PUBLIC, the understanding is that you will provide those goods and services to any comer.
What all of this crap leads me to, personally, is a strong wish for gays to be granted status as a protected class at the federal level.
Until that happens, it’s going to be a game of mole whack, with folks who have some moral objection to gay people, full stop, seizing any available opportunity to refuse to treat them as fellow members of the society at large.
Make sexual orientation a protected class at the federal level, and be done with it. If that means you sell your bakery and find another job, so be it. You’re not the only catfish in the sea.
What is covered by “equal protection”?
Why is it legitimate for “equal protection” under the 14th A to ensure that Joe’s Pizza in greater Bloomington IN must serve black patrons, but not gay patrons?
Does anyone get to say “my religious faith prevents me from selling pizza to black people”? Or blind people? Or Jewish people?
Why not?
If not, why should it let you make that claim as regards gay people?
Are gays less deserving of the most basic protections under the law than blacks, or disabled people, or religious people?
Why do we have to through the freaking headache of spelling out each and every “protected class” of person in order for the 14th A to apply to them?
Why isn’t it sufficient to just say, if you’re gonna open your pizza pie making, or cake baking, or picture taking, doors to THE PUBLIC, then you have to serve pizza, cake, or pictures, to whoever walks in?
Seriously, WTF. We have to enumerate every specific subset of the population who are going to be covered by “equal protection”?
Providing pizza to somebody’s wedding ceremony is an EXPRESSION OF YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH? Really?
A freaking pizza?
Whose wedding is it, anyway?
I’ve read a great deal of the Bible, probably more than most folks, and have read many parts of it many times. I’ve read most of the Koran. I’ve even read a sutra or two.
There is no mention of pizza in any of those documents. I assure you of this.
If you open your doors to provide goods and services to THE PUBLIC, the understanding is that you will provide those goods and services to any comer.
What all of this crap leads me to, personally, is a strong wish for gays to be granted status as a protected class at the federal level.
Until that happens, it’s going to be a game of mole whack, with folks who have some moral objection to gay people, full stop, seizing any available opportunity to refuse to treat them as fellow members of the society at large.
Make sexual orientation a protected class at the federal level, and be done with it. If that means you sell your bakery and find another job, so be it. You’re not the only catfish in the sea.
What is covered by “equal protection”?
Why is it legitimate for “equal protection” under the 14th A to ensure that Joe’s Pizza in greater Bloomington IN must serve black patrons, but not gay patrons?
Does anyone get to say “my religious faith prevents me from selling pizza to black people”? Or blind people? Or Jewish people?
Why not?
If not, why should it let you make that claim as regards gay people?
Are gays less deserving of the most basic protections under the law than blacks, or disabled people, or religious people?
Why do we have to through the freaking headache of spelling out each and every “protected class” of person in order for the 14th A to apply to them?
Why isn’t it sufficient to just say, if you’re gonna open your pizza pie making, or cake baking, or picture taking, doors to THE PUBLIC, then you have to serve pizza, cake, or pictures, to whoever walks in?
Seriously, WTF. We have to enumerate every specific subset of the population who are going to be covered by “equal protection”?
Providing pizza to somebody’s wedding ceremony is an EXPRESSION OF YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH? Really?
A freaking pizza?
Whose wedding is it, anyway?
I’ve read a great deal of the Bible, probably more than most folks, and have read many parts of it many times. I’ve read most of the Koran. I’ve even read a sutra or two.
There is no mention of pizza in any of those documents. I assure you of this.
If you open your doors to provide goods and services to THE PUBLIC, the understanding is that you will provide those goods and services to any comer.
What all of this crap leads me to, personally, is a strong wish for gays to be granted status as a protected class at the federal level.
Until that happens, it’s going to be a game of mole whack, with folks who have some moral objection to gay people, full stop, seizing any available opportunity to refuse to treat them as fellow members of the society at large.
Make sexual orientation a protected class at the federal level, and be done with it. If that means you sell your bakery and find another job, so be it. You’re not the only catfish in the sea.
Interesting fodder for discussion
http://qz.com/374896/walmarts-remarkable-gay-rights-journey/
Interesting fodder for discussion
http://qz.com/374896/walmarts-remarkable-gay-rights-journey/
Interesting fodder for discussion
http://qz.com/374896/walmarts-remarkable-gay-rights-journey/
Brett, what grounds do you have for believing that a law written to be *exceptionally* broad will only be applied in the specific, narrow case of “refusal of wedding-related services”?
Brett, what grounds do you have for believing that a law written to be *exceptionally* broad will only be applied in the specific, narrow case of “refusal of wedding-related services”?
Brett, what grounds do you have for believing that a law written to be *exceptionally* broad will only be applied in the specific, narrow case of “refusal of wedding-related services”?
I have no grounds for believing that. I don’t believe that. What I believe is that people are entitled to discriminate, on any basis they feel like. That freedom of association is a real right, that the 14th amendment didn’t repeal.
I believe people are entitled to do all sorts of things I disapprove of.
And, when I say that enforcing the 14th, really enforcing it, would have ended segregation ‘for all practical purposes’, I don’t mean it would have vanished; That can’t happen in a society where people are prejudiced, and retain any freedom at all. (Which is why I asked when you’d take the next step, and ban discrimination by customers. Can’t integrate in a prejudiced society as long as the customers are still free.)
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
I have no grounds for believing that. I don’t believe that. What I believe is that people are entitled to discriminate, on any basis they feel like. That freedom of association is a real right, that the 14th amendment didn’t repeal.
I believe people are entitled to do all sorts of things I disapprove of.
And, when I say that enforcing the 14th, really enforcing it, would have ended segregation ‘for all practical purposes’, I don’t mean it would have vanished; That can’t happen in a society where people are prejudiced, and retain any freedom at all. (Which is why I asked when you’d take the next step, and ban discrimination by customers. Can’t integrate in a prejudiced society as long as the customers are still free.)
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
I have no grounds for believing that. I don’t believe that. What I believe is that people are entitled to discriminate, on any basis they feel like. That freedom of association is a real right, that the 14th amendment didn’t repeal.
I believe people are entitled to do all sorts of things I disapprove of.
And, when I say that enforcing the 14th, really enforcing it, would have ended segregation ‘for all practical purposes’, I don’t mean it would have vanished; That can’t happen in a society where people are prejudiced, and retain any freedom at all. (Which is why I asked when you’d take the next step, and ban discrimination by customers. Can’t integrate in a prejudiced society as long as the customers are still free.)
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
Brett,
I almost forget the best example. The various lunch counter sit-ins of the early 60’s, certainly the famous ones in Greensboro, were in places that had no laws requiring that restaurants be segregated. It was purely store policy.
Further, while I totally disagree with your opinion – unsupported by any known evidence – about enforcing the 14th Amendment, I’d like you to address two issues:
1. How would you have gone about it? You are talking about a federal takeover of law enforcement in a number of states and cities. What makes you think that would even work, rather than just stimulating further resistance?
2. Given, that it didn’t happen, and wasn’t going to happen, for practical and political reasons, what is your “second-best” solution?
Brett,
I almost forget the best example. The various lunch counter sit-ins of the early 60’s, certainly the famous ones in Greensboro, were in places that had no laws requiring that restaurants be segregated. It was purely store policy.
Further, while I totally disagree with your opinion – unsupported by any known evidence – about enforcing the 14th Amendment, I’d like you to address two issues:
1. How would you have gone about it? You are talking about a federal takeover of law enforcement in a number of states and cities. What makes you think that would even work, rather than just stimulating further resistance?
2. Given, that it didn’t happen, and wasn’t going to happen, for practical and political reasons, what is your “second-best” solution?
Brett,
I almost forget the best example. The various lunch counter sit-ins of the early 60’s, certainly the famous ones in Greensboro, were in places that had no laws requiring that restaurants be segregated. It was purely store policy.
Further, while I totally disagree with your opinion – unsupported by any known evidence – about enforcing the 14th Amendment, I’d like you to address two issues:
1. How would you have gone about it? You are talking about a federal takeover of law enforcement in a number of states and cities. What makes you think that would even work, rather than just stimulating further resistance?
2. Given, that it didn’t happen, and wasn’t going to happen, for practical and political reasons, what is your “second-best” solution?
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
eventually, maybe. but while the market and social institutions are working towards the libertarian ideal a lot of actual people would have to suffer the whims of selectively religious bigots.
been there, done that.
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
eventually, maybe. but while the market and social institutions are working towards the libertarian ideal a lot of actual people would have to suffer the whims of selectively religious bigots.
been there, done that.
I just mean that there would be enough nondiscriminatory businesses around to blunt the effects of discrimination.
eventually, maybe. but while the market and social institutions are working towards the libertarian ideal a lot of actual people would have to suffer the whims of selectively religious bigots.
been there, done that.
for example, while Libertariana is busy working itself towards the golden equilibrium, a doctor could refuse to perform C sections for religious reasons.
pity the poor woman who lives in a town where the lone Obstetrician is a Disciple of the New Dawn. but should she perish, she’ll go knowing her life was sacrificed to the religious liberty of the “doctor”.
for example, while Libertariana is busy working itself towards the golden equilibrium, a doctor could refuse to perform C sections for religious reasons.
pity the poor woman who lives in a town where the lone Obstetrician is a Disciple of the New Dawn. but should she perish, she’ll go knowing her life was sacrificed to the religious liberty of the “doctor”.
for example, while Libertariana is busy working itself towards the golden equilibrium, a doctor could refuse to perform C sections for religious reasons.
pity the poor woman who lives in a town where the lone Obstetrician is a Disciple of the New Dawn. but should she perish, she’ll go knowing her life was sacrificed to the religious liberty of the “doctor”.
Speaking of the Reconstruction, this site, via LGM. From the site
Although the Army was central to shaping the development of civil rights, its role is often misunderstood or forgotten. In part this is because of the way historians tell the story of Reconstruction. After former rebels and Southern-sympathizing historians of the early 20th century created wildly exaggerated tales of “bayonet rule” by the U.S. Army, scholars over the last half century have worked to undercut those myths and legends. But in the process, many of the best works of history have dismissed the idea that there was a significant occupation of the South; instead they, understandably but inaccurately, often portray the government during Reconstruction through the much-smaller and weaker Freedmen’s Bureau.
Speaking of the Reconstruction, this site, via LGM. From the site
Although the Army was central to shaping the development of civil rights, its role is often misunderstood or forgotten. In part this is because of the way historians tell the story of Reconstruction. After former rebels and Southern-sympathizing historians of the early 20th century created wildly exaggerated tales of “bayonet rule” by the U.S. Army, scholars over the last half century have worked to undercut those myths and legends. But in the process, many of the best works of history have dismissed the idea that there was a significant occupation of the South; instead they, understandably but inaccurately, often portray the government during Reconstruction through the much-smaller and weaker Freedmen’s Bureau.
Speaking of the Reconstruction, this site, via LGM. From the site
Although the Army was central to shaping the development of civil rights, its role is often misunderstood or forgotten. In part this is because of the way historians tell the story of Reconstruction. After former rebels and Southern-sympathizing historians of the early 20th century created wildly exaggerated tales of “bayonet rule” by the U.S. Army, scholars over the last half century have worked to undercut those myths and legends. But in the process, many of the best works of history have dismissed the idea that there was a significant occupation of the South; instead they, understandably but inaccurately, often portray the government during Reconstruction through the much-smaller and weaker Freedmen’s Bureau.
Sorry, the site has a number of interesting interactive maps laying out lots of information that really underline how there had to be federal intervention to protect the newly freed slaves.
Sorry, the site has a number of interesting interactive maps laying out lots of information that really underline how there had to be federal intervention to protect the newly freed slaves.
Sorry, the site has a number of interesting interactive maps laying out lots of information that really underline how there had to be federal intervention to protect the newly freed slaves.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care
I hope this answer isn’t too nuanced. It is basically a repeat of my comments yesterday. 99.999% of goods and services are 1st amendment neutral. There is no reason why anyone could be denied a cake, a hamburger, a seat on the bus or an airline ticket.
I am leery of protected classes generally, mainly due to my experience litigating those issues from time to time. But in the sense that a refusal serve in the 99.999% of cases would be actionable, yes, I agree with this.
However, we have a 1st Amendment and the 99.999% is the one, much larger hand while the other hand is that very small slice of life where faith and commerce intersect. A Muslim wedding venue cannot and should not be compelled to accept a Christian wedding reception where the main course is ham. A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering. These are limited cases of refusal to serve, although there are elements of declining to act.
In a similar vein, because of the Christian sense and understanding of what a marriage is, Christians who wish to decline to *participate in*, i.e. who decline to mobilize themselves and their employees, a ceremony that runs counter to their beliefs (beliefs developed 2000 years ago by a man who was silent on the issue of homosexuality), that very small slice of Americana should get a pass. The vast majority of gay people I know are not into compelling others. They want acceptance freely given. Many here seem to demand not just that people set aside a lifetime’s beliefs but that they be compelled to act if a failure to act is deemed, by them, as discriminatory. With no meaningful attempt to balance rights. None.
Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
We balance rights in this country whenever and wherever we can.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care
I hope this answer isn’t too nuanced. It is basically a repeat of my comments yesterday. 99.999% of goods and services are 1st amendment neutral. There is no reason why anyone could be denied a cake, a hamburger, a seat on the bus or an airline ticket.
I am leery of protected classes generally, mainly due to my experience litigating those issues from time to time. But in the sense that a refusal serve in the 99.999% of cases would be actionable, yes, I agree with this.
However, we have a 1st Amendment and the 99.999% is the one, much larger hand while the other hand is that very small slice of life where faith and commerce intersect. A Muslim wedding venue cannot and should not be compelled to accept a Christian wedding reception where the main course is ham. A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering. These are limited cases of refusal to serve, although there are elements of declining to act.
In a similar vein, because of the Christian sense and understanding of what a marriage is, Christians who wish to decline to *participate in*, i.e. who decline to mobilize themselves and their employees, a ceremony that runs counter to their beliefs (beliefs developed 2000 years ago by a man who was silent on the issue of homosexuality), that very small slice of Americana should get a pass. The vast majority of gay people I know are not into compelling others. They want acceptance freely given. Many here seem to demand not just that people set aside a lifetime’s beliefs but that they be compelled to act if a failure to act is deemed, by them, as discriminatory. With no meaningful attempt to balance rights. None.
Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
We balance rights in this country whenever and wherever we can.
Here is my question for McK, or whoever:
Is there any reason that homosexuals should not be a protected class?
Is there any reason to allow people to discriminate against gays in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.?
If so, what is / are the reason(s)?
Federal level or state, I don’t care
I hope this answer isn’t too nuanced. It is basically a repeat of my comments yesterday. 99.999% of goods and services are 1st amendment neutral. There is no reason why anyone could be denied a cake, a hamburger, a seat on the bus or an airline ticket.
I am leery of protected classes generally, mainly due to my experience litigating those issues from time to time. But in the sense that a refusal serve in the 99.999% of cases would be actionable, yes, I agree with this.
However, we have a 1st Amendment and the 99.999% is the one, much larger hand while the other hand is that very small slice of life where faith and commerce intersect. A Muslim wedding venue cannot and should not be compelled to accept a Christian wedding reception where the main course is ham. A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering. These are limited cases of refusal to serve, although there are elements of declining to act.
In a similar vein, because of the Christian sense and understanding of what a marriage is, Christians who wish to decline to *participate in*, i.e. who decline to mobilize themselves and their employees, a ceremony that runs counter to their beliefs (beliefs developed 2000 years ago by a man who was silent on the issue of homosexuality), that very small slice of Americana should get a pass. The vast majority of gay people I know are not into compelling others. They want acceptance freely given. Many here seem to demand not just that people set aside a lifetime’s beliefs but that they be compelled to act if a failure to act is deemed, by them, as discriminatory. With no meaningful attempt to balance rights. None.
Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
We balance rights in this country whenever and wherever we can.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
I don’t think anybody has a problem with that particular example. But then, there aren’t any small towns where there is a church which performs weddings, but no other way to get married. So there are always options for those who are not members of that church.
But while we do make exceptions for priests to only perform weddings for some, we do not make that a general rule. If you are the justice of the peace in some small town, and a couple come in to get married, you don’t get to refuse to marry them simply because they happen to violate your religious beliefs (whether because it is a gay couple or an interracial couple or one of the parties is divorced). In short, the religious exemption only applies to people whose job is their religion.
Similarly for venues. Churches or mosques or synagogues or other houses of worship can restrict their use. But if, for example, the only public meeting space in town happens to be a building owned by a church (but not their house of worship), they don’t get to exclude users, wedding parties or otherwise, that their religion happens to disapprove of.
That, at least in recent times, has been where we strike the balance of rights.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
I don’t think anybody has a problem with that particular example. But then, there aren’t any small towns where there is a church which performs weddings, but no other way to get married. So there are always options for those who are not members of that church.
But while we do make exceptions for priests to only perform weddings for some, we do not make that a general rule. If you are the justice of the peace in some small town, and a couple come in to get married, you don’t get to refuse to marry them simply because they happen to violate your religious beliefs (whether because it is a gay couple or an interracial couple or one of the parties is divorced). In short, the religious exemption only applies to people whose job is their religion.
Similarly for venues. Churches or mosques or synagogues or other houses of worship can restrict their use. But if, for example, the only public meeting space in town happens to be a building owned by a church (but not their house of worship), they don’t get to exclude users, wedding parties or otherwise, that their religion happens to disapprove of.
That, at least in recent times, has been where we strike the balance of rights.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
I don’t think anybody has a problem with that particular example. But then, there aren’t any small towns where there is a church which performs weddings, but no other way to get married. So there are always options for those who are not members of that church.
But while we do make exceptions for priests to only perform weddings for some, we do not make that a general rule. If you are the justice of the peace in some small town, and a couple come in to get married, you don’t get to refuse to marry them simply because they happen to violate your religious beliefs (whether because it is a gay couple or an interracial couple or one of the parties is divorced). In short, the religious exemption only applies to people whose job is their religion.
Similarly for venues. Churches or mosques or synagogues or other houses of worship can restrict their use. But if, for example, the only public meeting space in town happens to be a building owned by a church (but not their house of worship), they don’t get to exclude users, wedding parties or otherwise, that their religion happens to disapprove of.
That, at least in recent times, has been where we strike the balance of rights.
LJ, that’s an interesting map. I wonder, is that the historical reason behind the fact that even today the South has more military bases than any other region?
LJ, that’s an interesting map. I wonder, is that the historical reason behind the fact that even today the South has more military bases than any other region?
LJ, that’s an interesting map. I wonder, is that the historical reason behind the fact that even today the South has more military bases than any other region?
If the doctor not perfoming an abortion leads (directly) to the death of the pregnant woman, it might lead to legal charges for failure to render assistance (or what the precise elgal term in English is).
Of course we know (from the last GOP presidential primary) that in the opinion of at least parts of the Right a doctor has no legal duty to help anyone at all and can (maybe even should for principle’s sake) refuse emergency services to the penniless or otherwise repugnant.
As an aside, is how to perfom abortions part of the mandatory curriculum for a medical doctor? If not, the cop-out is easy: “Sorry, I have no idea how this is done. I couldn’t do it, even if I’d not morally object to it.”
If the doctor not perfoming an abortion leads (directly) to the death of the pregnant woman, it might lead to legal charges for failure to render assistance (or what the precise elgal term in English is).
Of course we know (from the last GOP presidential primary) that in the opinion of at least parts of the Right a doctor has no legal duty to help anyone at all and can (maybe even should for principle’s sake) refuse emergency services to the penniless or otherwise repugnant.
As an aside, is how to perfom abortions part of the mandatory curriculum for a medical doctor? If not, the cop-out is easy: “Sorry, I have no idea how this is done. I couldn’t do it, even if I’d not morally object to it.”
If the doctor not perfoming an abortion leads (directly) to the death of the pregnant woman, it might lead to legal charges for failure to render assistance (or what the precise elgal term in English is).
Of course we know (from the last GOP presidential primary) that in the opinion of at least parts of the Right a doctor has no legal duty to help anyone at all and can (maybe even should for principle’s sake) refuse emergency services to the penniless or otherwise repugnant.
As an aside, is how to perfom abortions part of the mandatory curriculum for a medical doctor? If not, the cop-out is easy: “Sorry, I have no idea how this is done. I couldn’t do it, even if I’d not morally object to it.”
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
That’s awkwardly phrased if it’s a wish; incorrect otherwise. There are limits on discrimination imposed by statute.
You may discriminate based on price, quality, or qualifications of an individual. You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.
I get where you’re coming from; I really do. You’re thinking that justice will eventually be served via the marketplace.
Sadly, though, it wasn’t. Nor was it ever going to.
I personally am against the federal government horning in on business where it oughtn’t. But it’s a fact that the South would have (and did) encode race discrimination in state and local statute, and that said statutes were not going to be done in by the marketplace in anyone’s lifetime.
Once federal troops were withdrawn from the South, the marketplace of ideas decided a different outcome than what Brett may have preferred.
I’m not sure of Brett’s preference in this matter, but I don’t like to assume the worst.
Sometimes the marketplace doesn’t reach the same end state as your idealized version of it does. People are, in general, bigger assholes than we wish them to be.
Other people. Not me.
That’s awkwardly phrased if it’s a wish; incorrect otherwise. There are limits on discrimination imposed by statute.
You may discriminate based on price, quality, or qualifications of an individual. You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.
I get where you’re coming from; I really do. You’re thinking that justice will eventually be served via the marketplace.
Sadly, though, it wasn’t. Nor was it ever going to.
I personally am against the federal government horning in on business where it oughtn’t. But it’s a fact that the South would have (and did) encode race discrimination in state and local statute, and that said statutes were not going to be done in by the marketplace in anyone’s lifetime.
Once federal troops were withdrawn from the South, the marketplace of ideas decided a different outcome than what Brett may have preferred.
I’m not sure of Brett’s preference in this matter, but I don’t like to assume the worst.
Sometimes the marketplace doesn’t reach the same end state as your idealized version of it does. People are, in general, bigger assholes than we wish them to be.
Other people. Not me.
That’s awkwardly phrased if it’s a wish; incorrect otherwise. There are limits on discrimination imposed by statute.
You may discriminate based on price, quality, or qualifications of an individual. You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.
I get where you’re coming from; I really do. You’re thinking that justice will eventually be served via the marketplace.
Sadly, though, it wasn’t. Nor was it ever going to.
I personally am against the federal government horning in on business where it oughtn’t. But it’s a fact that the South would have (and did) encode race discrimination in state and local statute, and that said statutes were not going to be done in by the marketplace in anyone’s lifetime.
Once federal troops were withdrawn from the South, the marketplace of ideas decided a different outcome than what Brett may have preferred.
I’m not sure of Brett’s preference in this matter, but I don’t like to assume the worst.
Sometimes the marketplace doesn’t reach the same end state as your idealized version of it does. People are, in general, bigger assholes than we wish them to be.
Other people. Not me.
McTx:Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
But are these kinds of restrictions on what someone can be compelled to do religious-based or part of the more general milieu of courts not being inclined to specifically enforce personal service contracts?
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or pay the fine?
A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering.
Really? So, Hyatt Hotels writ-large can refuse to host such a gathering based on the religious views of the Pritzker family? Although it’s not a very good example as last I checked neither Nazis nor Hezbollah members were a protected class.
McTx:Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
But are these kinds of restrictions on what someone can be compelled to do religious-based or part of the more general milieu of courts not being inclined to specifically enforce personal service contracts?
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or pay the fine?
A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering.
Really? So, Hyatt Hotels writ-large can refuse to host such a gathering based on the religious views of the Pritzker family? Although it’s not a very good example as last I checked neither Nazis nor Hezbollah members were a protected class.
McTx:Doctors cannot be compelled to perform abortions.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
But are these kinds of restrictions on what someone can be compelled to do religious-based or part of the more general milieu of courts not being inclined to specifically enforce personal service contracts?
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or pay the fine?
A Jewish owned venue should not be required to host an American Nazi or Hezbollah gathering.
Really? So, Hyatt Hotels writ-large can refuse to host such a gathering based on the religious views of the Pritzker family? Although it’s not a very good example as last I checked neither Nazis nor Hezbollah members were a protected class.
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience. Preferably the rationale will address both sides’ interests. Assume the abortion is elective and not medically necessary.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
The concerns run both ways. The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump; it is a limit on what the state can and cannot compel, but that limitation itself is finite. Anyone who thinks a commercial establishment can serve one class of customer and not another is fighting a losing battle and one that should be lost. Arguments that conscience drives who one serves in public commerce were resolved decades ago under the same constitution that contains the 1st amendment. Selling a taco has zero religious overtones (and anyone who planning to construct a straw man argument with some new cult that worships tacos is simply not serious). There is a very, very small intersection where the interests collide. The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited. It is the same constitution that undid Jim Crow and lots of other bad things. We don’t get to pick and choose what we enforce and what we don’t.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience. Preferably the rationale will address both sides’ interests. Assume the abortion is elective and not medically necessary.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
The concerns run both ways. The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump; it is a limit on what the state can and cannot compel, but that limitation itself is finite. Anyone who thinks a commercial establishment can serve one class of customer and not another is fighting a losing battle and one that should be lost. Arguments that conscience drives who one serves in public commerce were resolved decades ago under the same constitution that contains the 1st amendment. Selling a taco has zero religious overtones (and anyone who planning to construct a straw man argument with some new cult that worships tacos is simply not serious). There is a very, very small intersection where the interests collide. The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited. It is the same constitution that undid Jim Crow and lots of other bad things. We don’t get to pick and choose what we enforce and what we don’t.
Priests cannot be compelled to perform gay marriage.
deal.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience. Preferably the rationale will address both sides’ interests. Assume the abortion is elective and not medically necessary.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
but NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
and IN just passed a law to make it legal for a corporation to refuse to sell tacos to gays if it violates that corporation’s religion.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
The concerns run both ways. The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump; it is a limit on what the state can and cannot compel, but that limitation itself is finite. Anyone who thinks a commercial establishment can serve one class of customer and not another is fighting a losing battle and one that should be lost. Arguments that conscience drives who one serves in public commerce were resolved decades ago under the same constitution that contains the 1st amendment. Selling a taco has zero religious overtones (and anyone who planning to construct a straw man argument with some new cult that worships tacos is simply not serious). There is a very, very small intersection where the interests collide. The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited. It is the same constitution that undid Jim Crow and lots of other bad things. We don’t get to pick and choose what we enforce and what we don’t.
NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
Last I heard (this morning) North Carolina is reconsidering. Because, as the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives put it: “I think we need to show that if we approve this bill, that it will improve North Carolina’s brand. Anything we do, we have to make sure we don’t harm our brand.”
Apparently the rousing opposition of business leaders is making an impression, even on very conservative states.
NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
Last I heard (this morning) North Carolina is reconsidering. Because, as the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives put it: “I think we need to show that if we approve this bill, that it will improve North Carolina’s brand. Anything we do, we have to make sure we don’t harm our brand.”
Apparently the rousing opposition of business leaders is making an impression, even on very conservative states.
NC is trying to pass a bill to make it legal for civil servants to refuse to perform gay marriages.
Last I heard (this morning) North Carolina is reconsidering. Because, as the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives put it: “I think we need to show that if we approve this bill, that it will improve North Carolina’s brand. Anything we do, we have to make sure we don’t harm our brand.”
Apparently the rousing opposition of business leaders is making an impression, even on very conservative states.
McKT, no need to construct a strawman when the opposition already made a few and presented them to courts as the genuine thing and getting away with it. That slippery slope is already plastered with enough court-recognized strawmen to crash the stocks of effigy producers for years.
McKT, no need to construct a strawman when the opposition already made a few and presented them to courts as the genuine thing and getting away with it. That slippery slope is already plastered with enough court-recognized strawmen to crash the stocks of effigy producers for years.
McKT, no need to construct a strawman when the opposition already made a few and presented them to courts as the genuine thing and getting away with it. That slippery slope is already plastered with enough court-recognized strawmen to crash the stocks of effigy producers for years.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics). and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger. but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
Selling a taco has zero religious overtones
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
or, if you feel up to it: go ahead, define religion.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics). and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger. but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
Selling a taco has zero religious overtones
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
or, if you feel up to it: go ahead, define religion.
And the doctor? Seriously, I’d like an answer to this as a general proposition of what limits, if any, representatives of the progressive left will recognize on the state’s ability to compel acts that violate one’s conscience.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics). and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger. but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
And if you read my comments, neither of these would pass legal muster.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
Selling a taco has zero religious overtones
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
or, if you feel up to it: go ahead, define religion.
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Well, that wires around the issue. Suppose the doc says “I won’t do your abortion or anyone else’s because it runs counter to my faith.”
Can the state, directly or indirectly, compel the doctor to act or face a fine or other punishment?
I’m not interested in dodges where the doc crosses his/her fingers and pleads ignorance.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Yes or no and explain your answer.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or *pay the fine?*
And the penalty for refusing to pay the fine? When you drill down to the essentials, any use of the state’s police power ultimately rests on the express or implied use of force: levying on assets, eviction, frozen bank accounts, etc. Resistance is met with force. Escalate the resistance and the force escalates. You can’t sugarcoat or buffer with nice words what the endgame is. State compelled acts ultimately implicate the state use of force to achieve a particular end.
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
Fair point: I meant to limit my examples to venues that, while not places of worship per se, are owned by members of a particular faith to serve the wedding and other ceremonial needs/desires of members of that faith.
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Well, that wires around the issue. Suppose the doc says “I won’t do your abortion or anyone else’s because it runs counter to my faith.”
Can the state, directly or indirectly, compel the doctor to act or face a fine or other punishment?
I’m not interested in dodges where the doc crosses his/her fingers and pleads ignorance.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Yes or no and explain your answer.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or *pay the fine?*
And the penalty for refusing to pay the fine? When you drill down to the essentials, any use of the state’s police power ultimately rests on the express or implied use of force: levying on assets, eviction, frozen bank accounts, etc. Resistance is met with force. Escalate the resistance and the force escalates. You can’t sugarcoat or buffer with nice words what the endgame is. State compelled acts ultimately implicate the state use of force to achieve a particular end.
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
Fair point: I meant to limit my examples to venues that, while not places of worship per se, are owned by members of a particular faith to serve the wedding and other ceremonial needs/desires of members of that faith.
That is, if doctor says she doesn’t want to perform an abortion, not from any religious objection, but because it’s a day that ends on y, I don’t think she can be compelled to do so, no?
Similarly for the priest.
Well, that wires around the issue. Suppose the doc says “I won’t do your abortion or anyone else’s because it runs counter to my faith.”
Can the state, directly or indirectly, compel the doctor to act or face a fine or other punishment?
I’m not interested in dodges where the doc crosses his/her fingers and pleads ignorance.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Yes or no and explain your answer.
Perhaps the issue is what you mean by compel, e.g., perform the abortion/marriage or *pay the fine?*
And the penalty for refusing to pay the fine? When you drill down to the essentials, any use of the state’s police power ultimately rests on the express or implied use of force: levying on assets, eviction, frozen bank accounts, etc. Resistance is met with force. Escalate the resistance and the force escalates. You can’t sugarcoat or buffer with nice words what the endgame is. State compelled acts ultimately implicate the state use of force to achieve a particular end.
I guess a better example might be Hyatt Hotels refusing to host Muslim weddings. That okay?
Fair point: I meant to limit my examples to venues that, while not places of worship per se, are owned by members of a particular faith to serve the wedding and other ceremonial needs/desires of members of that faith.
The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited.
I should think most here would agree. The question is, just where is this zone, and what are its boundaries?
Nobody here has demanded that priests be required to perform gay marriages against their religious scruples. So why did you trot that example out?
Perhaps I could put it in terms that conservatives understand. Its MY MONEY. If you want MY MONEY to enable you to perform your public service (roads, courts, police, fire, etc.), you have to agree to some ground rules.
Discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, or gender preference is the bright line.
The rest are negotiable, depending on the circumstances.
In this thread, or the Hobby Lobby discussion, I have yet to see a convincing case for alleged “religious burden” outweighing or over-riding this public policy. Not even close.
And please. Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
God bless you.
Best Regards,
The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited.
I should think most here would agree. The question is, just where is this zone, and what are its boundaries?
Nobody here has demanded that priests be required to perform gay marriages against their religious scruples. So why did you trot that example out?
Perhaps I could put it in terms that conservatives understand. Its MY MONEY. If you want MY MONEY to enable you to perform your public service (roads, courts, police, fire, etc.), you have to agree to some ground rules.
Discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, or gender preference is the bright line.
The rest are negotiable, depending on the circumstances.
In this thread, or the Hobby Lobby discussion, I have yet to see a convincing case for alleged “religious burden” outweighing or over-riding this public policy. Not even close.
And please. Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
God bless you.
Best Regards,
The constitution creates a zone of deference. It is limited.
I should think most here would agree. The question is, just where is this zone, and what are its boundaries?
Nobody here has demanded that priests be required to perform gay marriages against their religious scruples. So why did you trot that example out?
Perhaps I could put it in terms that conservatives understand. Its MY MONEY. If you want MY MONEY to enable you to perform your public service (roads, courts, police, fire, etc.), you have to agree to some ground rules.
Discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, or gender preference is the bright line.
The rest are negotiable, depending on the circumstances.
In this thread, or the Hobby Lobby discussion, I have yet to see a convincing case for alleged “religious burden” outweighing or over-riding this public policy. Not even close.
And please. Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
God bless you.
Best Regards,
McT, you make a reasonable case for someone refusing to participate in the marriage *ceremony*: as the person who officiates, best man/bridesmaid, witness, organist, ring-bearer.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
McT, you make a reasonable case for someone refusing to participate in the marriage *ceremony*: as the person who officiates, best man/bridesmaid, witness, organist, ring-bearer.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
McT, you make a reasonable case for someone refusing to participate in the marriage *ceremony*: as the person who officiates, best man/bridesmaid, witness, organist, ring-bearer.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics).
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.
A very close case, highly fact specific with many subjective clinical variables. That said, I tend to agree, assuming we are in an emergent situation.
but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
“Maybe” isn’t much of a compromise.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
The 14th amendment and 1st amendments keep this from being legal/constitutional=equal protection, due process and the 1st limits (actually proscribes) the state’s ability to promote religion. This is a nonstarter from the anti-gay point of view.
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
Sure, the law can be passed. A law can be passed requiring ObWi commenters to register with the local police. That law would not pass constitutional muster and neither will a law that says Baptists waiters don’t have to serve Catholic customers. Or that individual waiters get to pick and chose who they wait on based on last week’s sermon.
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
with all due respect, there is a body of constitutional law by which lines are drawn, not always perfectly, between conscience and opportunism. Moreover, as a general rule, the right to believe is virtually unlimited, as a matter of constitutional law, but the right to act is not unlimited. So, you are mistaken. Court’s do look at a variety of objective indicia as a part of the analysis.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
And you are off topic. The issue isn’t selling. The issue is compelled participation in essentially two endeavors with clear religious overtones: gay marriage and abortion. You win all of the other arguments. I’m not just conceding that you win, I want you to win. Legally and morally, free access to commerce in all but two enumerated instances cannot be denied on religious grounds as a matter of constitutional law.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics).
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.
A very close case, highly fact specific with many subjective clinical variables. That said, I tend to agree, assuming we are in an emergent situation.
but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
“Maybe” isn’t much of a compromise.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
The 14th amendment and 1st amendments keep this from being legal/constitutional=equal protection, due process and the 1st limits (actually proscribes) the state’s ability to promote religion. This is a nonstarter from the anti-gay point of view.
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
Sure, the law can be passed. A law can be passed requiring ObWi commenters to register with the local police. That law would not pass constitutional muster and neither will a law that says Baptists waiters don’t have to serve Catholic customers. Or that individual waiters get to pick and chose who they wait on based on last week’s sermon.
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
with all due respect, there is a body of constitutional law by which lines are drawn, not always perfectly, between conscience and opportunism. Moreover, as a general rule, the right to believe is virtually unlimited, as a matter of constitutional law, but the right to act is not unlimited. So, you are mistaken. Court’s do look at a variety of objective indicia as a part of the analysis.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
And you are off topic. The issue isn’t selling. The issue is compelled participation in essentially two endeavors with clear religious overtones: gay marriage and abortion. You win all of the other arguments. I’m not just conceding that you win, I want you to win. Legally and morally, free access to commerce in all but two enumerated instances cannot be denied on religious grounds as a matter of constitutional law.
personally, i’m OK with individual doctors refusing to do elective abortions, provided there are alternatives (other doctors, clinics).
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
and no doctor should be permitted to refuse in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.
A very close case, highly fact specific with many subjective clinical variables. That said, I tend to agree, assuming we are in an emergent situation.
but, i certainly don’t believe that’s a compromise the anti-abortion gangs would accept. their tireless efforts to close the clinics makes it impossible.
“Maybe” isn’t much of a compromise.
the proposed NC law would make it legal for magistrates to refuse. what ‘legal muster’ would that not pass?
The 14th amendment and 1st amendments keep this from being legal/constitutional=equal protection, due process and the 1st limits (actually proscribes) the state’s ability to promote religion. This is a nonstarter from the anti-gay point of view.
and what about the IN law makes my hypothetical impossible. the text isn’t that long, i’ve read it a couple of times. i don’t see anything that would stop a corporation from providing any goods or services that would offend that corporation’s religious beliefs.
Sure, the law can be passed. A law can be passed requiring ObWi commenters to register with the local police. That law would not pass constitutional muster and neither will a law that says Baptists waiters don’t have to serve Catholic customers. Or that individual waiters get to pick and chose who they wait on based on last week’s sermon.
with all due respect, i don’t think you have the authority to tell people what they can believe and what they don’t, nor which religions qualify as legitimate, nor which beliefs qualify as legitimate, nor which overtones count. and the IN law certainly doesn’t try.
with all due respect, there is a body of constitutional law by which lines are drawn, not always perfectly, between conscience and opportunism. Moreover, as a general rule, the right to believe is virtually unlimited, as a matter of constitutional law, but the right to act is not unlimited. So, you are mistaken. Court’s do look at a variety of objective indicia as a part of the analysis.
The 1st Amendment is not a speed bump
selling things isn’t speech.
And you are off topic. The issue isn’t selling. The issue is compelled participation in essentially two endeavors with clear religious overtones: gay marriage and abortion. You win all of the other arguments. I’m not just conceding that you win, I want you to win. Legally and morally, free access to commerce in all but two enumerated instances cannot be denied on religious grounds as a matter of constitutional law.
“You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.”
Sure, you can. If you’re the customer, you can do so all day. You can refuse to eat at the diner that can’t legally refuse to seat you. You can refuse to buy a house in a black or white neighborhood. Only one side of these transactions are bound.
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
“You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.”
Sure, you can. If you’re the customer, you can do so all day. You can refuse to eat at the diner that can’t legally refuse to seat you. You can refuse to buy a house in a black or white neighborhood. Only one side of these transactions are bound.
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
“You may not discriminate against people based on gender or race.”
Sure, you can. If you’re the customer, you can do so all day. You can refuse to eat at the diner that can’t legally refuse to seat you. You can refuse to buy a house in a black or white neighborhood. Only one side of these transactions are bound.
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
A generic cake shouldn’t be out of the question, I wouldn’t think.
A cake with two guy-figures on the top of it just might be a problem with people who don’t want to see that kind of thing.
Which is not to say they SHOULD be bothered by that, just that “cake” may not be the objectionable thing, here.
A generic cake shouldn’t be out of the question, I wouldn’t think.
A cake with two guy-figures on the top of it just might be a problem with people who don’t want to see that kind of thing.
Which is not to say they SHOULD be bothered by that, just that “cake” may not be the objectionable thing, here.
A generic cake shouldn’t be out of the question, I wouldn’t think.
A cake with two guy-figures on the top of it just might be a problem with people who don’t want to see that kind of thing.
Which is not to say they SHOULD be bothered by that, just that “cake” may not be the objectionable thing, here.
McKinney,
I think we have ample real evidence that there is no danger of priests being forced to gay weddings. Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics. Similarly, some rabbis, I know for a fact, refuse to perform interfaith marriages. So we have clear cases of clergy being selective in this area with no legal consequences or public outcry (outside, perhaps, of their own religious communities) whatsoever. The fear that things will be otherwise with gay marriages is, IMO, either hysteria or deliberate dishonesty.
Nor do I think there are many who would require a doctor to perform an abortion unwillingly. I sure wouldn’t. Notice that this case differs sharply from refusing service to gay customers. The basis for the refusal is the act itself, not some characteristic of the patient. Presumably, the doctor in question would equally refuse to perform the abortion regardless of race, etc.
I will confess this. Underlying my opinions, especially about the bakers and so on, is a deep suspicion of motive and, perhaps more so, a feeling that simple claims of religious objection ought not to be considered to trump everything else. I’m troubled by what sometimes seems to be quite arbitrary and convenient belief, even in the context of the professed religion. This is especially so when the act in question does not actually have any special religious significance. Cakes do not administer sacraments.
McKinney,
I think we have ample real evidence that there is no danger of priests being forced to gay weddings. Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics. Similarly, some rabbis, I know for a fact, refuse to perform interfaith marriages. So we have clear cases of clergy being selective in this area with no legal consequences or public outcry (outside, perhaps, of their own religious communities) whatsoever. The fear that things will be otherwise with gay marriages is, IMO, either hysteria or deliberate dishonesty.
Nor do I think there are many who would require a doctor to perform an abortion unwillingly. I sure wouldn’t. Notice that this case differs sharply from refusing service to gay customers. The basis for the refusal is the act itself, not some characteristic of the patient. Presumably, the doctor in question would equally refuse to perform the abortion regardless of race, etc.
I will confess this. Underlying my opinions, especially about the bakers and so on, is a deep suspicion of motive and, perhaps more so, a feeling that simple claims of religious objection ought not to be considered to trump everything else. I’m troubled by what sometimes seems to be quite arbitrary and convenient belief, even in the context of the professed religion. This is especially so when the act in question does not actually have any special religious significance. Cakes do not administer sacraments.
McKinney,
I think we have ample real evidence that there is no danger of priests being forced to gay weddings. Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics. Similarly, some rabbis, I know for a fact, refuse to perform interfaith marriages. So we have clear cases of clergy being selective in this area with no legal consequences or public outcry (outside, perhaps, of their own religious communities) whatsoever. The fear that things will be otherwise with gay marriages is, IMO, either hysteria or deliberate dishonesty.
Nor do I think there are many who would require a doctor to perform an abortion unwillingly. I sure wouldn’t. Notice that this case differs sharply from refusing service to gay customers. The basis for the refusal is the act itself, not some characteristic of the patient. Presumably, the doctor in question would equally refuse to perform the abortion regardless of race, etc.
I will confess this. Underlying my opinions, especially about the bakers and so on, is a deep suspicion of motive and, perhaps more so, a feeling that simple claims of religious objection ought not to be considered to trump everything else. I’m troubled by what sometimes seems to be quite arbitrary and convenient belief, even in the context of the professed religion. This is especially so when the act in question does not actually have any special religious significance. Cakes do not administer sacraments.
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
again, if there were alternatives, and the anti-abortion loons weren’t so successful in driving away doctors and clinics who are willing to provide these services, the question wouldn’t be a hard one to answer. but we live in a world where a legal procedure has been made difficult to obtain, in some places. and that changes things. so, in reality, it’s not a simple question to answer. in the hypothetical, it’s much easier.
Sure, the law can be passed.
the IN law was passed. have you read it?
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
again, if there were alternatives, and the anti-abortion loons weren’t so successful in driving away doctors and clinics who are willing to provide these services, the question wouldn’t be a hard one to answer. but we live in a world where a legal procedure has been made difficult to obtain, in some places. and that changes things. so, in reality, it’s not a simple question to answer. in the hypothetical, it’s much easier.
Sure, the law can be passed.
the IN law was passed. have you read it?
So, *maybe* the doc can deny his/her personal services. Duly noted.
again, if there were alternatives, and the anti-abortion loons weren’t so successful in driving away doctors and clinics who are willing to provide these services, the question wouldn’t be a hard one to answer. but we live in a world where a legal procedure has been made difficult to obtain, in some places. and that changes things. so, in reality, it’s not a simple question to answer. in the hypothetical, it’s much easier.
Sure, the law can be passed.
the IN law was passed. have you read it?
There’s a good reason for that. It has to do with which party is the patron. One of them is making a request of the other.
Trying to enforce discrimination laws against customers would be impossible, and I just know that you’re not a fan of unenforceable laws.
There’s a good reason for that. It has to do with which party is the patron. One of them is making a request of the other.
Trying to enforce discrimination laws against customers would be impossible, and I just know that you’re not a fan of unenforceable laws.
There’s a good reason for that. It has to do with which party is the patron. One of them is making a request of the other.
Trying to enforce discrimination laws against customers would be impossible, and I just know that you’re not a fan of unenforceable laws.
Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage. You may think you are open and tolerant and that others here are the same, but that is viewed from your perspective, not those on the other side of it. Likewise, you may think you have a handle on the ‘one flesh’ concept of marriage, but that doesn’t mean you understand others’ take on it.
Second, if discrimination is the bright line, then color for me how affirmative action fits in the picture. Or, no hunting season or limits for Native Americans but seasons and limits for non-NA’s.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
You are reworking the question to allow the answer you want to give. Where did I say “those people are icky”? Your words, not mine.
Here is as bright a line as I can draw: a gay couple walks into a bakery and says “we are getting married this evening and we’d like that cake right there, the red velvet.” Regardless of faith, that cake is on display for sale to the public and the gay couple is part of the public so the baker risks a fine for refusing to sell, and there is no conscience defense.
Tweak the line a bit; the gay couple states “we are getting married next week, and here is what we want you to do for us . . . ” and so on.
The law is often called on to make fine distinctions. The line, in my view, is first limited to weddings, and second is limited to future acts related to weddings. A gay couple cannot compel a religiously dissenting caterer to cater a wedding.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
As a practical matter, what kind of person is interested in making other people do things against their will in this finite? I mean really, who is comfortable making people do things?
Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage. You may think you are open and tolerant and that others here are the same, but that is viewed from your perspective, not those on the other side of it. Likewise, you may think you have a handle on the ‘one flesh’ concept of marriage, but that doesn’t mean you understand others’ take on it.
Second, if discrimination is the bright line, then color for me how affirmative action fits in the picture. Or, no hunting season or limits for Native Americans but seasons and limits for non-NA’s.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
You are reworking the question to allow the answer you want to give. Where did I say “those people are icky”? Your words, not mine.
Here is as bright a line as I can draw: a gay couple walks into a bakery and says “we are getting married this evening and we’d like that cake right there, the red velvet.” Regardless of faith, that cake is on display for sale to the public and the gay couple is part of the public so the baker risks a fine for refusing to sell, and there is no conscience defense.
Tweak the line a bit; the gay couple states “we are getting married next week, and here is what we want you to do for us . . . ” and so on.
The law is often called on to make fine distinctions. The line, in my view, is first limited to weddings, and second is limited to future acts related to weddings. A gay couple cannot compel a religiously dissenting caterer to cater a wedding.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
As a practical matter, what kind of person is interested in making other people do things against their will in this finite? I mean really, who is comfortable making people do things?
Stop with the “you hate religion” or “you don’t understand Christianity”. Any sentient adult in this country swims in that ether every day, even if you were not a member of some church going or at least believing household as a youth.
It is insulting.
Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage. You may think you are open and tolerant and that others here are the same, but that is viewed from your perspective, not those on the other side of it. Likewise, you may think you have a handle on the ‘one flesh’ concept of marriage, but that doesn’t mean you understand others’ take on it.
Second, if discrimination is the bright line, then color for me how affirmative action fits in the picture. Or, no hunting season or limits for Native Americans but seasons and limits for non-NA’s.
But a wedding cake is not part of the ceremony. It’s part of the *reception*, that occurs an hour or so after the wedding, often at a different location.
If a baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because “those people are icky”, it would also apply to cakes provided for a anniversary party, or any baked products for any occasion that involves “icky people”.
I think you hit that 99.999% right there.
You are reworking the question to allow the answer you want to give. Where did I say “those people are icky”? Your words, not mine.
Here is as bright a line as I can draw: a gay couple walks into a bakery and says “we are getting married this evening and we’d like that cake right there, the red velvet.” Regardless of faith, that cake is on display for sale to the public and the gay couple is part of the public so the baker risks a fine for refusing to sell, and there is no conscience defense.
Tweak the line a bit; the gay couple states “we are getting married next week, and here is what we want you to do for us . . . ” and so on.
The law is often called on to make fine distinctions. The line, in my view, is first limited to weddings, and second is limited to future acts related to weddings. A gay couple cannot compel a religiously dissenting caterer to cater a wedding.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
As a practical matter, what kind of person is interested in making other people do things against their will in this finite? I mean really, who is comfortable making people do things?
Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics.
byomtov, FYI this went out decades ago. In fact, the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics. And I speak as a non-Catholic who got married (in the 80s) in a Catholic ceremony.
Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics.
byomtov, FYI this went out decades ago. In fact, the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics. And I speak as a non-Catholic who got married (in the 80s) in a Catholic ceremony.
Catholic priests, I believe, can and do legally refuse to perform weddings unless both soon-to-be-spouses are Catholics.
byomtov, FYI this went out decades ago. In fact, the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics. And I speak as a non-Catholic who got married (in the 80s) in a Catholic ceremony.
Maybe my skin has thickened too much for me to notice, anymore. But I’m not seeing it.
There’s animosity toward certain Christians, for sure. A lot of those Christians deserve it.
But now that we’re on that topic, does a gay baker have a right to refuse cake-baking and -decorating service to a Westboro Baptist Church wedding?
Probably, because they’re not a protected class. But if they’re a class of people who are likely to be discriminated against (I admit that I’d be more than a little likely to refuse one of them service), should they be protected?
These are abstract questions. This hypothetical is one I read elsewhere and thought might be fodder for more lightly-barbed exchange, and isn’t one that I have much in the way of answer to or even an answer I’d prefer over another.
Maybe my skin has thickened too much for me to notice, anymore. But I’m not seeing it.
There’s animosity toward certain Christians, for sure. A lot of those Christians deserve it.
But now that we’re on that topic, does a gay baker have a right to refuse cake-baking and -decorating service to a Westboro Baptist Church wedding?
Probably, because they’re not a protected class. But if they’re a class of people who are likely to be discriminated against (I admit that I’d be more than a little likely to refuse one of them service), should they be protected?
These are abstract questions. This hypothetical is one I read elsewhere and thought might be fodder for more lightly-barbed exchange, and isn’t one that I have much in the way of answer to or even an answer I’d prefer over another.
Maybe my skin has thickened too much for me to notice, anymore. But I’m not seeing it.
There’s animosity toward certain Christians, for sure. A lot of those Christians deserve it.
But now that we’re on that topic, does a gay baker have a right to refuse cake-baking and -decorating service to a Westboro Baptist Church wedding?
Probably, because they’re not a protected class. But if they’re a class of people who are likely to be discriminated against (I admit that I’d be more than a little likely to refuse one of them service), should they be protected?
These are abstract questions. This hypothetical is one I read elsewhere and thought might be fodder for more lightly-barbed exchange, and isn’t one that I have much in the way of answer to or even an answer I’d prefer over another.
there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
McKinney, who among the regular commenters here do you feel displays animosity towared Christianity? I won’t deny that we get the occasional drop in who does. But if there is much of that among the regulars, I seem to have missed it. (I’m not asking for specific cites to posts, so you don’t need to go digging thru past discussions. Just mention a couple of names.)
Thanks
there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
McKinney, who among the regular commenters here do you feel displays animosity towared Christianity? I won’t deny that we get the occasional drop in who does. But if there is much of that among the regulars, I seem to have missed it. (I’m not asking for specific cites to posts, so you don’t need to go digging thru past discussions. Just mention a couple of names.)
Thanks
there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
McKinney, who among the regular commenters here do you feel displays animosity towared Christianity? I won’t deny that we get the occasional drop in who does. But if there is much of that among the regulars, I seem to have missed it. (I’m not asking for specific cites to posts, so you don’t need to go digging thru past discussions. Just mention a couple of names.)
Thanks
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
A lot of conservatives don’t care either if someone thinks their freedom includes the right to arbitrarily serve burgers to some classes of person but not others. Of course a person can pick or choose where they shop. We can be completely arbitrary as consumers because that is the essence of economic freedom. I can refuse to buy from gay people or Muslims or Democrats. I have that right. It doesn’t have to be that way. We could repeal the constitution and I could be required to account for every penny I spend and could face fines or prison if my shopping wasn’t sufficiently diverse.
We could also, in theory, have a country without a constitution and without the 13th-15th amendments and an interstate commerce clause. In that country, we could have whites only, Catholics only, ‘no Jews’, we could have a ton of that.
But, fortunately, that is not the America that most of us signed on for. We balance rights and obligations, the generic rule of thumb favoring unlimited rights until one trespasses on another. Rarely, we have clashing or overlapping rights. When that happens, we sort out what allows for the least intrusion into the lives of others. Gays, among many others, have been the beneficiaries of this line of thinking.
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
A lot of conservatives don’t care either if someone thinks their freedom includes the right to arbitrarily serve burgers to some classes of person but not others. Of course a person can pick or choose where they shop. We can be completely arbitrary as consumers because that is the essence of economic freedom. I can refuse to buy from gay people or Muslims or Democrats. I have that right. It doesn’t have to be that way. We could repeal the constitution and I could be required to account for every penny I spend and could face fines or prison if my shopping wasn’t sufficiently diverse.
We could also, in theory, have a country without a constitution and without the 13th-15th amendments and an interstate commerce clause. In that country, we could have whites only, Catholics only, ‘no Jews’, we could have a ton of that.
But, fortunately, that is not the America that most of us signed on for. We balance rights and obligations, the generic rule of thumb favoring unlimited rights until one trespasses on another. Rarely, we have clashing or overlapping rights. When that happens, we sort out what allows for the least intrusion into the lives of others. Gays, among many others, have been the beneficiaries of this line of thinking.
Only the businessman has lost his freedom. And liberals have no care when it comes to the liberty of businessmen. Anyone who goes into business loses all their rights.
A lot of conservatives don’t care either if someone thinks their freedom includes the right to arbitrarily serve burgers to some classes of person but not others. Of course a person can pick or choose where they shop. We can be completely arbitrary as consumers because that is the essence of economic freedom. I can refuse to buy from gay people or Muslims or Democrats. I have that right. It doesn’t have to be that way. We could repeal the constitution and I could be required to account for every penny I spend and could face fines or prison if my shopping wasn’t sufficiently diverse.
We could also, in theory, have a country without a constitution and without the 13th-15th amendments and an interstate commerce clause. In that country, we could have whites only, Catholics only, ‘no Jews’, we could have a ton of that.
But, fortunately, that is not the America that most of us signed on for. We balance rights and obligations, the generic rule of thumb favoring unlimited rights until one trespasses on another. Rarely, we have clashing or overlapping rights. When that happens, we sort out what allows for the least intrusion into the lives of others. Gays, among many others, have been the beneficiaries of this line of thinking.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
the IN law says nothing about the religious importance of the event. in fact, it doesn’t say there even has to be an event per se.
when i ask if you’ve read the IN law, this is why i ask. that law isn’t about events.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
the IN law says nothing about the religious importance of the event. in fact, it doesn’t say there even has to be an event per se.
when i ask if you’ve read the IN law, this is why i ask. that law isn’t about events.
Weddings are not anniversaries or parties or what have you.
the IN law says nothing about the religious importance of the event. in fact, it doesn’t say there even has to be an event per se.
when i ask if you’ve read the IN law, this is why i ask. that law isn’t about events.
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
Re: doctors being “forced” to do abortions.
You-all seem not to be aware that Catholic hospitals already require doctors to provide obstetric care that is not in the patient’s best interests.
In most cases that I’ve heard about, the problem isn’t a conflict between the *doctor*’s religious beliefs and the patient’s needs. Most doctors really do place the patient’s needs at the top — even ahead of their own denomination’s beliefs. (my observation is that doctors almost always incorporate “do what’s best for the patient” into their personal religious beliefs, trumping what religious authorities tell them they *ought* to do.)
But hospitals don’t. A few women have *died* for the sake of a hospital’s “religious principles”, and *many* have had their miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy complications, or desire for tubal ligations mis-managed.
So far, the consensus in US society & law seems to be that institution “conscience” is more important than a doctor’s individual conscience, and both are obviously much more important than whether mere women get the right medical care, much less whether that medical care conforms to the *woman’s* conscience.
Re: doctors being “forced” to do abortions.
You-all seem not to be aware that Catholic hospitals already require doctors to provide obstetric care that is not in the patient’s best interests.
In most cases that I’ve heard about, the problem isn’t a conflict between the *doctor*’s religious beliefs and the patient’s needs. Most doctors really do place the patient’s needs at the top — even ahead of their own denomination’s beliefs. (my observation is that doctors almost always incorporate “do what’s best for the patient” into their personal religious beliefs, trumping what religious authorities tell them they *ought* to do.)
But hospitals don’t. A few women have *died* for the sake of a hospital’s “religious principles”, and *many* have had their miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy complications, or desire for tubal ligations mis-managed.
So far, the consensus in US society & law seems to be that institution “conscience” is more important than a doctor’s individual conscience, and both are obviously much more important than whether mere women get the right medical care, much less whether that medical care conforms to the *woman’s* conscience.
Re: doctors being “forced” to do abortions.
You-all seem not to be aware that Catholic hospitals already require doctors to provide obstetric care that is not in the patient’s best interests.
In most cases that I’ve heard about, the problem isn’t a conflict between the *doctor*’s religious beliefs and the patient’s needs. Most doctors really do place the patient’s needs at the top — even ahead of their own denomination’s beliefs. (my observation is that doctors almost always incorporate “do what’s best for the patient” into their personal religious beliefs, trumping what religious authorities tell them they *ought* to do.)
But hospitals don’t. A few women have *died* for the sake of a hospital’s “religious principles”, and *many* have had their miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy complications, or desire for tubal ligations mis-managed.
So far, the consensus in US society & law seems to be that institution “conscience” is more important than a doctor’s individual conscience, and both are obviously much more important than whether mere women get the right medical care, much less whether that medical care conforms to the *woman’s* conscience.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
I’m not sure how this is different from, e.g., the military draft – would it be unconstitutional absent some sort of conscientious objector “out”? I’d have to look at the case law.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
I’m not sure how this is different from, e.g., the military draft – would it be unconstitutional absent some sort of conscientious objector “out”? I’d have to look at the case law.
Straight up, can the state compel a citizen with medical training to perform an abortion over that citizen’s conscientious objections?
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
I’m not sure how this is different from, e.g., the military draft – would it be unconstitutional absent some sort of conscientious objector “out”? I’d have to look at the case law.
Perhaps it would be salutary to view this kerfuffle in light of larger political themes?
See LGM here.“>http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/”>here.
Perhaps it would be salutary to view this kerfuffle in light of larger political themes?
See LGM here.“>http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/”>here.
Perhaps it would be salutary to view this kerfuffle in light of larger political themes?
See LGM here.“>http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/”>here.
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
Yours is a fair description of the wikipedia piece on sacraments. Other synonyms that get you well into mainline protestantism are convenant, ordinance, institution and so on. I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
Ok, the question is begged: what are those circumstances?
Only doc available and its an emergent threat to life?
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
Yours is a fair description of the wikipedia piece on sacraments. Other synonyms that get you well into mainline protestantism are convenant, ordinance, institution and so on. I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
Ok, the question is begged: what are those circumstances?
Only doc available and its an emergent threat to life?
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
In case no one has yet noted it, marriage is NOT a sacrament in all Christian denominations. Most consider it an act of religious significance but ‘sacrament’ has a clear and very limited meaning. The RCC has 7 sacraments (on of which is marriage), most protestant denominations have just 2 (baptism and eucharisty/holy communion).
And this is not simple hair-splitting, it played an important role in the theological split between the Catholic and protestant churches.
Yours is a fair description of the wikipedia piece on sacraments. Other synonyms that get you well into mainline protestantism are convenant, ordinance, institution and so on. I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
Generally, no. In certain circumstances, yes. Or at least, the state can give the person a choice between performing an abortion and (at the end after many intervening steps) prison.
Ok, the question is begged: what are those circumstances?
Only doc available and its an emergent threat to life?
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
I’m an Episcopalian. Our clergy frequently refer to the sacrament of marriage.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
No I’m having a hard time thinking of another case under the present climate in the U.S. The only qualified person available to save the woman’s life.
Forced catering of a same-sex wedding? That strikes me as much less objectionable.
But we’re now down in the weeds of the very hard and rare cases (at least on abortion). The objection to the Indiana law is that it does, indeed, permit businesses to refuse services to gay customers because they are gay, if there is a religious reason – and indeed for any reason as being gay is not a protected class under Indiana law. Hence the rather large negative backlash.
For some reason you seem to think this state of affairs is unconstitutional, although maybe I’m confusing your comments.
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
No I’m having a hard time thinking of another case under the present climate in the U.S. The only qualified person available to save the woman’s life.
Forced catering of a same-sex wedding? That strikes me as much less objectionable.
But we’re now down in the weeds of the very hard and rare cases (at least on abortion). The objection to the Indiana law is that it does, indeed, permit businesses to refuse services to gay customers because they are gay, if there is a religious reason – and indeed for any reason as being gay is not a protected class under Indiana law. Hence the rather large negative backlash.
For some reason you seem to think this state of affairs is unconstitutional, although maybe I’m confusing your comments.
I can see yes in that instance. Any others?
No I’m having a hard time thinking of another case under the present climate in the U.S. The only qualified person available to save the woman’s life.
Forced catering of a same-sex wedding? That strikes me as much less objectionable.
But we’re now down in the weeds of the very hard and rare cases (at least on abortion). The objection to the Indiana law is that it does, indeed, permit businesses to refuse services to gay customers because they are gay, if there is a religious reason – and indeed for any reason as being gay is not a protected class under Indiana law. Hence the rather large negative backlash.
For some reason you seem to think this state of affairs is unconstitutional, although maybe I’m confusing your comments.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
Sorry, I was on jury duty.
I appreciate much of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re addressing the actual law that was passed in IN.
The examples we’ve been discussing are primarily the baker and photographer that didn’t want to bake for, or take pictures of, a gay wedding. That’s because those have been the most visible recent court cases.
There is nothing whatsoever in the IN law that limits the religious exemption to weddings, or any other thing that can be construed as sacramental or religious-y.
The pizza people didn’t want to serve pizza at a gay wedding. The law allows that. It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
What’s religious about lunch? It doesn’t matter. The exemption can be claimed based on things that are not a part of, and are not compelled by, the actual religious belief in question.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman. Even though there are folks who would be able to find a religious objection to any of those groups.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
I recognize that it *is* different, I just want an explanation for why that is fair, and why it should be allowed to stand.
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham. What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
Sorry, I was on jury duty.
I appreciate much of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re addressing the actual law that was passed in IN.
The examples we’ve been discussing are primarily the baker and photographer that didn’t want to bake for, or take pictures of, a gay wedding. That’s because those have been the most visible recent court cases.
There is nothing whatsoever in the IN law that limits the religious exemption to weddings, or any other thing that can be construed as sacramental or religious-y.
The pizza people didn’t want to serve pizza at a gay wedding. The law allows that. It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
What’s religious about lunch? It doesn’t matter. The exemption can be claimed based on things that are not a part of, and are not compelled by, the actual religious belief in question.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman. Even though there are folks who would be able to find a religious objection to any of those groups.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
I recognize that it *is* different, I just want an explanation for why that is fair, and why it should be allowed to stand.
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham. What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
Russell, I answered your question. I would appreciate an equally thoughtful response.
Sorry, I was on jury duty.
I appreciate much of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re addressing the actual law that was passed in IN.
The examples we’ve been discussing are primarily the baker and photographer that didn’t want to bake for, or take pictures of, a gay wedding. That’s because those have been the most visible recent court cases.
There is nothing whatsoever in the IN law that limits the religious exemption to weddings, or any other thing that can be construed as sacramental or religious-y.
The pizza people didn’t want to serve pizza at a gay wedding. The law allows that. It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
What’s religious about lunch? It doesn’t matter. The exemption can be claimed based on things that are not a part of, and are not compelled by, the actual religious belief in question.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman. Even though there are folks who would be able to find a religious objection to any of those groups.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
I recognize that it *is* different, I just want an explanation for why that is fair, and why it should be allowed to stand.
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham. What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
I can’t speak to the legal definition. But it seems to me that the common sense meaning of “a Muslim wedding venue” would be a venue which is a) owned by a mosque, and b) used primarily for activities of the members of the mosque. Just as a Catholic church and attached buildings would count as “a Catholic wedding venue.”
As opposed to, for example, a recreation center which happens to be owned by a religious group, and which is used for wedding receptions among other things.
I can’t speak to the legal definition. But it seems to me that the common sense meaning of “a Muslim wedding venue” would be a venue which is a) owned by a mosque, and b) used primarily for activities of the members of the mosque. Just as a Catholic church and attached buildings would count as “a Catholic wedding venue.”
As opposed to, for example, a recreation center which happens to be owned by a religious group, and which is used for wedding receptions among other things.
I can’t speak to the legal definition. But it seems to me that the common sense meaning of “a Muslim wedding venue” would be a venue which is a) owned by a mosque, and b) used primarily for activities of the members of the mosque. Just as a Catholic church and attached buildings would count as “a Catholic wedding venue.”
As opposed to, for example, a recreation center which happens to be owned by a religious group, and which is used for wedding receptions among other things.
let me try that again….
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/04/weaponization-religious-exemptions
let me try that again….
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/04/weaponization-religious-exemptions
let me try that again….
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/04/weaponization-religious-exemptions
The pizza people allowed as though they might not do that, but had not as yet been asked to. No gay wedding had asked them to.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
The hypothetical is kind of a lot more exciting than the reality is. Because the reality does not, at present, exist.
The pizza people allowed as though they might not do that, but had not as yet been asked to. No gay wedding had asked them to.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
The hypothetical is kind of a lot more exciting than the reality is. Because the reality does not, at present, exist.
The pizza people allowed as though they might not do that, but had not as yet been asked to. No gay wedding had asked them to.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
The hypothetical is kind of a lot more exciting than the reality is. Because the reality does not, at present, exist.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
Yes, it has a plural form.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
Several points: did you miss the part about my saying any law that allows any discrimination in 99.999% of cases against gays is unconstitutional?
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to. It is perfectly fine to require those folks to get out of the way and let two gay people get married. It is not perfectly fine to tell those same folks that they must cater, furnish a venue for or otherwise proactively be a part of a gay marriage.
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
BP–I am opposed to weaponizing faith too. Just as I am opposed to weaponizing social issues. I’ve been following the flip side of this at National Review. They are going bonkers in the other direction. The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing. He objects to faith being used as a blanket excuse to discriminate against gay people. So do I.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
Yes, it has a plural form.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
Several points: did you miss the part about my saying any law that allows any discrimination in 99.999% of cases against gays is unconstitutional?
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to. It is perfectly fine to require those folks to get out of the way and let two gay people get married. It is not perfectly fine to tell those same folks that they must cater, furnish a venue for or otherwise proactively be a part of a gay marriage.
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
BP–I am opposed to weaponizing faith too. Just as I am opposed to weaponizing social issues. I’ve been following the flip side of this at National Review. They are going bonkers in the other direction. The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing. He objects to faith being used as a blanket excuse to discriminate against gay people. So do I.
I am given to understand that Henry VIII referred to it many times.
Yes, it has a plural form.
Why is being gay different than being black, Jewish, or female, in the eyes of the law?
Several points: did you miss the part about my saying any law that allows any discrimination in 99.999% of cases against gays is unconstitutional?
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to. It is perfectly fine to require those folks to get out of the way and let two gay people get married. It is not perfectly fine to tell those same folks that they must cater, furnish a venue for or otherwise proactively be a part of a gay marriage.
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
BP–I am opposed to weaponizing faith too. Just as I am opposed to weaponizing social issues. I’ve been following the flip side of this at National Review. They are going bonkers in the other direction. The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing. He objects to faith being used as a blanket excuse to discriminate against gay people. So do I.
What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham.
Ok, a non-denominational wedding, a black couple, and they want to serve ham.
Leave them alone or bring ’em to court?
What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham.
Ok, a non-denominational wedding, a black couple, and they want to serve ham.
Leave them alone or bring ’em to court?
What’s not clear to me is what it means to be a “Muslim wedding venue”.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
On a somewhat different point, I understand why it might make sense for a Muslim wedding venue to not be required to host a Christian wedding serving ham.
Ok, a non-denominational wedding, a black couple, and they want to serve ham.
Leave them alone or bring ’em to court?
Easier to kill them ALL!
Easier to kill them ALL!
Easier to kill them ALL!
wj,
the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics.
Thanks. I didn’t actually know that.
Do individual priests sometimes stick to the old line?
Not that it matters to the argument, since rabbis are certainly free to refuse to perform interfaith marriages, and often do so, so we know there is no legal coercion on this type of matter.
wj,
the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics.
Thanks. I didn’t actually know that.
Do individual priests sometimes stick to the old line?
Not that it matters to the argument, since rabbis are certainly free to refuse to perform interfaith marriages, and often do so, so we know there is no legal coercion on this type of matter.
wj,
the Catholic Church no longer even requires the non-Catholic spouse to agree to raise any children as Catholics.
Thanks. I didn’t actually know that.
Do individual priests sometimes stick to the old line?
Not that it matters to the argument, since rabbis are certainly free to refuse to perform interfaith marriages, and often do so, so we know there is no legal coercion on this type of matter.
The first (a venue not owned by a church/mosque) is, in my view, something of a gray area. But in general, I could see taking him to court. Just as I could a similar venue which said “All White All the Time.” As a rule of thumb, if the same restriction against gays were applied on the basis of race, would it then be illegal? If so, then the burden is on those placing the restriction to justify their restriction in court.
In the second case, it depends on what their objection is. If they say, sure we’ll host your wedding . . . but no ham — that is legitimately their choice. If they say, no blacks — that’s right out. If they say, no non-denominational weddings, that doesn’t seem like a real problem — so long as their cleric is willing to officiate if asked.
The first (a venue not owned by a church/mosque) is, in my view, something of a gray area. But in general, I could see taking him to court. Just as I could a similar venue which said “All White All the Time.” As a rule of thumb, if the same restriction against gays were applied on the basis of race, would it then be illegal? If so, then the burden is on those placing the restriction to justify their restriction in court.
In the second case, it depends on what their objection is. If they say, sure we’ll host your wedding . . . but no ham — that is legitimately their choice. If they say, no blacks — that’s right out. If they say, no non-denominational weddings, that doesn’t seem like a real problem — so long as their cleric is willing to officiate if asked.
The first (a venue not owned by a church/mosque) is, in my view, something of a gray area. But in general, I could see taking him to court. Just as I could a similar venue which said “All White All the Time.” As a rule of thumb, if the same restriction against gays were applied on the basis of race, would it then be illegal? If so, then the burden is on those placing the restriction to justify their restriction in court.
In the second case, it depends on what their objection is. If they say, sure we’ll host your wedding . . . but no ham — that is legitimately their choice. If they say, no blacks — that’s right out. If they say, no non-denominational weddings, that doesn’t seem like a real problem — so long as their cleric is willing to officiate if asked.
byomtov, I don’t know what the official position on individual priests refusing is. But the Church has officially decided that they won’t keep that restriction. And given how heirarchical the Catholic Church is on matters like this, it seems unlikely that individual deviation from the official line would be acceptable. (But you might have to go to the bishop to get the priest informed of the error of his ways.)
byomtov, I don’t know what the official position on individual priests refusing is. But the Church has officially decided that they won’t keep that restriction. And given how heirarchical the Catholic Church is on matters like this, it seems unlikely that individual deviation from the official line would be acceptable. (But you might have to go to the bishop to get the priest informed of the error of his ways.)
byomtov, I don’t know what the official position on individual priests refusing is. But the Church has officially decided that they won’t keep that restriction. And given how heirarchical the Catholic Church is on matters like this, it seems unlikely that individual deviation from the official line would be acceptable. (But you might have to go to the bishop to get the priest informed of the error of his ways.)
Sorry, Redjac had me there for a sec.
Sorry, Redjac had me there for a sec.
Sorry, Redjac had me there for a sec.
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old
the IN law says nothing about marriage.
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old
the IN law says nothing about marriage.
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old
the IN law says nothing about marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bY0fdgpISc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bY0fdgpISc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bY0fdgpISc
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
Again, I refer you to the actual law under discussion.
Where is the language that excludes claiming a religious exemption when it’s only “straight up commerce”?
I understand that you are trying to carve out the %0.0001 exceptional case, which is laudable, but that isn’t what that language of this law describes.
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
Again, I refer you to the actual law under discussion.
Where is the language that excludes claiming a religious exemption when it’s only “straight up commerce”?
I understand that you are trying to carve out the %0.0001 exceptional case, which is laudable, but that isn’t what that language of this law describes.
I say this and only this: gay marriage intersects with a religious definition of marriage that is 2000 years old, that developed independent of concerns about gay marriage and that many people subscribe to.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.
Again, I refer you to the actual law under discussion.
Where is the language that excludes claiming a religious exemption when it’s only “straight up commerce”?
I understand that you are trying to carve out the %0.0001 exceptional case, which is laudable, but that isn’t what that language of this law describes.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
My opinion is that if you want a license to prepare and serve food and drink as a for-profit concern, with all of the legal obligations and protections that come along with it, you don’t get to say no gay Muslims.
If you want to operate a religious establishment, intended to host specifically religious ceremonies, you organize as whatever the appropriate 501(c) is.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
My opinion is that if you want a license to prepare and serve food and drink as a for-profit concern, with all of the legal obligations and protections that come along with it, you don’t get to say no gay Muslims.
If you want to operate a religious establishment, intended to host specifically religious ceremonies, you organize as whatever the appropriate 501(c) is.
“Ibrahim Al Faisal’s All Muslim All The Time Wedding Chapel and Reception Hall” owned by Ibrahim Al Faisal, a non-clericl. He just chooses to host Muslim weddings. No gay Muslims allowed.
Send in the police or let it be?
My opinion is that if you want a license to prepare and serve food and drink as a for-profit concern, with all of the legal obligations and protections that come along with it, you don’t get to say no gay Muslims.
If you want to operate a religious establishment, intended to host specifically religious ceremonies, you organize as whatever the appropriate 501(c) is.
“Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.”
Well, umm …. oh never mind. One day, by hook or by crook, marriage between two folks of the same gender will be considered straight too.
I read that the owner of the pizza place said that it is a gay person’s choice to be gay, while it is the pizza joint owner’s choice to be heterosexual.
I guess I’ve heard the first formulation many times from those who disapprove of the gay “lifestyle”, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the same people refer to their heterosexuality as a lifestyle “choice”.
I’d like to hear them unpack that statement a bit, plus a rough estimate of the date when they arrived at that choice. In front of a tribunal consisting of Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, and Louis Gohmert.
Then they could get flak from both sides of the political spectrum.
They make it sound like the choice to order anchovies on your pizza. Maybe as pizza makers intent on making a buck, they’d give you an eye roll and mutter “it takes all kinds”, and then get on with making the pizza with the anchovies.
Ya know, commerce.
“Easier to kill them all.”
Too much ham would do the job, though slowly.
All of this food talk is making me hungry.
Plus, now the insertion of ham into the conversation reminds me of the scene in “Annie Hall”, wherein Alvy Singer is having a holiday dinner at Annie’s goy family’s home and someone compliments her Mom’s “fine ham this year”, and Alvy chimes in by saying “Yeah, dynamite ham.”
Soon thereafter, he pictures himself, as her family might, since they are a little uncomfortable around him, sitting at the table as a Hasidic Jew dressed in black suit and hat and ear locks dangling.
I don’t know whose case that proves.
“Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.”
Well, umm …. oh never mind. One day, by hook or by crook, marriage between two folks of the same gender will be considered straight too.
I read that the owner of the pizza place said that it is a gay person’s choice to be gay, while it is the pizza joint owner’s choice to be heterosexual.
I guess I’ve heard the first formulation many times from those who disapprove of the gay “lifestyle”, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the same people refer to their heterosexuality as a lifestyle “choice”.
I’d like to hear them unpack that statement a bit, plus a rough estimate of the date when they arrived at that choice. In front of a tribunal consisting of Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, and Louis Gohmert.
Then they could get flak from both sides of the political spectrum.
They make it sound like the choice to order anchovies on your pizza. Maybe as pizza makers intent on making a buck, they’d give you an eye roll and mutter “it takes all kinds”, and then get on with making the pizza with the anchovies.
Ya know, commerce.
“Easier to kill them all.”
Too much ham would do the job, though slowly.
All of this food talk is making me hungry.
Plus, now the insertion of ham into the conversation reminds me of the scene in “Annie Hall”, wherein Alvy Singer is having a holiday dinner at Annie’s goy family’s home and someone compliments her Mom’s “fine ham this year”, and Alvy chimes in by saying “Yeah, dynamite ham.”
Soon thereafter, he pictures himself, as her family might, since they are a little uncomfortable around him, sitting at the table as a Hasidic Jew dressed in black suit and hat and ear locks dangling.
I don’t know whose case that proves.
“Gay party, gay softball league, gay theater society, all different. That is straight up commerce.”
Well, umm …. oh never mind. One day, by hook or by crook, marriage between two folks of the same gender will be considered straight too.
I read that the owner of the pizza place said that it is a gay person’s choice to be gay, while it is the pizza joint owner’s choice to be heterosexual.
I guess I’ve heard the first formulation many times from those who disapprove of the gay “lifestyle”, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the same people refer to their heterosexuality as a lifestyle “choice”.
I’d like to hear them unpack that statement a bit, plus a rough estimate of the date when they arrived at that choice. In front of a tribunal consisting of Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, and Louis Gohmert.
Then they could get flak from both sides of the political spectrum.
They make it sound like the choice to order anchovies on your pizza. Maybe as pizza makers intent on making a buck, they’d give you an eye roll and mutter “it takes all kinds”, and then get on with making the pizza with the anchovies.
Ya know, commerce.
“Easier to kill them all.”
Too much ham would do the job, though slowly.
All of this food talk is making me hungry.
Plus, now the insertion of ham into the conversation reminds me of the scene in “Annie Hall”, wherein Alvy Singer is having a holiday dinner at Annie’s goy family’s home and someone compliments her Mom’s “fine ham this year”, and Alvy chimes in by saying “Yeah, dynamite ham.”
Soon thereafter, he pictures himself, as her family might, since they are a little uncomfortable around him, sitting at the table as a Hasidic Jew dressed in black suit and hat and ear locks dangling.
I don’t know whose case that proves.
the conservative base keeps giving the game away. everybody knows why the law was written: gay marriage. but people like Pence and the GOP Primary crew have to pretend these laws are all about the Platonic ideal of “religious freedom” because they know that polls better than straight up bigotry. but the base isn’t interested in the actual law, they want to argue about gay marriage.
the conservative base keeps giving the game away. everybody knows why the law was written: gay marriage. but people like Pence and the GOP Primary crew have to pretend these laws are all about the Platonic ideal of “religious freedom” because they know that polls better than straight up bigotry. but the base isn’t interested in the actual law, they want to argue about gay marriage.
the conservative base keeps giving the game away. everybody knows why the law was written: gay marriage. but people like Pence and the GOP Primary crew have to pretend these laws are all about the Platonic ideal of “religious freedom” because they know that polls better than straight up bigotry. but the base isn’t interested in the actual law, they want to argue about gay marriage.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
cleek’s last comment sounded, not to give offense, somewhat like a Brett-comment.
cleek’s last comment sounded, not to give offense, somewhat like a Brett-comment.
cleek’s last comment sounded, not to give offense, somewhat like a Brett-comment.
The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing.
McKinney,
Appreciate you taking the time to read the post. In a general way, I feel it was addressed in the 4th paragraph.
“Their (referring to a list of some well known past religious exemption issues)primary objective is to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more.”
One may protest that the baker feels his animus is part of some effort to “protect the traditional concept of marriage”, but given modern norms toward divorce, for just one example, I find this not too convincing.
The smaller than normal sized native Brazilian anarchist transgender left handed agnostic veterans of some or no wars, both foreign and domestic welcome your reply.
The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing.
McKinney,
Appreciate you taking the time to read the post. In a general way, I feel it was addressed in the 4th paragraph.
“Their (referring to a list of some well known past religious exemption issues)primary objective is to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more.”
One may protest that the baker feels his animus is part of some effort to “protect the traditional concept of marriage”, but given modern norms toward divorce, for just one example, I find this not too convincing.
The smaller than normal sized native Brazilian anarchist transgender left handed agnostic veterans of some or no wars, both foreign and domestic welcome your reply.
The LGM writer doesn’t address the narrow exception I am drawing.
McKinney,
Appreciate you taking the time to read the post. In a general way, I feel it was addressed in the 4th paragraph.
“Their (referring to a list of some well known past religious exemption issues)primary objective is to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more.”
One may protest that the baker feels his animus is part of some effort to “protect the traditional concept of marriage”, but given modern norms toward divorce, for just one example, I find this not too convincing.
The smaller than normal sized native Brazilian anarchist transgender left handed agnostic veterans of some or no wars, both foreign and domestic welcome your reply.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
FFS, where did i say that?
compare the public statements of politicians about this vs what people are actually talking about.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
FFS, where did i say that?
compare the public statements of politicians about this vs what people are actually talking about.
Yes, it’s clearly all a conspiracy.
FFS, where did i say that?
compare the public statements of politicians about this vs what people are actually talking about.
there’s a game to give away, apparently.
the conservative base, they are of one mind. with a game. that they wish to remain secret, but fail to.
there’s a game to give away, apparently.
the conservative base, they are of one mind. with a game. that they wish to remain secret, but fail to.
there’s a game to give away, apparently.
the conservative base, they are of one mind. with a game. that they wish to remain secret, but fail to.
Less kindly than I’d like: you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited.
it’s more reaction, I’d say.
and look: I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
Less kindly than I’d like: you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited.
it’s more reaction, I’d say.
and look: I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
Less kindly than I’d like: you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited.
it’s more reaction, I’d say.
and look: I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?
do you disagree that politicians are trying not to say that?
do you disagree that the conservative base isn’t concerned about not saying it?
or are you just spitting from the window?
do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?
do you disagree that politicians are trying not to say that?
do you disagree that the conservative base isn’t concerned about not saying it?
or are you just spitting from the window?
do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?
do you disagree that politicians are trying not to say that?
do you disagree that the conservative base isn’t concerned about not saying it?
or are you just spitting from the window?
mostly just spitting from the window, actually.
kind of like a lot of people, speculating in the absence of data.
mostly just spitting from the window, actually.
kind of like a lot of people, speculating in the absence of data.
mostly just spitting from the window, actually.
kind of like a lot of people, speculating in the absence of data.
you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited
oh no, i wasn’t giving the base any credit for plotting or thinking – they’re just talking about the obvious. the politicians, are the people playing the ‘game’.
you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited
oh no, i wasn’t giving the base any credit for plotting or thinking – they’re just talking about the obvious. the politicians, are the people playing the ‘game’.
you attribute more conscious thinking and plotting to the conservative base than is, in my estimation, merited
oh no, i wasn’t giving the base any credit for plotting or thinking – they’re just talking about the obvious. the politicians, are the people playing the ‘game’.
newborn comma: free to good home.
newborn comma: free to good home.
newborn comma: free to good home.
ah. ok, then.
politicians are always playing games. it’s what they do. if we ever get a straight answer out of a politician, wake me up.
ah. ok, then.
politicians are always playing games. it’s what they do. if we ever get a straight answer out of a politician, wake me up.
ah. ok, then.
politicians are always playing games. it’s what they do. if we ever get a straight answer out of a politician, wake me up.
I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
hey man, get with the program!!
I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
hey man, get with the program!!
I slipped up and let an upper-case character (or 2) through.
hey man, get with the program!!
Would it be rude to note that even those who are with the program somehow manage to capitalize “I” when they use it? Wonder what that means….
Would it be rude to note that even those who are with the program somehow manage to capitalize “I” when they use it? Wonder what that means….
Would it be rude to note that even those who are with the program somehow manage to capitalize “I” when they use it? Wonder what that means….
sometimes windows auto-capitalizes my italics tags.
i am not making this up.
sometimes windows auto-capitalizes my italics tags.
i am not making this up.
sometimes windows auto-capitalizes my italics tags.
i am not making this up.
It’s telling who is on the signing photo for the IN law. The governor knew very well who the people were he invited for that. Flawless anti-gay credentials. Adding to that his bad faith later showed when under the barrage of criticism he told the (national, non-local) media that the problems with the law would be ‘fixed’ and on the same day assured listeners over local media that of course there was no need to fix anything. In other words ‘I lied to the people from out of state but you better not believe a word of it. I am still on your side but have to pretend otherwise at the moment.”
It’s telling who is on the signing photo for the IN law. The governor knew very well who the people were he invited for that. Flawless anti-gay credentials. Adding to that his bad faith later showed when under the barrage of criticism he told the (national, non-local) media that the problems with the law would be ‘fixed’ and on the same day assured listeners over local media that of course there was no need to fix anything. In other words ‘I lied to the people from out of state but you better not believe a word of it. I am still on your side but have to pretend otherwise at the moment.”
It’s telling who is on the signing photo for the IN law. The governor knew very well who the people were he invited for that. Flawless anti-gay credentials. Adding to that his bad faith later showed when under the barrage of criticism he told the (national, non-local) media that the problems with the law would be ‘fixed’ and on the same day assured listeners over local media that of course there was no need to fix anything. In other words ‘I lied to the people from out of state but you better not believe a word of it. I am still on your side but have to pretend otherwise at the moment.”
“i am not making this up.”
That’s what all conspiracy mongers say. 😉
“i am not making this up.”
That’s what all conspiracy mongers say. 😉
“i am not making this up.”
That’s what all conspiracy mongers say. 😉
Wonder what that means….
OK.
I originally started doing the no-caps thing because I was usually posting while doing other stuff (like eating or working) and no-caps made it easier to post with one hand.
then it sort of became a thing, so I just let it be a thing.
But sometimes I forget that it’s a thing, especially when I’m typing with two hands (like now) and I use caps.
And that is the story of the no-caps. Basically, it’s sort of random.
Wonder what that means….
OK.
I originally started doing the no-caps thing because I was usually posting while doing other stuff (like eating or working) and no-caps made it easier to post with one hand.
then it sort of became a thing, so I just let it be a thing.
But sometimes I forget that it’s a thing, especially when I’m typing with two hands (like now) and I use caps.
And that is the story of the no-caps. Basically, it’s sort of random.
Wonder what that means….
OK.
I originally started doing the no-caps thing because I was usually posting while doing other stuff (like eating or working) and no-caps made it easier to post with one hand.
then it sort of became a thing, so I just let it be a thing.
But sometimes I forget that it’s a thing, especially when I’m typing with two hands (like now) and I use caps.
And that is the story of the no-caps. Basically, it’s sort of random.
Consider my mention of no-caps a sort of good-natured joshing, and not a serious I-have-an-issue kind of thing.
Consider my mention of no-caps a sort of good-natured joshing, and not a serious I-have-an-issue kind of thing.
Consider my mention of no-caps a sort of good-natured joshing, and not a serious I-have-an-issue kind of thing.
seriously, no worries.
seriously, no worries.
seriously, no worries.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman.
For the record (assuming someone is recording this), I am on board with that and fully extend that to orientation, as well. I’d just prefer a more constrained definition of ‘public accommodation’.
It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law, rather than the RFRA. I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
Long story short, I’m not arguing for broad license to discriminate. I’m arguing for relatively narrow protections based individual conscience. I think those protections will be abused, as are all rights. However, I think preserving that right is an important aspect of maintaining a diverse and tolerant society.
The IN law, as I said upthread, seems overly broad.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman.
For the record (assuming someone is recording this), I am on board with that and fully extend that to orientation, as well. I’d just prefer a more constrained definition of ‘public accommodation’.
It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law, rather than the RFRA. I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
Long story short, I’m not arguing for broad license to discriminate. I’m arguing for relatively narrow protections based individual conscience. I think those protections will be abused, as are all rights. However, I think preserving that right is an important aspect of maintaining a diverse and tolerant society.
The IN law, as I said upthread, seems overly broad.
With the possible exception of Brett and maybe thompson, I think everyone here would be on board with the idea that, if you open your doors to the public, you can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re black, or Jewish, or a woman.
For the record (assuming someone is recording this), I am on board with that and fully extend that to orientation, as well. I’d just prefer a more constrained definition of ‘public accommodation’.
It would also allow them to not serve gays, full stop. Because religion.
I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law, rather than the RFRA. I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
Long story short, I’m not arguing for broad license to discriminate. I’m arguing for relatively narrow protections based individual conscience. I think those protections will be abused, as are all rights. However, I think preserving that right is an important aspect of maintaining a diverse and tolerant society.
The IN law, as I said upthread, seems overly broad.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year, and which was attended by the head of state of the country it was in (which is nothing resembling a small one). There was, I am thoroughly appalled to say, pizza at the reception, although fortunately it was one choice among many.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year, and which was attended by the head of state of the country it was in (which is nothing resembling a small one). There was, I am thoroughly appalled to say, pizza at the reception, although fortunately it was one choice among many.
And no gay wedding, or straight wedding, ought to. In my opinion. Seriously? Wedding pizza? Or, (possibly) more ridiculously: gay wedding pizza?
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year, and which was attended by the head of state of the country it was in (which is nothing resembling a small one). There was, I am thoroughly appalled to say, pizza at the reception, although fortunately it was one choice among many.
I sense a business opportunity here.
Multi-layered wedding cakes constructed of nothing but pizza fixings, for the father of the bride who is a little short of the tens of thousands of bucks it takes to marry her off.
Each layer could be a different style of pizza.
The bride and groom would leave for the honeymoon with their faces smeared with mozzarella and tomato sauce.
Plus, the couple would probably actually eat the frozen left overs soon after rather than tossing the pastry reliquary as part of the divorce settlement several years later and good riddance.
Now, pizza wouldn’t be my thing at a wedding reception. No, you’ll find me stationed at the raw shrimp bowl ladling the creatures into my pockets and mouth with both hands and grrring at like-minded interlopers.
When they put out the spread, like Curly Howard, I express my appreciation by exclaiming, “Oh, can of peas” and then shout “Gangway!”
You can’t take me anywhere.
It is mysterious, however, that the pizza joint owners would publicly state their reluctance to supply such an unlikely thing like pizzas to gay weddings.
There’s something a little attention-wanting about that for whatever motives, a little like the Hobby Lobby folks being so upset that their health plan had been supplying birth control to employees for years without the front office knowing.
Maybe there are some activist attorneys who support the Indiana law trying to gin up some victims of the backlash.
Not that activist attorneys on the other side aren’t beating the bushes for clients, too.
But why raise your hand and volunteer to be a plaintiff?
To the pizza makers credit that did say they wouldn’t refuse service to gay customers at their establishment who weren’t there to request catered wedding pizzas.
I guess, like an airline attendant mentioning the unlikely event of a water-landing, they could have a guy with a bullhorn announcing to the patrons that in the unlikely event of two gay men requesting catered pizza at the their wedding reception, it’s every man for himself because those seat cushions will do you no good whatsoever.
I sense a business opportunity here.
Multi-layered wedding cakes constructed of nothing but pizza fixings, for the father of the bride who is a little short of the tens of thousands of bucks it takes to marry her off.
Each layer could be a different style of pizza.
The bride and groom would leave for the honeymoon with their faces smeared with mozzarella and tomato sauce.
Plus, the couple would probably actually eat the frozen left overs soon after rather than tossing the pastry reliquary as part of the divorce settlement several years later and good riddance.
Now, pizza wouldn’t be my thing at a wedding reception. No, you’ll find me stationed at the raw shrimp bowl ladling the creatures into my pockets and mouth with both hands and grrring at like-minded interlopers.
When they put out the spread, like Curly Howard, I express my appreciation by exclaiming, “Oh, can of peas” and then shout “Gangway!”
You can’t take me anywhere.
It is mysterious, however, that the pizza joint owners would publicly state their reluctance to supply such an unlikely thing like pizzas to gay weddings.
There’s something a little attention-wanting about that for whatever motives, a little like the Hobby Lobby folks being so upset that their health plan had been supplying birth control to employees for years without the front office knowing.
Maybe there are some activist attorneys who support the Indiana law trying to gin up some victims of the backlash.
Not that activist attorneys on the other side aren’t beating the bushes for clients, too.
But why raise your hand and volunteer to be a plaintiff?
To the pizza makers credit that did say they wouldn’t refuse service to gay customers at their establishment who weren’t there to request catered wedding pizzas.
I guess, like an airline attendant mentioning the unlikely event of a water-landing, they could have a guy with a bullhorn announcing to the patrons that in the unlikely event of two gay men requesting catered pizza at the their wedding reception, it’s every man for himself because those seat cushions will do you no good whatsoever.
I sense a business opportunity here.
Multi-layered wedding cakes constructed of nothing but pizza fixings, for the father of the bride who is a little short of the tens of thousands of bucks it takes to marry her off.
Each layer could be a different style of pizza.
The bride and groom would leave for the honeymoon with their faces smeared with mozzarella and tomato sauce.
Plus, the couple would probably actually eat the frozen left overs soon after rather than tossing the pastry reliquary as part of the divorce settlement several years later and good riddance.
Now, pizza wouldn’t be my thing at a wedding reception. No, you’ll find me stationed at the raw shrimp bowl ladling the creatures into my pockets and mouth with both hands and grrring at like-minded interlopers.
When they put out the spread, like Curly Howard, I express my appreciation by exclaiming, “Oh, can of peas” and then shout “Gangway!”
You can’t take me anywhere.
It is mysterious, however, that the pizza joint owners would publicly state their reluctance to supply such an unlikely thing like pizzas to gay weddings.
There’s something a little attention-wanting about that for whatever motives, a little like the Hobby Lobby folks being so upset that their health plan had been supplying birth control to employees for years without the front office knowing.
Maybe there are some activist attorneys who support the Indiana law trying to gin up some victims of the backlash.
Not that activist attorneys on the other side aren’t beating the bushes for clients, too.
But why raise your hand and volunteer to be a plaintiff?
To the pizza makers credit that did say they wouldn’t refuse service to gay customers at their establishment who weren’t there to request catered wedding pizzas.
I guess, like an airline attendant mentioning the unlikely event of a water-landing, they could have a guy with a bullhorn announcing to the patrons that in the unlikely event of two gay men requesting catered pizza at the their wedding reception, it’s every man for himself because those seat cushions will do you no good whatsoever.
McKinney: Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
Wrong on two counts.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Tongue only half in cheek, I would like to point out that my Christian Orthodox family will be celebrating Easter next weekend while schismatics and heretics will be celebrating it this weekend, presumably because they really lack understanding of the sacred calculations.
–TP
McKinney: Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
Wrong on two counts.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Tongue only half in cheek, I would like to point out that my Christian Orthodox family will be celebrating Easter next weekend while schismatics and heretics will be celebrating it this weekend, presumably because they really lack understanding of the sacred calculations.
–TP
McKinney: Sorry to insult, but there is a fair degree of animosity toward Christianity at ObWi and there is a real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage.
Wrong on two counts.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Tongue only half in cheek, I would like to point out that my Christian Orthodox family will be celebrating Easter next weekend while schismatics and heretics will be celebrating it this weekend, presumably because they really lack understanding of the sacred calculations.
–TP
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year,
A few years ago, the daughter of a very very rich guy in my town got married. The groom was an attorney and a French count. At the same time.
You can’t make this stuff up.
It was an outdoor thing, so they wanted a tent, but the tent they went with was so big they had to pull a permit to put it up.
That meant that it got listed in the local newspaper, which meant that everybody could see what they were spending on it.
It was over $100K. For the tent. Not the whole wedding, just the tent.
The dual barges of fireworks anchored just offshore came to about $150K.
Not that it actually came up, but I wonder what it would be like to be asked to provide some kind of goods or services to a wedding like that. It would be hard to look around and realize that one of the place settings would feed a family in, for example, Haiti, for a week.
Not the food, just the value of the place setting.
I’m not really making a judgement about the guy, he was a very successful fund manager and made lots of other folks rich as well as himself, and I know as a plain matter of fact that he’s a very generous philanthropist.
It would just be really freaking weird, to the point of being borderline creepy.
What do you serve for hors d’oeuvres at an affair like that? minced breast of african swallow on a bed of edible gold?
Could I say, “sorry, you can’t hire my band, the money you’re spending on this blowout is freaking obscene and an affront to the sensibilities of modest hardworking people everywhere”?
I mean, aside from the part where my band takes me out back and beats sense into me, could I do that?
It’s a funny world, matters of conscience pop up all over the place.
Then again, Elton John played for Rush Limbaugh’s wedding. His fourth wedding, to a woman 26 years younger than him. Sir Elton got a million bucks.
It’s a funny world, the voice of conscience can sometimes be muffled by the application of great big stacks of benjamins.
I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.
But I don’t think I’d take it to court, I’d just say I was busy that day.
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year,
A few years ago, the daughter of a very very rich guy in my town got married. The groom was an attorney and a French count. At the same time.
You can’t make this stuff up.
It was an outdoor thing, so they wanted a tent, but the tent they went with was so big they had to pull a permit to put it up.
That meant that it got listed in the local newspaper, which meant that everybody could see what they were spending on it.
It was over $100K. For the tent. Not the whole wedding, just the tent.
The dual barges of fireworks anchored just offshore came to about $150K.
Not that it actually came up, but I wonder what it would be like to be asked to provide some kind of goods or services to a wedding like that. It would be hard to look around and realize that one of the place settings would feed a family in, for example, Haiti, for a week.
Not the food, just the value of the place setting.
I’m not really making a judgement about the guy, he was a very successful fund manager and made lots of other folks rich as well as himself, and I know as a plain matter of fact that he’s a very generous philanthropist.
It would just be really freaking weird, to the point of being borderline creepy.
What do you serve for hors d’oeuvres at an affair like that? minced breast of african swallow on a bed of edible gold?
Could I say, “sorry, you can’t hire my band, the money you’re spending on this blowout is freaking obscene and an affront to the sensibilities of modest hardworking people everywhere”?
I mean, aside from the part where my band takes me out back and beats sense into me, could I do that?
It’s a funny world, matters of conscience pop up all over the place.
Then again, Elton John played for Rush Limbaugh’s wedding. His fourth wedding, to a woman 26 years younger than him. Sir Elton got a million bucks.
It’s a funny world, the voice of conscience can sometimes be muffled by the application of great big stacks of benjamins.
I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.
But I don’t think I’d take it to court, I’d just say I was busy that day.
FWIW, I once attended a wedding that cost more than I earned that particular year,
A few years ago, the daughter of a very very rich guy in my town got married. The groom was an attorney and a French count. At the same time.
You can’t make this stuff up.
It was an outdoor thing, so they wanted a tent, but the tent they went with was so big they had to pull a permit to put it up.
That meant that it got listed in the local newspaper, which meant that everybody could see what they were spending on it.
It was over $100K. For the tent. Not the whole wedding, just the tent.
The dual barges of fireworks anchored just offshore came to about $150K.
Not that it actually came up, but I wonder what it would be like to be asked to provide some kind of goods or services to a wedding like that. It would be hard to look around and realize that one of the place settings would feed a family in, for example, Haiti, for a week.
Not the food, just the value of the place setting.
I’m not really making a judgement about the guy, he was a very successful fund manager and made lots of other folks rich as well as himself, and I know as a plain matter of fact that he’s a very generous philanthropist.
It would just be really freaking weird, to the point of being borderline creepy.
What do you serve for hors d’oeuvres at an affair like that? minced breast of african swallow on a bed of edible gold?
Could I say, “sorry, you can’t hire my band, the money you’re spending on this blowout is freaking obscene and an affront to the sensibilities of modest hardworking people everywhere”?
I mean, aside from the part where my band takes me out back and beats sense into me, could I do that?
It’s a funny world, matters of conscience pop up all over the place.
Then again, Elton John played for Rush Limbaugh’s wedding. His fourth wedding, to a woman 26 years younger than him. Sir Elton got a million bucks.
It’s a funny world, the voice of conscience can sometimes be muffled by the application of great big stacks of benjamins.
I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.
But I don’t think I’d take it to court, I’d just say I was busy that day.
“First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.”
a lot of people come by their animosity toward religion honestly.
“First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.”
a lot of people come by their animosity toward religion honestly.
“First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.”
a lot of people come by their animosity toward religion honestly.
“I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.”
Menu:
Strychnine-infused crow on a bed of thorns
Poison oak greens tossed in a dressing of paint thinner, sputum from the spittoon in the Republican Party Senate cloak room, and the secreted essence of Newt Gingrich’s bile ducts.
Poached Dan Quayle eggs with raw potatoe and snipped dingleberries
The cream of aircraft carrier soup strained through George W. Bush’s crotch-aged sweat socks
Deboned and boiled spotted owl pureed and decanted into AR-15 shell casings
Charred aspirin tablets served directly into Limbaugh’s mouth from between the knees of raw wild-caught Pacific sandra fluke
A gigantic cake with one candle in the form of a lit fuse in honor of the day Limbaugh said the only way to control the number of nuclear weapons is to use them
Feminazi mincepie with a side of Trayvon Martin chitlins
Michael Fox’s gelatinized Parkinson’s Disease gene, altered to be fast-acting, served through a catheter directly into Limbaugh’s pig filth, subhuman genome
Chocolate covered bullets served point blank
Crumb Cake made of him
Swill flan presented in an upchuck bag
Gin and colonics
Niggers on toast
“I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.”
Menu:
Strychnine-infused crow on a bed of thorns
Poison oak greens tossed in a dressing of paint thinner, sputum from the spittoon in the Republican Party Senate cloak room, and the secreted essence of Newt Gingrich’s bile ducts.
Poached Dan Quayle eggs with raw potatoe and snipped dingleberries
The cream of aircraft carrier soup strained through George W. Bush’s crotch-aged sweat socks
Deboned and boiled spotted owl pureed and decanted into AR-15 shell casings
Charred aspirin tablets served directly into Limbaugh’s mouth from between the knees of raw wild-caught Pacific sandra fluke
A gigantic cake with one candle in the form of a lit fuse in honor of the day Limbaugh said the only way to control the number of nuclear weapons is to use them
Feminazi mincepie with a side of Trayvon Martin chitlins
Michael Fox’s gelatinized Parkinson’s Disease gene, altered to be fast-acting, served through a catheter directly into Limbaugh’s pig filth, subhuman genome
Chocolate covered bullets served point blank
Crumb Cake made of him
Swill flan presented in an upchuck bag
Gin and colonics
Niggers on toast
“I think I would find it hard to cater Limbaugh’s wedding for any price, personally, due to matters of conscience and religious scruple.”
Menu:
Strychnine-infused crow on a bed of thorns
Poison oak greens tossed in a dressing of paint thinner, sputum from the spittoon in the Republican Party Senate cloak room, and the secreted essence of Newt Gingrich’s bile ducts.
Poached Dan Quayle eggs with raw potatoe and snipped dingleberries
The cream of aircraft carrier soup strained through George W. Bush’s crotch-aged sweat socks
Deboned and boiled spotted owl pureed and decanted into AR-15 shell casings
Charred aspirin tablets served directly into Limbaugh’s mouth from between the knees of raw wild-caught Pacific sandra fluke
A gigantic cake with one candle in the form of a lit fuse in honor of the day Limbaugh said the only way to control the number of nuclear weapons is to use them
Feminazi mincepie with a side of Trayvon Martin chitlins
Michael Fox’s gelatinized Parkinson’s Disease gene, altered to be fast-acting, served through a catheter directly into Limbaugh’s pig filth, subhuman genome
Chocolate covered bullets served point blank
Crumb Cake made of him
Swill flan presented in an upchuck bag
Gin and colonics
Niggers on toast
@thompson: “I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law.”
Public accommodation laws go back to Merry Olde England, and generally do not have a list of “those who are okay (lacking gays)”, but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
Most over-the-top wedding I had the pleasure of attending, the groom arrived on a white horse, on Century Blvd. in LA.
@thompson: “I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law.”
Public accommodation laws go back to Merry Olde England, and generally do not have a list of “those who are okay (lacking gays)”, but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
Most over-the-top wedding I had the pleasure of attending, the groom arrived on a white horse, on Century Blvd. in LA.
@thompson: “I think that’s probably correct, although the fault lies more in not including orientation in their public accommodation law.”
Public accommodation laws go back to Merry Olde England, and generally do not have a list of “those who are okay (lacking gays)”, but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
Most over-the-top wedding I had the pleasure of attending, the groom arrived on a white horse, on Century Blvd. in LA.
Count:
great menu, you left out the Viagra after-dinner mints.
Count:
great menu, you left out the Viagra after-dinner mints.
Count:
great menu, you left out the Viagra after-dinner mints.
Looks like Republicans in Idaho are a little miffed that Muslim mosques won’t supply pork butt to the former’s weekly hate lollapaloozas:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bonneville-county-idaho-muslims
Looks like Republicans in Idaho are a little miffed that Muslim mosques won’t supply pork butt to the former’s weekly hate lollapaloozas:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bonneville-county-idaho-muslims
Looks like Republicans in Idaho are a little miffed that Muslim mosques won’t supply pork butt to the former’s weekly hate lollapaloozas:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bonneville-county-idaho-muslims
Snarki:
but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
I’m fine with that. If you’ll notice the very next sentence after what you quoted:
I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
Snarki:
but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
I’m fine with that. If you’ll notice the very next sentence after what you quoted:
I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
Snarki:
but rather that ALL must be served, with exceptions for things like hygiene, dress (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”) and disruptive behavior.
I’m fine with that. If you’ll notice the very next sentence after what you quoted:
I think an expansion of either the federal or IN civil rights laws to include sexual orientation should be sufficient to change that, and I would encourage those changes.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never. Reread the recent charity thread or the undertone of mockery throughout the discussion of Hobby Lobby.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
The point, which no one here is even trying to address, is that people who believe in marriage per the New Testament had that belief for centuries before gay marriage was ever on the horizon. The “one flesh” belief has nothing to do with gay people, it has everything to with what many people believe marriage is. Any definition of marriage other than the “man and woman,one flesh” is sin, in their eyes, and their faith enjoins them from committing sins.
Now, many holding this belief go on to believe that they should oppose gay marriage for that reason. Proponents of gay marriage say, no, you are entitled to your beliefs but everyone here is equal under the law and you have no business depriving others of the right to civil marriage.
Fine. I agree with that.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
This is limited to marriage in this context. Abortion is the only other conscience objection I can think of. Ordinary commerce reverts to equal access/equal opportunity.
Why progressives won’t give on this one small point is beyond me. Actually, perhaps it isn’t. Maybe the point here is that compromise is for me but not for thee.
Finally, all this carrying on worrying about what this statute means is silly. Go read BP’s link to LGM. The writer there points out that no court has every allowed an interpretation of one of these statutes in a way that allows discrimination and that, in point of fact, statutes like this produce useful outcomes.
I have a lot of my plate so it’s McKinney out. Happy Easter for those of you so inclined. Otherwise, have a nice weekend.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never. Reread the recent charity thread or the undertone of mockery throughout the discussion of Hobby Lobby.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
The point, which no one here is even trying to address, is that people who believe in marriage per the New Testament had that belief for centuries before gay marriage was ever on the horizon. The “one flesh” belief has nothing to do with gay people, it has everything to with what many people believe marriage is. Any definition of marriage other than the “man and woman,one flesh” is sin, in their eyes, and their faith enjoins them from committing sins.
Now, many holding this belief go on to believe that they should oppose gay marriage for that reason. Proponents of gay marriage say, no, you are entitled to your beliefs but everyone here is equal under the law and you have no business depriving others of the right to civil marriage.
Fine. I agree with that.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
This is limited to marriage in this context. Abortion is the only other conscience objection I can think of. Ordinary commerce reverts to equal access/equal opportunity.
Why progressives won’t give on this one small point is beyond me. Actually, perhaps it isn’t. Maybe the point here is that compromise is for me but not for thee.
Finally, all this carrying on worrying about what this statute means is silly. Go read BP’s link to LGM. The writer there points out that no court has every allowed an interpretation of one of these statutes in a way that allows discrimination and that, in point of fact, statutes like this produce useful outcomes.
I have a lot of my plate so it’s McKinney out. Happy Easter for those of you so inclined. Otherwise, have a nice weekend.
First: while some of us “at ObWi” do express “a fair degree of animosity toward” religion, I defy McKinney to produce an example of animosity toward “Christianity” in particular.
Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never. Reread the recent charity thread or the undertone of mockery throughout the discussion of Hobby Lobby.
Second: it is utterly presumptuous of Christians to assume that non-Christians (who may have more Bible study under their belts than the average Episcopalian) have any “real lack of understanding of the Christian view of the sacrament of marriage”.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
There are many religious definitions of marriage that are at least that old if not older, and which would not be palatable to socially conservative Christians.
There are definitions of homosexual relationships that are older than that.
There are more contemporary definitions of permanent gay relationships that are more recent, but which certainly predate the current-day gay rights movement.
“Boston marriage”.
So, there’s all of that. We live in a world and a nation of plural traditions, religious and otherwise.
Why is the one you refer to better, in the sense of more deserving of special treatment under the law?
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
The point, which no one here is even trying to address, is that people who believe in marriage per the New Testament had that belief for centuries before gay marriage was ever on the horizon. The “one flesh” belief has nothing to do with gay people, it has everything to with what many people believe marriage is. Any definition of marriage other than the “man and woman,one flesh” is sin, in their eyes, and their faith enjoins them from committing sins.
Now, many holding this belief go on to believe that they should oppose gay marriage for that reason. Proponents of gay marriage say, no, you are entitled to your beliefs but everyone here is equal under the law and you have no business depriving others of the right to civil marriage.
Fine. I agree with that.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
This is limited to marriage in this context. Abortion is the only other conscience objection I can think of. Ordinary commerce reverts to equal access/equal opportunity.
Why progressives won’t give on this one small point is beyond me. Actually, perhaps it isn’t. Maybe the point here is that compromise is for me but not for thee.
Finally, all this carrying on worrying about what this statute means is silly. Go read BP’s link to LGM. The writer there points out that no court has every allowed an interpretation of one of these statutes in a way that allows discrimination and that, in point of fact, statutes like this produce useful outcomes.
I have a lot of my plate so it’s McKinney out. Happy Easter for those of you so inclined. Otherwise, have a nice weekend.
My cousin and his bride drove from the church to the reception in a war chariot (belonging to the German army). Instead of horses it had bicycles though and no whip was used.
My cousin and his bride drove from the church to the reception in a war chariot (belonging to the German army). Instead of horses it had bicycles though and no whip was used.
My cousin and his bride drove from the church to the reception in a war chariot (belonging to the German army). Instead of horses it had bicycles though and no whip was used.
Pat, you ignorant ass, the IN law says nothing about cakes, or weddings.
Pat, you ignorant ass, the IN law says nothing about cakes, or weddings.
Pat, you ignorant ass, the IN law says nothing about cakes, or weddings.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians.
progressives can’t be Christian.
got it.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians.
progressives can’t be Christian.
got it.
Progressives understandhow Christians feel about marriage better than Christians.
progressives can’t be Christian.
got it.
“Crumb Cake made of him” hit me hard in the funnybone.
“Crumb Cake made of him” hit me hard in the funnybone.
“Crumb Cake made of him” hit me hard in the funnybone.
what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
I think, if you read carefully, that nobody here is saying that someone who does not wish to should be compelled to participate in a gay wedding. (Or any other kind of wedding.) With the exception of public servants whose job it is to, for example, perform weddings for members of the public.
What we are saying is that, if you are in business you don’t geet to discriminate. You can’t close a venue which is otherwise open to the public to gay weddings. You can’t refuse to provide food, from your business which does that, to the reception which follows a gay wedding. Neither of which require you to participate in the wedding.
Just as, if you have a venue which is available to the public, you can’t refuse to allow the NRA to schedule a meeting there — even if you believe (as some apparently do) that the NRA is doing the devil’s work. It’s a constraing that cuts all ways, not just against conservatives.
what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
I think, if you read carefully, that nobody here is saying that someone who does not wish to should be compelled to participate in a gay wedding. (Or any other kind of wedding.) With the exception of public servants whose job it is to, for example, perform weddings for members of the public.
What we are saying is that, if you are in business you don’t geet to discriminate. You can’t close a venue which is otherwise open to the public to gay weddings. You can’t refuse to provide food, from your business which does that, to the reception which follows a gay wedding. Neither of which require you to participate in the wedding.
Just as, if you have a venue which is available to the public, you can’t refuse to allow the NRA to schedule a meeting there — even if you believe (as some apparently do) that the NRA is doing the devil’s work. It’s a constraing that cuts all ways, not just against conservatives.
what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
It is one thing to tell someone of faith that they can’t impose their sense of sin on the rest of society, but it is entirely different to tell people they have to be a part of an act that runs directly counter to their faith.
I think, if you read carefully, that nobody here is saying that someone who does not wish to should be compelled to participate in a gay wedding. (Or any other kind of wedding.) With the exception of public servants whose job it is to, for example, perform weddings for members of the public.
What we are saying is that, if you are in business you don’t geet to discriminate. You can’t close a venue which is otherwise open to the public to gay weddings. You can’t refuse to provide food, from your business which does that, to the reception which follows a gay wedding. Neither of which require you to participate in the wedding.
Just as, if you have a venue which is available to the public, you can’t refuse to allow the NRA to schedule a meeting there — even if you believe (as some apparently do) that the NRA is doing the devil’s work. It’s a constraing that cuts all ways, not just against conservatives.
I just love that “it doesn’t matter what other times and cultures think about marriage, I’m talking about RIGHT HERE in the USA for the past two centuries. And besides, our tradition goes back TWO MILLENIA!”
And people wonder why they get mocked.
I just love that “it doesn’t matter what other times and cultures think about marriage, I’m talking about RIGHT HERE in the USA for the past two centuries. And besides, our tradition goes back TWO MILLENIA!”
And people wonder why they get mocked.
I just love that “it doesn’t matter what other times and cultures think about marriage, I’m talking about RIGHT HERE in the USA for the past two centuries. And besides, our tradition goes back TWO MILLENIA!”
And people wonder why they get mocked.
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
First, if you want to exclude Kuwait and Tibet, then you don’t simultaneously get to invoke Semitic traditions from 2,000 years ago.
Fair’s fair.
And if you think marriage in America is just like marriage as practiced in Jesus’ context and times, or much of the ensuing millenia, I believe you are mistaken.
As far as American traditions, I attend a church that accepted participants in Boston marriages as members at least as far back as the 19th C.
So, a century and a half, minimum.
Was that common? No. But the topic of the day is respecting the conscience of religious minorities.
The US is characterized by multiple social and religious traditions. The one you champion is not the only one.
Progressives understand how Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
Having been raised in the Episcopal church, IMO Tony P’s point has significant merit.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
You are wrong. This has been addressed, substantively, repeatedly, by me at least, and no doubt by others.
You don’t like the substantive reply, so you persist in ignoring it and pretending that it hasn’t been made.
My substantive reply is that *participating in a gay wedding as a vendor does not amount to “participating” in any sense that can be meaningfully said to be an expression of religion*.
When you hang out a shingle as for-profit enterprise, the rules change. You are no longer standing solely on your rights as a private individual, but also on the legal rights privileges and obligations that belong to whatever legal entity you have organized yourself as.
If you want the rights and privileges, you need to accept the obligations.
There are people for whom that will represent an unacceptable burden.
In my opinion, it falls to those people to arrange their lives in a way what doesn’t require them to do things they can’t do, in good conscience.
If that means they don’t open a bakery, then so be it.
I understand that you dislike that response, but a response it is. And, it’s offered for, like, the 50th time this question has been discussed.
As far as whether progressives are hostile to religion, as someone who ends up wearing the “progressive” hat here, whatever that means, I’ll say that I’m not interested in getting into stupid contests about who is or is not more religious, or whether that does or does not confer any kind of high ground.
There are many different religious traditions in the US, many of quite long standing, with a wide variety of points of view on a wide variety of topics.
You can speak for *your* religious tradition. You cannot claim that it is *the* religious tradition, including *the* Christian tradition.
“Understand” is not the same as “agree”. People here, of all stripes, understand and appreciate other points of view to a degree that is much greater than the norm, in my opinion. They just don’t always agree with them.
Thanks, and have a great Easter.
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
First, if you want to exclude Kuwait and Tibet, then you don’t simultaneously get to invoke Semitic traditions from 2,000 years ago.
Fair’s fair.
And if you think marriage in America is just like marriage as practiced in Jesus’ context and times, or much of the ensuing millenia, I believe you are mistaken.
As far as American traditions, I attend a church that accepted participants in Boston marriages as members at least as far back as the 19th C.
So, a century and a half, minimum.
Was that common? No. But the topic of the day is respecting the conscience of religious minorities.
The US is characterized by multiple social and religious traditions. The one you champion is not the only one.
Progressives understand how Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
Having been raised in the Episcopal church, IMO Tony P’s point has significant merit.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
You are wrong. This has been addressed, substantively, repeatedly, by me at least, and no doubt by others.
You don’t like the substantive reply, so you persist in ignoring it and pretending that it hasn’t been made.
My substantive reply is that *participating in a gay wedding as a vendor does not amount to “participating” in any sense that can be meaningfully said to be an expression of religion*.
When you hang out a shingle as for-profit enterprise, the rules change. You are no longer standing solely on your rights as a private individual, but also on the legal rights privileges and obligations that belong to whatever legal entity you have organized yourself as.
If you want the rights and privileges, you need to accept the obligations.
There are people for whom that will represent an unacceptable burden.
In my opinion, it falls to those people to arrange their lives in a way what doesn’t require them to do things they can’t do, in good conscience.
If that means they don’t open a bakery, then so be it.
I understand that you dislike that response, but a response it is. And, it’s offered for, like, the 50th time this question has been discussed.
As far as whether progressives are hostile to religion, as someone who ends up wearing the “progressive” hat here, whatever that means, I’ll say that I’m not interested in getting into stupid contests about who is or is not more religious, or whether that does or does not confer any kind of high ground.
There are many different religious traditions in the US, many of quite long standing, with a wide variety of points of view on a wide variety of topics.
You can speak for *your* religious tradition. You cannot claim that it is *the* religious tradition, including *the* Christian tradition.
“Understand” is not the same as “agree”. People here, of all stripes, understand and appreciate other points of view to a degree that is much greater than the norm, in my opinion. They just don’t always agree with them.
Thanks, and have a great Easter.
The “world” is irrelevant. This isn’t Kuwait or Tibet. In the context of marriage in the US, monogamy, heterosexual marriage has been been not only the tradition but the law for centuries.
First, if you want to exclude Kuwait and Tibet, then you don’t simultaneously get to invoke Semitic traditions from 2,000 years ago.
Fair’s fair.
And if you think marriage in America is just like marriage as practiced in Jesus’ context and times, or much of the ensuing millenia, I believe you are mistaken.
As far as American traditions, I attend a church that accepted participants in Boston marriages as members at least as far back as the 19th C.
So, a century and a half, minimum.
Was that common? No. But the topic of the day is respecting the conscience of religious minorities.
The US is characterized by multiple social and religious traditions. The one you champion is not the only one.
Progressives understand how Christians feel about marriage better than Christians. Good to know.
Having been raised in the Episcopal church, IMO Tony P’s point has significant merit.
What I don’t agree with–and what few here can or will address substantively, is why it is ok to tell religious objectors to bow out on the issue of gay marriage but compel them to bow back in and participate in a gay marriage as vendors.
You are wrong. This has been addressed, substantively, repeatedly, by me at least, and no doubt by others.
You don’t like the substantive reply, so you persist in ignoring it and pretending that it hasn’t been made.
My substantive reply is that *participating in a gay wedding as a vendor does not amount to “participating” in any sense that can be meaningfully said to be an expression of religion*.
When you hang out a shingle as for-profit enterprise, the rules change. You are no longer standing solely on your rights as a private individual, but also on the legal rights privileges and obligations that belong to whatever legal entity you have organized yourself as.
If you want the rights and privileges, you need to accept the obligations.
There are people for whom that will represent an unacceptable burden.
In my opinion, it falls to those people to arrange their lives in a way what doesn’t require them to do things they can’t do, in good conscience.
If that means they don’t open a bakery, then so be it.
I understand that you dislike that response, but a response it is. And, it’s offered for, like, the 50th time this question has been discussed.
As far as whether progressives are hostile to religion, as someone who ends up wearing the “progressive” hat here, whatever that means, I’ll say that I’m not interested in getting into stupid contests about who is or is not more religious, or whether that does or does not confer any kind of high ground.
There are many different religious traditions in the US, many of quite long standing, with a wide variety of points of view on a wide variety of topics.
You can speak for *your* religious tradition. You cannot claim that it is *the* religious tradition, including *the* Christian tradition.
“Understand” is not the same as “agree”. People here, of all stripes, understand and appreciate other points of view to a degree that is much greater than the norm, in my opinion. They just don’t always agree with them.
Thanks, and have a great Easter.
This has been another episode of “What Russell said”.
This has been another episode of “What Russell said”.
This has been another episode of “What Russell said”.
I love this “No one will be forced to participate, except businessmen, who have no rights we are obliged to respect.” line. No one will be forced to participate except everyone we feel like forcing to participate, which list is subject to revision as soon as we’ve the power to extend it.
It’s all about the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and proving that everyone has to live according to your convictions, not their own.
I love this “No one will be forced to participate, except businessmen, who have no rights we are obliged to respect.” line. No one will be forced to participate except everyone we feel like forcing to participate, which list is subject to revision as soon as we’ve the power to extend it.
It’s all about the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and proving that everyone has to live according to your convictions, not their own.
I love this “No one will be forced to participate, except businessmen, who have no rights we are obliged to respect.” line. No one will be forced to participate except everyone we feel like forcing to participate, which list is subject to revision as soon as we’ve the power to extend it.
It’s all about the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and proving that everyone has to live according to your convictions, not their own.
stomp your foot in protest, but things just do not work if discrimination is legalized. we have tried it, and it did not work.
stomp your foot in protest, but things just do not work if discrimination is legalized. we have tried it, and it did not work.
stomp your foot in protest, but things just do not work if discrimination is legalized. we have tried it, and it did not work.
Here is my advice to people who don’t want to bake a cake, or take pictures, or otherwise participate in things that they are uncomfortable participating in.
Say, “I’m sorry, I’m too busy. Can I recommend someone else?”
Try that, instead of making a big deal about how your sensitive conscience and deeply held religious beliefs prevent you from participating, via your cake, in the hell-bound evil perversion that is your prospective client’s wedding reception.
Just a thought.
In my career as a youthful fundamentalist, a friend’s father once took me aside and said, “russell, don’t be an asshole with your religion”.
Smart man. It was good advice.
If you poke people in the freaking eye, they will react accordingly.
This stuff is not hard to understand.
As always, I’m not a mind-reader, so I don’t really know what people are thinking. But, for some reason, people’s deep moral scruples always seem to ring the alarm bell when it’s time to bake a cake for somebody who’s gay.
I notice that, and I notice that nobody is upset about weddings between divorced people, or religiously mixed marriages, or any of the other marital unions that are clearly and unambiguously spoken against in the holy books of record.
I notice all of that, and it makes me wonder if the issue is religion, or if people are just freaked out by gay people getting married.
The latter is understandable, because it’s kind of a novelty, and seems to have gone from anathema to pretty wide social acceptance is very short order.
But it’s not a very strong basis for claiming an exemption from the requirements that attend on public accommodations.
Invite anybody you like to dinner, and don’t invite anybody you don’t like to dinner.
Your house, your rules.
Open your doors to the public as a for-profit concern open to one and all, not just your rules anymore.
Full stop. End of story.
Sorry if that frosts you, Brett.
Here is my advice to people who don’t want to bake a cake, or take pictures, or otherwise participate in things that they are uncomfortable participating in.
Say, “I’m sorry, I’m too busy. Can I recommend someone else?”
Try that, instead of making a big deal about how your sensitive conscience and deeply held religious beliefs prevent you from participating, via your cake, in the hell-bound evil perversion that is your prospective client’s wedding reception.
Just a thought.
In my career as a youthful fundamentalist, a friend’s father once took me aside and said, “russell, don’t be an asshole with your religion”.
Smart man. It was good advice.
If you poke people in the freaking eye, they will react accordingly.
This stuff is not hard to understand.
As always, I’m not a mind-reader, so I don’t really know what people are thinking. But, for some reason, people’s deep moral scruples always seem to ring the alarm bell when it’s time to bake a cake for somebody who’s gay.
I notice that, and I notice that nobody is upset about weddings between divorced people, or religiously mixed marriages, or any of the other marital unions that are clearly and unambiguously spoken against in the holy books of record.
I notice all of that, and it makes me wonder if the issue is religion, or if people are just freaked out by gay people getting married.
The latter is understandable, because it’s kind of a novelty, and seems to have gone from anathema to pretty wide social acceptance is very short order.
But it’s not a very strong basis for claiming an exemption from the requirements that attend on public accommodations.
Invite anybody you like to dinner, and don’t invite anybody you don’t like to dinner.
Your house, your rules.
Open your doors to the public as a for-profit concern open to one and all, not just your rules anymore.
Full stop. End of story.
Sorry if that frosts you, Brett.
Here is my advice to people who don’t want to bake a cake, or take pictures, or otherwise participate in things that they are uncomfortable participating in.
Say, “I’m sorry, I’m too busy. Can I recommend someone else?”
Try that, instead of making a big deal about how your sensitive conscience and deeply held religious beliefs prevent you from participating, via your cake, in the hell-bound evil perversion that is your prospective client’s wedding reception.
Just a thought.
In my career as a youthful fundamentalist, a friend’s father once took me aside and said, “russell, don’t be an asshole with your religion”.
Smart man. It was good advice.
If you poke people in the freaking eye, they will react accordingly.
This stuff is not hard to understand.
As always, I’m not a mind-reader, so I don’t really know what people are thinking. But, for some reason, people’s deep moral scruples always seem to ring the alarm bell when it’s time to bake a cake for somebody who’s gay.
I notice that, and I notice that nobody is upset about weddings between divorced people, or religiously mixed marriages, or any of the other marital unions that are clearly and unambiguously spoken against in the holy books of record.
I notice all of that, and it makes me wonder if the issue is religion, or if people are just freaked out by gay people getting married.
The latter is understandable, because it’s kind of a novelty, and seems to have gone from anathema to pretty wide social acceptance is very short order.
But it’s not a very strong basis for claiming an exemption from the requirements that attend on public accommodations.
Invite anybody you like to dinner, and don’t invite anybody you don’t like to dinner.
Your house, your rules.
Open your doors to the public as a for-profit concern open to one and all, not just your rules anymore.
Full stop. End of story.
Sorry if that frosts you, Brett.
I’m having a bit of a problem understanding how the objection is only to marriage specifically.
Suppose, back in the pre-SSM days, a few minutes ago, a gay couple approached the baker and said,
“We two have decided that we love one another deeply, and have committed to spend our lives together. To celebrate this we are having a party for a number of our friends and family. We would like you to bake us a special cake for this party.”
Now what? No legal marriage. No wedding ceremony at all. Just a party. Should a baker who objects to SSM on religious grounds be allowed to refuse this request? If so, then the objection clearly goes further than objecting to a gay wedding because of traditional Christian views of marriage. And if the baker can refuse here what about a birthday cake ordered by someone for a partner in a same-sex relationship. It’s a party just like the other case.
But suppose we say, “No discrimination in these cases.” And suppose the baker even goes along, if you like. Then what is the objection to the wedding cake? ISTM that, in the eyes of the baker, there is no actual wedding taking place. There is no marriage. The whole thing is just a celebration of a commitment.
I’m having a hard time making sense of this.
I’m having a bit of a problem understanding how the objection is only to marriage specifically.
Suppose, back in the pre-SSM days, a few minutes ago, a gay couple approached the baker and said,
“We two have decided that we love one another deeply, and have committed to spend our lives together. To celebrate this we are having a party for a number of our friends and family. We would like you to bake us a special cake for this party.”
Now what? No legal marriage. No wedding ceremony at all. Just a party. Should a baker who objects to SSM on religious grounds be allowed to refuse this request? If so, then the objection clearly goes further than objecting to a gay wedding because of traditional Christian views of marriage. And if the baker can refuse here what about a birthday cake ordered by someone for a partner in a same-sex relationship. It’s a party just like the other case.
But suppose we say, “No discrimination in these cases.” And suppose the baker even goes along, if you like. Then what is the objection to the wedding cake? ISTM that, in the eyes of the baker, there is no actual wedding taking place. There is no marriage. The whole thing is just a celebration of a commitment.
I’m having a hard time making sense of this.
I’m having a bit of a problem understanding how the objection is only to marriage specifically.
Suppose, back in the pre-SSM days, a few minutes ago, a gay couple approached the baker and said,
“We two have decided that we love one another deeply, and have committed to spend our lives together. To celebrate this we are having a party for a number of our friends and family. We would like you to bake us a special cake for this party.”
Now what? No legal marriage. No wedding ceremony at all. Just a party. Should a baker who objects to SSM on religious grounds be allowed to refuse this request? If so, then the objection clearly goes further than objecting to a gay wedding because of traditional Christian views of marriage. And if the baker can refuse here what about a birthday cake ordered by someone for a partner in a same-sex relationship. It’s a party just like the other case.
But suppose we say, “No discrimination in these cases.” And suppose the baker even goes along, if you like. Then what is the objection to the wedding cake? ISTM that, in the eyes of the baker, there is no actual wedding taking place. There is no marriage. The whole thing is just a celebration of a commitment.
I’m having a hard time making sense of this.
and, again (30x?): the IN law says nothing about marriage, or ceremonies, or events. a biz can refuse to serve a gay person for any religious reason, in any situation. the reason the law was written and passed is obviously gay marriage. but the law itself doesn’t say that.
so, given the IN law, a baker can refuse to sell a gay person a muffin on a random Tuesday morning (assuming the baker thinks she can convince a court that her reasons for not doing so were religious).
it’s simply a license to discriminate against gays, and the law allows the baker to discriminate in any situation: marriage, birthday, office party, dessert, breakfast, snack or even to buy and give it to a straight person as a gift. and because it doesn’t mention gays, it doesn’t explain how a baker is supposed to determine the sexuality of the potential customer. maybe the customer isn’t gay but the baker thinks she is. what then?
and the law isn’t restricted to bakers. it includes everyone and all businesses: ticket scalpers, bartenders, ice cream trucks, reporters, carpenters, insurance companies, lawyers, banks, stock brokers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, funeral home directors and garbage men.
focusing the discussion on marriage and celebrations obscures just how terrible this law really is.
and, again (30x?): the IN law says nothing about marriage, or ceremonies, or events. a biz can refuse to serve a gay person for any religious reason, in any situation. the reason the law was written and passed is obviously gay marriage. but the law itself doesn’t say that.
so, given the IN law, a baker can refuse to sell a gay person a muffin on a random Tuesday morning (assuming the baker thinks she can convince a court that her reasons for not doing so were religious).
it’s simply a license to discriminate against gays, and the law allows the baker to discriminate in any situation: marriage, birthday, office party, dessert, breakfast, snack or even to buy and give it to a straight person as a gift. and because it doesn’t mention gays, it doesn’t explain how a baker is supposed to determine the sexuality of the potential customer. maybe the customer isn’t gay but the baker thinks she is. what then?
and the law isn’t restricted to bakers. it includes everyone and all businesses: ticket scalpers, bartenders, ice cream trucks, reporters, carpenters, insurance companies, lawyers, banks, stock brokers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, funeral home directors and garbage men.
focusing the discussion on marriage and celebrations obscures just how terrible this law really is.
and, again (30x?): the IN law says nothing about marriage, or ceremonies, or events. a biz can refuse to serve a gay person for any religious reason, in any situation. the reason the law was written and passed is obviously gay marriage. but the law itself doesn’t say that.
so, given the IN law, a baker can refuse to sell a gay person a muffin on a random Tuesday morning (assuming the baker thinks she can convince a court that her reasons for not doing so were religious).
it’s simply a license to discriminate against gays, and the law allows the baker to discriminate in any situation: marriage, birthday, office party, dessert, breakfast, snack or even to buy and give it to a straight person as a gift. and because it doesn’t mention gays, it doesn’t explain how a baker is supposed to determine the sexuality of the potential customer. maybe the customer isn’t gay but the baker thinks she is. what then?
and the law isn’t restricted to bakers. it includes everyone and all businesses: ticket scalpers, bartenders, ice cream trucks, reporters, carpenters, insurance companies, lawyers, banks, stock brokers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, funeral home directors and garbage men.
focusing the discussion on marriage and celebrations obscures just how terrible this law really is.
For McKinney.
A primer for Thompson.
and just more.
For McKinney.
A primer for Thompson.
and just more.
For McKinney.
A primer for Thompson.
and just more.
Perhaps I am missing something. But what seems to have happened in Indiana is this.
Before passing their original RFRA, it was not illegal, under Indiana law at least, to discriminate against gays. Except, per the courts, in cases of marriage.
Now, as a result of the “clarification” of the RFRA which was just passed, it is illegal, under Indiana law, to discriminate against gays.
Is that a great accomplisment for the right, or what?
Perhaps I am missing something. But what seems to have happened in Indiana is this.
Before passing their original RFRA, it was not illegal, under Indiana law at least, to discriminate against gays. Except, per the courts, in cases of marriage.
Now, as a result of the “clarification” of the RFRA which was just passed, it is illegal, under Indiana law, to discriminate against gays.
Is that a great accomplisment for the right, or what?
Perhaps I am missing something. But what seems to have happened in Indiana is this.
Before passing their original RFRA, it was not illegal, under Indiana law at least, to discriminate against gays. Except, per the courts, in cases of marriage.
Now, as a result of the “clarification” of the RFRA which was just passed, it is illegal, under Indiana law, to discriminate against gays.
Is that a great accomplisment for the right, or what?
Arkansas gave in, too.
and now the top GOP stars are changing their tunes. ‘oh no, we never wanted to discriminate against anyone. oh no, oh no’.
suck it, bigots.
Arkansas gave in, too.
and now the top GOP stars are changing their tunes. ‘oh no, we never wanted to discriminate against anyone. oh no, oh no’.
suck it, bigots.
Arkansas gave in, too.
and now the top GOP stars are changing their tunes. ‘oh no, we never wanted to discriminate against anyone. oh no, oh no’.
suck it, bigots.
McK is gone for now, unfortunately, because I’d like to pose a question to him. If anyone else wants to make a reply, I’d be interested to hear.
There are a number of other workplace-related issues that could easily present issues of religious conviction or conscience.
People from some traditions would not want to hire women. Or, would want to keep women and men strictly segregated, physically.
People from some traditions might opt to refuse to verify their employee’s eligibility to work, out of religious belief that they are obliged to aid immigrants.
Valid? Should those people be granted a religious exemption?
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
What I’m trying to get at is that it is actually not that easy, and in fact is unmanageably difficult, to carve out exemptions for every *reasonable and legitimate* point of conscience.
I don’t disparage the convictions of people who feel that they can’t engage in certain behaviors for religious reasons. I just think that you have to put that aside when you decide to assume legal obligations above and beyond your identity as a private individual.
Or, stand down from assuming those obligations.
Or, we could go Brett’s way and just let anybody do business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason.
Which would, I think, prove to be not-so-workable.
Or, we could try to carve out some kind of crazy quilt of legally recognized exceptions to the rule, and attempt to be fair and even-handed in doing so.
In which case (i.e., last case) best of luck, and I hope you have the wisdom of Solomon.
McK is gone for now, unfortunately, because I’d like to pose a question to him. If anyone else wants to make a reply, I’d be interested to hear.
There are a number of other workplace-related issues that could easily present issues of religious conviction or conscience.
People from some traditions would not want to hire women. Or, would want to keep women and men strictly segregated, physically.
People from some traditions might opt to refuse to verify their employee’s eligibility to work, out of religious belief that they are obliged to aid immigrants.
Valid? Should those people be granted a religious exemption?
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
What I’m trying to get at is that it is actually not that easy, and in fact is unmanageably difficult, to carve out exemptions for every *reasonable and legitimate* point of conscience.
I don’t disparage the convictions of people who feel that they can’t engage in certain behaviors for religious reasons. I just think that you have to put that aside when you decide to assume legal obligations above and beyond your identity as a private individual.
Or, stand down from assuming those obligations.
Or, we could go Brett’s way and just let anybody do business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason.
Which would, I think, prove to be not-so-workable.
Or, we could try to carve out some kind of crazy quilt of legally recognized exceptions to the rule, and attempt to be fair and even-handed in doing so.
In which case (i.e., last case) best of luck, and I hope you have the wisdom of Solomon.
McK is gone for now, unfortunately, because I’d like to pose a question to him. If anyone else wants to make a reply, I’d be interested to hear.
There are a number of other workplace-related issues that could easily present issues of religious conviction or conscience.
People from some traditions would not want to hire women. Or, would want to keep women and men strictly segregated, physically.
People from some traditions might opt to refuse to verify their employee’s eligibility to work, out of religious belief that they are obliged to aid immigrants.
Valid? Should those people be granted a religious exemption?
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
What I’m trying to get at is that it is actually not that easy, and in fact is unmanageably difficult, to carve out exemptions for every *reasonable and legitimate* point of conscience.
I don’t disparage the convictions of people who feel that they can’t engage in certain behaviors for religious reasons. I just think that you have to put that aside when you decide to assume legal obligations above and beyond your identity as a private individual.
Or, stand down from assuming those obligations.
Or, we could go Brett’s way and just let anybody do business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason.
Which would, I think, prove to be not-so-workable.
Or, we could try to carve out some kind of crazy quilt of legally recognized exceptions to the rule, and attempt to be fair and even-handed in doing so.
In which case (i.e., last case) best of luck, and I hope you have the wisdom of Solomon.
The thing is, I’d be fine with a baker telling a gay couple that he thinks their marriage is an abomination and an affront to his religious beliefs. Then he could ask, “What kind of cake would you like?” If the couple still wanted to give this baker their money, so be it.
Or the baker could, a la russell’s suggestion, say he wasn’t baking any more cakes this week. He’d probably have to say that before agreeing to bake a cake, rather than obviously changing his mind only after finding out the cake was for a gay couple, if he wanted to maintain his credibility.
Those practical suggestions aside, it hardly means the baker has no rights whatsoever simply because he can’t openly discriminate among his customers based solely on whatever protected status they might have. Not everything is a trip to the Gulag, you know. (Or maybe you don’t, and this sort of talk isn’t simply a rhetorical flourish.)
The thing is, I’d be fine with a baker telling a gay couple that he thinks their marriage is an abomination and an affront to his religious beliefs. Then he could ask, “What kind of cake would you like?” If the couple still wanted to give this baker their money, so be it.
Or the baker could, a la russell’s suggestion, say he wasn’t baking any more cakes this week. He’d probably have to say that before agreeing to bake a cake, rather than obviously changing his mind only after finding out the cake was for a gay couple, if he wanted to maintain his credibility.
Those practical suggestions aside, it hardly means the baker has no rights whatsoever simply because he can’t openly discriminate among his customers based solely on whatever protected status they might have. Not everything is a trip to the Gulag, you know. (Or maybe you don’t, and this sort of talk isn’t simply a rhetorical flourish.)
The thing is, I’d be fine with a baker telling a gay couple that he thinks their marriage is an abomination and an affront to his religious beliefs. Then he could ask, “What kind of cake would you like?” If the couple still wanted to give this baker their money, so be it.
Or the baker could, a la russell’s suggestion, say he wasn’t baking any more cakes this week. He’d probably have to say that before agreeing to bake a cake, rather than obviously changing his mind only after finding out the cake was for a gay couple, if he wanted to maintain his credibility.
Those practical suggestions aside, it hardly means the baker has no rights whatsoever simply because he can’t openly discriminate among his customers based solely on whatever protected status they might have. Not everything is a trip to the Gulag, you know. (Or maybe you don’t, and this sort of talk isn’t simply a rhetorical flourish.)
“take all comers” is the only workable option, IMO.
because freedom to discriminate is nothing but trouble.
“take all comers” is the only workable option, IMO.
because freedom to discriminate is nothing but trouble.
“take all comers” is the only workable option, IMO.
because freedom to discriminate is nothing but trouble.
A primer for Thompson.
Thanks, bobbyp, for a link that was pretty much like every other linked analysis of the law, including the one in russell’s original post.
Analysis I have no objection to, as I have repeatedly pointed out the IN RFRA seems overly broad in its scope.
russell:
Not McK, but:
People from some traditions would not want to hire women.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities and that laws against employment discrimination are narrowly tailored. I think they could likely win that case.
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
I think the government has a far more compelling interest in ensuring equal access to employment than the hire of a specific wedding photographer.
A primer for Thompson.
Thanks, bobbyp, for a link that was pretty much like every other linked analysis of the law, including the one in russell’s original post.
Analysis I have no objection to, as I have repeatedly pointed out the IN RFRA seems overly broad in its scope.
russell:
Not McK, but:
People from some traditions would not want to hire women.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities and that laws against employment discrimination are narrowly tailored. I think they could likely win that case.
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
I think the government has a far more compelling interest in ensuring equal access to employment than the hire of a specific wedding photographer.
A primer for Thompson.
Thanks, bobbyp, for a link that was pretty much like every other linked analysis of the law, including the one in russell’s original post.
Analysis I have no objection to, as I have repeatedly pointed out the IN RFRA seems overly broad in its scope.
russell:
Not McK, but:
People from some traditions would not want to hire women.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities and that laws against employment discrimination are narrowly tailored. I think they could likely win that case.
If not, how is not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding for religious reasons different?
I think the government has a far more compelling interest in ensuring equal access to employment than the hire of a specific wedding photographer.
How about generally being able to hire people for services? I think you can see the lack of parallelism between “access to employment opportunities” and “the hire of a specific wedding photographer.” I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity, but I think it was meant as just one example of a broader category of “access.”
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Further, not necessarily in response to thompson: It’s as though members of protected classes are being handed magic wands with which they can demand services with no obligation to demonstrate unlawful discrimination through a legal process.
How about generally being able to hire people for services? I think you can see the lack of parallelism between “access to employment opportunities” and “the hire of a specific wedding photographer.” I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity, but I think it was meant as just one example of a broader category of “access.”
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Further, not necessarily in response to thompson: It’s as though members of protected classes are being handed magic wands with which they can demand services with no obligation to demonstrate unlawful discrimination through a legal process.
How about generally being able to hire people for services? I think you can see the lack of parallelism between “access to employment opportunities” and “the hire of a specific wedding photographer.” I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity, but I think it was meant as just one example of a broader category of “access.”
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Further, not necessarily in response to thompson: It’s as though members of protected classes are being handed magic wands with which they can demand services with no obligation to demonstrate unlawful discrimination through a legal process.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities…
But not equal access to consumer goods and professional services?
I guess my point overall is that, wherever you draw the line, it’s kind of arbitrary. There’s always another special case that seems to argue for pushing the line a further, or drawing the line back a bit.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
Which is kind of OK with me, it’ll be a full employment program for attorneys if nothing else. But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
If you are getting paid for it, it’s in the public sphere. If not, your business is your business.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities…
But not equal access to consumer goods and professional services?
I guess my point overall is that, wherever you draw the line, it’s kind of arbitrary. There’s always another special case that seems to argue for pushing the line a further, or drawing the line back a bit.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
Which is kind of OK with me, it’ll be a full employment program for attorneys if nothing else. But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
If you are getting paid for it, it’s in the public sphere. If not, your business is your business.
And the government could demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in ensure equal access to employment opportunities…
But not equal access to consumer goods and professional services?
I guess my point overall is that, wherever you draw the line, it’s kind of arbitrary. There’s always another special case that seems to argue for pushing the line a further, or drawing the line back a bit.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
Which is kind of OK with me, it’ll be a full employment program for attorneys if nothing else. But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
If you are getting paid for it, it’s in the public sphere. If not, your business is your business.
McKinney: Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never.
What unmitigated bullshit! McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point. Or maybe he missed the Charlie Hebdo thread altogether. And others like it, I might add. Religion sure can make smart people say stupid things.
–TP
McKinney: Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never.
What unmitigated bullshit! McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point. Or maybe he missed the Charlie Hebdo thread altogether. And others like it, I might add. Religion sure can make smart people say stupid things.
–TP
McKinney: Christianity and Judaism are the only religions singled out for criticism at this site. Islam, never.
What unmitigated bullshit! McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point. Or maybe he missed the Charlie Hebdo thread altogether. And others like it, I might add. Religion sure can make smart people say stupid things.
–TP
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
Simpler is not synonymous with better. Seriously though, I get what you are saying, I just think society can deal with a little bit of a messy line to err on the side of allowing individual conscience to bleed into the public sphere.
I harp on that a lot, perhaps too much, because I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were, at least from my perspective.
Understanding, and respecting, that we disagree on the cost/benefit analysis of bright line vs. not bright line.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
Simpler is not synonymous with better. Seriously though, I get what you are saying, I just think society can deal with a little bit of a messy line to err on the side of allowing individual conscience to bleed into the public sphere.
I harp on that a lot, perhaps too much, because I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were, at least from my perspective.
Understanding, and respecting, that we disagree on the cost/benefit analysis of bright line vs. not bright line.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
But it just seems a lot simpler to draw a bright line between private life and the public sphere.
Simpler is not synonymous with better. Seriously though, I get what you are saying, I just think society can deal with a little bit of a messy line to err on the side of allowing individual conscience to bleed into the public sphere.
I harp on that a lot, perhaps too much, because I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were, at least from my perspective.
Understanding, and respecting, that we disagree on the cost/benefit analysis of bright line vs. not bright line.
No matter how bright of a line may be drawn in theory, there still is a potentially onerous legal process aggrieved parties would have to navigate. They have to make their cases in court. It would require a fairly high level of dickheadedness on the part of business owner to push someone that far and for there to be anything approaching a guarantee of success for the aggrieved party.
The vast majority of business owners would never have to deal with actual charges of discrimination. If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
I’m not sure what kind of legal onslaught some people seem to think is being unleashed by not legally allowing certain types of discrimination. I get that there could be frivolous law suits, but that’s not special to discrimination.
No matter how bright of a line may be drawn in theory, there still is a potentially onerous legal process aggrieved parties would have to navigate. They have to make their cases in court. It would require a fairly high level of dickheadedness on the part of business owner to push someone that far and for there to be anything approaching a guarantee of success for the aggrieved party.
The vast majority of business owners would never have to deal with actual charges of discrimination. If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
I’m not sure what kind of legal onslaught some people seem to think is being unleashed by not legally allowing certain types of discrimination. I get that there could be frivolous law suits, but that’s not special to discrimination.
No matter how bright of a line may be drawn in theory, there still is a potentially onerous legal process aggrieved parties would have to navigate. They have to make their cases in court. It would require a fairly high level of dickheadedness on the part of business owner to push someone that far and for there to be anything approaching a guarantee of success for the aggrieved party.
The vast majority of business owners would never have to deal with actual charges of discrimination. If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
I’m not sure what kind of legal onslaught some people seem to think is being unleashed by not legally allowing certain types of discrimination. I get that there could be frivolous law suits, but that’s not special to discrimination.
I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were
How so? When?
I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were
How so? When?
I think the lines between public and private are not nearly as bright as they once were
How so? When?
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Or access to housing, is another good example. Look, I’m pretty much on board with someone (gay, straight, transgendered, black, white, green, male, female, etc etc) being able to walk into a store and buy something. Or get a room at a motel, or buy gas at a gas station. Etc.
I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity
Specificity is often important in law. Which is not to say your more general question (hopefully answered above) isn’t valid, just that specificity matters.
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Or access to housing, is another good example. Look, I’m pretty much on board with someone (gay, straight, transgendered, black, white, green, male, female, etc etc) being able to walk into a store and buy something. Or get a room at a motel, or buy gas at a gas station. Etc.
I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity
Specificity is often important in law. Which is not to say your more general question (hopefully answered above) isn’t valid, just that specificity matters.
Let’s compare “access to employment opportunities” with “access to goods and services.”
Or access to housing, is another good example. Look, I’m pretty much on board with someone (gay, straight, transgendered, black, white, green, male, female, etc etc) being able to walk into a store and buy something. Or get a room at a motel, or buy gas at a gas station. Etc.
I get that the question was phrased with a level of specificity
Specificity is often important in law. Which is not to say your more general question (hopefully answered above) isn’t valid, just that specificity matters.
HSH:
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
Agree, and, imo, likely easier and far more effective.
HSH:
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
Agree, and, imo, likely easier and far more effective.
HSH:
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination without relying on the law at all, in most cases.
Agree, and, imo, likely easier and far more effective.
Then again, thompson, for the court of public opinion to be effective, it would require customers to discriminate against business owners. And then where would we be?
Then again, thompson, for the court of public opinion to be effective, it would require customers to discriminate against business owners. And then where would we be?
Then again, thompson, for the court of public opinion to be effective, it would require customers to discriminate against business owners. And then where would we be?
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination
maybe. when you have a majority, or at least a big plurality, who share strongly held views, this is easier, and businesses may overwhelmingly discriminate to match that group’s preferences.
sometimes the results are disastrous.
signed,
ee bobbyp
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination
maybe. when you have a majority, or at least a big plurality, who share strongly held views, this is easier, and businesses may overwhelmingly discriminate to match that group’s preferences.
sometimes the results are disastrous.
signed,
ee bobbyp
If anything, it would be easier to make a business owner look bad in the court of public opinion over discrimination
maybe. when you have a majority, or at least a big plurality, who share strongly held views, this is easier, and businesses may overwhelmingly discriminate to match that group’s preferences.
sometimes the results are disastrous.
signed,
ee bobbyp
And then where would we be?
I’m assuming you’re being humorous…but…in a pretty reasonable place.
And then where would we be?
I’m assuming you’re being humorous…but…in a pretty reasonable place.
And then where would we be?
I’m assuming you’re being humorous…but…in a pretty reasonable place.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
As a simple pragmatic matter, I’m basically fine with that.
Duking it out in the courts appears to be how we sort this stuff out here in the good old USA.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
As a simple pragmatic matter, I’m basically fine with that.
Duking it out in the courts appears to be how we sort this stuff out here in the good old USA.
So, it’s gonna be mole whack, forever.
I don’t disagree.
As a simple pragmatic matter, I’m basically fine with that.
Duking it out in the courts appears to be how we sort this stuff out here in the good old USA.
Yes, thompson. Poking fun at Brett’s oddball argument about customers being allowed to discriminate among business owners, but not vice versa.
I agree, bobbyp. Depending on the locale, public opinion could sway a bit too far in any given direction. But I’m in favor of legal recourse as a back-up in such cases. I think we’re in agreement on that as well.
The thing is, people put up with all sorts of discrimination every day that would be considered, according to the letter of the law, illegal. It’s just not worth the time and effort to take legal action, particularly in light of evidentiarly requirements – and those requirements are indispensable. (I say that as someone who obviously thinks business owners have no rights.)
Yes, thompson. Poking fun at Brett’s oddball argument about customers being allowed to discriminate among business owners, but not vice versa.
I agree, bobbyp. Depending on the locale, public opinion could sway a bit too far in any given direction. But I’m in favor of legal recourse as a back-up in such cases. I think we’re in agreement on that as well.
The thing is, people put up with all sorts of discrimination every day that would be considered, according to the letter of the law, illegal. It’s just not worth the time and effort to take legal action, particularly in light of evidentiarly requirements – and those requirements are indispensable. (I say that as someone who obviously thinks business owners have no rights.)
Yes, thompson. Poking fun at Brett’s oddball argument about customers being allowed to discriminate among business owners, but not vice versa.
I agree, bobbyp. Depending on the locale, public opinion could sway a bit too far in any given direction. But I’m in favor of legal recourse as a back-up in such cases. I think we’re in agreement on that as well.
The thing is, people put up with all sorts of discrimination every day that would be considered, according to the letter of the law, illegal. It’s just not worth the time and effort to take legal action, particularly in light of evidentiarly requirements – and those requirements are indispensable. (I say that as someone who obviously thinks business owners have no rights.)
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
LOL.
OK, I’m going off the calm and reasonable reservation, for just one minute.
This kind of sums up my point of view on the whole mess.
And, allow me to pre-emptively say that I AM NOT EQUATING GAY PEOPLE AND NAZIS.
OK?
It’s the “get over yourself” tone of the nurse’s comment that I relate to.
It’s a freaking pizza. It’s not the body and blood of Jesus. It’s a pizza.
Or, you know, a cake, or a picture, or flowers, or whatever.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors. The only people that really pissed him off were sanctimonious religious bigots.
Does anyone even read the Bible anymore?
It’s a PIZZA. Or a cake, or a picture. Serving a pizza, or baking a cake, or taking a picture, doesn’t mean you endorse the event, or lend your wholehearted deeply felt religious faith to the proceedings.
It means you baked a cake, or made a pizza, or took a picture.
If they hired your limo, it would mean they paid you to drive them around.
If you rented them a tux, it would mean they rented a tux you owned.
Nothing more or less. It’s not about you. See?
OK, back on the rez. Thanks for indulging me.
LOL.
OK, I’m going off the calm and reasonable reservation, for just one minute.
This kind of sums up my point of view on the whole mess.
And, allow me to pre-emptively say that I AM NOT EQUATING GAY PEOPLE AND NAZIS.
OK?
It’s the “get over yourself” tone of the nurse’s comment that I relate to.
It’s a freaking pizza. It’s not the body and blood of Jesus. It’s a pizza.
Or, you know, a cake, or a picture, or flowers, or whatever.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors. The only people that really pissed him off were sanctimonious religious bigots.
Does anyone even read the Bible anymore?
It’s a PIZZA. Or a cake, or a picture. Serving a pizza, or baking a cake, or taking a picture, doesn’t mean you endorse the event, or lend your wholehearted deeply felt religious faith to the proceedings.
It means you baked a cake, or made a pizza, or took a picture.
If they hired your limo, it would mean they paid you to drive them around.
If you rented them a tux, it would mean they rented a tux you owned.
Nothing more or less. It’s not about you. See?
OK, back on the rez. Thanks for indulging me.
LOL.
OK, I’m going off the calm and reasonable reservation, for just one minute.
This kind of sums up my point of view on the whole mess.
And, allow me to pre-emptively say that I AM NOT EQUATING GAY PEOPLE AND NAZIS.
OK?
It’s the “get over yourself” tone of the nurse’s comment that I relate to.
It’s a freaking pizza. It’s not the body and blood of Jesus. It’s a pizza.
Or, you know, a cake, or a picture, or flowers, or whatever.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors. The only people that really pissed him off were sanctimonious religious bigots.
Does anyone even read the Bible anymore?
It’s a PIZZA. Or a cake, or a picture. Serving a pizza, or baking a cake, or taking a picture, doesn’t mean you endorse the event, or lend your wholehearted deeply felt religious faith to the proceedings.
It means you baked a cake, or made a pizza, or took a picture.
If they hired your limo, it would mean they paid you to drive them around.
If you rented them a tux, it would mean they rented a tux you owned.
Nothing more or less. It’s not about you. See?
OK, back on the rez. Thanks for indulging me.
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
Amen.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
Amen.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
Many things in life worth fighting for are endless games of whack-a-mole.
Amen.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors.
Again, preemptively – NOR AM I EQUATING GAYS WITH WHORES CHARLATANS AND TAX COLLECTORS.
Hopefully that hardly needs stating, but in case it’s not, there it is.
OK, now I really am back on the rez.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors.
Again, preemptively – NOR AM I EQUATING GAYS WITH WHORES CHARLATANS AND TAX COLLECTORS.
Hopefully that hardly needs stating, but in case it’s not, there it is.
OK, now I really am back on the rez.
Jesus his very own self hung out with whores charlatans and tax collectors.
Again, preemptively – NOR AM I EQUATING GAYS WITH WHORES CHARLATANS AND TAX COLLECTORS.
Hopefully that hardly needs stating, but in case it’s not, there it is.
OK, now I really am back on the rez.
McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point.
McKinney may have confused the fact that when we do start talking about the nuts and bolts of religion, it is about Christianity, because that is the background of the overwhelming majority of commenters. The majority of commenters are liberal, therefore McK argues that liberals are only picking on Christianity. Furthermore, ObWi has this informal culture of not really supporting people who talk out of their asses, but being very welcoming to folks who want to talk about their own individual experiences. We don’t get a lot of Muslims in here, so one can see how McK might leap to the conclusion that the blog is basically liberals bitching about Christianity, though the utter abandon that he leaps off the cliff is a bit disconcerting.
McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point.
McKinney may have confused the fact that when we do start talking about the nuts and bolts of religion, it is about Christianity, because that is the background of the overwhelming majority of commenters. The majority of commenters are liberal, therefore McK argues that liberals are only picking on Christianity. Furthermore, ObWi has this informal culture of not really supporting people who talk out of their asses, but being very welcoming to folks who want to talk about their own individual experiences. We don’t get a lot of Muslims in here, so one can see how McK might leap to the conclusion that the blog is basically liberals bitching about Christianity, though the utter abandon that he leaps off the cliff is a bit disconcerting.
McKinney may have a reputation as a “reasonable” conservative around here, but he is either shameless or delusional on this point.
McKinney may have confused the fact that when we do start talking about the nuts and bolts of religion, it is about Christianity, because that is the background of the overwhelming majority of commenters. The majority of commenters are liberal, therefore McK argues that liberals are only picking on Christianity. Furthermore, ObWi has this informal culture of not really supporting people who talk out of their asses, but being very welcoming to folks who want to talk about their own individual experiences. We don’t get a lot of Muslims in here, so one can see how McK might leap to the conclusion that the blog is basically liberals bitching about Christianity, though the utter abandon that he leaps off the cliff is a bit disconcerting.
Ah, let’s not forget Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here. I guess when people express their dislike for Israeli policy, that’s singling out Judaism for criticism, because I don’t recall much discussion about Jews imposing their religion on other people in this Christianity-dominated country of the United States.
Maybe someone should write a post on the fallacy that is the War on Passover, just to even things up a bit.
Ah, let’s not forget Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here. I guess when people express their dislike for Israeli policy, that’s singling out Judaism for criticism, because I don’t recall much discussion about Jews imposing their religion on other people in this Christianity-dominated country of the United States.
Maybe someone should write a post on the fallacy that is the War on Passover, just to even things up a bit.
Ah, let’s not forget Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here. I guess when people express their dislike for Israeli policy, that’s singling out Judaism for criticism, because I don’t recall much discussion about Jews imposing their religion on other people in this Christianity-dominated country of the United States.
Maybe someone should write a post on the fallacy that is the War on Passover, just to even things up a bit.
Wasn’t there some discussion about kosher butchering and its Muslim equivalent at one time and whether there was/should be a religious exemption from laws forbidding cruelty against animals* (and a double standard applied to Jews on the one side and Muslims on the other)?
I know it was a political hot topic in Germany a few years ago and that the fight was dirty.
*I have not the slighest idea, whether it is particularly cruel or the very opposite. That well has been poisoned too thoroughly (image deliberately chosen) to trust any claim by either side.
Wasn’t there some discussion about kosher butchering and its Muslim equivalent at one time and whether there was/should be a religious exemption from laws forbidding cruelty against animals* (and a double standard applied to Jews on the one side and Muslims on the other)?
I know it was a political hot topic in Germany a few years ago and that the fight was dirty.
*I have not the slighest idea, whether it is particularly cruel or the very opposite. That well has been poisoned too thoroughly (image deliberately chosen) to trust any claim by either side.
Wasn’t there some discussion about kosher butchering and its Muslim equivalent at one time and whether there was/should be a religious exemption from laws forbidding cruelty against animals* (and a double standard applied to Jews on the one side and Muslims on the other)?
I know it was a political hot topic in Germany a few years ago and that the fight was dirty.
*I have not the slighest idea, whether it is particularly cruel or the very opposite. That well has been poisoned too thoroughly (image deliberately chosen) to trust any claim by either side.
Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here.
Actually, I don’t recall any criticism of Judaism as a religion.
Criticism of Israel? Certainly. But criticism of the religion? Nope.
But then, my memory is notoriously chancy. (My mother’s theory was always that my memory was fine. It was just that I wasn’t paying attention originally to the things I wasn’t remembering. Could be something to that.)
Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here.
Actually, I don’t recall any criticism of Judaism as a religion.
Criticism of Israel? Certainly. But criticism of the religion? Nope.
But then, my memory is notoriously chancy. (My mother’s theory was always that my memory was fine. It was just that I wasn’t paying attention originally to the things I wasn’t remembering. Could be something to that.)
Judaism – the only other religion “singled out” for criticism here.
Actually, I don’t recall any criticism of Judaism as a religion.
Criticism of Israel? Certainly. But criticism of the religion? Nope.
But then, my memory is notoriously chancy. (My mother’s theory was always that my memory was fine. It was just that I wasn’t paying attention originally to the things I wasn’t remembering. Could be something to that.)
obviously, one reason we’re talking about Christianity here is that all of the people who are involved in the IN issue are Christian, or at least their arguments are based in Christianity. if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
obviously, one reason we’re talking about Christianity here is that all of the people who are involved in the IN issue are Christian, or at least their arguments are based in Christianity. if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
obviously, one reason we’re talking about Christianity here is that all of the people who are involved in the IN issue are Christian, or at least their arguments are based in Christianity. if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
Y’know, perhaps McK has a point.
I don’t recall *any* complaints about Druidism. Or Shinto. Or even Buddhism.
I guess we’re all secret liberal Druid Shinto Buddhists. Never would have guessed.
Oh wait, I left out Zoroastrianism…
Y’know, perhaps McK has a point.
I don’t recall *any* complaints about Druidism. Or Shinto. Or even Buddhism.
I guess we’re all secret liberal Druid Shinto Buddhists. Never would have guessed.
Oh wait, I left out Zoroastrianism…
Y’know, perhaps McK has a point.
I don’t recall *any* complaints about Druidism. Or Shinto. Or even Buddhism.
I guess we’re all secret liberal Druid Shinto Buddhists. Never would have guessed.
Oh wait, I left out Zoroastrianism…
if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
… and if they were Muslim, the discussion would be quite different.
if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
… and if they were Muslim, the discussion would be quite different.
if they were any other religion, we’d be talking about that instead.
… and if they were Muslim, the discussion would be quite different.
I do seem to recall (I *think* it was on this blog) some discussions of Islam. Generally paralleling our discussions of Christianity, actually.
Especially on the theme of the low opinion we tend to hold of the fundamentalist fanatics of both religions. Whist having a fair amount of respect for those who live by their religion’s tenets, without feeling the need to try to cram same down the throats of their neighbors.
I do seem to recall (I *think* it was on this blog) some discussions of Islam. Generally paralleling our discussions of Christianity, actually.
Especially on the theme of the low opinion we tend to hold of the fundamentalist fanatics of both religions. Whist having a fair amount of respect for those who live by their religion’s tenets, without feeling the need to try to cram same down the throats of their neighbors.
I do seem to recall (I *think* it was on this blog) some discussions of Islam. Generally paralleling our discussions of Christianity, actually.
Especially on the theme of the low opinion we tend to hold of the fundamentalist fanatics of both religions. Whist having a fair amount of respect for those who live by their religion’s tenets, without feeling the need to try to cram same down the throats of their neighbors.
Zoroastrianism is Persian and therefore Iranian. As dirty liberals we have a duty to love it. Plus Ahura Mazda is a really cool name even for a god.
Zoroastrianism is Persian and therefore Iranian. As dirty liberals we have a duty to love it. Plus Ahura Mazda is a really cool name even for a god.
Zoroastrianism is Persian and therefore Iranian. As dirty liberals we have a duty to love it. Plus Ahura Mazda is a really cool name even for a god.
“do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?”
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
It is, more accurately, about the rights of bakers and florists, and everybody else, to not be compelled to violate their consciences as a condition of not hiding in a cave.
“do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?”
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
It is, more accurately, about the rights of bakers and florists, and everybody else, to not be compelled to violate their consciences as a condition of not hiding in a cave.
“do you disagree that everyone knows the law is about gay marriage?”
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
It is, more accurately, about the rights of bakers and florists, and everybody else, to not be compelled to violate their consciences as a condition of not hiding in a cave.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Brett, have you checked out the comments of those who were pushing the law originally? And their reaction to the “clarification” that the Indiana legislature made? They, at least, are real clear that it was all about gay marriage.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Brett, have you checked out the comments of those who were pushing the law originally? And their reaction to the “clarification” that the Indiana legislature made? They, at least, are real clear that it was all about gay marriage.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Brett, have you checked out the comments of those who were pushing the law originally? And their reaction to the “clarification” that the Indiana legislature made? They, at least, are real clear that it was all about gay marriage.
No, it was all about not being forced to violate their consciences, not being forced to be complicit in something they abhor. That RFRA law won’t, after all, prevent even one SSM. It will only let people opt out from assisting them.
And, if you win this fight today, there will be another cause you think more important than freedom of conscience, and another. Because you’ve got no tolerance for other people having choices you disapprove of.
No, it was all about not being forced to violate their consciences, not being forced to be complicit in something they abhor. That RFRA law won’t, after all, prevent even one SSM. It will only let people opt out from assisting them.
And, if you win this fight today, there will be another cause you think more important than freedom of conscience, and another. Because you’ve got no tolerance for other people having choices you disapprove of.
No, it was all about not being forced to violate their consciences, not being forced to be complicit in something they abhor. That RFRA law won’t, after all, prevent even one SSM. It will only let people opt out from assisting them.
And, if you win this fight today, there will be another cause you think more important than freedom of conscience, and another. Because you’ve got no tolerance for other people having choices you disapprove of.
Oh, I think this relevant:
Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
“When you give people the benefit of the doubt, the likelihood that you’ll be hurt or taken advantage of greatly increases. Still, it’s what I try to do because it’s how I’d like to be treated.
For years, I have argued that the state should remove itself from the business of sanctifying marriages. Contract law would cover the legalities of a relationship, and benefits would not accrue to citizens based upon whom they choose to offer monogamy.
And for years, I have argued with conservatives on air – trying to convince them that the limited government philosophy can support this position.
As you might imagine, my position has led to some pretty heated debates over the years, and I was quick to smack down fears that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages, or that people would be punished for not being made to agree. I deemed these wildly hypothetical fantasies.
But I was wrong.”
Oh, I think this relevant:
Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
“When you give people the benefit of the doubt, the likelihood that you’ll be hurt or taken advantage of greatly increases. Still, it’s what I try to do because it’s how I’d like to be treated.
For years, I have argued that the state should remove itself from the business of sanctifying marriages. Contract law would cover the legalities of a relationship, and benefits would not accrue to citizens based upon whom they choose to offer monogamy.
And for years, I have argued with conservatives on air – trying to convince them that the limited government philosophy can support this position.
As you might imagine, my position has led to some pretty heated debates over the years, and I was quick to smack down fears that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages, or that people would be punished for not being made to agree. I deemed these wildly hypothetical fantasies.
But I was wrong.”
Oh, I think this relevant:
Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
“When you give people the benefit of the doubt, the likelihood that you’ll be hurt or taken advantage of greatly increases. Still, it’s what I try to do because it’s how I’d like to be treated.
For years, I have argued that the state should remove itself from the business of sanctifying marriages. Contract law would cover the legalities of a relationship, and benefits would not accrue to citizens based upon whom they choose to offer monogamy.
And for years, I have argued with conservatives on air – trying to convince them that the limited government philosophy can support this position.
As you might imagine, my position has led to some pretty heated debates over the years, and I was quick to smack down fears that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages, or that people would be punished for not being made to agree. I deemed these wildly hypothetical fantasies.
But I was wrong.”
Brett at 3:26
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
After a space of two comments, Brett posts a link to an article entitled Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
Brett at 3:26
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
After a space of two comments, Brett posts a link to an article entitled Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
Brett at 3:26
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
After a space of two comments, Brett posts a link to an article entitled Mea culpa: What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.
Above and beyond the gay marriage debate, gay people want the same protections from discrimination that other people receive by virtue of their gender, race, religious creed, etc.
There are, apparently, something like 29 states in the US where you can be fired or evicted for being gay. Not for being bad at your job, or setting fire to the kitchen, but for being gay.
Oddly, some of those states also allow gay marriage. So, clearly, gay marriage per se is not the whole enchilada.
What do gay people want? They want to be treated like everybody else.
Nobody is asking clergy in religions that do not recognize homosexual marriage to perform gay marriages.
If you know otherwise, show your work. Some freaking guy citing Ross Douthat’s fantasies on a blog doesn’t count.
The longer this stuff goes on, the more I’m sort of being won over to thompson’s view. If you just can’t bear to sell a wedding cake to gays, for some reason of personal scruple, then don’t. Folks will buy the cake somewhere else.
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
If a gay baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone who basically hates gays, they can say no, and in fact can explain why they’re saying no. And, that person has no recourse. Take your cake-buying business somewhere else.
If somebody doesn’t want to rent an apartment to a hedge fund manager, or the CEO of a private security firm, or anyone else involved in professions that they find morally objectionable, they can refuse.
And so on. Cakes, photographs, apartments, jobs, cars, pencils, sporting goods, fishing gear, tube socks, upholstery.
If the vendor has any moral, ethical, or religious objection to you – what you believe, how you live your life, what you do for a living – then they can send you on your way.
If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Any moral or ethical objection, religiously motivated or not, to a potential client or customer’s beliefs, lifestyle, profession, or behavior, will be considered fair game to send them on their way.
If somebody doesn’t like your freaking blog comments, they can tell you to take your business elsewhere.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Because it’s not just targeted at the gays, right? Just ask Mike Pence, it’s not about the gays, it’s about not creating undue burdens on people’s religious convictions. And, since many people *are not religious*, but nonetheless have deep moral and ethical beliefs, I say we need to extend to those folks also.
“I don’t believe in God” is a credo as much as anything else is.
It’s all about the principle. That’s the claim.
So, let’s have the principle.
If any of that, whatsoever, seems wrong to you, you need to explain why it’s different than not baking a gay couple a cake.
Because I don’t see the difference.
What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.
Above and beyond the gay marriage debate, gay people want the same protections from discrimination that other people receive by virtue of their gender, race, religious creed, etc.
There are, apparently, something like 29 states in the US where you can be fired or evicted for being gay. Not for being bad at your job, or setting fire to the kitchen, but for being gay.
Oddly, some of those states also allow gay marriage. So, clearly, gay marriage per se is not the whole enchilada.
What do gay people want? They want to be treated like everybody else.
Nobody is asking clergy in religions that do not recognize homosexual marriage to perform gay marriages.
If you know otherwise, show your work. Some freaking guy citing Ross Douthat’s fantasies on a blog doesn’t count.
The longer this stuff goes on, the more I’m sort of being won over to thompson’s view. If you just can’t bear to sell a wedding cake to gays, for some reason of personal scruple, then don’t. Folks will buy the cake somewhere else.
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
If a gay baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone who basically hates gays, they can say no, and in fact can explain why they’re saying no. And, that person has no recourse. Take your cake-buying business somewhere else.
If somebody doesn’t want to rent an apartment to a hedge fund manager, or the CEO of a private security firm, or anyone else involved in professions that they find morally objectionable, they can refuse.
And so on. Cakes, photographs, apartments, jobs, cars, pencils, sporting goods, fishing gear, tube socks, upholstery.
If the vendor has any moral, ethical, or religious objection to you – what you believe, how you live your life, what you do for a living – then they can send you on your way.
If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Any moral or ethical objection, religiously motivated or not, to a potential client or customer’s beliefs, lifestyle, profession, or behavior, will be considered fair game to send them on their way.
If somebody doesn’t like your freaking blog comments, they can tell you to take your business elsewhere.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Because it’s not just targeted at the gays, right? Just ask Mike Pence, it’s not about the gays, it’s about not creating undue burdens on people’s religious convictions. And, since many people *are not religious*, but nonetheless have deep moral and ethical beliefs, I say we need to extend to those folks also.
“I don’t believe in God” is a credo as much as anything else is.
It’s all about the principle. That’s the claim.
So, let’s have the principle.
If any of that, whatsoever, seems wrong to you, you need to explain why it’s different than not baking a gay couple a cake.
Because I don’t see the difference.
What’s the goal in the gay marriage debate now?
Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.
Above and beyond the gay marriage debate, gay people want the same protections from discrimination that other people receive by virtue of their gender, race, religious creed, etc.
There are, apparently, something like 29 states in the US where you can be fired or evicted for being gay. Not for being bad at your job, or setting fire to the kitchen, but for being gay.
Oddly, some of those states also allow gay marriage. So, clearly, gay marriage per se is not the whole enchilada.
What do gay people want? They want to be treated like everybody else.
Nobody is asking clergy in religions that do not recognize homosexual marriage to perform gay marriages.
If you know otherwise, show your work. Some freaking guy citing Ross Douthat’s fantasies on a blog doesn’t count.
The longer this stuff goes on, the more I’m sort of being won over to thompson’s view. If you just can’t bear to sell a wedding cake to gays, for some reason of personal scruple, then don’t. Folks will buy the cake somewhere else.
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
If a gay baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone who basically hates gays, they can say no, and in fact can explain why they’re saying no. And, that person has no recourse. Take your cake-buying business somewhere else.
If somebody doesn’t want to rent an apartment to a hedge fund manager, or the CEO of a private security firm, or anyone else involved in professions that they find morally objectionable, they can refuse.
And so on. Cakes, photographs, apartments, jobs, cars, pencils, sporting goods, fishing gear, tube socks, upholstery.
If the vendor has any moral, ethical, or religious objection to you – what you believe, how you live your life, what you do for a living – then they can send you on your way.
If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Any moral or ethical objection, religiously motivated or not, to a potential client or customer’s beliefs, lifestyle, profession, or behavior, will be considered fair game to send them on their way.
If somebody doesn’t like your freaking blog comments, they can tell you to take your business elsewhere.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Because it’s not just targeted at the gays, right? Just ask Mike Pence, it’s not about the gays, it’s about not creating undue burdens on people’s religious convictions. And, since many people *are not religious*, but nonetheless have deep moral and ethical beliefs, I say we need to extend to those folks also.
“I don’t believe in God” is a credo as much as anything else is.
It’s all about the principle. That’s the claim.
So, let’s have the principle.
If any of that, whatsoever, seems wrong to you, you need to explain why it’s different than not baking a gay couple a cake.
Because I don’t see the difference.
I’m going to beat this into the ground for one more moment.
A comment I hear a lot from conservatives about the whole gay marriage / gay rights / gay what have you thing is “gays want to make this like the civil rights struggle. It’s not at all like the civil rights struggle”.
Why the f***k is it *not like the civil rights struggle*?
You can be fired for being gay in many places.
You can be evicted for being gay in many places.
Until quite recently, in many places you could be sent to jail simply for being gay, or for engaging in any sexual activity with a person of the same sex.
Maybe that’s still true in some places, I don’t know.
I know people, good friends of mine, who have been publicly insulted, beaten up, and abused in a bewildering variety of ways *for being gay*.
Not for anything they’ve said, done, believed, whatever. For being gay. For existing, in the world, as themselves.
How the fuck is that *anything other than* a civil rights issue?
It’s true, there is no 400 year history of gays being singled out for chattel slavery. Is that a requirement now, for something to be considered a matter of civil rights?
Gay people want to be allowed to be gay. That is the gay agenda.
I’m going to beat this into the ground for one more moment.
A comment I hear a lot from conservatives about the whole gay marriage / gay rights / gay what have you thing is “gays want to make this like the civil rights struggle. It’s not at all like the civil rights struggle”.
Why the f***k is it *not like the civil rights struggle*?
You can be fired for being gay in many places.
You can be evicted for being gay in many places.
Until quite recently, in many places you could be sent to jail simply for being gay, or for engaging in any sexual activity with a person of the same sex.
Maybe that’s still true in some places, I don’t know.
I know people, good friends of mine, who have been publicly insulted, beaten up, and abused in a bewildering variety of ways *for being gay*.
Not for anything they’ve said, done, believed, whatever. For being gay. For existing, in the world, as themselves.
How the fuck is that *anything other than* a civil rights issue?
It’s true, there is no 400 year history of gays being singled out for chattel slavery. Is that a requirement now, for something to be considered a matter of civil rights?
Gay people want to be allowed to be gay. That is the gay agenda.
I’m going to beat this into the ground for one more moment.
A comment I hear a lot from conservatives about the whole gay marriage / gay rights / gay what have you thing is “gays want to make this like the civil rights struggle. It’s not at all like the civil rights struggle”.
Why the f***k is it *not like the civil rights struggle*?
You can be fired for being gay in many places.
You can be evicted for being gay in many places.
Until quite recently, in many places you could be sent to jail simply for being gay, or for engaging in any sexual activity with a person of the same sex.
Maybe that’s still true in some places, I don’t know.
I know people, good friends of mine, who have been publicly insulted, beaten up, and abused in a bewildering variety of ways *for being gay*.
Not for anything they’ve said, done, believed, whatever. For being gay. For existing, in the world, as themselves.
How the fuck is that *anything other than* a civil rights issue?
It’s true, there is no 400 year history of gays being singled out for chattel slavery. Is that a requirement now, for something to be considered a matter of civil rights?
Gay people want to be allowed to be gay. That is the gay agenda.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Well, I would say that is absolutely not even remotely true.
Conservatives have historically argued that “it is not about ‘X'”. This is because they know it is precisely about ‘X’ and the power to get their way about ‘X’.
It is not about ‘freedom of religious conscience’ it about the freedom to impose their religious conscience on others. it is about power.
The invoked abstract “freedom to discriminate” is meaningless in the absence of the power of said discrimination to have wider social ramifications.
Otherwise, it is just a meaningless non sequitur.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Well, I would say that is absolutely not even remotely true.
Conservatives have historically argued that “it is not about ‘X'”. This is because they know it is precisely about ‘X’ and the power to get their way about ‘X’.
It is not about ‘freedom of religious conscience’ it about the freedom to impose their religious conscience on others. it is about power.
The invoked abstract “freedom to discriminate” is meaningless in the absence of the power of said discrimination to have wider social ramifications.
Otherwise, it is just a meaningless non sequitur.
I would say that it isn’t about gay marriage, not even in part.
Well, I would say that is absolutely not even remotely true.
Conservatives have historically argued that “it is not about ‘X'”. This is because they know it is precisely about ‘X’ and the power to get their way about ‘X’.
It is not about ‘freedom of religious conscience’ it about the freedom to impose their religious conscience on others. it is about power.
The invoked abstract “freedom to discriminate” is meaningless in the absence of the power of said discrimination to have wider social ramifications.
Otherwise, it is just a meaningless non sequitur.
russell: If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Me too.
What’s more, I laugh down my nose in the general direction of people who claim that while their “conscience” requires that they discriminate against gays, it’s unfair to call them bigots.
A bigot and his conscience are not to be conflated, apparently. They’re hardly related to each other. Not even second cousins once removed. Practically strangers, you might say.
So you see, it would be wrong to discriminate against the stupid and the disingenuous. The most we’d be allowed to do is refuse to bake their conscience a cake.
–TP
russell: If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Me too.
What’s more, I laugh down my nose in the general direction of people who claim that while their “conscience” requires that they discriminate against gays, it’s unfair to call them bigots.
A bigot and his conscience are not to be conflated, apparently. They’re hardly related to each other. Not even second cousins once removed. Practically strangers, you might say.
So you see, it would be wrong to discriminate against the stupid and the disingenuous. The most we’d be allowed to do is refuse to bake their conscience a cake.
–TP
russell: If we want to go that way, I refuse to accept stupid halfway measures that single out gays.
Me too.
What’s more, I laugh down my nose in the general direction of people who claim that while their “conscience” requires that they discriminate against gays, it’s unfair to call them bigots.
A bigot and his conscience are not to be conflated, apparently. They’re hardly related to each other. Not even second cousins once removed. Practically strangers, you might say.
So you see, it would be wrong to discriminate against the stupid and the disingenuous. The most we’d be allowed to do is refuse to bake their conscience a cake.
–TP
“Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.”
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
“Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.”
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
“Gay people want to be able to get married. That is the goal in the gay marriage debate.”
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding.
And then they want to break in your house and redecorate! Oh, the humanity!
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding.
And then they want to break in your house and redecorate! Oh, the humanity!
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding.
And then they want to break in your house and redecorate! Oh, the humanity!
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
Why did Elaine Photography get sued, if gays don’t want to force wedding photographers to work for them? Why was Masterpiece Bakeshop forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, if gays don’t want to force bakers to bake their wedding cakes?
You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it. You don’t get to freak out over a law saying you can’t do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it.
It doesn’t work that way.
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
Why did Elaine Photography get sued, if gays don’t want to force wedding photographers to work for them? Why was Masterpiece Bakeshop forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, if gays don’t want to force bakers to bake their wedding cakes?
You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it. You don’t get to freak out over a law saying you can’t do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it.
It doesn’t work that way.
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
Why did Elaine Photography get sued, if gays don’t want to force wedding photographers to work for them? Why was Masterpiece Bakeshop forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, if gays don’t want to force bakers to bake their wedding cakes?
You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it. You don’t get to freak out over a law saying you can’t do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it.
It doesn’t work that way.
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding
they want to be treated like every other member of the general public.
how dare they!
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding
they want to be treated like every other member of the general public.
how dare they!
Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding
they want to be treated like every other member of the general public.
how dare they!
Brett: Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own …
You both understood and misunderstood me, Brett. My main point was that to first order you ARE your conscience, to anybody standing outside your own skin.
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”. What I sneer at is the notion that your sexual attraction to another man can define you as “gay” but your conscientious compulsion to discriminate against gays cannot possibly define you as a bigot.
Bigotry is nothing to sneer at. I sneer because I love.
Incidentally: You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it is YOUR dictum. It maps pretty well on to mine: you don’t get to have a bigoted conscience and then claim you’re not a bigot.
–TP
Brett: Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own …
You both understood and misunderstood me, Brett. My main point was that to first order you ARE your conscience, to anybody standing outside your own skin.
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”. What I sneer at is the notion that your sexual attraction to another man can define you as “gay” but your conscientious compulsion to discriminate against gays cannot possibly define you as a bigot.
Bigotry is nothing to sneer at. I sneer because I love.
Incidentally: You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it is YOUR dictum. It maps pretty well on to mine: you don’t get to have a bigoted conscience and then claim you’re not a bigot.
–TP
Brett: Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own …
You both understood and misunderstood me, Brett. My main point was that to first order you ARE your conscience, to anybody standing outside your own skin.
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”. What I sneer at is the notion that your sexual attraction to another man can define you as “gay” but your conscientious compulsion to discriminate against gays cannot possibly define you as a bigot.
Bigotry is nothing to sneer at. I sneer because I love.
Incidentally: You don’t get to do something, and then claim you don’t want to do it is YOUR dictum. It maps pretty well on to mine: you don’t get to have a bigoted conscience and then claim you’re not a bigot.
–TP
I’d guess more gays than not would like to avoid giving their business to homophobes, as opposed to wanting to force homophobes to take their money. But they also might want the law on their side when such choices are limited.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
I’d guess more gays than not would like to avoid giving their business to homophobes, as opposed to wanting to force homophobes to take their money. But they also might want the law on their side when such choices are limited.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
I’d guess more gays than not would like to avoid giving their business to homophobes, as opposed to wanting to force homophobes to take their money. But they also might want the law on their side when such choices are limited.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
That is, FWIW, what I would insist on as well.
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
That is, FWIW, what I would insist on as well.
What I would insist on is (a) that it be applied evenly fairly and uniformly, and (b) that it not be confined to points of religious faith, but to any point of moral or ethical conscience.
That is, FWIW, what I would insist on as well.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Being able to get married is the “gay marriage” part of The Gay Agenda.
Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.
We could simplify and just say that there is really just one gay agenda, which is to be treated like everyone else, at least where the law is concerned.
Nobody’s being required to be their best friends forever, if they don’t want to be.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Actually, it’s not.
What I find unacceptable is the selective nature of the apparent motivation behind the law’s passage.
Why just making cakes for gays?
More on that below.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
No, I’m not sneering at anyone. I’m angry at socially conservative people who want to use religion and the law to enforce their prejudices.
As has been pointed out, by me and others, numerous times, there really aren’t any conservative Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for people who are divorced, or who are of mixed faiths, who are getting married.
Those are things which are, specifically, called out as wrong, by Jesus and Paul respectively, in the New Testament.
But those cases don’t appear to be on the radar, as far as the heavy hand of the law violating people’s religious conscience goes.
So, I find the claim of “it violates my religious faith” to be suspect, by virtue of the extreme selectivity of it’s application.
And, that makes me angry, because to me it appears to be an abuse of the principle of respect for religious or moral conscience.
I have no doubt that the folks making the claim are very clear in their own minds that their claim is legitimate. I also think that speaks of a distinct lack of self-awareness on their part.
That doesn’t make me sneer at them, it makes me angry with them, and impatient with their claim.
All of this is my opinion, like everybody else I can’t read minds. I just see, and try to account for, what people say and do.
I’m sure I have my own blind spots and lack of self-awareness, the difference between me and them is that I’m not trying to make the law accommodate mine.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
That’s right. It’s about the desire of gay people to be treated the same as everyone else, under the law.
Why that should be a controversial thing, at this point in time, escapes me.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
No, it’s about my refusal to accept that *one* group of people should deserve to have the law make an exception for *their particular* standards, which then has the effect of denying other people equal treatment under the laws governing public accommodations.
That’s what I refuse to accept.
If we’re going to allow Elaine Photography to refuse to take pictures of a gay wedding, because gay marriage is abhorrent to her, then a vendor of photographic supplies who happens to be Unitarian Universalist should be allowed to refuse to sell Elaine Photography any kind of photographic equipment, because she is violating the first and second principles of the UU faith.
If we’re going to allow Masterpiece Bakeshop to not make a cake for a gay wedding, then we need to allow a Quaker building contractor, or fruit grove owner, or meat packer, to refuse to verify the immigration status of people who come to work for him, because it violates his religious belief in sheltering and helping immigrants.
For that matter, we should allow a non-believing food wholesaler to refuse to sell Masterpiece flour, eggs, milk, or whatever, due to *his* personal ethical conviction that discriminating against gays is wrong.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
If we are going to grant religious exemptions for some folks, we should grant them for all.
If that’s on offer, I’m fine with Elaine Photo or Masterpiece Bakery being able to say no to gay weddings.
If not, then not.
Are you saying that should be on offer? It sounds like you are. If so, we have no argument.
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Being able to get married is the “gay marriage” part of The Gay Agenda.
Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.
We could simplify and just say that there is really just one gay agenda, which is to be treated like everyone else, at least where the law is concerned.
Nobody’s being required to be their best friends forever, if they don’t want to be.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Actually, it’s not.
What I find unacceptable is the selective nature of the apparent motivation behind the law’s passage.
Why just making cakes for gays?
More on that below.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
No, I’m not sneering at anyone. I’m angry at socially conservative people who want to use religion and the law to enforce their prejudices.
As has been pointed out, by me and others, numerous times, there really aren’t any conservative Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for people who are divorced, or who are of mixed faiths, who are getting married.
Those are things which are, specifically, called out as wrong, by Jesus and Paul respectively, in the New Testament.
But those cases don’t appear to be on the radar, as far as the heavy hand of the law violating people’s religious conscience goes.
So, I find the claim of “it violates my religious faith” to be suspect, by virtue of the extreme selectivity of it’s application.
And, that makes me angry, because to me it appears to be an abuse of the principle of respect for religious or moral conscience.
I have no doubt that the folks making the claim are very clear in their own minds that their claim is legitimate. I also think that speaks of a distinct lack of self-awareness on their part.
That doesn’t make me sneer at them, it makes me angry with them, and impatient with their claim.
All of this is my opinion, like everybody else I can’t read minds. I just see, and try to account for, what people say and do.
I’m sure I have my own blind spots and lack of self-awareness, the difference between me and them is that I’m not trying to make the law accommodate mine.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
That’s right. It’s about the desire of gay people to be treated the same as everyone else, under the law.
Why that should be a controversial thing, at this point in time, escapes me.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
No, it’s about my refusal to accept that *one* group of people should deserve to have the law make an exception for *their particular* standards, which then has the effect of denying other people equal treatment under the laws governing public accommodations.
That’s what I refuse to accept.
If we’re going to allow Elaine Photography to refuse to take pictures of a gay wedding, because gay marriage is abhorrent to her, then a vendor of photographic supplies who happens to be Unitarian Universalist should be allowed to refuse to sell Elaine Photography any kind of photographic equipment, because she is violating the first and second principles of the UU faith.
If we’re going to allow Masterpiece Bakeshop to not make a cake for a gay wedding, then we need to allow a Quaker building contractor, or fruit grove owner, or meat packer, to refuse to verify the immigration status of people who come to work for him, because it violates his religious belief in sheltering and helping immigrants.
For that matter, we should allow a non-believing food wholesaler to refuse to sell Masterpiece flour, eggs, milk, or whatever, due to *his* personal ethical conviction that discriminating against gays is wrong.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
If we are going to grant religious exemptions for some folks, we should grant them for all.
If that’s on offer, I’m fine with Elaine Photo or Masterpiece Bakery being able to say no to gay weddings.
If not, then not.
Are you saying that should be on offer? It sounds like you are. If so, we have no argument.
BS. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to cater the wedding. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to print the invitations. Gay people want to be able to get married, and force people who don’t like SSM to arrange the flowers.
Being able to get married is the “gay marriage” part of The Gay Agenda.
Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.
We could simplify and just say that there is really just one gay agenda, which is to be treated like everyone else, at least where the law is concerned.
Nobody’s being required to be their best friends forever, if they don’t want to be.
Again, the Indiana RFRA wouldn’t prevent even one gay couple from getting married. Not one. All it would do is prevent gay people from forcing others to involve themselves. And that’s too much for you to accept.
Actually, it’s not.
What I find unacceptable is the selective nature of the apparent motivation behind the law’s passage.
Why just making cakes for gays?
More on that below.
Because, like Tony just above, you sneer at anybody who’s conscience differs the least bit from your own, and have no problem with forcing them to do what they abhor.
No, I’m not sneering at anyone. I’m angry at socially conservative people who want to use religion and the law to enforce their prejudices.
As has been pointed out, by me and others, numerous times, there really aren’t any conservative Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for people who are divorced, or who are of mixed faiths, who are getting married.
Those are things which are, specifically, called out as wrong, by Jesus and Paul respectively, in the New Testament.
But those cases don’t appear to be on the radar, as far as the heavy hand of the law violating people’s religious conscience goes.
So, I find the claim of “it violates my religious faith” to be suspect, by virtue of the extreme selectivity of it’s application.
And, that makes me angry, because to me it appears to be an abuse of the principle of respect for religious or moral conscience.
I have no doubt that the folks making the claim are very clear in their own minds that their claim is legitimate. I also think that speaks of a distinct lack of self-awareness on their part.
That doesn’t make me sneer at them, it makes me angry with them, and impatient with their claim.
All of this is my opinion, like everybody else I can’t read minds. I just see, and try to account for, what people say and do.
I’m sure I have my own blind spots and lack of self-awareness, the difference between me and them is that I’m not trying to make the law accommodate mine.
That’s why I say it’s not about SSM. Not any more than slavery was about picking cotton.
That’s right. It’s about the desire of gay people to be treated the same as everyone else, under the law.
Why that should be a controversial thing, at this point in time, escapes me.
It’s about your refusal to accept that anybody else gets to have their own standards, and live by them.
No, it’s about my refusal to accept that *one* group of people should deserve to have the law make an exception for *their particular* standards, which then has the effect of denying other people equal treatment under the laws governing public accommodations.
That’s what I refuse to accept.
If we’re going to allow Elaine Photography to refuse to take pictures of a gay wedding, because gay marriage is abhorrent to her, then a vendor of photographic supplies who happens to be Unitarian Universalist should be allowed to refuse to sell Elaine Photography any kind of photographic equipment, because she is violating the first and second principles of the UU faith.
If we’re going to allow Masterpiece Bakeshop to not make a cake for a gay wedding, then we need to allow a Quaker building contractor, or fruit grove owner, or meat packer, to refuse to verify the immigration status of people who come to work for him, because it violates his religious belief in sheltering and helping immigrants.
For that matter, we should allow a non-believing food wholesaler to refuse to sell Masterpiece flour, eggs, milk, or whatever, due to *his* personal ethical conviction that discriminating against gays is wrong.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
If we are going to grant religious exemptions for some folks, we should grant them for all.
If that’s on offer, I’m fine with Elaine Photo or Masterpiece Bakery being able to say no to gay weddings.
If not, then not.
Are you saying that should be on offer? It sounds like you are. If so, we have no argument.
“Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.”
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad. (I mean, if Thugee were a religion in the US, we wouldn’t provide an exemption from laws against murder.)
But we’re not there, and the laws of this nation are so over-bearing and oppressive that there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
“Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.”
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad. (I mean, if Thugee were a religion in the US, we wouldn’t provide an exemption from laws against murder.)
But we’re not there, and the laws of this nation are so over-bearing and oppressive that there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
“Forcing people to sell them a cake is the “treated like everybody else” part of The Gay Agenda.”
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad. (I mean, if Thugee were a religion in the US, we wouldn’t provide an exemption from laws against murder.)
But we’re not there, and the laws of this nation are so over-bearing and oppressive that there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
if you look down, you’ll see the shark you’re currently jumping over.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
if you look down, you’ll see the shark you’re currently jumping over.
In fact, I like to think we settled that whole “forcing one person to work for another” issue with the 13th amendment.
if you look down, you’ll see the shark you’re currently jumping over.
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad.
Jayzus! Is there a translator in the house?
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad.
Jayzus! Is there a translator in the house?
My view of the whole RFRA matter is that we shouldn’t NEED a RFRA, because nobody should be mandated to, or prohibited from, anything that wasn’t so freaking important that the idea of a religious exemption would be mad.
Jayzus! Is there a translator in the house?
Does anyone want to force Brett to force someone to bake him a cake? I mean, I do, but I thought it was just me, and I didn’t think he was going to notice.
Does anyone want to force Brett to force someone to bake him a cake? I mean, I do, but I thought it was just me, and I didn’t think he was going to notice.
Does anyone want to force Brett to force someone to bake him a cake? I mean, I do, but I thought it was just me, and I didn’t think he was going to notice.
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
Do you expect every one else to limit their expectations to match your personal moral standards?
there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
So, you’re OK with what I suggest at 9:12?
Exemptions for all issues of religious, moral, or ethical scruple, regardless of the tradition or belief system that they come from?
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
Do you expect every one else to limit their expectations to match your personal moral standards?
there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
So, you’re OK with what I suggest at 9:12?
Exemptions for all issues of religious, moral, or ethical scruple, regardless of the tradition or belief system that they come from?
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
Do you expect every one else to limit their expectations to match your personal moral standards?
there ARE exemptions needed to prevent the government from being at open war with a large part of the citizenry.
So, you’re OK with what I suggest at 9:12?
Exemptions for all issues of religious, moral, or ethical scruple, regardless of the tradition or belief system that they come from?
all issues?
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
all issues?
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
all issues?
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
You’re in good company, and standing in a very long and well-established tradition.
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
You’re in good company, and standing in a very long and well-established tradition.
I have this deeply held moral objection to paying taxes.
You’re in good company, and standing in a very long and well-established tradition.
We have a deeply held moral objection to letting gay people move into our neighborhood. Prove we don’t.
– Bigot’s Creek HOA
– Wet Knob, IN
We have a deeply held moral objection to letting gay people move into our neighborhood. Prove we don’t.
– Bigot’s Creek HOA
– Wet Knob, IN
We have a deeply held moral objection to letting gay people move into our neighborhood. Prove we don’t.
– Bigot’s Creek HOA
– Wet Knob, IN
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
But wait. The Indiana RFRA was not limited to weddings. As originally written, it allowed any business to refuse to do business with someone just because the customer was gay and the business owner objects to gays (or religious grounds). Like, for example, renting them a hotel room or serving them in a restaurant. As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.
So tell me, how would that be different from being allowed to do the same for blacks? Now if you want to argue that we should have allowed the South to maintain the Jim Crow laws, with just the minor revision to make their discrimination based on religion, fine.
But you are either going to have to come right out and say that, or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice — starting with explaining the number of folks who have committed suicide because they were gay and that was unacceptable to those around them. Which, if being gay was a choice, seems . . . odd.
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
But wait. The Indiana RFRA was not limited to weddings. As originally written, it allowed any business to refuse to do business with someone just because the customer was gay and the business owner objects to gays (or religious grounds). Like, for example, renting them a hotel room or serving them in a restaurant. As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.
So tell me, how would that be different from being allowed to do the same for blacks? Now if you want to argue that we should have allowed the South to maintain the Jim Crow laws, with just the minor revision to make their discrimination based on religion, fine.
But you are either going to have to come right out and say that, or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice — starting with explaining the number of folks who have committed suicide because they were gay and that was unacceptable to those around them. Which, if being gay was a choice, seems . . . odd.
Again, the Indiana RFRA would not prevent one gay couple from getting married. So, why the fuss if that’s all that’s wanted?
But wait. The Indiana RFRA was not limited to weddings. As originally written, it allowed any business to refuse to do business with someone just because the customer was gay and the business owner objects to gays (or religious grounds). Like, for example, renting them a hotel room or serving them in a restaurant. As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.
So tell me, how would that be different from being allowed to do the same for blacks? Now if you want to argue that we should have allowed the South to maintain the Jim Crow laws, with just the minor revision to make their discrimination based on religion, fine.
But you are either going to have to come right out and say that, or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice — starting with explaining the number of folks who have committed suicide because they were gay and that was unacceptable to those around them. Which, if being gay was a choice, seems . . . odd.
“As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.”
I’m not entirely sure whether you simply don’t understand how RFRA laws work, or are exagerating for effect.
“As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.”
I’m not entirely sure whether you simply don’t understand how RFRA laws work, or are exagerating for effect.
“As long as it was a religious motivation, any discrimination was legal.”
I’m not entirely sure whether you simply don’t understand how RFRA laws work, or are exagerating for effect.
What, in the original Indiana law, would prevent discrimination in any other economic activity? Not the “clarification” (which was actually a reversal, as the proponents have been denouncing it for), in the original law.
It may have been (and I don’t think there is really any doubt) motivated by dislike of gay weddings. But as you yourself have noted, it didn’t explicitly say weddings.
What, in the original Indiana law, would prevent discrimination in any other economic activity? Not the “clarification” (which was actually a reversal, as the proponents have been denouncing it for), in the original law.
It may have been (and I don’t think there is really any doubt) motivated by dislike of gay weddings. But as you yourself have noted, it didn’t explicitly say weddings.
What, in the original Indiana law, would prevent discrimination in any other economic activity? Not the “clarification” (which was actually a reversal, as the proponents have been denouncing it for), in the original law.
It may have been (and I don’t think there is really any doubt) motivated by dislike of gay weddings. But as you yourself have noted, it didn’t explicitly say weddings.
What would prevent it? Likely the fact that you don’t automatically win when asserting a RFRA claim. It merely puts the burden on the government to establish that they’re asserting an important governmental interest, and using the least restrictive means to advance it.
And, under that standard, refusal to sell a generic product, that doesn’t represent in some sense an endorsement of a point of view, or implicate the person asserting RFRA in personally violating a tenent of his religion, has never been upheld.
What would prevent it? Likely the fact that you don’t automatically win when asserting a RFRA claim. It merely puts the burden on the government to establish that they’re asserting an important governmental interest, and using the least restrictive means to advance it.
And, under that standard, refusal to sell a generic product, that doesn’t represent in some sense an endorsement of a point of view, or implicate the person asserting RFRA in personally violating a tenent of his religion, has never been upheld.
What would prevent it? Likely the fact that you don’t automatically win when asserting a RFRA claim. It merely puts the burden on the government to establish that they’re asserting an important governmental interest, and using the least restrictive means to advance it.
And, under that standard, refusal to sell a generic product, that doesn’t represent in some sense an endorsement of a point of view, or implicate the person asserting RFRA in personally violating a tenent of his religion, has never been upheld.
“It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake.”
Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?
Your statements are the very essence of “white male privilege”. It’s very instructive.
“It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake.”
Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?
Your statements are the very essence of “white male privilege”. It’s very instructive.
“It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake.”
Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?
Your statements are the very essence of “white male privilege”. It’s very instructive.
Under the IN RFRA, people could claim exemptions for cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
The *federal* RFRA is limited to being a constraint on the government. The IN RFRA is not.
I am a food wholesaler. I don’t approve of Memories Pizza refusing to cater a gay wedding, because it violates my personal religious belief that all people should be treated equally.
I refuse to sell them flour, cheese, and tomato sauce. Because if I sell them those materials, I am enabling them in their discriminatory business practices.
Can I do that? Or is it not RFRA-ey enough?
If it’s not, why not?
And if not, why does selling a cake to somebody to serve at their wedding qualify?
Under the IN RFRA, people could claim exemptions for cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
The *federal* RFRA is limited to being a constraint on the government. The IN RFRA is not.
I am a food wholesaler. I don’t approve of Memories Pizza refusing to cater a gay wedding, because it violates my personal religious belief that all people should be treated equally.
I refuse to sell them flour, cheese, and tomato sauce. Because if I sell them those materials, I am enabling them in their discriminatory business practices.
Can I do that? Or is it not RFRA-ey enough?
If it’s not, why not?
And if not, why does selling a cake to somebody to serve at their wedding qualify?
Under the IN RFRA, people could claim exemptions for cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
The *federal* RFRA is limited to being a constraint on the government. The IN RFRA is not.
I am a food wholesaler. I don’t approve of Memories Pizza refusing to cater a gay wedding, because it violates my personal religious belief that all people should be treated equally.
I refuse to sell them flour, cheese, and tomato sauce. Because if I sell them those materials, I am enabling them in their discriminatory business practices.
Can I do that? Or is it not RFRA-ey enough?
If it’s not, why not?
And if not, why does selling a cake to somebody to serve at their wedding qualify?
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”.
Exactly right.
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”.
Exactly right.
What I “sneer” at is the hypocrisy of those who want to remain unaccountable for the homophobia (or racism, or misogyny) of their “conscience”.
Exactly right.
Can I do that?
Absolutely. In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws. Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Can I do that?
Absolutely. In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws. Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Can I do that?
Absolutely. In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws. Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Wet Knob?
A decent attorney would make quick work of any strictures that town may have against gays moving in.
Attorney for the plaintiff, grabbing aholt of his lapels with either hand: Mayor Bottoms, have long have you been Mayor of … I’m sorry, (here he grins at the jury like the Cheshire cat) tell the Court the name of your lovely town again ….
Mayor Bottoms: (just barely audible) uh .. Wet … Knob. (casts a quick look at the jury and then twists his head around and and gives the Judge a pleading look.)
Attorney: May it please the Court, your Honor, could the witness be instructed to speak loudly and clearly the name of his town?
Judge: Sing it out, Mayor! You certainly said it loudly enough at the Founders Day picnic!
(Laughter erupts. Even the bailiff puts his hand over his mouth to hide a grin)
Mayor Bottoms: (looking at his shoes) wet knob.
Attorney (cupping his near ear): I am sorry, I don’t believe the folks at the back of the gallery caught that.
Mayor Bottoms: WET KNOB! OK! It’s not what you think.
Attorney: (facing the jury and spreading his arms, his face as innocent as the baby Jesus’ behind)) Why, whatEVER would anyone think, I ask you?
Similar courtroom dramas could play out in French Lick, Indiana, Knob Lick, Missouri, Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, and, wait for it …Lickinghole, Virginia .. not to be confused with Disappointment, Kentucky.
Toad Suck, Arkansas
Beaverlick, Kentucky.
And not to be outdone, Big Beaverlick, Kentucky.
Which reminds me, I need to pay a visit to Fucking, Austria, to which cakes around the world migrate to see if that town takes them, because, apparently, they take ALL comers.
“(Why), the very idea is repulsive.”
Well, Mrs. Teasdale, or Mrs Claypool, or whatever you’re calling yourself today, think how the cake feels. And you wouldn’t know, would you, because you can’t know how a cake feels until you walk a mile in its shoes. In fact, while you’re whipping up that cake, I’d like a new pair of shoes as well. Make ’em loafers.
Actually, if I were gay and denied cake by someone saying to me: “I’m sorry, we don’t serve those who follow the homosexual lifestyle in here,”, I’d answer “That’s fine, because I don’t eat homosexuals. Bring me a whole fried chicken, and make it snappy.”
Or, it could be handled this way, with the denier of services holding something between their knees, probably the chicken again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIXrF34Bz0
Wet Knob?
A decent attorney would make quick work of any strictures that town may have against gays moving in.
Attorney for the plaintiff, grabbing aholt of his lapels with either hand: Mayor Bottoms, have long have you been Mayor of … I’m sorry, (here he grins at the jury like the Cheshire cat) tell the Court the name of your lovely town again ….
Mayor Bottoms: (just barely audible) uh .. Wet … Knob. (casts a quick look at the jury and then twists his head around and and gives the Judge a pleading look.)
Attorney: May it please the Court, your Honor, could the witness be instructed to speak loudly and clearly the name of his town?
Judge: Sing it out, Mayor! You certainly said it loudly enough at the Founders Day picnic!
(Laughter erupts. Even the bailiff puts his hand over his mouth to hide a grin)
Mayor Bottoms: (looking at his shoes) wet knob.
Attorney (cupping his near ear): I am sorry, I don’t believe the folks at the back of the gallery caught that.
Mayor Bottoms: WET KNOB! OK! It’s not what you think.
Attorney: (facing the jury and spreading his arms, his face as innocent as the baby Jesus’ behind)) Why, whatEVER would anyone think, I ask you?
Similar courtroom dramas could play out in French Lick, Indiana, Knob Lick, Missouri, Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, and, wait for it …Lickinghole, Virginia .. not to be confused with Disappointment, Kentucky.
Toad Suck, Arkansas
Beaverlick, Kentucky.
And not to be outdone, Big Beaverlick, Kentucky.
Which reminds me, I need to pay a visit to Fucking, Austria, to which cakes around the world migrate to see if that town takes them, because, apparently, they take ALL comers.
“(Why), the very idea is repulsive.”
Well, Mrs. Teasdale, or Mrs Claypool, or whatever you’re calling yourself today, think how the cake feels. And you wouldn’t know, would you, because you can’t know how a cake feels until you walk a mile in its shoes. In fact, while you’re whipping up that cake, I’d like a new pair of shoes as well. Make ’em loafers.
Actually, if I were gay and denied cake by someone saying to me: “I’m sorry, we don’t serve those who follow the homosexual lifestyle in here,”, I’d answer “That’s fine, because I don’t eat homosexuals. Bring me a whole fried chicken, and make it snappy.”
Or, it could be handled this way, with the denier of services holding something between their knees, probably the chicken again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIXrF34Bz0
Wet Knob?
A decent attorney would make quick work of any strictures that town may have against gays moving in.
Attorney for the plaintiff, grabbing aholt of his lapels with either hand: Mayor Bottoms, have long have you been Mayor of … I’m sorry, (here he grins at the jury like the Cheshire cat) tell the Court the name of your lovely town again ….
Mayor Bottoms: (just barely audible) uh .. Wet … Knob. (casts a quick look at the jury and then twists his head around and and gives the Judge a pleading look.)
Attorney: May it please the Court, your Honor, could the witness be instructed to speak loudly and clearly the name of his town?
Judge: Sing it out, Mayor! You certainly said it loudly enough at the Founders Day picnic!
(Laughter erupts. Even the bailiff puts his hand over his mouth to hide a grin)
Mayor Bottoms: (looking at his shoes) wet knob.
Attorney (cupping his near ear): I am sorry, I don’t believe the folks at the back of the gallery caught that.
Mayor Bottoms: WET KNOB! OK! It’s not what you think.
Attorney: (facing the jury and spreading his arms, his face as innocent as the baby Jesus’ behind)) Why, whatEVER would anyone think, I ask you?
Similar courtroom dramas could play out in French Lick, Indiana, Knob Lick, Missouri, Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, and, wait for it …Lickinghole, Virginia .. not to be confused with Disappointment, Kentucky.
Toad Suck, Arkansas
Beaverlick, Kentucky.
And not to be outdone, Big Beaverlick, Kentucky.
Which reminds me, I need to pay a visit to Fucking, Austria, to which cakes around the world migrate to see if that town takes them, because, apparently, they take ALL comers.
“(Why), the very idea is repulsive.”
Well, Mrs. Teasdale, or Mrs Claypool, or whatever you’re calling yourself today, think how the cake feels. And you wouldn’t know, would you, because you can’t know how a cake feels until you walk a mile in its shoes. In fact, while you’re whipping up that cake, I’d like a new pair of shoes as well. Make ’em loafers.
Actually, if I were gay and denied cake by someone saying to me: “I’m sorry, we don’t serve those who follow the homosexual lifestyle in here,”, I’d answer “That’s fine, because I don’t eat homosexuals. Bring me a whole fried chicken, and make it snappy.”
Or, it could be handled this way, with the denier of services holding something between their knees, probably the chicken again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIXrF34Bz0
Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Please feel free to google “Indiana RFRA war against Christianity”.
Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Please feel free to google “Indiana RFRA war against Christianity”.
Oh, wait, did anyone object to that threat?
Please feel free to google “Indiana RFRA war against Christianity”.
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I had somebody throw me out of an ‘all you can eat’ restaurant because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
Yeah, you can even do that, while expanding your presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how seriously you take the matter.
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I had somebody throw me out of an ‘all you can eat’ restaurant because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
Yeah, you can even do that, while expanding your presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how seriously you take the matter.
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I had somebody throw me out of an ‘all you can eat’ restaurant because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
Yeah, you can even do that, while expanding your presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how seriously you take the matter.
And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I got thrown out of an “all you can eat” restaurant, once, just because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
You can even do that, while expanding your presence in Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how much you really care about gay rights.
And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I got thrown out of an “all you can eat” restaurant, once, just because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
You can even do that, while expanding your presence in Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how much you really care about gay rights.
And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…
“Every have someone refuse service because you’r a white male?”
I got thrown out of an “all you can eat” restaurant, once, just because I was a hungry 16 year old boy. That count?
“In fact, you could take your whole company out of Indiana because you didn’t like one of their new laws.”
You can even do that, while expanding your presence in Saudi Arabia, where gays get beheaded, just to prove how much you really care about gay rights.
Just curious. Did you get thrown out after you had eaten a fair amount? Or did they throw you out the moment that you (a starving 16 year old) walked in the door?
And do you see the distinction between the two? (The former being, at most, false advertising.) And if they threw you out before you were finished, did they still charge you?
Just curious. Did you get thrown out after you had eaten a fair amount? Or did they throw you out the moment that you (a starving 16 year old) walked in the door?
And do you see the distinction between the two? (The former being, at most, false advertising.) And if they threw you out before you were finished, did they still charge you?
Just curious. Did you get thrown out after you had eaten a fair amount? Or did they throw you out the moment that you (a starving 16 year old) walked in the door?
And do you see the distinction between the two? (The former being, at most, false advertising.) And if they threw you out before you were finished, did they still charge you?
Of course I’d eaten some. Just not all I could. A blatant case of false advertising.
And, yes, they charged me. You paid up front at that joint.
Of course I’d eaten some. Just not all I could. A blatant case of false advertising.
And, yes, they charged me. You paid up front at that joint.
Of course I’d eaten some. Just not all I could. A blatant case of false advertising.
And, yes, they charged me. You paid up front at that joint.
For a guy who takes words absolutely literally, I can see how getting thrown out of a restaurant that advertises “all you can eat” could turn into a federal case.
Were you shrieking about Tench Coxe’s views on the matter of family buffet dining establishments as you were dragged into the parking lot, with “all” meaning you could eat the taxidermied elk head off the wall, up end the condiment squirt bottles down your gullet, and bathe your feet in the punchbowl?
And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?
“All” means “ALL”, correctomundo?
Same with cake, baby.
For a guy who takes words absolutely literally, I can see how getting thrown out of a restaurant that advertises “all you can eat” could turn into a federal case.
Were you shrieking about Tench Coxe’s views on the matter of family buffet dining establishments as you were dragged into the parking lot, with “all” meaning you could eat the taxidermied elk head off the wall, up end the condiment squirt bottles down your gullet, and bathe your feet in the punchbowl?
And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?
“All” means “ALL”, correctomundo?
Same with cake, baby.
For a guy who takes words absolutely literally, I can see how getting thrown out of a restaurant that advertises “all you can eat” could turn into a federal case.
Were you shrieking about Tench Coxe’s views on the matter of family buffet dining establishments as you were dragged into the parking lot, with “all” meaning you could eat the taxidermied elk head off the wall, up end the condiment squirt bottles down your gullet, and bathe your feet in the punchbowl?
And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?
“All” means “ALL”, correctomundo?
Same with cake, baby.
“And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…”
The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.
You’re like the gay couple who visits two bakeries to hire them to bake you a wedding cake only to have both of them tell you that they don’t make cakes, whatever gave you that idea, and in fact, this is a an auto parts supply store, and further, didn’t you see the going out of business sign on the door?
Tends to make a guy paranoid.
“And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…”
The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.
You’re like the gay couple who visits two bakeries to hire them to bake you a wedding cake only to have both of them tell you that they don’t make cakes, whatever gave you that idea, and in fact, this is a an auto parts supply store, and further, didn’t you see the going out of business sign on the door?
Tends to make a guy paranoid.
“And another comment appears, and then vanishes when I refresh. Strange…”
The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.
You’re like the gay couple who visits two bakeries to hire them to bake you a wedding cake only to have both of them tell you that they don’t make cakes, whatever gave you that idea, and in fact, this is a an auto parts supply store, and further, didn’t you see the going out of business sign on the door?
Tends to make a guy paranoid.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cathedral-blessed-sacrament-altoona-shooting
Is that cake in your pocket, or do you …. BANG? … wish it was?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cathedral-blessed-sacrament-altoona-shooting
Is that cake in your pocket, or do you …. BANG? … wish it was?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cathedral-blessed-sacrament-altoona-shooting
Is that cake in your pocket, or do you …. BANG? … wish it was?
“The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.”
No, I’m thinking it’s a glitch in the software. Just speculating, comments display differently at first, from how they show up after refresh. Perhaps the initial display is a local javascript rendition of how the page might look, while the comment is being uploaded, and if you refresh too soon, you disrupt the upload?
“And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?”
Heck, no, it was all you could eat fried shrimp. And I even played fair, and ate all the fries and cole slaw they served with it.
“The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.”
No, I’m thinking it’s a glitch in the software. Just speculating, comments display differently at first, from how they show up after refresh. Perhaps the initial display is a local javascript rendition of how the page might look, while the comment is being uploaded, and if you refresh too soon, you disrupt the upload?
“And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?”
Heck, no, it was all you could eat fried shrimp. And I even played fair, and ate all the fries and cole slaw they served with it.
“The same thing happens to me, so if you’re thinking it’s a plot, be assured that it is a bipartisan one.”
No, I’m thinking it’s a glitch in the software. Just speculating, comments display differently at first, from how they show up after refresh. Perhaps the initial display is a local javascript rendition of how the page might look, while the comment is being uploaded, and if you refresh too soon, you disrupt the upload?
“And this after throwing yourself headlong onto the salad buffet table because you wanted a running start at the macaroni salad?”
Heck, no, it was all you could eat fried shrimp. And I even played fair, and ate all the fries and cole slaw they served with it.
I haven’t had comments disappear. But what I do see is,
I make a comment,
I go back to the main page,
and it takes a while before that comment shows up in the list of comments. Sometimes a couple of minutes. If I got to the actual post and look at comments, it’s there. I just don’t see it in the RECENT COMMENTS list.
I haven’t had comments disappear. But what I do see is,
I make a comment,
I go back to the main page,
and it takes a while before that comment shows up in the list of comments. Sometimes a couple of minutes. If I got to the actual post and look at comments, it’s there. I just don’t see it in the RECENT COMMENTS list.
I haven’t had comments disappear. But what I do see is,
I make a comment,
I go back to the main page,
and it takes a while before that comment shows up in the list of comments. Sometimes a couple of minutes. If I got to the actual post and look at comments, it’s there. I just don’t see it in the RECENT COMMENTS list.
No, the disappearing comment thing comes when you comment, and then refresh shortly after without leaving the page, to see if anybody else has said anything in the meantime. That the recent comments doesn’t instantly update is a separate issue, and no big deal.
No, the disappearing comment thing comes when you comment, and then refresh shortly after without leaving the page, to see if anybody else has said anything in the meantime. That the recent comments doesn’t instantly update is a separate issue, and no big deal.
No, the disappearing comment thing comes when you comment, and then refresh shortly after without leaving the page, to see if anybody else has said anything in the meantime. That the recent comments doesn’t instantly update is a separate issue, and no big deal.
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
As was pointed out above, this is absolutely consistent with privilege-induced myopia. That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent says very little when you’re not at risk of being refused service based on your identity (rather than your actions). La majestueuse égalité des lois, and all that.
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
As was pointed out above, this is absolutely consistent with privilege-induced myopia. That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent says very little when you’re not at risk of being refused service based on your identity (rather than your actions). La majestueuse égalité des lois, and all that.
Except that, not being a member of any “suspect class”, I don’t particlarly expect to be able to force anybody to sell me a cake. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to me to force somebody to sell me a cake. The very idea is repulsive.
As was pointed out above, this is absolutely consistent with privilege-induced myopia. That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent says very little when you’re not at risk of being refused service based on your identity (rather than your actions). La majestueuse égalité des lois, and all that.
[…]
Many people might intuitively assume that Southern racism had led to entrenched public segregation long before Southern legislatures made it mandatory. Not so. Separate facilities for blacks and whites were not routine in the South until the early 20th century. Racism there surely was, but as C. Vann Woodward observed in “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” the idea of separating the races in places of public accommodation initially struck many white Southerners as daft…
[…]
Eventually, of course, the government got its way, as companies surrendered to pressure from lawmakers. In a victory of government regulation over the free market, Jim Crow took hold across the South, where it would cruelly hold sway for the next 60 years.
[…]
The enemies of Jim Crow
[…]
Many people might intuitively assume that Southern racism had led to entrenched public segregation long before Southern legislatures made it mandatory. Not so. Separate facilities for blacks and whites were not routine in the South until the early 20th century. Racism there surely was, but as C. Vann Woodward observed in “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” the idea of separating the races in places of public accommodation initially struck many white Southerners as daft…
[…]
Eventually, of course, the government got its way, as companies surrendered to pressure from lawmakers. In a victory of government regulation over the free market, Jim Crow took hold across the South, where it would cruelly hold sway for the next 60 years.
[…]
The enemies of Jim Crow
[…]
Many people might intuitively assume that Southern racism had led to entrenched public segregation long before Southern legislatures made it mandatory. Not so. Separate facilities for blacks and whites were not routine in the South until the early 20th century. Racism there surely was, but as C. Vann Woodward observed in “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” the idea of separating the races in places of public accommodation initially struck many white Southerners as daft…
[…]
Eventually, of course, the government got its way, as companies surrendered to pressure from lawmakers. In a victory of government regulation over the free market, Jim Crow took hold across the South, where it would cruelly hold sway for the next 60 years.
[…]
The enemies of Jim Crow
“That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent”
I don’t find the idea of “having to” force somebody to accept my custom repellant. I find forcing them to accept it repellant.
It’s too much like slavery, forcing somebody to work for me. Morally repellant.
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s. The fact he doesn’t want to do it makes it taste better!”
There ain’t no “have to” involved here. Just “want to”.
“That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent”
I don’t find the idea of “having to” force somebody to accept my custom repellant. I find forcing them to accept it repellant.
It’s too much like slavery, forcing somebody to work for me. Morally repellant.
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s. The fact he doesn’t want to do it makes it taste better!”
There ain’t no “have to” involved here. Just “want to”.
“That you find the idea of having to force someone to accept your custom repellent”
I don’t find the idea of “having to” force somebody to accept my custom repellant. I find forcing them to accept it repellant.
It’s too much like slavery, forcing somebody to work for me. Morally repellant.
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s. The fact he doesn’t want to do it makes it taste better!”
There ain’t no “have to” involved here. Just “want to”.
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s.
where does the law in question make that distinction ?
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s.
where does the law in question make that distinction ?
Further, we’re not talking emergency medical treatment here. We’re talking “I want this guy’s wedding cake, not that guy’s.
where does the law in question make that distinction ?
Sure. I don’t “have to” eat cake from this baker or any other. Or drink from the same publicly available water fountain as everyone else. As long as there’s another fountain I can drink from, it doesn’t matter where I’m getting my water from, right? It doesn’t even matter if I have to drive to the next town over to drink from a water fountain – there’s a fountain for my ilk, and that means I can’t complain. Right? If merchants in my county decide it’s morally repellent to sell guns or ammo to registered Republicans, well, those people can drive to the next county over – or the next state, for that matter. It would be tantamount slavery to forbid merchants to be able to pick and choose who they’re allowed to sell things to, after all, if doing so would violate the merchant’s deeply held conviction that those people should not be allowed to have guns. And besides, it’s not like buying a gun is an emergency medical procedure. There’s no “have to” involved. Just “want to”.
Sure. I don’t “have to” eat cake from this baker or any other. Or drink from the same publicly available water fountain as everyone else. As long as there’s another fountain I can drink from, it doesn’t matter where I’m getting my water from, right? It doesn’t even matter if I have to drive to the next town over to drink from a water fountain – there’s a fountain for my ilk, and that means I can’t complain. Right? If merchants in my county decide it’s morally repellent to sell guns or ammo to registered Republicans, well, those people can drive to the next county over – or the next state, for that matter. It would be tantamount slavery to forbid merchants to be able to pick and choose who they’re allowed to sell things to, after all, if doing so would violate the merchant’s deeply held conviction that those people should not be allowed to have guns. And besides, it’s not like buying a gun is an emergency medical procedure. There’s no “have to” involved. Just “want to”.
Sure. I don’t “have to” eat cake from this baker or any other. Or drink from the same publicly available water fountain as everyone else. As long as there’s another fountain I can drink from, it doesn’t matter where I’m getting my water from, right? It doesn’t even matter if I have to drive to the next town over to drink from a water fountain – there’s a fountain for my ilk, and that means I can’t complain. Right? If merchants in my county decide it’s morally repellent to sell guns or ammo to registered Republicans, well, those people can drive to the next county over – or the next state, for that matter. It would be tantamount slavery to forbid merchants to be able to pick and choose who they’re allowed to sell things to, after all, if doing so would violate the merchant’s deeply held conviction that those people should not be allowed to have guns. And besides, it’s not like buying a gun is an emergency medical procedure. There’s no “have to” involved. Just “want to”.
Riight. You want to make not forcing a baker who opposes SSM to bake a “John and Julian” wedding cake, not forcing a photographer who opposes SSM to photograph one, to be the same as segregated drinking fountains.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
Riight. You want to make not forcing a baker who opposes SSM to bake a “John and Julian” wedding cake, not forcing a photographer who opposes SSM to photograph one, to be the same as segregated drinking fountains.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
Riight. You want to make not forcing a baker who opposes SSM to bake a “John and Julian” wedding cake, not forcing a photographer who opposes SSM to photograph one, to be the same as segregated drinking fountains.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
Brett, I notice you didn’t touch the issue of discriminating against particular purchasers of guns….
Brett, I notice you didn’t touch the issue of discriminating against particular purchasers of guns….
Brett, I notice you didn’t touch the issue of discriminating against particular purchasers of guns….
I have no problem whatsoever with a gun dealer discriminating in their choice of who to sell to. Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
Gun dealers have rights, just like gun owners. BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
I have no problem whatsoever with a gun dealer discriminating in their choice of who to sell to. Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
Gun dealers have rights, just like gun owners. BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
I have no problem whatsoever with a gun dealer discriminating in their choice of who to sell to. Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
Gun dealers have rights, just like gun owners. BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains.
And cakes, they’re just baked goods.
You appear to have missed the part where actual human beings installed the fountains and placed the signs above them, telling who could and could not drink from them.
Nice try, though.
Perhaps you’d like to take another swing at parsing the distinction between, for instance, bakers refusing to bake a cake for gays, and luncheon owners refusing to allow blacks to sit at a white’s only counter, but this time start from the assumption that it’s the luncheon owner, and not the counter itself, that enforced the policy about who could sit there.
Or, if you like the fountains better, the owner and operator of the private or public facility, who installed the fountains and decided who could drink from which.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains.
And cakes, they’re just baked goods.
You appear to have missed the part where actual human beings installed the fountains and placed the signs above them, telling who could and could not drink from them.
Nice try, though.
Perhaps you’d like to take another swing at parsing the distinction between, for instance, bakers refusing to bake a cake for gays, and luncheon owners refusing to allow blacks to sit at a white’s only counter, but this time start from the assumption that it’s the luncheon owner, and not the counter itself, that enforced the policy about who could sit there.
Or, if you like the fountains better, the owner and operator of the private or public facility, who installed the fountains and decided who could drink from which.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains.
And cakes, they’re just baked goods.
You appear to have missed the part where actual human beings installed the fountains and placed the signs above them, telling who could and could not drink from them.
Nice try, though.
Perhaps you’d like to take another swing at parsing the distinction between, for instance, bakers refusing to bake a cake for gays, and luncheon owners refusing to allow blacks to sit at a white’s only counter, but this time start from the assumption that it’s the luncheon owner, and not the counter itself, that enforced the policy about who could sit there.
Or, if you like the fountains better, the owner and operator of the private or public facility, who installed the fountains and decided who could drink from which.
Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
This, at least, is something I believe we can all agree on.
Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
This, at least, is something I believe we can all agree on.
Anyone who thinks I would have a problem with that really doesn’t understand how I think.
This, at least, is something I believe we can all agree on.
I believe, when pressed, that Brett understands what he thinks. What he writes, well, opinions vary.
I believe, when pressed, that Brett understands what he thinks. What he writes, well, opinions vary.
I believe, when pressed, that Brett understands what he thinks. What he writes, well, opinions vary.
BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
So the gay couple subjected to the bigotry and revealed market choice constraint should just voluntarily suck it up?
Some both. Some choice.
BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
So the gay couple subjected to the bigotry and revealed market choice constraint should just voluntarily suck it up?
Some both. Some choice.
BOTH ends of a transaction need to be voluntary.
So the gay couple subjected to the bigotry and revealed market choice constraint should just voluntarily suck it up?
Some both. Some choice.
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
moans the guy who has compared selling a cake to slavery multiple times on this very thread.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
moans the guy who has compared selling a cake to slavery multiple times on this very thread.
Because, you know, bakers and photographers, they’re just fixtures, like drinking fountains. They’re not people with rights of their own.
moans the guy who has compared selling a cake to slavery multiple times on this very thread.
Look, Brett’s point of view here is completely consistent.
Nobody should have to buy stuff from anyone they don’t want to buy from.
Nobody should have to sell stuff to anyone they don’t want to sell to.
It’s not a bad concept in principle, it seems completely fair. Nobody is required to do anything they don’t want to do.
The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life – employment, housing, transportation, food, medical care – with a consistency, or in amounts, or of quality, to what the rest of the population had access to.
Because, as it turned out, a lot of people were bigoted jerks.
So, we – by which I mean the majority of people who live here, in this country – decided to make it illegal to refuse to provide goods and services – the “selling” side of the equation – to folks based on a variety of identifiable demographic markers.
Race, religion, gender, disability, etc.
We didn’t do that for the “buying” side because that didn’t seem to be a problem.
Also, our economy is (and most market economies are) organized around buyers doing the choosing, so as a practical matter it’s not really feasible to require buyers to buy stuff from anyone who is selling it.
How would that work? How many toasters do you need?
The perfect liberty concept is a great idea on paper, in practice is sucked, so we don’t employ it anymore.
We really never did, there has pretty much always been some amount of regulation, at some level or other, governing otherwise private commercial transactions.
But as of mid-20th C, we’ve eliminated it from pretty much anything falling under the heading of public accommodations.
Because, unfortunately, as a nation we didn’t have the basic human decency to do the right thing without the stick of the law.
Sad that that was so, but it was so.
Look, Brett’s point of view here is completely consistent.
Nobody should have to buy stuff from anyone they don’t want to buy from.
Nobody should have to sell stuff to anyone they don’t want to sell to.
It’s not a bad concept in principle, it seems completely fair. Nobody is required to do anything they don’t want to do.
The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life – employment, housing, transportation, food, medical care – with a consistency, or in amounts, or of quality, to what the rest of the population had access to.
Because, as it turned out, a lot of people were bigoted jerks.
So, we – by which I mean the majority of people who live here, in this country – decided to make it illegal to refuse to provide goods and services – the “selling” side of the equation – to folks based on a variety of identifiable demographic markers.
Race, religion, gender, disability, etc.
We didn’t do that for the “buying” side because that didn’t seem to be a problem.
Also, our economy is (and most market economies are) organized around buyers doing the choosing, so as a practical matter it’s not really feasible to require buyers to buy stuff from anyone who is selling it.
How would that work? How many toasters do you need?
The perfect liberty concept is a great idea on paper, in practice is sucked, so we don’t employ it anymore.
We really never did, there has pretty much always been some amount of regulation, at some level or other, governing otherwise private commercial transactions.
But as of mid-20th C, we’ve eliminated it from pretty much anything falling under the heading of public accommodations.
Because, unfortunately, as a nation we didn’t have the basic human decency to do the right thing without the stick of the law.
Sad that that was so, but it was so.
Look, Brett’s point of view here is completely consistent.
Nobody should have to buy stuff from anyone they don’t want to buy from.
Nobody should have to sell stuff to anyone they don’t want to sell to.
It’s not a bad concept in principle, it seems completely fair. Nobody is required to do anything they don’t want to do.
The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life – employment, housing, transportation, food, medical care – with a consistency, or in amounts, or of quality, to what the rest of the population had access to.
Because, as it turned out, a lot of people were bigoted jerks.
So, we – by which I mean the majority of people who live here, in this country – decided to make it illegal to refuse to provide goods and services – the “selling” side of the equation – to folks based on a variety of identifiable demographic markers.
Race, religion, gender, disability, etc.
We didn’t do that for the “buying” side because that didn’t seem to be a problem.
Also, our economy is (and most market economies are) organized around buyers doing the choosing, so as a practical matter it’s not really feasible to require buyers to buy stuff from anyone who is selling it.
How would that work? How many toasters do you need?
The perfect liberty concept is a great idea on paper, in practice is sucked, so we don’t employ it anymore.
We really never did, there has pretty much always been some amount of regulation, at some level or other, governing otherwise private commercial transactions.
But as of mid-20th C, we’ve eliminated it from pretty much anything falling under the heading of public accommodations.
Because, unfortunately, as a nation we didn’t have the basic human decency to do the right thing without the stick of the law.
Sad that that was so, but it was so.
The other thing that is, I think, worth pointing out here is that there is no specifically guaranteed right to bake cakes for sale. Or, take pictures. Or, make pizzas. Or, engage in any other kind of commercial activity.
I think it’s fair to say that there is a general presumption that, barring some good reason to the contrary, folks should be free to make their living however they like.
But saying that somebody has the inalienable right to make cakes and sell them to whoever they like is, as far as I can tell, not a claim that is founded in the US Constitution.
That being so, I’m not sure there is anything illegitimate about it being subject to whatever laws prevail, in whatever jurisdictions are relevant.
Not being a ConLawyer, I could well be completely wrong about that. But I don’t really see it in the text.
The other thing that is, I think, worth pointing out here is that there is no specifically guaranteed right to bake cakes for sale. Or, take pictures. Or, make pizzas. Or, engage in any other kind of commercial activity.
I think it’s fair to say that there is a general presumption that, barring some good reason to the contrary, folks should be free to make their living however they like.
But saying that somebody has the inalienable right to make cakes and sell them to whoever they like is, as far as I can tell, not a claim that is founded in the US Constitution.
That being so, I’m not sure there is anything illegitimate about it being subject to whatever laws prevail, in whatever jurisdictions are relevant.
Not being a ConLawyer, I could well be completely wrong about that. But I don’t really see it in the text.
The other thing that is, I think, worth pointing out here is that there is no specifically guaranteed right to bake cakes for sale. Or, take pictures. Or, make pizzas. Or, engage in any other kind of commercial activity.
I think it’s fair to say that there is a general presumption that, barring some good reason to the contrary, folks should be free to make their living however they like.
But saying that somebody has the inalienable right to make cakes and sell them to whoever they like is, as far as I can tell, not a claim that is founded in the US Constitution.
That being so, I’m not sure there is anything illegitimate about it being subject to whatever laws prevail, in whatever jurisdictions are relevant.
Not being a ConLawyer, I could well be completely wrong about that. But I don’t really see it in the text.
“The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life”
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
That environment demanded an ongoing occupation, and the North had no stomach to keep it up.
That isn’t today’s environment. If it were, you’d have a violent rebellion on your hands already. Today we have an environment where most people don’t want to discriminate, and people who refuse to discriminate are eminently safe almost everywhere, and get police protection in the few places they aren’t.
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964. So, stop pretending it is. You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
We can be a free country. The only obstacle to that is you.
“The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life”
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
That environment demanded an ongoing occupation, and the North had no stomach to keep it up.
That isn’t today’s environment. If it were, you’d have a violent rebellion on your hands already. Today we have an environment where most people don’t want to discriminate, and people who refuse to discriminate are eminently safe almost everywhere, and get police protection in the few places they aren’t.
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964. So, stop pretending it is. You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
We can be a free country. The only obstacle to that is you.
“The problem with it is that, in practice, it led to large segments of the population not having access to the most basic and rudimentary necessities of life”
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
That environment demanded an ongoing occupation, and the North had no stomach to keep it up.
That isn’t today’s environment. If it were, you’d have a violent rebellion on your hands already. Today we have an environment where most people don’t want to discriminate, and people who refuse to discriminate are eminently safe almost everywhere, and get police protection in the few places they aren’t.
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964. So, stop pretending it is. You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
We can be a free country. The only obstacle to that is you.
Say Wayne La Pierre minces into a French bakery and demands catered cake for the next shooting party at his ranch.
Say he’s carrying so’s all can see, a big honking pistol right there on his belt, the palm of his right hand resting on the grip, fingers free, but still, and who knows what he’s packing in his purse.
Say the cake purveyor THINKS La Pierre is gay, and French to boot, and he is not catering cake to any gay shooting match, but the baker isn’t armed and Wayne here is.
Furthermore, the only gun store in the parish turned the baker down on HIS gun purchase the week before because the former thought if the guy runs a French bakery, then HE must be gay.
So the baker sells La Pierre the cake, which La Pierre also demands be baked into the shape of gun, because La Pierre has displayed the instruments of private force, which are legally carried openly on the belt in their state, and who wants trouble?
See, at some point the unencumbered right to discriminate comes up against the completely expansive Second Amendment interpretations desired by so many.
It ain’t gonna be a cream pie fight.
You’ll notice government isn’t mentioned in this cockup, having been earlier deracinated by both the baker and the La Pierre over here into little more than an elderly clerk down at the library, who will be let go soon, given tax receipts.
On the other hand, maybe it turns out to be a love story, and one thing leads to another and La Pierre and the baker discover a mutual attraction and carry on a private affair and the guns get put away and everyone gets his cake and can eat it too.
Say Wayne La Pierre minces into a French bakery and demands catered cake for the next shooting party at his ranch.
Say he’s carrying so’s all can see, a big honking pistol right there on his belt, the palm of his right hand resting on the grip, fingers free, but still, and who knows what he’s packing in his purse.
Say the cake purveyor THINKS La Pierre is gay, and French to boot, and he is not catering cake to any gay shooting match, but the baker isn’t armed and Wayne here is.
Furthermore, the only gun store in the parish turned the baker down on HIS gun purchase the week before because the former thought if the guy runs a French bakery, then HE must be gay.
So the baker sells La Pierre the cake, which La Pierre also demands be baked into the shape of gun, because La Pierre has displayed the instruments of private force, which are legally carried openly on the belt in their state, and who wants trouble?
See, at some point the unencumbered right to discriminate comes up against the completely expansive Second Amendment interpretations desired by so many.
It ain’t gonna be a cream pie fight.
You’ll notice government isn’t mentioned in this cockup, having been earlier deracinated by both the baker and the La Pierre over here into little more than an elderly clerk down at the library, who will be let go soon, given tax receipts.
On the other hand, maybe it turns out to be a love story, and one thing leads to another and La Pierre and the baker discover a mutual attraction and carry on a private affair and the guns get put away and everyone gets his cake and can eat it too.
Say Wayne La Pierre minces into a French bakery and demands catered cake for the next shooting party at his ranch.
Say he’s carrying so’s all can see, a big honking pistol right there on his belt, the palm of his right hand resting on the grip, fingers free, but still, and who knows what he’s packing in his purse.
Say the cake purveyor THINKS La Pierre is gay, and French to boot, and he is not catering cake to any gay shooting match, but the baker isn’t armed and Wayne here is.
Furthermore, the only gun store in the parish turned the baker down on HIS gun purchase the week before because the former thought if the guy runs a French bakery, then HE must be gay.
So the baker sells La Pierre the cake, which La Pierre also demands be baked into the shape of gun, because La Pierre has displayed the instruments of private force, which are legally carried openly on the belt in their state, and who wants trouble?
See, at some point the unencumbered right to discriminate comes up against the completely expansive Second Amendment interpretations desired by so many.
It ain’t gonna be a cream pie fight.
You’ll notice government isn’t mentioned in this cockup, having been earlier deracinated by both the baker and the La Pierre over here into little more than an elderly clerk down at the library, who will be let go soon, given tax receipts.
On the other hand, maybe it turns out to be a love story, and one thing leads to another and La Pierre and the baker discover a mutual attraction and carry on a private affair and the guns get put away and everyone gets his cake and can eat it too.
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964…
and it’s not yet the Promised Land, either.
so there is that….
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964…
and it’s not yet the Promised Land, either.
so there is that….
It isn’t 1864! It’s not even 1964…
and it’s not yet the Promised Land, either.
so there is that….
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Come on, Brett. You know very well that something can be the majority opinion of the country, or even of any reasonably large state, and there can still be areas where those of contrary opinion are the overwhelming majority. So you could have 80% of the country in favor of, for example, gay marriage (which we haven’t achieved yet), and still have areas where there was nobody within a couple hours driving time who would be willing to deal with gays at all.
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Come on, Brett. You know very well that something can be the majority opinion of the country, or even of any reasonably large state, and there can still be areas where those of contrary opinion are the overwhelming majority. So you could have 80% of the country in favor of, for example, gay marriage (which we haven’t achieved yet), and still have areas where there was nobody within a couple hours driving time who would be willing to deal with gays at all.
Yeah, you really think that you’re pushing majority opinion, AND that gays won’t be able to find somebody to supply a cake? You entertain both these concepts at the very same time?
Come on, Brett. You know very well that something can be the majority opinion of the country, or even of any reasonably large state, and there can still be areas where those of contrary opinion are the overwhelming majority. So you could have 80% of the country in favor of, for example, gay marriage (which we haven’t achieved yet), and still have areas where there was nobody within a couple hours driving time who would be willing to deal with gays at all.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
A failure that can be laid directly at the feet of American racists and conservatives.
Please note that appropriate legislation as per that very Amendment’s language has been consistently opposed by conservatives since that Amendment’s passage except for the use of the National Guard to break up labor strikes.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
A failure that can be laid directly at the feet of American racists and conservatives.
Please note that appropriate legislation as per that very Amendment’s language has been consistently opposed by conservatives since that Amendment’s passage except for the use of the National Guard to break up labor strikes.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
A failure that can be laid directly at the feet of American racists and conservatives.
Please note that appropriate legislation as per that very Amendment’s language has been consistently opposed by conservatives since that Amendment’s passage except for the use of the National Guard to break up labor strikes.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
How is the ability of people to deny gays employment, housing, and any number of other things anything other than a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law?
Do you think this is all about cakes?
You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
No, we don’t. Nor did we ever.
Blacks and gays have always been able to “live their lives”.
What they have not been able to do is live their lives without having to be singled out for different treatment *because they are black, or gay*.
Do we have to have KKK style lynchings and campaigns of terror before legal enforcement of equal protection kicks in?
Do you think that gay people aren’t freaking harrassed, beat up, threatened, and generally abused, like, today?
Why does anyone have to belong to some kind of magical “protected class” in order for the basic protections of the law to apply to them?
I’ve basically come to the point where I’m fine with granting conscience-based exemptions from the law.
I just want them available to everyone, for all varieties of moral and ethical compulsion.
Given that, I don’t care much about the IN RFRA. I think the extension of religious conviction to for-profit enterprises is bullshit, but I can live with it for sole props and very closely held corps.
But if you want to know why people are on about non-discrimination, it’s because some people can’t seem to keep their hatred of other people to themselves. They want to bring it into the public square.
There’s no way to do that without depriving *other* people of what *they* deserve, as fellow participants in the public square.
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
Welcome to the reality-based world.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
How is the ability of people to deny gays employment, housing, and any number of other things anything other than a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law?
Do you think this is all about cakes?
You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
No, we don’t. Nor did we ever.
Blacks and gays have always been able to “live their lives”.
What they have not been able to do is live their lives without having to be singled out for different treatment *because they are black, or gay*.
Do we have to have KKK style lynchings and campaigns of terror before legal enforcement of equal protection kicks in?
Do you think that gay people aren’t freaking harrassed, beat up, threatened, and generally abused, like, today?
Why does anyone have to belong to some kind of magical “protected class” in order for the basic protections of the law to apply to them?
I’ve basically come to the point where I’m fine with granting conscience-based exemptions from the law.
I just want them available to everyone, for all varieties of moral and ethical compulsion.
Given that, I don’t care much about the IN RFRA. I think the extension of religious conviction to for-profit enterprises is bullshit, but I can live with it for sole props and very closely held corps.
But if you want to know why people are on about non-discrimination, it’s because some people can’t seem to keep their hatred of other people to themselves. They want to bring it into the public square.
There’s no way to do that without depriving *other* people of what *they* deserve, as fellow participants in the public square.
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
Welcome to the reality-based world.
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
How is the ability of people to deny gays employment, housing, and any number of other things anything other than a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law?
Do you think this is all about cakes?
You don’t need to force everybody to serve blacks or gays, at gun point, in order for them to live their lives.
No, we don’t. Nor did we ever.
Blacks and gays have always been able to “live their lives”.
What they have not been able to do is live their lives without having to be singled out for different treatment *because they are black, or gay*.
Do we have to have KKK style lynchings and campaigns of terror before legal enforcement of equal protection kicks in?
Do you think that gay people aren’t freaking harrassed, beat up, threatened, and generally abused, like, today?
Why does anyone have to belong to some kind of magical “protected class” in order for the basic protections of the law to apply to them?
I’ve basically come to the point where I’m fine with granting conscience-based exemptions from the law.
I just want them available to everyone, for all varieties of moral and ethical compulsion.
Given that, I don’t care much about the IN RFRA. I think the extension of religious conviction to for-profit enterprises is bullshit, but I can live with it for sole props and very closely held corps.
But if you want to know why people are on about non-discrimination, it’s because some people can’t seem to keep their hatred of other people to themselves. They want to bring it into the public square.
There’s no way to do that without depriving *other* people of what *they* deserve, as fellow participants in the public square.
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
Welcome to the reality-based world.
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
this
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
this
Do what you want in your private life. When it touches on other people’s privileges, immunities, and equal protection under the law, then you don’t get to do whatever you want.
this
Still nothing on how refusing to serve gays is any different from refusing to serve blacks, but it does seem Brett is okay with merchants refusing to serve blacks, anyway, as far as the law is concerned. He doesn’t “like it,” but thinks it should be legal AFAICT from what he’s written.
It doesn’t happen as much as it used to. Of course, it’s not as legal as it used to be, either. To the extent that people generally have lost their animus towards given classes of people, I have to wonder how much of that is the result of laws preventing discrimination having been in place long enough for people to realize that the discrimination was stupid to begin with, or not to even bother thinking of discriminating against certain groups of people, since they’ve never done it or had reason to.
Still nothing on how refusing to serve gays is any different from refusing to serve blacks, but it does seem Brett is okay with merchants refusing to serve blacks, anyway, as far as the law is concerned. He doesn’t “like it,” but thinks it should be legal AFAICT from what he’s written.
It doesn’t happen as much as it used to. Of course, it’s not as legal as it used to be, either. To the extent that people generally have lost their animus towards given classes of people, I have to wonder how much of that is the result of laws preventing discrimination having been in place long enough for people to realize that the discrimination was stupid to begin with, or not to even bother thinking of discriminating against certain groups of people, since they’ve never done it or had reason to.
Still nothing on how refusing to serve gays is any different from refusing to serve blacks, but it does seem Brett is okay with merchants refusing to serve blacks, anyway, as far as the law is concerned. He doesn’t “like it,” but thinks it should be legal AFAICT from what he’s written.
It doesn’t happen as much as it used to. Of course, it’s not as legal as it used to be, either. To the extent that people generally have lost their animus towards given classes of people, I have to wonder how much of that is the result of laws preventing discrimination having been in place long enough for people to realize that the discrimination was stupid to begin with, or not to even bother thinking of discriminating against certain groups of people, since they’ve never done it or had reason to.
As a lesbian currently living in Indiana, I’ve been reading the comments here with interest, and thought I might inject my two cents into the discussion about questions of “forcing” people in business to serve others.
I have no problem with businesses being allowed to pick and choose who they serve. None at all. But here’s the caveat to that: I need to know up front.
If you’re not interested in preparing a pizza for me and my wife because doing so would violate your sincerely-held beliefs (or even insincerely-held ones – I’m willing to go the extra mile here), you need to let me know so I’m not wasting my time and you are not wasting yours.
My wife and I were married the day Indiana legalized SSM in a civil ceremony at the statehouse. Now we would like to celebrate the event on our anniversary. We’d like a dessert of some kind, and a cake with a message would be extra awesome.
The thing is, there are only so many hours in a day. And when you advertise your service as “baker of cakes,” my assumption as a consumer is you provide that service to anyone with money to trade. So for me to visit your bakery, with my wife, to look at the styles on offer, I’d like to assume you’re there to sell cakes. This isn’t an unreasonable request. When I walk into Victoria’s Secret, I assume I will be allowed to purchase the bra that catches my eye. When I walk into GameStop, I assume they’ll take my money for the game I reserved two months ago.
As a rational adult, I don’t make unreasonable assumptions about businesses because that’s a waste of my time. It’s no use calling the guys who service our air conditioner to give an estimate on a new roof, because that’s not their line of work. I have no interest in forcing the HVAC guys to nail down shingles. But I do have an interest in asking someone who provided a service to the guy in line in front of me to provide that same service to me. If you’ll fix my neighbor’s leaky roof, my not unreasonable assumption is you’ll fix mine as well.
The Indiana RFRA explicitly hurts me because now I, as a lesbian, can no longer reasonably make that assumption anywhere I shop. Now you might say, “You’re comparing apples to oranges, because buying a video game or purchasing underwear isn’t the same as asking a photographer to take a picture of you and your wife celebrating your one-year anniversary.” And you would be correct. You would also be correct to assume that MOST places won’t have a problem with my sexual orientation. Wal-Mart isn’t going to refuse to sell me trash bags at 2am just because my wife and I walk in together holding hands.
But even though that’s the case now, I still have to worry: what if they did? Because now it’s up to someone else whether or not they serve me. Not because I’m being belligerent, not because I’m improperly dressed, but because I sleep beside someone who also has two X chromosomes. And until I walk through those doors, make my introduction, and make my intentions known, I have no way of knowing how that transaction will go, nor can I make a reasonable assumption that it will go the way I presume it will.
Can I shop somewhere else if I get turned away? Sure. I live in a college town, there are plenty of options for most things. But now two things have happened: I’ve wasted my time, and I’m feeling insulted. If you don’t want to serve me because you believe your thousand-year-old book dictated by a cross-eyed hermit in a language which can only be spoken by those touched by the One True Bagel forbids you from helping lesbians on pain of eternal damnation, that’s not just your choice, that’s your right.
I don’t want to cause you undue duress. That’s not what’s causing the problem here. What’s causing the problem is that I cannot know that ahead of time, and thus I cannot avoid placing myself in a position where I get hurt, and you get offended.
I don’t want to waste my time. I don’t want to waste YOUR time. I don’t want to waste the gas, the mileage on my car, or my lunch break driving to your store only to find this out. I’m not interested in forcing you to bake a cake for a ceremony you honestly (or even dishonestly–like I said, I’m willing to go the extra mile here) don’t believe in, because that makes me a jerk.
I just don’t want to be hurt when you tell me your holy book says you don’t serve my kind.
So let me know up front you’re not interested in my dirty, tainted, ‘Gay Marriage Agenda’-card-carrying money, and I’ll make sure it doesn’t wind up in your cash register.
Fair enough?
As a lesbian currently living in Indiana, I’ve been reading the comments here with interest, and thought I might inject my two cents into the discussion about questions of “forcing” people in business to serve others.
I have no problem with businesses being allowed to pick and choose who they serve. None at all. But here’s the caveat to that: I need to know up front.
If you’re not interested in preparing a pizza for me and my wife because doing so would violate your sincerely-held beliefs (or even insincerely-held ones – I’m willing to go the extra mile here), you need to let me know so I’m not wasting my time and you are not wasting yours.
My wife and I were married the day Indiana legalized SSM in a civil ceremony at the statehouse. Now we would like to celebrate the event on our anniversary. We’d like a dessert of some kind, and a cake with a message would be extra awesome.
The thing is, there are only so many hours in a day. And when you advertise your service as “baker of cakes,” my assumption as a consumer is you provide that service to anyone with money to trade. So for me to visit your bakery, with my wife, to look at the styles on offer, I’d like to assume you’re there to sell cakes. This isn’t an unreasonable request. When I walk into Victoria’s Secret, I assume I will be allowed to purchase the bra that catches my eye. When I walk into GameStop, I assume they’ll take my money for the game I reserved two months ago.
As a rational adult, I don’t make unreasonable assumptions about businesses because that’s a waste of my time. It’s no use calling the guys who service our air conditioner to give an estimate on a new roof, because that’s not their line of work. I have no interest in forcing the HVAC guys to nail down shingles. But I do have an interest in asking someone who provided a service to the guy in line in front of me to provide that same service to me. If you’ll fix my neighbor’s leaky roof, my not unreasonable assumption is you’ll fix mine as well.
The Indiana RFRA explicitly hurts me because now I, as a lesbian, can no longer reasonably make that assumption anywhere I shop. Now you might say, “You’re comparing apples to oranges, because buying a video game or purchasing underwear isn’t the same as asking a photographer to take a picture of you and your wife celebrating your one-year anniversary.” And you would be correct. You would also be correct to assume that MOST places won’t have a problem with my sexual orientation. Wal-Mart isn’t going to refuse to sell me trash bags at 2am just because my wife and I walk in together holding hands.
But even though that’s the case now, I still have to worry: what if they did? Because now it’s up to someone else whether or not they serve me. Not because I’m being belligerent, not because I’m improperly dressed, but because I sleep beside someone who also has two X chromosomes. And until I walk through those doors, make my introduction, and make my intentions known, I have no way of knowing how that transaction will go, nor can I make a reasonable assumption that it will go the way I presume it will.
Can I shop somewhere else if I get turned away? Sure. I live in a college town, there are plenty of options for most things. But now two things have happened: I’ve wasted my time, and I’m feeling insulted. If you don’t want to serve me because you believe your thousand-year-old book dictated by a cross-eyed hermit in a language which can only be spoken by those touched by the One True Bagel forbids you from helping lesbians on pain of eternal damnation, that’s not just your choice, that’s your right.
I don’t want to cause you undue duress. That’s not what’s causing the problem here. What’s causing the problem is that I cannot know that ahead of time, and thus I cannot avoid placing myself in a position where I get hurt, and you get offended.
I don’t want to waste my time. I don’t want to waste YOUR time. I don’t want to waste the gas, the mileage on my car, or my lunch break driving to your store only to find this out. I’m not interested in forcing you to bake a cake for a ceremony you honestly (or even dishonestly–like I said, I’m willing to go the extra mile here) don’t believe in, because that makes me a jerk.
I just don’t want to be hurt when you tell me your holy book says you don’t serve my kind.
So let me know up front you’re not interested in my dirty, tainted, ‘Gay Marriage Agenda’-card-carrying money, and I’ll make sure it doesn’t wind up in your cash register.
Fair enough?
As a lesbian currently living in Indiana, I’ve been reading the comments here with interest, and thought I might inject my two cents into the discussion about questions of “forcing” people in business to serve others.
I have no problem with businesses being allowed to pick and choose who they serve. None at all. But here’s the caveat to that: I need to know up front.
If you’re not interested in preparing a pizza for me and my wife because doing so would violate your sincerely-held beliefs (or even insincerely-held ones – I’m willing to go the extra mile here), you need to let me know so I’m not wasting my time and you are not wasting yours.
My wife and I were married the day Indiana legalized SSM in a civil ceremony at the statehouse. Now we would like to celebrate the event on our anniversary. We’d like a dessert of some kind, and a cake with a message would be extra awesome.
The thing is, there are only so many hours in a day. And when you advertise your service as “baker of cakes,” my assumption as a consumer is you provide that service to anyone with money to trade. So for me to visit your bakery, with my wife, to look at the styles on offer, I’d like to assume you’re there to sell cakes. This isn’t an unreasonable request. When I walk into Victoria’s Secret, I assume I will be allowed to purchase the bra that catches my eye. When I walk into GameStop, I assume they’ll take my money for the game I reserved two months ago.
As a rational adult, I don’t make unreasonable assumptions about businesses because that’s a waste of my time. It’s no use calling the guys who service our air conditioner to give an estimate on a new roof, because that’s not their line of work. I have no interest in forcing the HVAC guys to nail down shingles. But I do have an interest in asking someone who provided a service to the guy in line in front of me to provide that same service to me. If you’ll fix my neighbor’s leaky roof, my not unreasonable assumption is you’ll fix mine as well.
The Indiana RFRA explicitly hurts me because now I, as a lesbian, can no longer reasonably make that assumption anywhere I shop. Now you might say, “You’re comparing apples to oranges, because buying a video game or purchasing underwear isn’t the same as asking a photographer to take a picture of you and your wife celebrating your one-year anniversary.” And you would be correct. You would also be correct to assume that MOST places won’t have a problem with my sexual orientation. Wal-Mart isn’t going to refuse to sell me trash bags at 2am just because my wife and I walk in together holding hands.
But even though that’s the case now, I still have to worry: what if they did? Because now it’s up to someone else whether or not they serve me. Not because I’m being belligerent, not because I’m improperly dressed, but because I sleep beside someone who also has two X chromosomes. And until I walk through those doors, make my introduction, and make my intentions known, I have no way of knowing how that transaction will go, nor can I make a reasonable assumption that it will go the way I presume it will.
Can I shop somewhere else if I get turned away? Sure. I live in a college town, there are plenty of options for most things. But now two things have happened: I’ve wasted my time, and I’m feeling insulted. If you don’t want to serve me because you believe your thousand-year-old book dictated by a cross-eyed hermit in a language which can only be spoken by those touched by the One True Bagel forbids you from helping lesbians on pain of eternal damnation, that’s not just your choice, that’s your right.
I don’t want to cause you undue duress. That’s not what’s causing the problem here. What’s causing the problem is that I cannot know that ahead of time, and thus I cannot avoid placing myself in a position where I get hurt, and you get offended.
I don’t want to waste my time. I don’t want to waste YOUR time. I don’t want to waste the gas, the mileage on my car, or my lunch break driving to your store only to find this out. I’m not interested in forcing you to bake a cake for a ceremony you honestly (or even dishonestly–like I said, I’m willing to go the extra mile here) don’t believe in, because that makes me a jerk.
I just don’t want to be hurt when you tell me your holy book says you don’t serve my kind.
So let me know up front you’re not interested in my dirty, tainted, ‘Gay Marriage Agenda’-card-carrying money, and I’ll make sure it doesn’t wind up in your cash register.
Fair enough?
So, Russell and hash, what you’re trying to get Brett to discuss, which is valid, is the definition of a public accommodation. It would be unacceptable for a lunch counter owner to refuse service to gays. The question is would it be appropriate for the wedding cake maker to refuse to make cakes for black people. What does fall into the auspices of providing a public service. I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
So, Russell and hash, what you’re trying to get Brett to discuss, which is valid, is the definition of a public accommodation. It would be unacceptable for a lunch counter owner to refuse service to gays. The question is would it be appropriate for the wedding cake maker to refuse to make cakes for black people. What does fall into the auspices of providing a public service. I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
So, Russell and hash, what you’re trying to get Brett to discuss, which is valid, is the definition of a public accommodation. It would be unacceptable for a lunch counter owner to refuse service to gays. The question is would it be appropriate for the wedding cake maker to refuse to make cakes for black people. What does fall into the auspices of providing a public service. I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
Areala, thank you for your comments here, they are appreciated.
I’m speaking as someone who isn’t gay, I’m just trying to make sense of what is fair in this situation. I appreciate and respect hearing from you, as someone who is living the situation. For me, it’s only ever gonna be, to some degree, academic.
I’d invite comments from religious folks who also might be affected by this directly, if they were willing and comfortable to share their thoughts, from their experience.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
Yes, there’s a difference between being served at a lunch counter, and between hiring somebody to (for instance) take pictures of your wedding.
There’s a difference between being denied service, of whatever kind, because you’re black, and because you’re gay.
In the first case, I can see how hiring someone to take pictures of your wedding involves them, perhaps, in the event to a greater degree than just serving lunch to whoever walks up.
I can also see how a wedding, as an occasion, has greater resonance for people than a ham sandwich does.
I don’t really see the black vs gay difference, to be honest.
In any case, what I’d like to know is how the distinctions translate into a meaningful difference, such that it outweighs the interests of people who really just want to be able to buy a cake without getting a lecture about what a blot on the moral universe their very existence is.
It would also be really helpful if religious exemptions that were nominally based on, for example, Christianity, actually seems to apply to situations other than just gay people. It seems less credible to be claiming that your deeply held religious faith prevents you from doing one set of things that is allegedly condemned by your beliefs, but not another 1,000 things that are also allegedly condemned by your beliefs.
Not questioning people’s sincerity, but people can be, sincerely, bigoted, which is not the same as being sincerely compelled by deep religious faith.
And, if we’re going to be in the business of carving out exemptions for religious convictions, that needs to be available to everyone, not just socially conservative Christians.
And it’s not.
Areala, thank you for your comments here, they are appreciated.
I’m speaking as someone who isn’t gay, I’m just trying to make sense of what is fair in this situation. I appreciate and respect hearing from you, as someone who is living the situation. For me, it’s only ever gonna be, to some degree, academic.
I’d invite comments from religious folks who also might be affected by this directly, if they were willing and comfortable to share their thoughts, from their experience.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
Yes, there’s a difference between being served at a lunch counter, and between hiring somebody to (for instance) take pictures of your wedding.
There’s a difference between being denied service, of whatever kind, because you’re black, and because you’re gay.
In the first case, I can see how hiring someone to take pictures of your wedding involves them, perhaps, in the event to a greater degree than just serving lunch to whoever walks up.
I can also see how a wedding, as an occasion, has greater resonance for people than a ham sandwich does.
I don’t really see the black vs gay difference, to be honest.
In any case, what I’d like to know is how the distinctions translate into a meaningful difference, such that it outweighs the interests of people who really just want to be able to buy a cake without getting a lecture about what a blot on the moral universe their very existence is.
It would also be really helpful if religious exemptions that were nominally based on, for example, Christianity, actually seems to apply to situations other than just gay people. It seems less credible to be claiming that your deeply held religious faith prevents you from doing one set of things that is allegedly condemned by your beliefs, but not another 1,000 things that are also allegedly condemned by your beliefs.
Not questioning people’s sincerity, but people can be, sincerely, bigoted, which is not the same as being sincerely compelled by deep religious faith.
And, if we’re going to be in the business of carving out exemptions for religious convictions, that needs to be available to everyone, not just socially conservative Christians.
And it’s not.
Areala, thank you for your comments here, they are appreciated.
I’m speaking as someone who isn’t gay, I’m just trying to make sense of what is fair in this situation. I appreciate and respect hearing from you, as someone who is living the situation. For me, it’s only ever gonna be, to some degree, academic.
I’d invite comments from religious folks who also might be affected by this directly, if they were willing and comfortable to share their thoughts, from their experience.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
Yes, there’s a difference between being served at a lunch counter, and between hiring somebody to (for instance) take pictures of your wedding.
There’s a difference between being denied service, of whatever kind, because you’re black, and because you’re gay.
In the first case, I can see how hiring someone to take pictures of your wedding involves them, perhaps, in the event to a greater degree than just serving lunch to whoever walks up.
I can also see how a wedding, as an occasion, has greater resonance for people than a ham sandwich does.
I don’t really see the black vs gay difference, to be honest.
In any case, what I’d like to know is how the distinctions translate into a meaningful difference, such that it outweighs the interests of people who really just want to be able to buy a cake without getting a lecture about what a blot on the moral universe their very existence is.
It would also be really helpful if religious exemptions that were nominally based on, for example, Christianity, actually seems to apply to situations other than just gay people. It seems less credible to be claiming that your deeply held religious faith prevents you from doing one set of things that is allegedly condemned by your beliefs, but not another 1,000 things that are also allegedly condemned by your beliefs.
Not questioning people’s sincerity, but people can be, sincerely, bigoted, which is not the same as being sincerely compelled by deep religious faith.
And, if we’re going to be in the business of carving out exemptions for religious convictions, that needs to be available to everyone, not just socially conservative Christians.
And it’s not.
As far as the definition of a “public accommodation”, that isn’t really something Brett needs to weigh in on.
It’s defined, usually fairly clearly, by law, in whatever jurisdiction applies to the case at hand.
It differs from place to place, but in any given place it’s not that ambiguous.
As far as the definition of a “public accommodation”, that isn’t really something Brett needs to weigh in on.
It’s defined, usually fairly clearly, by law, in whatever jurisdiction applies to the case at hand.
It differs from place to place, but in any given place it’s not that ambiguous.
As far as the definition of a “public accommodation”, that isn’t really something Brett needs to weigh in on.
It’s defined, usually fairly clearly, by law, in whatever jurisdiction applies to the case at hand.
It differs from place to place, but in any given place it’s not that ambiguous.
Thank you for your kind words, russell. I’ve been a long-time lurker of the Obsidian Wings community. Generally I don’t comment, because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do (or at least pretends a heck of a lot better than I could). But this topic, I could finally say, “Ah yes, this. I know this…” 🙂
Thank you for your kind words, russell. I’ve been a long-time lurker of the Obsidian Wings community. Generally I don’t comment, because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do (or at least pretends a heck of a lot better than I could). But this topic, I could finally say, “Ah yes, this. I know this…” 🙂
Thank you for your kind words, russell. I’ve been a long-time lurker of the Obsidian Wings community. Generally I don’t comment, because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do (or at least pretends a heck of a lot better than I could). But this topic, I could finally say, “Ah yes, this. I know this…” 🙂
Please chime in again. Anytime.
We’re all just pretending…. 🙂
Please chime in again. Anytime.
We’re all just pretending…. 🙂
Please chime in again. Anytime.
We’re all just pretending…. 🙂
Areala, I think you may be giving us way too much credit. Most of us (me, certainly) weigh in all the time on subjects where we have, at most, “interested layman” knowledge of the field. Doesn’t slow us down much.
What I’m saying is, don’t be shy of commenting. After all, it isn’t obvious that working in a book store is less relevant to discussions of foreign policy than working in a computer shop. Or any of the other stuff folks here do to keep food on the table.
Areala, I think you may be giving us way too much credit. Most of us (me, certainly) weigh in all the time on subjects where we have, at most, “interested layman” knowledge of the field. Doesn’t slow us down much.
What I’m saying is, don’t be shy of commenting. After all, it isn’t obvious that working in a book store is less relevant to discussions of foreign policy than working in a computer shop. Or any of the other stuff folks here do to keep food on the table.
Areala, I think you may be giving us way too much credit. Most of us (me, certainly) weigh in all the time on subjects where we have, at most, “interested layman” knowledge of the field. Doesn’t slow us down much.
What I’m saying is, don’t be shy of commenting. After all, it isn’t obvious that working in a book store is less relevant to discussions of foreign policy than working in a computer shop. Or any of the other stuff folks here do to keep food on the table.
Areala wins the thread.
Stay.
Cake, pizza, shingles, whatever you need, we got it.
Areala wins the thread.
Stay.
Cake, pizza, shingles, whatever you need, we got it.
Areala wins the thread.
Stay.
Cake, pizza, shingles, whatever you need, we got it.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
perhaps, but not relevant. They are similar in kind. That is what is important.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
perhaps, but not relevant. They are similar in kind. That is what is important.
I am pretty sure most people would see a difference in degree at a minimum between the things being discussed.
perhaps, but not relevant. They are similar in kind. That is what is important.
Areala,
welcome and, being at ground zero, if you’d like to front page something, just send it to the address under the kitty. How things are playing out in the state is of great interest to all of us here, I think.
Areala,
welcome and, being at ground zero, if you’d like to front page something, just send it to the address under the kitty. How things are playing out in the state is of great interest to all of us here, I think.
Areala,
welcome and, being at ground zero, if you’d like to front page something, just send it to the address under the kitty. How things are playing out in the state is of great interest to all of us here, I think.
cleek @ 9:10:
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
wj @ 11:43:
…or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice…
Posted by: wj | April 06, 2015 at 11:43 AM
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
cleek @ 9:10:
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
wj @ 11:43:
…or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice…
Posted by: wj | April 06, 2015 at 11:43 AM
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
cleek @ 9:10:
Has anyone explained how any of this is different from, say, hotels refusing to lodge blacks yet?
oh that’s easy! being gay, unlike being black, is a choice.
wj @ 11:43:
…or explain how one characteristic that an individual has no control over (being black) is different from another characteristic that he has no control over (being gay). Or somehow convince us, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that being gay really is a choice…
Posted by: wj | April 06, 2015 at 11:43 AM
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
Brett @ 6:15:
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law…
There is no AND. The practice was the failure. Reading some of your comments here tonight, Brett, you really do seem to have a much rosier view of human nature than do I!
Oh, and late to chime in, but so sorry to hear about about your sister. Keep your loved ones close and take care.
Brett @ 6:15:
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law…
There is no AND. The practice was the failure. Reading some of your comments here tonight, Brett, you really do seem to have a much rosier view of human nature than do I!
Oh, and late to chime in, but so sorry to hear about about your sister. Keep your loved ones close and take care.
Brett @ 6:15:
In practice, and in conjunction with a failure to enforce the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law…
There is no AND. The practice was the failure. Reading some of your comments here tonight, Brett, you really do seem to have a much rosier view of human nature than do I!
Oh, and late to chime in, but so sorry to hear about about your sister. Keep your loved ones close and take care.
Mea culpa! I should have put a /sarcasm after that remark about homosexuality being a choice.
Mea culpa! I should have put a /sarcasm after that remark about homosexuality being a choice.
Mea culpa! I should have put a /sarcasm after that remark about homosexuality being a choice.
It must be really hard, waking up every morning and having to make a momentous decision: “Hmmm…should I be heterosexual today, or homosexual?”
I’m wondering when Brett last flipped that particular coin.
It must be really hard, waking up every morning and having to make a momentous decision: “Hmmm…should I be heterosexual today, or homosexual?”
I’m wondering when Brett last flipped that particular coin.
It must be really hard, waking up every morning and having to make a momentous decision: “Hmmm…should I be heterosexual today, or homosexual?”
I’m wondering when Brett last flipped that particular coin.
Some time in the womb, I’m guessing, as is the case for most people, straight or homosexual. Homosexuality is no more a choice than diabetes.
“The practice was the failure.”
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough. You don’t conquer a hostile nation, and then expect them to just fall in line without an occupation.
Some time in the womb, I’m guessing, as is the case for most people, straight or homosexual. Homosexuality is no more a choice than diabetes.
“The practice was the failure.”
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough. You don’t conquer a hostile nation, and then expect them to just fall in line without an occupation.
Some time in the womb, I’m guessing, as is the case for most people, straight or homosexual. Homosexuality is no more a choice than diabetes.
“The practice was the failure.”
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough. You don’t conquer a hostile nation, and then expect them to just fall in line without an occupation.
Areala:
because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do
I’m struggling to imagine what you think most people here do. I mean, Count is obviously a senator, and I’m pretty sure Hartmut is a close adviser to Merkel, but I think most people who comment here pretty much just have jobs and lives. And opinions. Knowledge and experience seem to be optional. After all, they let me in 🙂
Not that my history here is especially long and illustrious, but I always like hearing new voices. So, fwiw, welcome.
Areala:
because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do
I’m struggling to imagine what you think most people here do. I mean, Count is obviously a senator, and I’m pretty sure Hartmut is a close adviser to Merkel, but I think most people who comment here pretty much just have jobs and lives. And opinions. Knowledge and experience seem to be optional. After all, they let me in 🙂
Not that my history here is especially long and illustrious, but I always like hearing new voices. So, fwiw, welcome.
Areala:
because I’m just a girl who works at a bookstore, and everyone else here knows this stuff way better than I do
I’m struggling to imagine what you think most people here do. I mean, Count is obviously a senator, and I’m pretty sure Hartmut is a close adviser to Merkel, but I think most people who comment here pretty much just have jobs and lives. And opinions. Knowledge and experience seem to be optional. After all, they let me in 🙂
Not that my history here is especially long and illustrious, but I always like hearing new voices. So, fwiw, welcome.
Yeah, I’m an engineer. Don’t take me as an authority on anything except engineering matters.
Yeah, I’m an engineer. Don’t take me as an authority on anything except engineering matters.
Yeah, I’m an engineer. Don’t take me as an authority on anything except engineering matters.
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
I’ve always found the matter of choice in one’s sexuality to be irrelelvant to whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate against non-straight people. (Either way – choice or not, discrimination is not acceptable, IMO.) Somehow I never put it together with the choice available in one’s religion. So … thanks!
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
I’ve always found the matter of choice in one’s sexuality to be irrelelvant to whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate against non-straight people. (Either way – choice or not, discrimination is not acceptable, IMO.) Somehow I never put it together with the choice available in one’s religion. So … thanks!
The claim that homosexuality being a “choice” is somehow the basis for exclusion of consideration as a protected class has always struck me as logically odd when offered by religious folks. For among the characteristics most commonly protected from discrimination under U.S. law, almost all are innate – race, color, age, sex, national origin, religion – with only the last item being a choice.
I’ve always found the matter of choice in one’s sexuality to be irrelelvant to whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate against non-straight people. (Either way – choice or not, discrimination is not acceptable, IMO.) Somehow I never put it together with the choice available in one’s religion. So … thanks!
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough.
I’m almost afraid to ask this, but I’m guessing there’s a useful point in here that is simply escaping me.
Your overall argument here seems to be that government regulation in the area of discrimination is not useful. Everyone should be able to buy and sell, whatever, to whoever, for whatever reason, and it would all sort itself out. There might be some cases of people discriminating in ways that would be less-than-desirable, but overall everyone would get what they needed and we could all just move on.
Is that correct, so far?
The counterargument that has been raised is the 100 year history of systematic, vicious discrimination against blacks, both de jure and de facto, that occurred (and not just in the south) roughly from Emancipation until the civil rights legislation of the mid-20th C.
Your response to *that* is that the cause of that discrimination was the failure of government to continue a military occupation of the former confederacy, and in general to enforce the 14th A with sufficient vigor and force.
Am I alone in seeing a non-sequitur here?
I’m not following the logic.
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough.
I’m almost afraid to ask this, but I’m guessing there’s a useful point in here that is simply escaping me.
Your overall argument here seems to be that government regulation in the area of discrimination is not useful. Everyone should be able to buy and sell, whatever, to whoever, for whatever reason, and it would all sort itself out. There might be some cases of people discriminating in ways that would be less-than-desirable, but overall everyone would get what they needed and we could all just move on.
Is that correct, so far?
The counterargument that has been raised is the 100 year history of systematic, vicious discrimination against blacks, both de jure and de facto, that occurred (and not just in the south) roughly from Emancipation until the civil rights legislation of the mid-20th C.
Your response to *that* is that the cause of that discrimination was the failure of government to continue a military occupation of the former confederacy, and in general to enforce the 14th A with sufficient vigor and force.
Am I alone in seeing a non-sequitur here?
I’m not following the logic.
To be clear, enforcing the 14th amendment in the South was the job of the North. Nothing short of continued military occupation would have been enough.
I’m almost afraid to ask this, but I’m guessing there’s a useful point in here that is simply escaping me.
Your overall argument here seems to be that government regulation in the area of discrimination is not useful. Everyone should be able to buy and sell, whatever, to whoever, for whatever reason, and it would all sort itself out. There might be some cases of people discriminating in ways that would be less-than-desirable, but overall everyone would get what they needed and we could all just move on.
Is that correct, so far?
The counterargument that has been raised is the 100 year history of systematic, vicious discrimination against blacks, both de jure and de facto, that occurred (and not just in the south) roughly from Emancipation until the civil rights legislation of the mid-20th C.
Your response to *that* is that the cause of that discrimination was the failure of government to continue a military occupation of the former confederacy, and in general to enforce the 14th A with sufficient vigor and force.
Am I alone in seeing a non-sequitur here?
I’m not following the logic.
Perhaps the application of the RFRA and its bountiful offshoots from Hobby Lobby to the lamentable Indiana legislation should be governed by the strict application of “truth in advertising” regulations with appropriately prominent content labels subject to review by the FDA.
Signs reading “no Irish need apply”, “whites only” and “no shoes, no shirt, no gays” could possibly bring the self righteous to their senses. After all, full and complete information is one of the foundational assumptions of free market microeconomics.
Then, perhaps not.
Perhaps the application of the RFRA and its bountiful offshoots from Hobby Lobby to the lamentable Indiana legislation should be governed by the strict application of “truth in advertising” regulations with appropriately prominent content labels subject to review by the FDA.
Signs reading “no Irish need apply”, “whites only” and “no shoes, no shirt, no gays” could possibly bring the self righteous to their senses. After all, full and complete information is one of the foundational assumptions of free market microeconomics.
Then, perhaps not.
Perhaps the application of the RFRA and its bountiful offshoots from Hobby Lobby to the lamentable Indiana legislation should be governed by the strict application of “truth in advertising” regulations with appropriately prominent content labels subject to review by the FDA.
Signs reading “no Irish need apply”, “whites only” and “no shoes, no shirt, no gays” could possibly bring the self righteous to their senses. After all, full and complete information is one of the foundational assumptions of free market microeconomics.
Then, perhaps not.
Russell, perhaps the idea is that the government should use military (or at least Federal police) force to enforce the constitution. But should not use Federal law and the courts to do so.
I don’t really see the logic there either — specifically why one kind of force might be “coercion” but the other is not. But at least it would explain the position.
Russell, perhaps the idea is that the government should use military (or at least Federal police) force to enforce the constitution. But should not use Federal law and the courts to do so.
I don’t really see the logic there either — specifically why one kind of force might be “coercion” but the other is not. But at least it would explain the position.
Russell, perhaps the idea is that the government should use military (or at least Federal police) force to enforce the constitution. But should not use Federal law and the courts to do so.
I don’t really see the logic there either — specifically why one kind of force might be “coercion” but the other is not. But at least it would explain the position.
“I’m not following the logic.”
Imediately ending discrimination in the South would have required an extended, full scale military occupation, which the North had neither the stomach for, nor, frankly, the resources.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
After nearly a century had passed, racism in the South naturally declined, to the point where measures that came well short of military occupation were sufficient to do the job of giving blacks formal equality, and giving people who wanted to deal with them on a basis of equality the legal protection they needed.
It was not just a matter of deciding to do something about the problem, the problem wasn’t nearly as bad as it had been.
Thanks to that protection, racism in the South went into an accelerated decline, and now is scarcely any worse than in the North.
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
What I’m saying is that racism in America, while still extant, is no longer at levels justifying emergency measures, such as abolishing freedom of association. We can be a free society now.
“I’m not following the logic.”
Imediately ending discrimination in the South would have required an extended, full scale military occupation, which the North had neither the stomach for, nor, frankly, the resources.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
After nearly a century had passed, racism in the South naturally declined, to the point where measures that came well short of military occupation were sufficient to do the job of giving blacks formal equality, and giving people who wanted to deal with them on a basis of equality the legal protection they needed.
It was not just a matter of deciding to do something about the problem, the problem wasn’t nearly as bad as it had been.
Thanks to that protection, racism in the South went into an accelerated decline, and now is scarcely any worse than in the North.
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
What I’m saying is that racism in America, while still extant, is no longer at levels justifying emergency measures, such as abolishing freedom of association. We can be a free society now.
“I’m not following the logic.”
Imediately ending discrimination in the South would have required an extended, full scale military occupation, which the North had neither the stomach for, nor, frankly, the resources.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
After nearly a century had passed, racism in the South naturally declined, to the point where measures that came well short of military occupation were sufficient to do the job of giving blacks formal equality, and giving people who wanted to deal with them on a basis of equality the legal protection they needed.
It was not just a matter of deciding to do something about the problem, the problem wasn’t nearly as bad as it had been.
Thanks to that protection, racism in the South went into an accelerated decline, and now is scarcely any worse than in the North.
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
What I’m saying is that racism in America, while still extant, is no longer at levels justifying emergency measures, such as abolishing freedom of association. We can be a free society now.
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
Do have any evidence of this, or are you mistaking hyperbole for reality?
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
Do have any evidence of this, or are you mistaking hyperbole for reality?
And yet, we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary to keep Southern racism in check, and blacks out of slavery.
Do have any evidence of this, or are you mistaking hyperbole for reality?
we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary
“You have to sell the gay couple a cake” is equivalent to a military occupation?
I have no idea what point you’re making. I really don’t. You’re not making any sense here, at all.
we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary
“You have to sell the gay couple a cake” is equivalent to a military occupation?
I have no idea what point you’re making. I really don’t. You’re not making any sense here, at all.
we’re supposed to pretend that emergency measures more appropriate to 1864 than 2015 are necessary
“You have to sell the gay couple a cake” is equivalent to a military occupation?
I have no idea what point you’re making. I really don’t. You’re not making any sense here, at all.
“emergency measures”?
huh?
“emergency measures”?
huh?
“emergency measures”?
huh?
Freedom of association is a basic liberty. So’s the right to decide who you’ll labor for. Abrogating them are emergency measures. We’re not in an emergency anymore. Nobody’s going to ride out at night and burn down a bakery because they make a cake for a gay couple.
More likely the opposite at this point, frankly.
You’re not taking the baker’s freedom away so that the gay couple can get married. You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”. And that’s not justification enough for anything, let alone abrogating basic liberties.
Freedom of association is a basic liberty. So’s the right to decide who you’ll labor for. Abrogating them are emergency measures. We’re not in an emergency anymore. Nobody’s going to ride out at night and burn down a bakery because they make a cake for a gay couple.
More likely the opposite at this point, frankly.
You’re not taking the baker’s freedom away so that the gay couple can get married. You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”. And that’s not justification enough for anything, let alone abrogating basic liberties.
Freedom of association is a basic liberty. So’s the right to decide who you’ll labor for. Abrogating them are emergency measures. We’re not in an emergency anymore. Nobody’s going to ride out at night and burn down a bakery because they make a cake for a gay couple.
More likely the opposite at this point, frankly.
You’re not taking the baker’s freedom away so that the gay couple can get married. You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”. And that’s not justification enough for anything, let alone abrogating basic liberties.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
Off topic here, but FWIW I think it’s worth noting that the south did not have any kind of monopoly on racism, or any other kind of discriminatory ism, of any kind.
Anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrants in general.
North, south, east, west, and everywhere in between.
I live in New England. Ain’t a lot of dark skin up here, and lots of folks are happy with things that way, to this day.
To the degree that the north “gave up”, it was not least because they were just not that interested.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
Off topic here, but FWIW I think it’s worth noting that the south did not have any kind of monopoly on racism, or any other kind of discriminatory ism, of any kind.
Anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrants in general.
North, south, east, west, and everywhere in between.
I live in New England. Ain’t a lot of dark skin up here, and lots of folks are happy with things that way, to this day.
To the degree that the north “gave up”, it was not least because they were just not that interested.
So, the North largely gave up, and let the South continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, only limiting the extent of this at the margins.
Off topic here, but FWIW I think it’s worth noting that the south did not have any kind of monopoly on racism, or any other kind of discriminatory ism, of any kind.
Anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrants in general.
North, south, east, west, and everywhere in between.
I live in New England. Ain’t a lot of dark skin up here, and lots of folks are happy with things that way, to this day.
To the degree that the north “gave up”, it was not least because they were just not that interested.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”
Yes, there’s nothing that makes my day quite so sunny as the thought of socially conservative Christians being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.
Blow it out your shorts.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”
Yes, there’s nothing that makes my day quite so sunny as the thought of socially conservative Christians being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.
Blow it out your shorts.
You’re doing it to let them enjoy Conan’s “what is good in life”
Yes, there’s nothing that makes my day quite so sunny as the thought of socially conservative Christians being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.
Blow it out your shorts.
“I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.”
Her salty tears make the cake taste so much better
“I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.”
Her salty tears make the cake taste so much better
“I love to hear the lamentation of the icing lady.”
Her salty tears make the cake taste so much better
You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
Is it also safe to assume the baker is thrilled when he gets to say, “I’m not baking a cake for a couple of godless fags”?
I mean, seriously, do you think it’s thrilling to be denied the paid service everyone else gets? Do think anyone wouldn’t prefer simply to have gotten the cake they wanted to buy without all the fuss?
You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
Is it also safe to assume the baker is thrilled when he gets to say, “I’m not baking a cake for a couple of godless fags”?
I mean, seriously, do you think it’s thrilling to be denied the paid service everyone else gets? Do think anyone wouldn’t prefer simply to have gotten the cake they wanted to buy without all the fuss?
You’re taking it away so they can have the thrill of forcing somebody who didn’t think they should be married to bake their cake.
Is it also safe to assume the baker is thrilled when he gets to say, “I’m not baking a cake for a couple of godless fags”?
I mean, seriously, do you think it’s thrilling to be denied the paid service everyone else gets? Do think anyone wouldn’t prefer simply to have gotten the cake they wanted to buy without all the fuss?
I’m sure, everybody likes to get their way. But freedom of association, and not being forced to labor for somebody against your will, are fundamental liberties. And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
I’m sure, everybody likes to get their way. But freedom of association, and not being forced to labor for somebody against your will, are fundamental liberties. And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
I’m sure, everybody likes to get their way. But freedom of association, and not being forced to labor for somebody against your will, are fundamental liberties. And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
don’t bother trying to discuss it like rational people.
the only possible reason that you could possibly have for placing any limit whatsoever on anyone else’s freedom of association *must be* because you want to make that person suffer.
no other reason or purpose is conceivable.
let alone that freedom of association, per se, is not explicitly named in the US constitution, but is inferred from other explicitly named rights.
also let alone that there are centuries of case law discussing whether, and when, and for what purposes, freedom of association can be limited.
also let alone the fact that, in spite of Brett’s sunny appraisal of the state of the art as regards people’s tendencies to maliciously discriminate against other people, gay people are regularly harassed, publicly insulted, beaten up, fired, and regularly find themselves required to conceal the fact of their sexual identity in order to simply make their way through the world.
none of that matters.
we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.
Any conversation with Brett that goes on long enough will, sooner or later, and frequently sooner, devolve into claims that his interlocutors’ only desire is to punish people that they disagree with.
Unusually, in this case, it took almost 400 comments, in which everyone’s point of view has been fairly carefully discussed.
All for Brett to cheerfully ignore in his zeal to identify the real heart of the matter.
People who disagree with him do so solely in order to make folks that they, in turn, disagree with, suffer.
You might as well try to have a conversation with a parrot who has been trained to screech out the same handful of phrases on cue.
don’t bother trying to discuss it like rational people.
the only possible reason that you could possibly have for placing any limit whatsoever on anyone else’s freedom of association *must be* because you want to make that person suffer.
no other reason or purpose is conceivable.
let alone that freedom of association, per se, is not explicitly named in the US constitution, but is inferred from other explicitly named rights.
also let alone that there are centuries of case law discussing whether, and when, and for what purposes, freedom of association can be limited.
also let alone the fact that, in spite of Brett’s sunny appraisal of the state of the art as regards people’s tendencies to maliciously discriminate against other people, gay people are regularly harassed, publicly insulted, beaten up, fired, and regularly find themselves required to conceal the fact of their sexual identity in order to simply make their way through the world.
none of that matters.
we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.
Any conversation with Brett that goes on long enough will, sooner or later, and frequently sooner, devolve into claims that his interlocutors’ only desire is to punish people that they disagree with.
Unusually, in this case, it took almost 400 comments, in which everyone’s point of view has been fairly carefully discussed.
All for Brett to cheerfully ignore in his zeal to identify the real heart of the matter.
People who disagree with him do so solely in order to make folks that they, in turn, disagree with, suffer.
You might as well try to have a conversation with a parrot who has been trained to screech out the same handful of phrases on cue.
don’t bother trying to discuss it like rational people.
the only possible reason that you could possibly have for placing any limit whatsoever on anyone else’s freedom of association *must be* because you want to make that person suffer.
no other reason or purpose is conceivable.
let alone that freedom of association, per se, is not explicitly named in the US constitution, but is inferred from other explicitly named rights.
also let alone that there are centuries of case law discussing whether, and when, and for what purposes, freedom of association can be limited.
also let alone the fact that, in spite of Brett’s sunny appraisal of the state of the art as regards people’s tendencies to maliciously discriminate against other people, gay people are regularly harassed, publicly insulted, beaten up, fired, and regularly find themselves required to conceal the fact of their sexual identity in order to simply make their way through the world.
none of that matters.
we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.
Any conversation with Brett that goes on long enough will, sooner or later, and frequently sooner, devolve into claims that his interlocutors’ only desire is to punish people that they disagree with.
Unusually, in this case, it took almost 400 comments, in which everyone’s point of view has been fairly carefully discussed.
All for Brett to cheerfully ignore in his zeal to identify the real heart of the matter.
People who disagree with him do so solely in order to make folks that they, in turn, disagree with, suffer.
You might as well try to have a conversation with a parrot who has been trained to screech out the same handful of phrases on cue.
And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
What about not being discriminated against solely over a particular characteristic you might have? There are innumerable reasons a baker might refuse to bake someone a cake which would not run afoul of any law and would not be considered discrimination. A baker actually can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, so long as it isn’t just because they’re gay.
I get that you think the baker’s liberty trumps that, and that you think equal access to public accomodations is secondary. On that we simply disagree.
I’m fine with our disagreement. But your insinuation that you’re interested in people’s rights, whereas the people who disagree with you are not, is mildly annoying.
All the, “You guys just want to force people to do stuff” crap is unnecessary, at best. I’d much rather people would stop looking for reasons to treat each other like sh1t and not have to deal with it at all.
And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
What about not being discriminated against solely over a particular characteristic you might have? There are innumerable reasons a baker might refuse to bake someone a cake which would not run afoul of any law and would not be considered discrimination. A baker actually can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, so long as it isn’t just because they’re gay.
I get that you think the baker’s liberty trumps that, and that you think equal access to public accomodations is secondary. On that we simply disagree.
I’m fine with our disagreement. But your insinuation that you’re interested in people’s rights, whereas the people who disagree with you are not, is mildly annoying.
All the, “You guys just want to force people to do stuff” crap is unnecessary, at best. I’d much rather people would stop looking for reasons to treat each other like sh1t and not have to deal with it at all.
And getting a cake baked by a specific person even if they don’t want to bake it for you, isn’t a fundamental liberty.
What about not being discriminated against solely over a particular characteristic you might have? There are innumerable reasons a baker might refuse to bake someone a cake which would not run afoul of any law and would not be considered discrimination. A baker actually can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, so long as it isn’t just because they’re gay.
I get that you think the baker’s liberty trumps that, and that you think equal access to public accomodations is secondary. On that we simply disagree.
I’m fine with our disagreement. But your insinuation that you’re interested in people’s rights, whereas the people who disagree with you are not, is mildly annoying.
All the, “You guys just want to force people to do stuff” crap is unnecessary, at best. I’d much rather people would stop looking for reasons to treat each other like sh1t and not have to deal with it at all.
Always beating me to the punch, russell.
Always beating me to the punch, russell.
Always beating me to the punch, russell.
[…]
The thing is, freedom of association—and disassociation—aren’t just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
Even if people aren’t overtly malicious when forced to serve people they don’t like, just how enthusiastic is their work going to be? Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There’s a good chance you’re just not going to get best efforts.
[…]
Making People Who Hate You Serve You Is a Really Bad Idea: Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like…What the hell is that?
[…]
The thing is, freedom of association—and disassociation—aren’t just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
Even if people aren’t overtly malicious when forced to serve people they don’t like, just how enthusiastic is their work going to be? Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There’s a good chance you’re just not going to get best efforts.
[…]
Making People Who Hate You Serve You Is a Really Bad Idea: Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like…What the hell is that?
[…]
The thing is, freedom of association—and disassociation—aren’t just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
Even if people aren’t overtly malicious when forced to serve people they don’t like, just how enthusiastic is their work going to be? Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There’s a good chance you’re just not going to get best efforts.
[…]
Making People Who Hate You Serve You Is a Really Bad Idea: Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like…What the hell is that?
If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
we’ve tried the alternative. it didn’t work.
separate/d but equal is not the way to go.
If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
we’ve tried the alternative. it didn’t work.
separate/d but equal is not the way to go.
If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.
we’ve tried the alternative. it didn’t work.
separate/d but equal is not the way to go.
“we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.”
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell, but it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job. This is a pattern that’s beginning to be established in these cases. Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job. Instead, looking for somebody who doesn’t want to to the job, to force to do it.
Just because you’re an officially put upon minority doesn’t mean your motives are going to automatically be savory. Plenty of people like grinding their ‘enemy’s face in the dirt, if the government is willing to back them up in doing it.
“we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.”
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell, but it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job. This is a pattern that’s beginning to be established in these cases. Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job. Instead, looking for somebody who doesn’t want to to the job, to force to do it.
Just because you’re an officially put upon minority doesn’t mean your motives are going to automatically be savory. Plenty of people like grinding their ‘enemy’s face in the dirt, if the government is willing to back them up in doing it.
“we have demanded that bakers *must bake a cake* for gay weddings, for the obvious reason that we take delight in making those bakers suffer.”
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell, but it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job. This is a pattern that’s beginning to be established in these cases. Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job. Instead, looking for somebody who doesn’t want to to the job, to force to do it.
Just because you’re an officially put upon minority doesn’t mean your motives are going to automatically be savory. Plenty of people like grinding their ‘enemy’s face in the dirt, if the government is willing to back them up in doing it.
yes, it’s true that people who think the law is broken seek out ways to force the matter before a court (and into the public spotlight). happens all the time – Rosa Parks is a well-known example. that’s how the system works.
yes, it’s true that people who think the law is broken seek out ways to force the matter before a court (and into the public spotlight). happens all the time – Rosa Parks is a well-known example. that’s how the system works.
yes, it’s true that people who think the law is broken seek out ways to force the matter before a court (and into the public spotlight). happens all the time – Rosa Parks is a well-known example. that’s how the system works.
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell
I recommend tutoring in reading comprehension.
In the meantime, you can blow it out your shorts.
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell
I recommend tutoring in reading comprehension.
In the meantime, you can blow it out your shorts.
I don’t know what your motive is, Russell
I recommend tutoring in reading comprehension.
In the meantime, you can blow it out your shorts.
So, a long military occupation of the South in oder to violently root out and destroy racial bigotry is completely justifiable. But using the courts and minor fines to slap the wrists of SSM bigots is near-fascism.
Got it.
So, a long military occupation of the South in oder to violently root out and destroy racial bigotry is completely justifiable. But using the courts and minor fines to slap the wrists of SSM bigots is near-fascism.
Got it.
So, a long military occupation of the South in oder to violently root out and destroy racial bigotry is completely justifiable. But using the courts and minor fines to slap the wrists of SSM bigots is near-fascism.
Got it.
I think all we’ve established in your case, Snarki, is that you have problems with tenses. A long military occupation would have been justifiable right after the Civil war. But, as I keep saying, it’s not 1864 anymore.
I think all we’ve established in your case, Snarki, is that you have problems with tenses. A long military occupation would have been justifiable right after the Civil war. But, as I keep saying, it’s not 1864 anymore.
I think all we’ve established in your case, Snarki, is that you have problems with tenses. A long military occupation would have been justifiable right after the Civil war. But, as I keep saying, it’s not 1864 anymore.
So military occupation would have been justifiable back then. But would not be now, because (some) conditions have changed. And, since it is not justifiable now, nothing else can be used to deal with those things which have not changed.
Does that mean that elapsed time justifies things which were once wrong? Or that, if something isn’t fixed immediately, and by force, it cannot be fixed later by less drastic means?
So military occupation would have been justifiable back then. But would not be now, because (some) conditions have changed. And, since it is not justifiable now, nothing else can be used to deal with those things which have not changed.
Does that mean that elapsed time justifies things which were once wrong? Or that, if something isn’t fixed immediately, and by force, it cannot be fixed later by less drastic means?
So military occupation would have been justifiable back then. But would not be now, because (some) conditions have changed. And, since it is not justifiable now, nothing else can be used to deal with those things which have not changed.
Does that mean that elapsed time justifies things which were once wrong? Or that, if something isn’t fixed immediately, and by force, it cannot be fixed later by less drastic means?
What conditions have not changed? Practically every damned condition has changed.
What I’m saying is that abrogating freedom of association and the right to refuse your labor is an EMERGENCY measure, and we’re not any longer in an EMERGENCY.
It’s not an emergency if your choice of caterer doesn’t want the job. Annoying? Sure. Insulting? You bet. An emergency justifying violating their basic liberties?
Like hell.
What conditions have not changed? Practically every damned condition has changed.
What I’m saying is that abrogating freedom of association and the right to refuse your labor is an EMERGENCY measure, and we’re not any longer in an EMERGENCY.
It’s not an emergency if your choice of caterer doesn’t want the job. Annoying? Sure. Insulting? You bet. An emergency justifying violating their basic liberties?
Like hell.
What conditions have not changed? Practically every damned condition has changed.
What I’m saying is that abrogating freedom of association and the right to refuse your labor is an EMERGENCY measure, and we’re not any longer in an EMERGENCY.
It’s not an emergency if your choice of caterer doesn’t want the job. Annoying? Sure. Insulting? You bet. An emergency justifying violating their basic liberties?
Like hell.
So, was it an EMERGENCY in the early 1960s? When the Civil Rights Act etc. was passed — and which appears to also violate what you consider basic liberties.
So, was it an EMERGENCY in the early 1960s? When the Civil Rights Act etc. was passed — and which appears to also violate what you consider basic liberties.
So, was it an EMERGENCY in the early 1960s? When the Civil Rights Act etc. was passed — and which appears to also violate what you consider basic liberties.
[…]
It’s important to understand then that libertarian support for same-sex marriage and civil liberties for gay people in general is not a result of how libertarians feel about gay people…Support for same-sex marriage is a result of a belief that gay people, just like heterosexual people, have the right through freedom of association to create their own families and expect to be treated the same way under the law. Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion on this inherent right.
[…]
The belief in freedom of association, therefore, obligates us to respect the right to refuse to associate with certain people, even if bigotry is a possible reason for that refusal. A Christian baker shouldn’t have the authority to stop a same-sex couple from getting married. But the couple shouldn’t have the authority to require a baker to make them a wedding cake for the ceremony. Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business. The same right that calls for the government to recognize same-sex marriages also permits the baker to refuse to provide a wedding cake.
[…]
Libertarians, Gay Marriage, and Freedom of Association: A Primer: How the same right allows for both same-sex marriage recognition and refusing to sell gay couples wedding cakes
[…]
It’s important to understand then that libertarian support for same-sex marriage and civil liberties for gay people in general is not a result of how libertarians feel about gay people…Support for same-sex marriage is a result of a belief that gay people, just like heterosexual people, have the right through freedom of association to create their own families and expect to be treated the same way under the law. Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion on this inherent right.
[…]
The belief in freedom of association, therefore, obligates us to respect the right to refuse to associate with certain people, even if bigotry is a possible reason for that refusal. A Christian baker shouldn’t have the authority to stop a same-sex couple from getting married. But the couple shouldn’t have the authority to require a baker to make them a wedding cake for the ceremony. Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business. The same right that calls for the government to recognize same-sex marriages also permits the baker to refuse to provide a wedding cake.
[…]
Libertarians, Gay Marriage, and Freedom of Association: A Primer: How the same right allows for both same-sex marriage recognition and refusing to sell gay couples wedding cakes
[…]
It’s important to understand then that libertarian support for same-sex marriage and civil liberties for gay people in general is not a result of how libertarians feel about gay people…Support for same-sex marriage is a result of a belief that gay people, just like heterosexual people, have the right through freedom of association to create their own families and expect to be treated the same way under the law. Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion on this inherent right.
[…]
The belief in freedom of association, therefore, obligates us to respect the right to refuse to associate with certain people, even if bigotry is a possible reason for that refusal. A Christian baker shouldn’t have the authority to stop a same-sex couple from getting married. But the couple shouldn’t have the authority to require a baker to make them a wedding cake for the ceremony. Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business. The same right that calls for the government to recognize same-sex marriages also permits the baker to refuse to provide a wedding cake.
[…]
Libertarians, Gay Marriage, and Freedom of Association: A Primer: How the same right allows for both same-sex marriage recognition and refusing to sell gay couples wedding cakes
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job.
not for nothing, but can you provide any evidence of this?
it’s well-established, right? it shouldn’t take too long.
i don’t know either way, it could be true. but it’s the kind of thing i’d expect someone to document if they were going to make claims of ill intent.
it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job.
not for nothing, but can you provide any evidence of this?
it’s well-established, right? it shouldn’t take too long.
i don’t know either way, it could be true. but it’s the kind of thing i’d expect someone to document if they were going to make claims of ill intent.
it’s well established that the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them, and only settled on Elaine Photography after confirming they wouldn’t take the job.
not for nothing, but can you provide any evidence of this?
it’s well-established, right? it shouldn’t take too long.
i don’t know either way, it could be true. but it’s the kind of thing i’d expect someone to document if they were going to make claims of ill intent.
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
freedom of association is not limitless nor is it absolute. there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
IN even prevents employment discrimination based on “off-duty tobacco use” !
it just happens that sexual orientation isn’t covered in IN. it should be, but it isn’t.
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
freedom of association is not limitless nor is it absolute. there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
IN even prevents employment discrimination based on “off-duty tobacco use” !
it just happens that sexual orientation isn’t covered in IN. it should be, but it isn’t.
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
freedom of association is not limitless nor is it absolute. there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
IN even prevents employment discrimination based on “off-duty tobacco use” !
it just happens that sexual orientation isn’t covered in IN. it should be, but it isn’t.
there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
Obviously, that is the problem.
there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
Obviously, that is the problem.
there are already laws in IN (and at the Federal level) which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, age, disabilities, religion, etc..
Obviously, that is the problem.
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding Photographer May Not Decline Business from Same-Sex Couple’s Commitment Ceremony
“The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides much broader protection than the federal Free Exercise Clause, because it protects those with religious objections even against laws that are neutral on their face about religion and apply generally to all. That statute requires the government to justify infringements on religious liberty with a compelling state interest, implemented by the least restrictive means. However, Elane Photography could not benefit from the protections provided by the NMRFRA, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, because the statute applies only to legal actions in which the government was a party.”
And there you have why the Indiana RFRA was written to apply to cases where the government wasn’t a party. Because of Elaine Photography v Willock.
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding Photographer May Not Decline Business from Same-Sex Couple’s Commitment Ceremony
“The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides much broader protection than the federal Free Exercise Clause, because it protects those with religious objections even against laws that are neutral on their face about religion and apply generally to all. That statute requires the government to justify infringements on religious liberty with a compelling state interest, implemented by the least restrictive means. However, Elane Photography could not benefit from the protections provided by the NMRFRA, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, because the statute applies only to legal actions in which the government was a party.”
And there you have why the Indiana RFRA was written to apply to cases where the government wasn’t a party. Because of Elaine Photography v Willock.
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
New Mexico Supreme Court: Wedding Photographer May Not Decline Business from Same-Sex Couple’s Commitment Ceremony
“The New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides much broader protection than the federal Free Exercise Clause, because it protects those with religious objections even against laws that are neutral on their face about religion and apply generally to all. That statute requires the government to justify infringements on religious liberty with a compelling state interest, implemented by the least restrictive means. However, Elane Photography could not benefit from the protections provided by the NMRFRA, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, because the statute applies only to legal actions in which the government was a party.”
And there you have why the Indiana RFRA was written to apply to cases where the government wasn’t a party. Because of Elaine Photography v Willock.
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.
You do understand that your first sentence here has nothing to do with claim you made upthread, right?
Would you care to retract your earlier claim?
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.
You do understand that your first sentence here has nothing to do with claim you made upthread, right?
Would you care to retract your earlier claim?
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price. So the suit wasn’t about their inability to get their event photographed.
No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.
You do understand that your first sentence here has nothing to do with claim you made upthread, right?
Would you care to retract your earlier claim?
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
CharlesWT,
Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?
You also support the repeal of the Taft Hartley Act?
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
CharlesWT,
Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?
You also support the repeal of the Taft Hartley Act?
Freedom of association in the world of commerce requires us to accept the right of both sides to determine with whom to do business.
CharlesWT,
Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?
You also support the repeal of the Taft Hartley Act?
“No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.”
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Citing the law doesn’t defend this, it’s the law I object to.
“No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.”
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Citing the law doesn’t defend this, it’s the law I object to.
“No, it was about Elaine Photography discriminating against gays in violation of NM state law.”
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Citing the law doesn’t defend this, it’s the law I object to.
“Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?”
I certainly do. It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Goldwater, but if I had been, he would have gotten my vote. He was right on principle about that one, even if he was on the losing side of history.
“Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?”
I certainly do. It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Goldwater, but if I had been, he would have gotten my vote. He was right on principle about that one, even if he was on the losing side of history.
“Then you support repeal of the CR Act of 1964?”
I certainly do. It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Goldwater, but if I had been, he would have gotten my vote. He was right on principle about that one, even if he was on the losing side of history.
I think we could do without most, if not all, of the Taft Hartley Act.
What Brett said about the CR Act.
I think we could do without most, if not all, of the Taft Hartley Act.
What Brett said about the CR Act.
I think we could do without most, if not all, of the Taft Hartley Act.
What Brett said about the CR Act.
the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price.
You do see the difference between these two things, right? And should they have to sit on their thumbs waiting for their suit to progress before getting their pictures?
You seem to be responding to the claim that this particular instance was one where the couple had no other choice of photographer, but it doesn’t seem to be a claim that anyone has made. It’s a situation that has been proposed hypothetically, because it could happen, which brings me back to this:
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price.
You do see the difference between these two things, right? And should they have to sit on their thumbs waiting for their suit to progress before getting their pictures?
You seem to be responding to the claim that this particular instance was one where the couple had no other choice of photographer, but it doesn’t seem to be a claim that anyone has made. It’s a situation that has been proposed hypothetically, because it could happen, which brings me back to this:
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
the plaintifs in the Elaine Photography case went looking for a wedding photographer who wouldn’t photograph them
They sued Elaine Photography AFTER finding another photographer to do the job, at a better price.
You do see the difference between these two things, right? And should they have to sit on their thumbs waiting for their suit to progress before getting their pictures?
You seem to be responding to the claim that this particular instance was one where the couple had no other choice of photographer, but it doesn’t seem to be a claim that anyone has made. It’s a situation that has been proposed hypothetically, because it could happen, which brings me back to this:
Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?
i just checked. nope, the law still says nothing about cakes or events.
It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
in case anybody wonders why libertarians are predominantly white men.
i just checked. nope, the law still says nothing about cakes or events.
It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
in case anybody wonders why libertarians are predominantly white men.
i just checked. nope, the law still says nothing about cakes or events.
It should be replaced with a Civil Rights act that limits itself to protecting actual civil rights, rather than attacking them in the name of prohibiting discrimination.
in case anybody wonders why libertarians are predominantly white men.
In Search of Libertarians in America…
In Search of Libertarians in America…
In Search of Libertarians in America…
“Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?”
Not for a lot of services. I mean, geeze, my wedding photographer was my nephew, my caterer my cousin. Civil rights vs convenience, I come down on the side of civil rights.
But I can at least understand the appeal of public accomidation laws in cases where they make a huge difference. The family car breaks down in a one horse town in the middle of a blizzard, you’ve got a good case for requiring the hotel to find them a room.
But, a WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER? Who ever died of exposure for lack of a wedding photographer?
BTW, my wedding photographer was my nephew, taking a photography class. Catered by my cousin.
“Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?”
Not for a lot of services. I mean, geeze, my wedding photographer was my nephew, my caterer my cousin. Civil rights vs convenience, I come down on the side of civil rights.
But I can at least understand the appeal of public accomidation laws in cases where they make a huge difference. The family car breaks down in a one horse town in the middle of a blizzard, you’ve got a good case for requiring the hotel to find them a room.
But, a WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER? Who ever died of exposure for lack of a wedding photographer?
BTW, my wedding photographer was my nephew, taking a photography class. Catered by my cousin.
“Not, living in a little town with one vendor, and suing only because they can’t find a florist or baker willing to do the job.
So you’d be okay with suing in this situation?”
Not for a lot of services. I mean, geeze, my wedding photographer was my nephew, my caterer my cousin. Civil rights vs convenience, I come down on the side of civil rights.
But I can at least understand the appeal of public accomidation laws in cases where they make a huge difference. The family car breaks down in a one horse town in the middle of a blizzard, you’ve got a good case for requiring the hotel to find them a room.
But, a WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER? Who ever died of exposure for lack of a wedding photographer?
BTW, my wedding photographer was my nephew, taking a photography class. Catered by my cousin.
94% white, 68% male. yup.
94% white, 68% male. yup.
94% white, 68% male. yup.
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
the IN law does not make that distinction. you seem to think it does. but it does not.
the IN law does not make that distinction. you seem to think it does. but it does not.
the IN law does not make that distinction. you seem to think it does. but it does not.
Click on the lower right corner and drag.
Click on the lower right corner and drag.
Click on the lower right corner and drag.
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
No, I don’t think it does. How many times do I have to say,
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
Doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is. It’s perfectly possible to know what the law is, and think the case for having that law is pathetic, or even reprehensible.
I mean, you think abolitionists somehow didn’t know slavery was legal in the South?
No, I don’t think it does. How many times do I have to say,
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
Doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is. It’s perfectly possible to know what the law is, and think the case for having that law is pathetic, or even reprehensible.
I mean, you think abolitionists somehow didn’t know slavery was legal in the South?
No, I don’t think it does. How many times do I have to say,
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
Doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is. It’s perfectly possible to know what the law is, and think the case for having that law is pathetic, or even reprehensible.
I mean, you think abolitionists somehow didn’t know slavery was legal in the South?
No, I don’t think it does.
good to hear!
so you’re just arguing that discrimination should be OK sometimes but not other times? cakes: yes. hotel room on cold nights: no.
what about hotel rooms on pleasant June nights? can a gay couple get a room then?
and if you’re throwing out laws, i assume you’re throwing out all of the ‘protected classes’, too. so if it’s like a hurricane or something would Muslims be allowed to stay in a hotel run by a bigots, or not?
No, I don’t think it does.
good to hear!
so you’re just arguing that discrimination should be OK sometimes but not other times? cakes: yes. hotel room on cold nights: no.
what about hotel rooms on pleasant June nights? can a gay couple get a room then?
and if you’re throwing out laws, i assume you’re throwing out all of the ‘protected classes’, too. so if it’s like a hurricane or something would Muslims be allowed to stay in a hotel run by a bigots, or not?
No, I don’t think it does.
good to hear!
so you’re just arguing that discrimination should be OK sometimes but not other times? cakes: yes. hotel room on cold nights: no.
what about hotel rooms on pleasant June nights? can a gay couple get a room then?
and if you’re throwing out laws, i assume you’re throwing out all of the ‘protected classes’, too. so if it’s like a hurricane or something would Muslims be allowed to stay in a hotel run by a bigots, or not?
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Yes, that’s correct. Because Elaine refused to take pictures for them, in violation of the law.
I understand that you don’t like the law, but it ain’t your hash to settle. You don’t live in NM.
The fact that they already had a photographer is beside the point of the case. They objected to being discriminated against, and in the state of NM, where they live, they are entitled to recourse through civil suit.
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
In any case, what you have failed to do is demonstrate that Willock *sought out photographers who would refuse to photograph their ceremony*, which is the claim you made in your 1:44.
You said:
And:
In the Elaine Photography v Willock case, that claim appears to be false. You’ve been invited to demonstrate otherwise. You have refused.
If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, this would be the point at which you would either back up your claim, or stand down from it. Rather than natter on about a different point.
Over to you.
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Yes, that’s correct. Because Elaine refused to take pictures for them, in violation of the law.
I understand that you don’t like the law, but it ain’t your hash to settle. You don’t live in NM.
The fact that they already had a photographer is beside the point of the case. They objected to being discriminated against, and in the state of NM, where they live, they are entitled to recourse through civil suit.
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
In any case, what you have failed to do is demonstrate that Willock *sought out photographers who would refuse to photograph their ceremony*, which is the claim you made in your 1:44.
You said:
And:
In the Elaine Photography v Willock case, that claim appears to be false. You’ve been invited to demonstrate otherwise. You have refused.
If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, this would be the point at which you would either back up your claim, or stand down from it. Rather than natter on about a different point.
Over to you.
Which is to say, about them using the legal system to punish Elaine for not wanting to work for them, even though they already had a photographer.
Yes, that’s correct. Because Elaine refused to take pictures for them, in violation of the law.
I understand that you don’t like the law, but it ain’t your hash to settle. You don’t live in NM.
The fact that they already had a photographer is beside the point of the case. They objected to being discriminated against, and in the state of NM, where they live, they are entitled to recourse through civil suit.
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
In any case, what you have failed to do is demonstrate that Willock *sought out photographers who would refuse to photograph their ceremony*, which is the claim you made in your 1:44.
You said:
And:
In the Elaine Photography v Willock case, that claim appears to be false. You’ve been invited to demonstrate otherwise. You have refused.
If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, this would be the point at which you would either back up your claim, or stand down from it. Rather than natter on about a different point.
Over to you.
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
Thanks cleek. I ws just about to second Brett on this.
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
Thanks cleek. I ws just about to second Brett on this.
By the way, I vote for a larger editing window…
use a browser that lets you resize edit fields (Firefox, Chrome)
Thanks cleek. I ws just about to second Brett on this.
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
The IND. law? At last we agree.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
The IND. law? At last we agree.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
I DON’T LIKE THE LAW.
The IND. law? At last we agree.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
know your opposition
know your opposition
know your opposition
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
You mean she was not ‘coerced’ at gunpoint to bake a cake? She can continue to be a bigoted asshole baker?
Good heavens. I have been sorely misled.
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
You mean she was not ‘coerced’ at gunpoint to bake a cake? She can continue to be a bigoted asshole baker?
Good heavens. I have been sorely misled.
The incredible punitive damage levied against Elaine Photo – the “punishment” tantamount to slavery and military occupation – was attorney’s fees.
You mean she was not ‘coerced’ at gunpoint to bake a cake? She can continue to be a bigoted asshole baker?
Good heavens. I have been sorely misled.
She was the photographer, not the baker.
The bakery in OR lost a lot of business, and was subject to a lot of harassment, to the point where they closed their shop and are trying to make a go of it as a home bakery.
The pizza place in IN was basically Yelp-bombed after they made their statements, and a lot of the comments on their Yelp site were, frankly, abusive.
Then again, they’re coming out of it with something like a million bucks in donations, so it ain’t all downside. For them, anyway.
In any case, there is truth to the claim that some of the reaction toward people who want to claim a religious exemption has been harmful and abusive.
And IMO all of that is wrong and un-called for.
It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Brett’s claim that Willock and her partner, specifically, were deliberately trolling for photographers to prosecute for discrimination is, as far as I can tell, false.
Brett’s claim that people who support the anti-discrimination laws are only, or even primarily, or in most cases at all, interested in punishing people who disagree with them is also false, and in the context of this thread, frankly rude.
Figuring out how to carve out exemptions from the law to respect conscience is a really hard task. It’s a balancing act.
Brett’s claim that, now in 2015, we simply don’t need the law to be involved in preventing discrimination is risible.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
With all due respect to people who are, or lean, libertarian, my experience with trying to have a reasonable and candid discussion about stuff like this with doctrinaire libertarians leaves me with the impression that they have no freaking idea what the real world is.
It’s like bobbyp’s link – axiom + principle = reality!! right? why can’t you stupid liberals grasp the brilliant simplicity of it all?
It’s like talking with a slide rule.
Just my two cents.
I don’t know what the right solution is for this issue. An exemption for conscience makes sense to me, and it also makes sense to me that people who have spent their entire lives putting up with unkind, abusive bullshit should have some legal recourse.
Ignoring either side is not going to yield a useful solution.
But if we’re going in the religious exemption direction, it can’t just be for Christians who don’t want to make cakes for gay people.
She was the photographer, not the baker.
The bakery in OR lost a lot of business, and was subject to a lot of harassment, to the point where they closed their shop and are trying to make a go of it as a home bakery.
The pizza place in IN was basically Yelp-bombed after they made their statements, and a lot of the comments on their Yelp site were, frankly, abusive.
Then again, they’re coming out of it with something like a million bucks in donations, so it ain’t all downside. For them, anyway.
In any case, there is truth to the claim that some of the reaction toward people who want to claim a religious exemption has been harmful and abusive.
And IMO all of that is wrong and un-called for.
It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Brett’s claim that Willock and her partner, specifically, were deliberately trolling for photographers to prosecute for discrimination is, as far as I can tell, false.
Brett’s claim that people who support the anti-discrimination laws are only, or even primarily, or in most cases at all, interested in punishing people who disagree with them is also false, and in the context of this thread, frankly rude.
Figuring out how to carve out exemptions from the law to respect conscience is a really hard task. It’s a balancing act.
Brett’s claim that, now in 2015, we simply don’t need the law to be involved in preventing discrimination is risible.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
With all due respect to people who are, or lean, libertarian, my experience with trying to have a reasonable and candid discussion about stuff like this with doctrinaire libertarians leaves me with the impression that they have no freaking idea what the real world is.
It’s like bobbyp’s link – axiom + principle = reality!! right? why can’t you stupid liberals grasp the brilliant simplicity of it all?
It’s like talking with a slide rule.
Just my two cents.
I don’t know what the right solution is for this issue. An exemption for conscience makes sense to me, and it also makes sense to me that people who have spent their entire lives putting up with unkind, abusive bullshit should have some legal recourse.
Ignoring either side is not going to yield a useful solution.
But if we’re going in the religious exemption direction, it can’t just be for Christians who don’t want to make cakes for gay people.
She was the photographer, not the baker.
The bakery in OR lost a lot of business, and was subject to a lot of harassment, to the point where they closed their shop and are trying to make a go of it as a home bakery.
The pizza place in IN was basically Yelp-bombed after they made their statements, and a lot of the comments on their Yelp site were, frankly, abusive.
Then again, they’re coming out of it with something like a million bucks in donations, so it ain’t all downside. For them, anyway.
In any case, there is truth to the claim that some of the reaction toward people who want to claim a religious exemption has been harmful and abusive.
And IMO all of that is wrong and un-called for.
It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Brett’s claim that Willock and her partner, specifically, were deliberately trolling for photographers to prosecute for discrimination is, as far as I can tell, false.
Brett’s claim that people who support the anti-discrimination laws are only, or even primarily, or in most cases at all, interested in punishing people who disagree with them is also false, and in the context of this thread, frankly rude.
Figuring out how to carve out exemptions from the law to respect conscience is a really hard task. It’s a balancing act.
Brett’s claim that, now in 2015, we simply don’t need the law to be involved in preventing discrimination is risible.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
With all due respect to people who are, or lean, libertarian, my experience with trying to have a reasonable and candid discussion about stuff like this with doctrinaire libertarians leaves me with the impression that they have no freaking idea what the real world is.
It’s like bobbyp’s link – axiom + principle = reality!! right? why can’t you stupid liberals grasp the brilliant simplicity of it all?
It’s like talking with a slide rule.
Just my two cents.
I don’t know what the right solution is for this issue. An exemption for conscience makes sense to me, and it also makes sense to me that people who have spent their entire lives putting up with unkind, abusive bullshit should have some legal recourse.
Ignoring either side is not going to yield a useful solution.
But if we’re going in the religious exemption direction, it can’t just be for Christians who don’t want to make cakes for gay people.
In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
May I point out, for the umpteenth time, that this is a grossly incomplete explanation for why blacks were not aloowed at lunch counters, etc. even In states where the counters were not segregated as matter of law.
I know it fits the libertarian fairy tale about all this, but it’s neither true (in the sense of being anything like a full explanation) nor sensible.
Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.
There were no masses of restaurant owners eager to serve an integrated clientele, who didn’t do so out of fear of Klan violence. Maybe there was one. What there were was masses of owners, many racist, some not, who knew that serving blacks would mean losing their customer base. They were making economically rational decisions in a free market environment.
The plain unwillingness on the part of market-worshippers to underatnd this suggests that they know less about that era, and less about markets, than they think.
In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
May I point out, for the umpteenth time, that this is a grossly incomplete explanation for why blacks were not aloowed at lunch counters, etc. even In states where the counters were not segregated as matter of law.
I know it fits the libertarian fairy tale about all this, but it’s neither true (in the sense of being anything like a full explanation) nor sensible.
Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.
There were no masses of restaurant owners eager to serve an integrated clientele, who didn’t do so out of fear of Klan violence. Maybe there was one. What there were was masses of owners, many racist, some not, who knew that serving blacks would mean losing their customer base. They were making economically rational decisions in a free market environment.
The plain unwillingness on the part of market-worshippers to underatnd this suggests that they know less about that era, and less about markets, than they think.
In an environment where, if you did decide you wanted to let blacks eat at your lunch counter, you got beat up, or subjected to arson.
May I point out, for the umpteenth time, that this is a grossly incomplete explanation for why blacks were not aloowed at lunch counters, etc. even In states where the counters were not segregated as matter of law.
I know it fits the libertarian fairy tale about all this, but it’s neither true (in the sense of being anything like a full explanation) nor sensible.
Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.
There were no masses of restaurant owners eager to serve an integrated clientele, who didn’t do so out of fear of Klan violence. Maybe there was one. What there were was masses of owners, many racist, some not, who knew that serving blacks would mean losing their customer base. They were making economically rational decisions in a free market environment.
The plain unwillingness on the part of market-worshippers to underatnd this suggests that they know less about that era, and less about markets, than they think.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.
The idea that discrimination is simply the price to pay for preserving Our Sacred Liberties ignores the actual cost that people end up bearing when discrimination is tolerated.
It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.
I have one real connundrum.
Brett is an engineer. When I was studying engineering, long ago, one thing was made real clear to us. It didn’t matter how beautify the theory was, if it didn’t work in the real world we were to ignore it and deal with reality. (The particular discussion I recall was when we were talking about the failure of the Navier-Stokes equation, used in fluid mechanics, to address turbulence.) Scientists, we were told, can opt for theories which are not quite in sync with reality (at least if they can claim they are a step forward from past theories); engineers, not so much.
But somehow, when real world experience of real people conflicts with the beautiful libertarian theory on how society works (or could work), the theory wins. So, Brett, did you have a different training on this score in engineering than I had? Or is there a reason not to apply it to social/political/economic issues?
I have one real connundrum.
Brett is an engineer. When I was studying engineering, long ago, one thing was made real clear to us. It didn’t matter how beautify the theory was, if it didn’t work in the real world we were to ignore it and deal with reality. (The particular discussion I recall was when we were talking about the failure of the Navier-Stokes equation, used in fluid mechanics, to address turbulence.) Scientists, we were told, can opt for theories which are not quite in sync with reality (at least if they can claim they are a step forward from past theories); engineers, not so much.
But somehow, when real world experience of real people conflicts with the beautiful libertarian theory on how society works (or could work), the theory wins. So, Brett, did you have a different training on this score in engineering than I had? Or is there a reason not to apply it to social/political/economic issues?
I have one real connundrum.
Brett is an engineer. When I was studying engineering, long ago, one thing was made real clear to us. It didn’t matter how beautify the theory was, if it didn’t work in the real world we were to ignore it and deal with reality. (The particular discussion I recall was when we were talking about the failure of the Navier-Stokes equation, used in fluid mechanics, to address turbulence.) Scientists, we were told, can opt for theories which are not quite in sync with reality (at least if they can claim they are a step forward from past theories); engineers, not so much.
But somehow, when real world experience of real people conflicts with the beautiful libertarian theory on how society works (or could work), the theory wins. So, Brett, did you have a different training on this score in engineering than I had? Or is there a reason not to apply it to social/political/economic issues?
“It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.”
An excellent thing for you to remember, when you’re casual about telling other people they must assist in things they abhor, as a price of doing business. It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig. No, you’re conveniently situated so this sacrifice will be made by others.
“Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.”
A restaurant that only serves Chinese food will lose customers, because most people don’t want to eat Chinese food all the time, and many people won’t touch it, period. But there are still Chinese restaurants around.
Because a business doesn’t need everybody coming in their door, to keep in business. In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
WJ, kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work, in the absence of a well grounded theory of human behavior, which we don’t have.
“It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.”
An excellent thing for you to remember, when you’re casual about telling other people they must assist in things they abhor, as a price of doing business. It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig. No, you’re conveniently situated so this sacrifice will be made by others.
“Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.”
A restaurant that only serves Chinese food will lose customers, because most people don’t want to eat Chinese food all the time, and many people won’t touch it, period. But there are still Chinese restaurants around.
Because a business doesn’t need everybody coming in their door, to keep in business. In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
WJ, kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work, in the absence of a well grounded theory of human behavior, which we don’t have.
“It is far, far easier to accept something as the price when you, personally, have never had to pay it, and likely never will.”
An excellent thing for you to remember, when you’re casual about telling other people they must assist in things they abhor, as a price of doing business. It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig. No, you’re conveniently situated so this sacrifice will be made by others.
“Here, for the mega-umpteenth time, is a fact: A white- run restaurant in the Jim Crow south that served black customers would end up losing business on net. Quickly. Not all the lovely arguments in the world can change that. And of course the same thing applies to lots of other situations.”
A restaurant that only serves Chinese food will lose customers, because most people don’t want to eat Chinese food all the time, and many people won’t touch it, period. But there are still Chinese restaurants around.
Because a business doesn’t need everybody coming in their door, to keep in business. In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
WJ, kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work, in the absence of a well grounded theory of human behavior, which we don’t have.
1. assume a spherical, frictionless human of uniform density who makes perfectly rational decisions
2. ???
3. libertarian paradise
1. assume a spherical, frictionless human of uniform density who makes perfectly rational decisions
2. ???
3. libertarian paradise
1. assume a spherical, frictionless human of uniform density who makes perfectly rational decisions
2. ???
3. libertarian paradise
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
written in 1997 and it describes this thread to a T.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
written in 1997 and it describes this thread to a T.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
written in 1997 and it describes this thread to a T.
It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig.
Q: How do you know what kind of work I’m asked to do, or for whom?
A: You don’t.
You’re copping an attitude of moral superiority in this thread that I don’t think you’ve earned.
Frankly, it’s pissing me off.
Give it a rest, maybe.
It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig.
Q: How do you know what kind of work I’m asked to do, or for whom?
A: You don’t.
You’re copping an attitude of moral superiority in this thread that I don’t think you’ve earned.
Frankly, it’s pissing me off.
Give it a rest, maybe.
It’s not like you’re going to be forced to cater the next Aryan Nation shindig.
Q: How do you know what kind of work I’m asked to do, or for whom?
A: You don’t.
You’re copping an attitude of moral superiority in this thread that I don’t think you’ve earned.
Frankly, it’s pissing me off.
Give it a rest, maybe.
kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work…
Throwing a rope to the moon and climbing it to get there has never been tried either. Could it work? I guess we cannot say for sure. And if you cannot say for sure, then I win.
kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work…
Throwing a rope to the moon and climbing it to get there has never been tried either. Could it work? I guess we cannot say for sure. And if you cannot say for sure, then I win.
kind of hard to establish that something which never got tried doesn’t work…
Throwing a rope to the moon and climbing it to get there has never been tried either. Could it work? I guess we cannot say for sure. And if you cannot say for sure, then I win.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” —Mahatma Gandhi
🙂
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” —Mahatma Gandhi
🙂
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” —Mahatma Gandhi
🙂
No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig, because refusing to do so would not be based on discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, national origin or what have you. You might argue it would be based on race, which would be hard to argue if the caterer had a large white customer base.
Try coming up with an example that would involve actual bigotry next time (on the part of the vendor, not the buyer).
No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig, because refusing to do so would not be based on discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, national origin or what have you. You might argue it would be based on race, which would be hard to argue if the caterer had a large white customer base.
Try coming up with an example that would involve actual bigotry next time (on the part of the vendor, not the buyer).
No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig, because refusing to do so would not be based on discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, national origin or what have you. You might argue it would be based on race, which would be hard to argue if the caterer had a large white customer base.
Try coming up with an example that would involve actual bigotry next time (on the part of the vendor, not the buyer).
Charles, Brett,
Well, you’ll have to admit communism was never tried either.
Just sayin’
Charles, Brett,
Well, you’ll have to admit communism was never tried either.
Just sayin’
Charles, Brett,
Well, you’ll have to admit communism was never tried either.
Just sayin’
Libertarianism: (1.) n A social theory conceived by pure assertion, but never observed, and thus a theory, unlike all others, that cannot fail; (2.) n A utopian vision is search of humans to inhabit it; (3.)A set of socio-political axioms that would only apply under conditions where they are totally unnecessary.
Libertarianism: (1.) n A social theory conceived by pure assertion, but never observed, and thus a theory, unlike all others, that cannot fail; (2.) n A utopian vision is search of humans to inhabit it; (3.)A set of socio-political axioms that would only apply under conditions where they are totally unnecessary.
Libertarianism: (1.) n A social theory conceived by pure assertion, but never observed, and thus a theory, unlike all others, that cannot fail; (2.) n A utopian vision is search of humans to inhabit it; (3.)A set of socio-political axioms that would only apply under conditions where they are totally unnecessary.
Whether or not to cater one of Mahatma Gandhi’s hunger strikes/fasts was the least of the British Crown’s problems.
Whether or not to cater one of Mahatma Gandhi’s hunger strikes/fasts was the least of the British Crown’s problems.
Whether or not to cater one of Mahatma Gandhi’s hunger strikes/fasts was the least of the British Crown’s problems.
What to feed the Aryan Nation is an upscale caterer’s nightmare.
It involves a 50-ft long trough, an on-site cement truck full of fresh swill, and a guy banging on a garbage can lid with a stick and yelling “Woo Pig Sooie! into the underbrush.
They used to serve Jew on a Stick, but since their hero Ron Paul is now laying low now that is daughter, AynRand Paul, threw his hat in the ring in his bid (what is it, 15 bids now) to bring the country to its knees, they’ve toned it down just a bit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jew-for-rand-twitter
What to feed the Aryan Nation is an upscale caterer’s nightmare.
It involves a 50-ft long trough, an on-site cement truck full of fresh swill, and a guy banging on a garbage can lid with a stick and yelling “Woo Pig Sooie! into the underbrush.
They used to serve Jew on a Stick, but since their hero Ron Paul is now laying low now that is daughter, AynRand Paul, threw his hat in the ring in his bid (what is it, 15 bids now) to bring the country to its knees, they’ve toned it down just a bit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jew-for-rand-twitter
What to feed the Aryan Nation is an upscale caterer’s nightmare.
It involves a 50-ft long trough, an on-site cement truck full of fresh swill, and a guy banging on a garbage can lid with a stick and yelling “Woo Pig Sooie! into the underbrush.
They used to serve Jew on a Stick, but since their hero Ron Paul is now laying low now that is daughter, AynRand Paul, threw his hat in the ring in his bid (what is it, 15 bids now) to bring the country to its knees, they’ve toned it down just a bit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jew-for-rand-twitter
when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.
when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.
when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.
“No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig,”
That’s what I said. You don’t have to worry about being forced to cater an event you find objectionable, because the law is conveniently designed to only deploy force where you’d like it deployed, with you not being the target. Even if 10 years from now people are being forced to cater pedophile conventions, (Something I’m reluctant to rule out, given how fast we went from people being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings being an absurd reductio, to it being just obvious and unobjectionable.) you’re probably not a caterer.
Heck, I don’t have to worry about somebody knocking on my door and demanding that I design a tool for them, engineers aren’t, yet, public accommodations, either. This is the sort of rule most people can safely support, the weight of it not falling on them.
“when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.”
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually. Being offered pay doesn’t make not having a choice about serving somebody any less involuntary. Freedom of association come into play in other areas of discrimination.
“No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig,”
That’s what I said. You don’t have to worry about being forced to cater an event you find objectionable, because the law is conveniently designed to only deploy force where you’d like it deployed, with you not being the target. Even if 10 years from now people are being forced to cater pedophile conventions, (Something I’m reluctant to rule out, given how fast we went from people being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings being an absurd reductio, to it being just obvious and unobjectionable.) you’re probably not a caterer.
Heck, I don’t have to worry about somebody knocking on my door and demanding that I design a tool for them, engineers aren’t, yet, public accommodations, either. This is the sort of rule most people can safely support, the weight of it not falling on them.
“when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.”
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually. Being offered pay doesn’t make not having a choice about serving somebody any less involuntary. Freedom of association come into play in other areas of discrimination.
“No one is going to be forced to cater an Aryan Nation shindig,”
That’s what I said. You don’t have to worry about being forced to cater an event you find objectionable, because the law is conveniently designed to only deploy force where you’d like it deployed, with you not being the target. Even if 10 years from now people are being forced to cater pedophile conventions, (Something I’m reluctant to rule out, given how fast we went from people being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings being an absurd reductio, to it being just obvious and unobjectionable.) you’re probably not a caterer.
Heck, I don’t have to worry about somebody knocking on my door and demanding that I design a tool for them, engineers aren’t, yet, public accommodations, either. This is the sort of rule most people can safely support, the weight of it not falling on them.
“when did “freedom of association” come to mean “freedom to discriminate in for profit transactions”? that does not strike me as an intuitive understanding of that term.”
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually. Being offered pay doesn’t make not having a choice about serving somebody any less involuntary. Freedom of association come into play in other areas of discrimination.
See, you can discriminate in for-profit transactions in an entirely moral and legal way, based on all sorts of things, such as price, convenience, quality, suitability, etc. Since you can discriminate just fine based on all those things, you can discriminate in any way you like, because it’s all just discrimination and, therfore, all the same. It’s so simple, no?
See, you can discriminate in for-profit transactions in an entirely moral and legal way, based on all sorts of things, such as price, convenience, quality, suitability, etc. Since you can discriminate just fine based on all those things, you can discriminate in any way you like, because it’s all just discrimination and, therfore, all the same. It’s so simple, no?
See, you can discriminate in for-profit transactions in an entirely moral and legal way, based on all sorts of things, such as price, convenience, quality, suitability, etc. Since you can discriminate just fine based on all those things, you can discriminate in any way you like, because it’s all just discrimination and, therfore, all the same. It’s so simple, no?
Reflecting on Areala’s corker of a post up above, and setting aside, but not dismissing, the technicalities of law and rights and such, what strikes me most of all is the rancid pettiness, smallness, cheap meanness, approaching sadism (we’ll jump that shark when every Republican Presidential candidate and the Supreme Court line up to support the mass murder of Obamacare and Medicaid enrollees) of laws being enacted against the traditionally scapegoated, those who have traditionally had to stay closeted for one reason or another, and the poor and the indigent by the usual suspects, using the tools of government, that instrument they hate, and doing so with the glee of the bully and with this misplaced, perverted pridefulness in what they are doing as they cause others pain.
In the same of what? What ideal is being protected and can possibly generate this depth of petty hatred?
The words of Jesus? The words of the Founders?
No. Spare me. Their words soar above any of this low horseshit.
Whatever else it might be, it can fuck off.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-kansas-breaks-new-ground-20150407-column.html#page=1
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/07/gop-war-gays-rages-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-plans-sign-anti-gay-bill.html
Jindal and Brownback may purchase cake and pizza at my establishment.
It will be their Last Supper.
I won’t spit in their food or otherwise despoil the product I offer as ChasWT’s Reason boy predicts might happen if people are forced to serve those they hate, but when they are done with their meal, each of them may accompany me into the parking lot to have their sadistic pig asses kicked.
Reflecting on Areala’s corker of a post up above, and setting aside, but not dismissing, the technicalities of law and rights and such, what strikes me most of all is the rancid pettiness, smallness, cheap meanness, approaching sadism (we’ll jump that shark when every Republican Presidential candidate and the Supreme Court line up to support the mass murder of Obamacare and Medicaid enrollees) of laws being enacted against the traditionally scapegoated, those who have traditionally had to stay closeted for one reason or another, and the poor and the indigent by the usual suspects, using the tools of government, that instrument they hate, and doing so with the glee of the bully and with this misplaced, perverted pridefulness in what they are doing as they cause others pain.
In the same of what? What ideal is being protected and can possibly generate this depth of petty hatred?
The words of Jesus? The words of the Founders?
No. Spare me. Their words soar above any of this low horseshit.
Whatever else it might be, it can fuck off.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-kansas-breaks-new-ground-20150407-column.html#page=1
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/07/gop-war-gays-rages-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-plans-sign-anti-gay-bill.html
Jindal and Brownback may purchase cake and pizza at my establishment.
It will be their Last Supper.
I won’t spit in their food or otherwise despoil the product I offer as ChasWT’s Reason boy predicts might happen if people are forced to serve those they hate, but when they are done with their meal, each of them may accompany me into the parking lot to have their sadistic pig asses kicked.
Reflecting on Areala’s corker of a post up above, and setting aside, but not dismissing, the technicalities of law and rights and such, what strikes me most of all is the rancid pettiness, smallness, cheap meanness, approaching sadism (we’ll jump that shark when every Republican Presidential candidate and the Supreme Court line up to support the mass murder of Obamacare and Medicaid enrollees) of laws being enacted against the traditionally scapegoated, those who have traditionally had to stay closeted for one reason or another, and the poor and the indigent by the usual suspects, using the tools of government, that instrument they hate, and doing so with the glee of the bully and with this misplaced, perverted pridefulness in what they are doing as they cause others pain.
In the same of what? What ideal is being protected and can possibly generate this depth of petty hatred?
The words of Jesus? The words of the Founders?
No. Spare me. Their words soar above any of this low horseshit.
Whatever else it might be, it can fuck off.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-kansas-breaks-new-ground-20150407-column.html#page=1
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/07/gop-war-gays-rages-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-plans-sign-anti-gay-bill.html
Jindal and Brownback may purchase cake and pizza at my establishment.
It will be their Last Supper.
I won’t spit in their food or otherwise despoil the product I offer as ChasWT’s Reason boy predicts might happen if people are forced to serve those they hate, but when they are done with their meal, each of them may accompany me into the parking lot to have their sadistic pig asses kicked.
You can’t really be that much of a tool, Brett.
No one can knock on your door and demand you design a tool for them unless you’re in the business of designing tools for anyone who knocks on your door until you decide not to design a tool for someone simply because they happen to be black (or whatever). You could refuse because they want a tool you don’t design for anyone, because you’re tired, because your computer is broken, because it’s Sunday, or for any number of reasons not involving the customer’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
You can’t be daft enough to be unable to see these distinctions, can you?
You can’t really be that much of a tool, Brett.
No one can knock on your door and demand you design a tool for them unless you’re in the business of designing tools for anyone who knocks on your door until you decide not to design a tool for someone simply because they happen to be black (or whatever). You could refuse because they want a tool you don’t design for anyone, because you’re tired, because your computer is broken, because it’s Sunday, or for any number of reasons not involving the customer’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
You can’t be daft enough to be unable to see these distinctions, can you?
You can’t really be that much of a tool, Brett.
No one can knock on your door and demand you design a tool for them unless you’re in the business of designing tools for anyone who knocks on your door until you decide not to design a tool for someone simply because they happen to be black (or whatever). You could refuse because they want a tool you don’t design for anyone, because you’re tired, because your computer is broken, because it’s Sunday, or for any number of reasons not involving the customer’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
You can’t be daft enough to be unable to see these distinctions, can you?
It really is uncanny how relevant bobbyp’s link is to almost every argument Brett makes. The playbook hasn’t been updated much in the last 18 years.
It really is uncanny how relevant bobbyp’s link is to almost every argument Brett makes. The playbook hasn’t been updated much in the last 18 years.
It really is uncanny how relevant bobbyp’s link is to almost every argument Brett makes. The playbook hasn’t been updated much in the last 18 years.
I think I’ve arrived as a solution to all of this. We let private enterprises and individuals discriminate on any basis they like without legal consequence. The government can only rule out discrimination by governmment enterprises. Then, in any sort of business you can think of, the government will operate non-discriminatory businesses for those who feel burdened by discrimination when dealing with the private sector. The government will deploy all resources necessary to ensure that all goods and services are readily available in similar quality to those made available by the private sector, all paid for with non-discriminatory taxes. Sound good?
I think I’ve arrived as a solution to all of this. We let private enterprises and individuals discriminate on any basis they like without legal consequence. The government can only rule out discrimination by governmment enterprises. Then, in any sort of business you can think of, the government will operate non-discriminatory businesses for those who feel burdened by discrimination when dealing with the private sector. The government will deploy all resources necessary to ensure that all goods and services are readily available in similar quality to those made available by the private sector, all paid for with non-discriminatory taxes. Sound good?
I think I’ve arrived as a solution to all of this. We let private enterprises and individuals discriminate on any basis they like without legal consequence. The government can only rule out discrimination by governmment enterprises. Then, in any sort of business you can think of, the government will operate non-discriminatory businesses for those who feel burdened by discrimination when dealing with the private sector. The government will deploy all resources necessary to ensure that all goods and services are readily available in similar quality to those made available by the private sector, all paid for with non-discriminatory taxes. Sound good?
I want to step in here and mention how utterly absurd it is when someone uses pedophilia or some other equally criminal act as a means for arguing against LGBTQ rights.
Pedophiles (practicing or not, the distinction is important, since it’s possible to be attracted to those under the age of consent but never act on those impulses) are not a protected class, because we as a society have agreed that until one reaches a certain age, one is incapable of giving consent in matters of a sexual nature. It’s the same reason we outlaw bestiality. Has nothing to do with offending peoples’ delicate sensibilities and everything to do with the fact that another animal cannot give its own consent for you to molest it, no matter how much you claim the horse enjoys it.
To equate catering a same-sex wedding to catering a pedophile convention is not a stunning riposte to gay rights by successful invocation of the slippery-slope argument. It’s an absurd comparison between 1) an activity between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender and 2) a criminal act where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what anyone involved in the activity says.
I would also point out that going with the Aryan Brotherhood convention doesn’t get you traction either. The Aryan Brotherhood exists for the sole purpose of elevating one class of people above, and at the expense of, all others. My desire to marry the woman I’ve been in a relationship with since 1996 had nothing to do with wanting to diminish heterosexual marriage, and everything to do with wanting the same rights as the guy and a girl who go to Vegas, get smashed, and have Elvis declare them husband and wife until the hangover wears off and they’re getting the divorce declared official three hours later.
So please, no KKK, no pedophiles, no hate groups, and no slippery slopes. The mirror to your example would be a case of discrimination by a catering service owned/staffed by homosexual persons who refused to cater a heterosexual event because the notion of men and women together went against their sincerely held beliefs. Find me instances of that happening that aren’t based on articles in The Onion and then we can have that conversation. 🙂
I want to step in here and mention how utterly absurd it is when someone uses pedophilia or some other equally criminal act as a means for arguing against LGBTQ rights.
Pedophiles (practicing or not, the distinction is important, since it’s possible to be attracted to those under the age of consent but never act on those impulses) are not a protected class, because we as a society have agreed that until one reaches a certain age, one is incapable of giving consent in matters of a sexual nature. It’s the same reason we outlaw bestiality. Has nothing to do with offending peoples’ delicate sensibilities and everything to do with the fact that another animal cannot give its own consent for you to molest it, no matter how much you claim the horse enjoys it.
To equate catering a same-sex wedding to catering a pedophile convention is not a stunning riposte to gay rights by successful invocation of the slippery-slope argument. It’s an absurd comparison between 1) an activity between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender and 2) a criminal act where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what anyone involved in the activity says.
I would also point out that going with the Aryan Brotherhood convention doesn’t get you traction either. The Aryan Brotherhood exists for the sole purpose of elevating one class of people above, and at the expense of, all others. My desire to marry the woman I’ve been in a relationship with since 1996 had nothing to do with wanting to diminish heterosexual marriage, and everything to do with wanting the same rights as the guy and a girl who go to Vegas, get smashed, and have Elvis declare them husband and wife until the hangover wears off and they’re getting the divorce declared official three hours later.
So please, no KKK, no pedophiles, no hate groups, and no slippery slopes. The mirror to your example would be a case of discrimination by a catering service owned/staffed by homosexual persons who refused to cater a heterosexual event because the notion of men and women together went against their sincerely held beliefs. Find me instances of that happening that aren’t based on articles in The Onion and then we can have that conversation. 🙂
I want to step in here and mention how utterly absurd it is when someone uses pedophilia or some other equally criminal act as a means for arguing against LGBTQ rights.
Pedophiles (practicing or not, the distinction is important, since it’s possible to be attracted to those under the age of consent but never act on those impulses) are not a protected class, because we as a society have agreed that until one reaches a certain age, one is incapable of giving consent in matters of a sexual nature. It’s the same reason we outlaw bestiality. Has nothing to do with offending peoples’ delicate sensibilities and everything to do with the fact that another animal cannot give its own consent for you to molest it, no matter how much you claim the horse enjoys it.
To equate catering a same-sex wedding to catering a pedophile convention is not a stunning riposte to gay rights by successful invocation of the slippery-slope argument. It’s an absurd comparison between 1) an activity between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender and 2) a criminal act where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what anyone involved in the activity says.
I would also point out that going with the Aryan Brotherhood convention doesn’t get you traction either. The Aryan Brotherhood exists for the sole purpose of elevating one class of people above, and at the expense of, all others. My desire to marry the woman I’ve been in a relationship with since 1996 had nothing to do with wanting to diminish heterosexual marriage, and everything to do with wanting the same rights as the guy and a girl who go to Vegas, get smashed, and have Elvis declare them husband and wife until the hangover wears off and they’re getting the divorce declared official three hours later.
So please, no KKK, no pedophiles, no hate groups, and no slippery slopes. The mirror to your example would be a case of discrimination by a catering service owned/staffed by homosexual persons who refused to cater a heterosexual event because the notion of men and women together went against their sincerely held beliefs. Find me instances of that happening that aren’t based on articles in The Onion and then we can have that conversation. 🙂
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually.
Briefly, comparing current-day public accommodations law to slavery is (a) risible and (b) obscene.
It makes sense to doctrinaire libertarians because they have their heads up their asses.
Enough said about that.
McK says having to credential your comments is bullshit. I agree. But if it will make Brett shut up about the freaking Aryan Nation, let’s have it.
Besides writing code I work as a musician. I’ve provided entertainment to Hells Angels members, and members of other biker gangs, on more than one occasion. While perhaps not active members of the Aryan Nation, there is not a lot of daylight there.
Don’t believe me? If you’re a brother, try to join, and let me know how you make out.
I object to the Hells Angels, as an organization, on pretty much every moral ground I can muster. On the occasions when I’ve had to entertain them, I’ve been hired, as part of a band, by a venue that they show up at. No surprises, if you work at biker bars you are going to run into it. It’s a given.
If I don’t want to play for Hells Angels, then I need to not work with bands that play biker bars. My choice.
What I don’t get to do is take gigs where racist criminal MF’ers are likely to show up, then decide that it’s really against my conscience to play Mustang Sally for them.
My day job is writing software. About a third of my career, at this point, has been working for companies that do DoD work. At various points, I could have pursued positions that would have required me to get more advanced security clearances, and/or work with various kinds of signals intelligence organizations.
I chose not to pursue those jobs. Why? Because the likelihood was that, at some point, I would be obliged to deal with practices or information that I didn’t want any part of.
My choice.
If I had pursued those opportunities, it would have not really been cool to then decide that no, I didn’t really want to get involved in the nasty bits.
No 13th Amendment bullshit required. You can see some things coming, and if you’re not going to be comfortable, you find something else to do.
NONE OF ANY OF WHAT I’VE DESCRIBED HERE COMES WITHIN TEN MILLION MILES OF SLAVERY.
What it comes down to is taking responsibility for yourself and your own personal issues, and not making them somebody else’s problem.
The burden on accommodating my conscience in all of these situations *is not and was not and will never be* on my prospective employers.
And, it was not, is not, and will never be on my employers or clients because *I will be responsible for accommodating my own conscience*. I will not dump it in your or anyone else’s lap, including the broader society at large.
Am I making myself clear?
Brett, you go live your nice insulated engineer life, where you just have to make whatever nice tools your boss tells you to make, and the issue will probably never come up. Mazel tov. Enjoy your happy libertarian daydreams.
Moving on…
I understand that the gay marriage thing has happened quickly, and that lots of people are uncomfortable with it, and that some people no doubt find themselves surprised by the need to figure out what they think about it all, and how to handle it.
I find that my confidence in people’s good faith is stretched a bit when the only time anybody decides to go to court about their conscience is when gay people are involved, but I’m not a mind reader, so at a certain level I have to take it at face value.
But nobody is making anybody be a wedding photographer. If you are a skilled photographer, there are only about 1,000 other gigs you can find, if the prospect of taking pictures of gay people declaring their undying love for each other is going to be an issue for you.
Because gay people can get married now in a lot of places, and it’s going to come up.
Ditto for cakes, flowers, yadda yadda yadda.
Hanging out your shingle for businesses who virtually always do wedding work, nominally for all comers, is not the only gig in town.
You could bake in a commercial production environment. People do. You could take photographs of whatever the hell you like, and sell them to magazines or photo stock companies. A buddy of mine takes pictures of people’s retinas. It’s steady work, with nice benefits.
It might be that you don’t get to live your deepest most precious dreams of having your own little business that expresses your deepest creative urges, but *that ain’t a fundamental right, either*.
If you want to be in the public square, you have to make some accommodation to all of the other people who live in the world.
That’s life.
If that bugs you, do what Brett does, and find some cool little gig where you just crank out tools.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
The traditional idea of freedom of association was that you could get together with other people for some common purpose, and could not be prevented from doing so.
And not really for purposes like “I’ll give you this cake for $5”, more typically it was purposes like “let’s organize for better wages”, or “let’s get together and lobby for anti-discrimination laws”, or even “let’s get together and advocate for the 2nd Amendment”.
Stuff like that.
“I’ll give you this cake for $5” just seems like such small beer, as fundamental, inalienable, I’ll shed my blood for it sacred human rights goes.
YMMV.
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually.
Briefly, comparing current-day public accommodations law to slavery is (a) risible and (b) obscene.
It makes sense to doctrinaire libertarians because they have their heads up their asses.
Enough said about that.
McK says having to credential your comments is bullshit. I agree. But if it will make Brett shut up about the freaking Aryan Nation, let’s have it.
Besides writing code I work as a musician. I’ve provided entertainment to Hells Angels members, and members of other biker gangs, on more than one occasion. While perhaps not active members of the Aryan Nation, there is not a lot of daylight there.
Don’t believe me? If you’re a brother, try to join, and let me know how you make out.
I object to the Hells Angels, as an organization, on pretty much every moral ground I can muster. On the occasions when I’ve had to entertain them, I’ve been hired, as part of a band, by a venue that they show up at. No surprises, if you work at biker bars you are going to run into it. It’s a given.
If I don’t want to play for Hells Angels, then I need to not work with bands that play biker bars. My choice.
What I don’t get to do is take gigs where racist criminal MF’ers are likely to show up, then decide that it’s really against my conscience to play Mustang Sally for them.
My day job is writing software. About a third of my career, at this point, has been working for companies that do DoD work. At various points, I could have pursued positions that would have required me to get more advanced security clearances, and/or work with various kinds of signals intelligence organizations.
I chose not to pursue those jobs. Why? Because the likelihood was that, at some point, I would be obliged to deal with practices or information that I didn’t want any part of.
My choice.
If I had pursued those opportunities, it would have not really been cool to then decide that no, I didn’t really want to get involved in the nasty bits.
No 13th Amendment bullshit required. You can see some things coming, and if you’re not going to be comfortable, you find something else to do.
NONE OF ANY OF WHAT I’VE DESCRIBED HERE COMES WITHIN TEN MILLION MILES OF SLAVERY.
What it comes down to is taking responsibility for yourself and your own personal issues, and not making them somebody else’s problem.
The burden on accommodating my conscience in all of these situations *is not and was not and will never be* on my prospective employers.
And, it was not, is not, and will never be on my employers or clients because *I will be responsible for accommodating my own conscience*. I will not dump it in your or anyone else’s lap, including the broader society at large.
Am I making myself clear?
Brett, you go live your nice insulated engineer life, where you just have to make whatever nice tools your boss tells you to make, and the issue will probably never come up. Mazel tov. Enjoy your happy libertarian daydreams.
Moving on…
I understand that the gay marriage thing has happened quickly, and that lots of people are uncomfortable with it, and that some people no doubt find themselves surprised by the need to figure out what they think about it all, and how to handle it.
I find that my confidence in people’s good faith is stretched a bit when the only time anybody decides to go to court about their conscience is when gay people are involved, but I’m not a mind reader, so at a certain level I have to take it at face value.
But nobody is making anybody be a wedding photographer. If you are a skilled photographer, there are only about 1,000 other gigs you can find, if the prospect of taking pictures of gay people declaring their undying love for each other is going to be an issue for you.
Because gay people can get married now in a lot of places, and it’s going to come up.
Ditto for cakes, flowers, yadda yadda yadda.
Hanging out your shingle for businesses who virtually always do wedding work, nominally for all comers, is not the only gig in town.
You could bake in a commercial production environment. People do. You could take photographs of whatever the hell you like, and sell them to magazines or photo stock companies. A buddy of mine takes pictures of people’s retinas. It’s steady work, with nice benefits.
It might be that you don’t get to live your deepest most precious dreams of having your own little business that expresses your deepest creative urges, but *that ain’t a fundamental right, either*.
If you want to be in the public square, you have to make some accommodation to all of the other people who live in the world.
That’s life.
If that bugs you, do what Brett does, and find some cool little gig where you just crank out tools.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
The traditional idea of freedom of association was that you could get together with other people for some common purpose, and could not be prevented from doing so.
And not really for purposes like “I’ll give you this cake for $5”, more typically it was purposes like “let’s organize for better wages”, or “let’s get together and lobby for anti-discrimination laws”, or even “let’s get together and advocate for the 2nd Amendment”.
Stuff like that.
“I’ll give you this cake for $5” just seems like such small beer, as fundamental, inalienable, I’ll shed my blood for it sacred human rights goes.
YMMV.
I’d lay that more on the 13th amendment, actually.
Briefly, comparing current-day public accommodations law to slavery is (a) risible and (b) obscene.
It makes sense to doctrinaire libertarians because they have their heads up their asses.
Enough said about that.
McK says having to credential your comments is bullshit. I agree. But if it will make Brett shut up about the freaking Aryan Nation, let’s have it.
Besides writing code I work as a musician. I’ve provided entertainment to Hells Angels members, and members of other biker gangs, on more than one occasion. While perhaps not active members of the Aryan Nation, there is not a lot of daylight there.
Don’t believe me? If you’re a brother, try to join, and let me know how you make out.
I object to the Hells Angels, as an organization, on pretty much every moral ground I can muster. On the occasions when I’ve had to entertain them, I’ve been hired, as part of a band, by a venue that they show up at. No surprises, if you work at biker bars you are going to run into it. It’s a given.
If I don’t want to play for Hells Angels, then I need to not work with bands that play biker bars. My choice.
What I don’t get to do is take gigs where racist criminal MF’ers are likely to show up, then decide that it’s really against my conscience to play Mustang Sally for them.
My day job is writing software. About a third of my career, at this point, has been working for companies that do DoD work. At various points, I could have pursued positions that would have required me to get more advanced security clearances, and/or work with various kinds of signals intelligence organizations.
I chose not to pursue those jobs. Why? Because the likelihood was that, at some point, I would be obliged to deal with practices or information that I didn’t want any part of.
My choice.
If I had pursued those opportunities, it would have not really been cool to then decide that no, I didn’t really want to get involved in the nasty bits.
No 13th Amendment bullshit required. You can see some things coming, and if you’re not going to be comfortable, you find something else to do.
NONE OF ANY OF WHAT I’VE DESCRIBED HERE COMES WITHIN TEN MILLION MILES OF SLAVERY.
What it comes down to is taking responsibility for yourself and your own personal issues, and not making them somebody else’s problem.
The burden on accommodating my conscience in all of these situations *is not and was not and will never be* on my prospective employers.
And, it was not, is not, and will never be on my employers or clients because *I will be responsible for accommodating my own conscience*. I will not dump it in your or anyone else’s lap, including the broader society at large.
Am I making myself clear?
Brett, you go live your nice insulated engineer life, where you just have to make whatever nice tools your boss tells you to make, and the issue will probably never come up. Mazel tov. Enjoy your happy libertarian daydreams.
Moving on…
I understand that the gay marriage thing has happened quickly, and that lots of people are uncomfortable with it, and that some people no doubt find themselves surprised by the need to figure out what they think about it all, and how to handle it.
I find that my confidence in people’s good faith is stretched a bit when the only time anybody decides to go to court about their conscience is when gay people are involved, but I’m not a mind reader, so at a certain level I have to take it at face value.
But nobody is making anybody be a wedding photographer. If you are a skilled photographer, there are only about 1,000 other gigs you can find, if the prospect of taking pictures of gay people declaring their undying love for each other is going to be an issue for you.
Because gay people can get married now in a lot of places, and it’s going to come up.
Ditto for cakes, flowers, yadda yadda yadda.
Hanging out your shingle for businesses who virtually always do wedding work, nominally for all comers, is not the only gig in town.
You could bake in a commercial production environment. People do. You could take photographs of whatever the hell you like, and sell them to magazines or photo stock companies. A buddy of mine takes pictures of people’s retinas. It’s steady work, with nice benefits.
It might be that you don’t get to live your deepest most precious dreams of having your own little business that expresses your deepest creative urges, but *that ain’t a fundamental right, either*.
If you want to be in the public square, you have to make some accommodation to all of the other people who live in the world.
That’s life.
If that bugs you, do what Brett does, and find some cool little gig where you just crank out tools.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
The traditional idea of freedom of association was that you could get together with other people for some common purpose, and could not be prevented from doing so.
And not really for purposes like “I’ll give you this cake for $5”, more typically it was purposes like “let’s organize for better wages”, or “let’s get together and lobby for anti-discrimination laws”, or even “let’s get together and advocate for the 2nd Amendment”.
Stuff like that.
“I’ll give you this cake for $5” just seems like such small beer, as fundamental, inalienable, I’ll shed my blood for it sacred human rights goes.
YMMV.
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Thanks for jumping in, please do not be a stranger. I personally would love to hear more from you.
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Thanks for jumping in, please do not be a stranger. I personally would love to hear more from you.
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Thanks for jumping in, please do not be a stranger. I personally would love to hear more from you.
I wonder if in the neoconservative mission to first destabilize and then somehow force a reformation of Middle Eastern Muslim societies in the image of western democracies the following happened, would it be viewed as a diminution of human freedom or an assertion of rights guaranteed by whatever religious or secular authority western conservatives adhere to:
Say, we’ve somehow convinced conservative Muslims in those countries to set aside the outright hatred and violence against Jews and gays, but at some point, conservative falafel and flatbread purveyors convince governing authorities to enact legislation that protects their perceived right under a western-style constitution to deny their services and products to Jewish and gay customers based on their religious convictions and their interpretation of the Koran and the word of Mohammed.
Is that more freedom or less?
Would Brett defend the practice?
Would Bibi Netanyahu?
Would Rand Paul?
Would Scott Walker?
I wonder if in the neoconservative mission to first destabilize and then somehow force a reformation of Middle Eastern Muslim societies in the image of western democracies the following happened, would it be viewed as a diminution of human freedom or an assertion of rights guaranteed by whatever religious or secular authority western conservatives adhere to:
Say, we’ve somehow convinced conservative Muslims in those countries to set aside the outright hatred and violence against Jews and gays, but at some point, conservative falafel and flatbread purveyors convince governing authorities to enact legislation that protects their perceived right under a western-style constitution to deny their services and products to Jewish and gay customers based on their religious convictions and their interpretation of the Koran and the word of Mohammed.
Is that more freedom or less?
Would Brett defend the practice?
Would Bibi Netanyahu?
Would Rand Paul?
Would Scott Walker?
I wonder if in the neoconservative mission to first destabilize and then somehow force a reformation of Middle Eastern Muslim societies in the image of western democracies the following happened, would it be viewed as a diminution of human freedom or an assertion of rights guaranteed by whatever religious or secular authority western conservatives adhere to:
Say, we’ve somehow convinced conservative Muslims in those countries to set aside the outright hatred and violence against Jews and gays, but at some point, conservative falafel and flatbread purveyors convince governing authorities to enact legislation that protects their perceived right under a western-style constitution to deny their services and products to Jewish and gay customers based on their religious convictions and their interpretation of the Koran and the word of Mohammed.
Is that more freedom or less?
Would Brett defend the practice?
Would Bibi Netanyahu?
Would Rand Paul?
Would Scott Walker?
The reason Brett comes up with all these silly examples of things to compare to same-sex weddings is that usuing actual examples of bigotry don’t work when speaking to non-bigots. If he said, “How would you like it you had take pictures of Latinos?” or “What if you had to bake a cake for a bunch of Muslims?” no one here would care. Truly relevant examples don’t work unless you’re talking to bigots. And I don’t care if bigots don’t like not being allowed to be bigots whenever they feel like it. Fnck them.
(That’s not to say I think Brett is a bigot. I just don’t think he appreciates what the effects of unchecked bigotry are, what is and is not bigotry, or that his abstract ideas about the role of government aren’t as important as a thousand other things, or any combination thereof.)
The reason Brett comes up with all these silly examples of things to compare to same-sex weddings is that usuing actual examples of bigotry don’t work when speaking to non-bigots. If he said, “How would you like it you had take pictures of Latinos?” or “What if you had to bake a cake for a bunch of Muslims?” no one here would care. Truly relevant examples don’t work unless you’re talking to bigots. And I don’t care if bigots don’t like not being allowed to be bigots whenever they feel like it. Fnck them.
(That’s not to say I think Brett is a bigot. I just don’t think he appreciates what the effects of unchecked bigotry are, what is and is not bigotry, or that his abstract ideas about the role of government aren’t as important as a thousand other things, or any combination thereof.)
The reason Brett comes up with all these silly examples of things to compare to same-sex weddings is that usuing actual examples of bigotry don’t work when speaking to non-bigots. If he said, “How would you like it you had take pictures of Latinos?” or “What if you had to bake a cake for a bunch of Muslims?” no one here would care. Truly relevant examples don’t work unless you’re talking to bigots. And I don’t care if bigots don’t like not being allowed to be bigots whenever they feel like it. Fnck them.
(That’s not to say I think Brett is a bigot. I just don’t think he appreciates what the effects of unchecked bigotry are, what is and is not bigotry, or that his abstract ideas about the role of government aren’t as important as a thousand other things, or any combination thereof.)
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Yet another edition of what Russell said.
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Yet another edition of what Russell said.
Areala, you really got to hang out. We might be pretending, you are not.
Yet another edition of what Russell said.
It really is amazing to me that bakers of wedding cakes and wedding photographers would be whining about the historic windfall of business that SSM has dropped in their laps.
Makes me question their bona fides as Capitalists, it does.
It really is amazing to me that bakers of wedding cakes and wedding photographers would be whining about the historic windfall of business that SSM has dropped in their laps.
Makes me question their bona fides as Capitalists, it does.
It really is amazing to me that bakers of wedding cakes and wedding photographers would be whining about the historic windfall of business that SSM has dropped in their laps.
Makes me question their bona fides as Capitalists, it does.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
first, you invent the right (freedom of association not being in the Constitution), then you grow it using the same unholy fertilizer that you used to grow money into speech and corporations into people.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
first, you invent the right (freedom of association not being in the Constitution), then you grow it using the same unholy fertilizer that you used to grow money into speech and corporations into people.
I’m still interested to know when the idea of freedom of association began to be applied to commercial, in-the-public-square transactions.
first, you invent the right (freedom of association not being in the Constitution), then you grow it using the same unholy fertilizer that you used to grow money into speech and corporations into people.
Actually, it’s right there in the 9th amendment. One of the rights thought so basic and obvious that it didn’t even occur to them to explicitly guarantee it.
See NAACP v. Alabama.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.
Actually, it’s right there in the 9th amendment. One of the rights thought so basic and obvious that it didn’t even occur to them to explicitly guarantee it.
See NAACP v. Alabama.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.
Actually, it’s right there in the 9th amendment. One of the rights thought so basic and obvious that it didn’t even occur to them to explicitly guarantee it.
See NAACP v. Alabama.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do.
cf conservative movement and right to privacy.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do.
cf conservative movement and right to privacy.
You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do.
cf conservative movement and right to privacy.
See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?
See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?
See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?
“You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.”
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
Funny how they didn’t make it into the Bill of Rights.
“You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.”
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
Funny how they didn’t make it into the Bill of Rights.
“You won’t find an explicit right in the Constitution to do a lot of things you assume you have a right to do. Like breathing.”
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
Funny how they didn’t make it into the Bill of Rights.
What I’m curious about, specifically, is when and how the right of freedom of association came to be extended to for-profit commercial transactions.
I don’t think that’s really part of the traditional understanding of what “freedom of association” means.
For instance, it has nothing to do with the NAACP vs Alabama case, as far as I can tell.
When did baking someone a cake, whether as a totally generic commodity or to order, become a matter of freedom of association?
If you want to say that it always has been, can you provide some kind of reference to demonstrate that? Blackstone? A quote from, say, the 18th C? Stuff like that.
It’s an old concept, it shouldn’t be hard to find discussions of it going back some way.
What I’m curious about, specifically, is when and how the right of freedom of association came to be extended to for-profit commercial transactions.
I don’t think that’s really part of the traditional understanding of what “freedom of association” means.
For instance, it has nothing to do with the NAACP vs Alabama case, as far as I can tell.
When did baking someone a cake, whether as a totally generic commodity or to order, become a matter of freedom of association?
If you want to say that it always has been, can you provide some kind of reference to demonstrate that? Blackstone? A quote from, say, the 18th C? Stuff like that.
It’s an old concept, it shouldn’t be hard to find discussions of it going back some way.
What I’m curious about, specifically, is when and how the right of freedom of association came to be extended to for-profit commercial transactions.
I don’t think that’s really part of the traditional understanding of what “freedom of association” means.
For instance, it has nothing to do with the NAACP vs Alabama case, as far as I can tell.
When did baking someone a cake, whether as a totally generic commodity or to order, become a matter of freedom of association?
If you want to say that it always has been, can you provide some kind of reference to demonstrate that? Blackstone? A quote from, say, the 18th C? Stuff like that.
It’s an old concept, it shouldn’t be hard to find discussions of it going back some way.
Generally speaking, I favor a right to freedom of association, and I think it’s reasonable to assume one exists. What I don’t favor is the sort of near-absolutism with which Brett and many other libertarians apply it, to the point that certain groups of people can be unfairly screwed out of full participation in society.
Ever the useful fools, these unwitting champions of the downtrodden bigots (to be charitable).
Generally speaking, I favor a right to freedom of association, and I think it’s reasonable to assume one exists. What I don’t favor is the sort of near-absolutism with which Brett and many other libertarians apply it, to the point that certain groups of people can be unfairly screwed out of full participation in society.
Ever the useful fools, these unwitting champions of the downtrodden bigots (to be charitable).
Generally speaking, I favor a right to freedom of association, and I think it’s reasonable to assume one exists. What I don’t favor is the sort of near-absolutism with which Brett and many other libertarians apply it, to the point that certain groups of people can be unfairly screwed out of full participation in society.
Ever the useful fools, these unwitting champions of the downtrodden bigots (to be charitable).
“See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?”
What does whether you have rights have to do with whether you’re engaged in commerce? See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
“See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?”
What does whether you have rights have to do with whether you’re engaged in commerce? See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
“See NAACP v. Alabama.
what does that have to do with commerce?”
What does whether you have rights have to do with whether you’re engaged in commerce? See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
And what is the right to get married but “the persuit of happiness” to which all men (without reference to sexual orientation) have an inalienable right? Hmmmm…..
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
And what is the right to get married but “the persuit of happiness” to which all men (without reference to sexual orientation) have an inalienable right? Hmmmm…..
The right to breath is one of the three unalienable Rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
And what is the right to get married but “the persuit of happiness” to which all men (without reference to sexual orientation) have an inalienable right? Hmmmm…..
See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
You don’t. Any photographer or baker can associate, or not associate, with anyone they like.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some.
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
You don’t. Any photographer or baker can associate, or not associate, with anyone they like.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some.
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
See, that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.
You don’t. Any photographer or baker can associate, or not associate, with anyone they like.
so, no, it has nothing to do with commerce.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some.
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
“… that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.”
Not all claims to all liberties.
But you certainly lose the liberty to lie about the efficacy of items you have for sale. If you weren’t “in commerce”, you could do that.
“… that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.”
Not all claims to all liberties.
But you certainly lose the liberty to lie about the efficacy of items you have for sale. If you weren’t “in commerce”, you could do that.
“… that’s what I really object to, the idea that you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties if you enter into commerce.”
Not all claims to all liberties.
But you certainly lose the liberty to lie about the efficacy of items you have for sale. If you weren’t “in commerce”, you could do that.
…you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties…
Absolutism! It’s news to me that those involved in commerce can be imprisoned without trial, don’t get to vote, cannot run for office, aren’t allowed to marry, cannot raise children, are forbidden to attend religious services, cannot discuss politics – not to mention aren’t allowed to refuse customers who are rude, can’t close shop to go on vacation, can’t turn down business because they’re too busy, don’t get to charge what they want even if it’s reasonably consistent, can’t decide generally what they do or do not want to sell (e.g. vacuum cleaners v. dental instruments), don’t get to choose how many hours a day they want to work, and CAN’T LIMIT THEIR PERSONAL LIABILITY IN THEIR BUSINESS DEALINGS. (I’m stopping there.)
…you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties…
Absolutism! It’s news to me that those involved in commerce can be imprisoned without trial, don’t get to vote, cannot run for office, aren’t allowed to marry, cannot raise children, are forbidden to attend religious services, cannot discuss politics – not to mention aren’t allowed to refuse customers who are rude, can’t close shop to go on vacation, can’t turn down business because they’re too busy, don’t get to charge what they want even if it’s reasonably consistent, can’t decide generally what they do or do not want to sell (e.g. vacuum cleaners v. dental instruments), don’t get to choose how many hours a day they want to work, and CAN’T LIMIT THEIR PERSONAL LIABILITY IN THEIR BUSINESS DEALINGS. (I’m stopping there.)
…you suddenly lose all claim to normal liberties…
Absolutism! It’s news to me that those involved in commerce can be imprisoned without trial, don’t get to vote, cannot run for office, aren’t allowed to marry, cannot raise children, are forbidden to attend religious services, cannot discuss politics – not to mention aren’t allowed to refuse customers who are rude, can’t close shop to go on vacation, can’t turn down business because they’re too busy, don’t get to charge what they want even if it’s reasonably consistent, can’t decide generally what they do or do not want to sell (e.g. vacuum cleaners v. dental instruments), don’t get to choose how many hours a day they want to work, and CAN’T LIMIT THEIR PERSONAL LIABILITY IN THEIR BUSINESS DEALINGS. (I’m stopping there.)
What I truly don’t get is how those like Brett, willing to go to the barricades for ‘liberty’, can get so worked up about the cake issue, to the extent of n+1 blog posts, and yet show little apparent concern for the real affront to liberty in the US, namely your criminal justice system.
For a little perspective, here’s a remarkable interview with Anthony Ray Hinton, released after 30 years death row, who refuses to be bitter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nlzjl
“I would not let anybody take my joy from me…”(around 5.30)
What I truly don’t get is how those like Brett, willing to go to the barricades for ‘liberty’, can get so worked up about the cake issue, to the extent of n+1 blog posts, and yet show little apparent concern for the real affront to liberty in the US, namely your criminal justice system.
For a little perspective, here’s a remarkable interview with Anthony Ray Hinton, released after 30 years death row, who refuses to be bitter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nlzjl
“I would not let anybody take my joy from me…”(around 5.30)
What I truly don’t get is how those like Brett, willing to go to the barricades for ‘liberty’, can get so worked up about the cake issue, to the extent of n+1 blog posts, and yet show little apparent concern for the real affront to liberty in the US, namely your criminal justice system.
For a little perspective, here’s a remarkable interview with Anthony Ray Hinton, released after 30 years death row, who refuses to be bitter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nlzjl
“I would not let anybody take my joy from me…”(around 5.30)
I shouldn’t have said ‘for sale’, because that assumes ‘in commerce’.
An item sitting on a shelf, on the other hand, you can lie about all you want, as long as it’s not for sale. Tyranny! Or something.
I shouldn’t have said ‘for sale’, because that assumes ‘in commerce’.
An item sitting on a shelf, on the other hand, you can lie about all you want, as long as it’s not for sale. Tyranny! Or something.
I shouldn’t have said ‘for sale’, because that assumes ‘in commerce’.
An item sitting on a shelf, on the other hand, you can lie about all you want, as long as it’s not for sale. Tyranny! Or something.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some
all kinds of wacky shit goes on in some peoples’ minds.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some
all kinds of wacky shit goes on in some peoples’ minds.
Well, apparently it does now, at least in the minds of some
all kinds of wacky shit goes on in some peoples’ minds.
Heart Of Atlanta vs US looks like a much better candidate:
Heart Of Atlanta vs US looks like a much better candidate:
Heart Of Atlanta vs US looks like a much better candidate:
Just a quick thing: is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
And, I feel bad that I should even NEED to preface the comment, but homosexuals are in no way comparable to the aryans or pedophiles. Period.
But the broad dismissal of ‘they aren’t protected classes’ is faulty. Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
http://volokh.com/posts/1140841341.shtml
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include
Just a quick thing: is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
And, I feel bad that I should even NEED to preface the comment, but homosexuals are in no way comparable to the aryans or pedophiles. Period.
But the broad dismissal of ‘they aren’t protected classes’ is faulty. Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
http://volokh.com/posts/1140841341.shtml
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include
Just a quick thing: is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Whether or not I’m a caterer is beside the point, because no caterer would run afoul of the law for refusing to cater for the Aryan Nation or for pedophiles, since neither is part of a protected class and the refusal to cater their event would not be based on their protected-class status.
And, I feel bad that I should even NEED to preface the comment, but homosexuals are in no way comparable to the aryans or pedophiles. Period.
But the broad dismissal of ‘they aren’t protected classes’ is faulty. Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
http://volokh.com/posts/1140841341.shtml
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include
russell:
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent. I found it a few days ago when someone (Snarki?) pointed out the common law roots of public accommodation law. I found this, which is focused on the CRA of 1964, but includes history of public accommodation common law, which I found interesting.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr
russell:
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent. I found it a few days ago when someone (Snarki?) pointed out the common law roots of public accommodation law. I found this, which is focused on the CRA of 1964, but includes history of public accommodation common law, which I found interesting.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr
russell:
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent. I found it a few days ago when someone (Snarki?) pointed out the common law roots of public accommodation law. I found this, which is focused on the CRA of 1964, but includes history of public accommodation common law, which I found interesting.
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr
It is my impression that most here would have no problem with Aryan Nations claiming a “moral imposition” for whatever, and are willing to look at any such claim on its particular merits. This is especially true when it comes to 1st Amendment freedoms.
What we have a problem with is:
(1.) An overly broad statute that give blanket protection and/or tips the scales in favor of those asserting the right to an exemption from bigoted behavior publicly affecting others for any reason they care to come up with, especially our already incredibly coddled business class, and
(2.) The fairly bright red line most here draw when it comes to protected classes as defined in the law when it comes to public accommodations.
We as a society, and based on our history, have decided (and fairly recently, I might add)that protected classes are due recourse and special protection from discrimination because large swaths of our citizenry just don’t want to get it, and claiming the moral high ground (Liberty!) for racism, sexism, and oppression in general is a moral blindness that rightfully generates moral outrage in return.
Sure, one can claim we shouldn’t have to do this. But we do. That is the reality.
It is my impression that most here would have no problem with Aryan Nations claiming a “moral imposition” for whatever, and are willing to look at any such claim on its particular merits. This is especially true when it comes to 1st Amendment freedoms.
What we have a problem with is:
(1.) An overly broad statute that give blanket protection and/or tips the scales in favor of those asserting the right to an exemption from bigoted behavior publicly affecting others for any reason they care to come up with, especially our already incredibly coddled business class, and
(2.) The fairly bright red line most here draw when it comes to protected classes as defined in the law when it comes to public accommodations.
We as a society, and based on our history, have decided (and fairly recently, I might add)that protected classes are due recourse and special protection from discrimination because large swaths of our citizenry just don’t want to get it, and claiming the moral high ground (Liberty!) for racism, sexism, and oppression in general is a moral blindness that rightfully generates moral outrage in return.
Sure, one can claim we shouldn’t have to do this. But we do. That is the reality.
It is my impression that most here would have no problem with Aryan Nations claiming a “moral imposition” for whatever, and are willing to look at any such claim on its particular merits. This is especially true when it comes to 1st Amendment freedoms.
What we have a problem with is:
(1.) An overly broad statute that give blanket protection and/or tips the scales in favor of those asserting the right to an exemption from bigoted behavior publicly affecting others for any reason they care to come up with, especially our already incredibly coddled business class, and
(2.) The fairly bright red line most here draw when it comes to protected classes as defined in the law when it comes to public accommodations.
We as a society, and based on our history, have decided (and fairly recently, I might add)that protected classes are due recourse and special protection from discrimination because large swaths of our citizenry just don’t want to get it, and claiming the moral high ground (Liberty!) for racism, sexism, and oppression in general is a moral blindness that rightfully generates moral outrage in return.
Sure, one can claim we shouldn’t have to do this. But we do. That is the reality.
Thanks for tracking that down, thompson, it’s an interesting read.
In particular, the discussion of what different jurisdictions/ages considered “public accommodations”, and the difference between the old Common Law “available to EVERYONE, barring specific, objectionable behavior” and later “you can’t discriminate against X, Y, and Z”.
The earlier Common Law rule is better, I think. You publicly advertise a product/service, anyone can come in the door and accept your offer, creating a contract. But legislators and judges have been screwing around with this stuff for a long time now, and the history is interesting.
Thanks for tracking that down, thompson, it’s an interesting read.
In particular, the discussion of what different jurisdictions/ages considered “public accommodations”, and the difference between the old Common Law “available to EVERYONE, barring specific, objectionable behavior” and later “you can’t discriminate against X, Y, and Z”.
The earlier Common Law rule is better, I think. You publicly advertise a product/service, anyone can come in the door and accept your offer, creating a contract. But legislators and judges have been screwing around with this stuff for a long time now, and the history is interesting.
Thanks for tracking that down, thompson, it’s an interesting read.
In particular, the discussion of what different jurisdictions/ages considered “public accommodations”, and the difference between the old Common Law “available to EVERYONE, barring specific, objectionable behavior” and later “you can’t discriminate against X, Y, and Z”.
The earlier Common Law rule is better, I think. You publicly advertise a product/service, anyone can come in the door and accept your offer, creating a contract. But legislators and judges have been screwing around with this stuff for a long time now, and the history is interesting.
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Perhaps not guaranteed, but I imagine this case, had it actually gone to trial, could have successfully been appealed in a higher court. But, yes, lower courts can occasionally do strange things, and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO. I would be bitching about it right next to Brett.
Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)
and, from a commenter:
Well, given that the case was settled, I don’t see what it tells us except that the insurance company was being cautious.
and another:
Prof. Bernstein, you seem to wonder why the insurance carrier would settle the matter:
Perhaps insurance carrier lawyers considered:
1.) Cheaper to settle than to create “attractive nuisance” if you will, by litigating high profile/high octane issues thereby inviting every white-supremacist in the region to burn down the Alpine Inn. More than once.
2.) Southern California ACLU had a stable of litigators well versed in First amendment law (go to ACLU So Cal web page….) who likely worked for a mix of non-pecuniary benefits and cheap bucks. Is the litigation cost/benefit calculus of a non-profit with a stable of relatively low-cost First Amendment lawyers looking for a cause celebre the same as the cost/benefit calculus of a for profit corporation?
That’s not to dismiss your point out of hand, thompson, and it was an interesting read, so thanks, but I don’t think it makes your case as strongly as you may have thought.
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Perhaps not guaranteed, but I imagine this case, had it actually gone to trial, could have successfully been appealed in a higher court. But, yes, lower courts can occasionally do strange things, and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO. I would be bitching about it right next to Brett.
Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)
and, from a commenter:
Well, given that the case was settled, I don’t see what it tells us except that the insurance company was being cautious.
and another:
Prof. Bernstein, you seem to wonder why the insurance carrier would settle the matter:
Perhaps insurance carrier lawyers considered:
1.) Cheaper to settle than to create “attractive nuisance” if you will, by litigating high profile/high octane issues thereby inviting every white-supremacist in the region to burn down the Alpine Inn. More than once.
2.) Southern California ACLU had a stable of litigators well versed in First amendment law (go to ACLU So Cal web page….) who likely worked for a mix of non-pecuniary benefits and cheap bucks. Is the litigation cost/benefit calculus of a non-profit with a stable of relatively low-cost First Amendment lawyers looking for a cause celebre the same as the cost/benefit calculus of a for profit corporation?
That’s not to dismiss your point out of hand, thompson, and it was an interesting read, so thanks, but I don’t think it makes your case as strongly as you may have thought.
The thought that protected status is going to be construed narrowly to not include is, IMO, not guaranteed.
Perhaps not guaranteed, but I imagine this case, had it actually gone to trial, could have successfully been appealed in a higher court. But, yes, lower courts can occasionally do strange things, and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO. I would be bitching about it right next to Brett.
Many state level laws are quite broad, and the Unruh Act (CA’s version) has been applied to protect the service of neo-nazi’s:
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)
and, from a commenter:
Well, given that the case was settled, I don’t see what it tells us except that the insurance company was being cautious.
and another:
Prof. Bernstein, you seem to wonder why the insurance carrier would settle the matter:
Perhaps insurance carrier lawyers considered:
1.) Cheaper to settle than to create “attractive nuisance” if you will, by litigating high profile/high octane issues thereby inviting every white-supremacist in the region to burn down the Alpine Inn. More than once.
2.) Southern California ACLU had a stable of litigators well versed in First amendment law (go to ACLU So Cal web page….) who likely worked for a mix of non-pecuniary benefits and cheap bucks. Is the litigation cost/benefit calculus of a non-profit with a stable of relatively low-cost First Amendment lawyers looking for a cause celebre the same as the cost/benefit calculus of a for profit corporation?
That’s not to dismiss your point out of hand, thompson, and it was an interesting read, so thanks, but I don’t think it makes your case as strongly as you may have thought.
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent
thanks thompson, i’m reading it now
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent
thanks thompson, i’m reading it now
This doesn’t answer your question, not directly anyway, but I think it is tangentially relevent
thanks thompson, i’m reading it now
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
You are, and it’s my fault. A later post refers back to the original one with a correction:
http://volokh.com/2010/05/25/some-strange-consequences-of-public-accommodations-laws/
The loss was not appealed at the behest of the insurance company, but the trial went to the ACLU.
and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO.
I think it was wrong, morally. But that decision is pretty consistent with case law re: Unruh. So I don’t know that I would say it is wrong, legally.
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
You are, and it’s my fault. A later post refers back to the original one with a correction:
http://volokh.com/2010/05/25/some-strange-consequences-of-public-accommodations-laws/
The loss was not appealed at the behest of the insurance company, but the trial went to the ACLU.
and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO.
I think it was wrong, morally. But that decision is pretty consistent with case law re: Unruh. So I don’t know that I would say it is wrong, legally.
Unless I’m missing something, the case was settled out of court at the behest of the restaurant’s insurance company:
You are, and it’s my fault. A later post refers back to the original one with a correction:
http://volokh.com/2010/05/25/some-strange-consequences-of-public-accommodations-laws/
The loss was not appealed at the behest of the insurance company, but the trial went to the ACLU.
and had it ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis, it would have been wrong IMO.
I think it was wrong, morally. But that decision is pretty consistent with case law re: Unruh. So I don’t know that I would say it is wrong, legally.
In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
Yeah.
“Let’s eat out tonight.”
“OK. I’m in the mood for Chinese food. How does that sound?”
“I think I’d rather go for some integrated food. Let’s try that new place, Roosevelt and Bubba’s. I hear their moros y cristianos is great.”
“All right. Nice to have lots of cuisines to choose from, right here in the neighborhood.”
In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
Yeah.
“Let’s eat out tonight.”
“OK. I’m in the mood for Chinese food. How does that sound?”
“I think I’d rather go for some integrated food. Let’s try that new place, Roosevelt and Bubba’s. I hear their moros y cristianos is great.”
“All right. Nice to have lots of cuisines to choose from, right here in the neighborhood.”
In some areas, non discriminatory restaurants might be a niche market, but they’d still be around.
Yeah.
“Let’s eat out tonight.”
“OK. I’m in the mood for Chinese food. How does that sound?”
“I think I’d rather go for some integrated food. Let’s try that new place, Roosevelt and Bubba’s. I hear their moros y cristianos is great.”
“All right. Nice to have lots of cuisines to choose from, right here in the neighborhood.”
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
A long and checkered history, I’d say. From the wikki entry on Adam Smith:
Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their “conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices”.[81] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price “which can be squeezed out of the buyers”.[82] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”[83]”
Some association. Some freedom.
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
A long and checkered history, I’d say. From the wikki entry on Adam Smith:
Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their “conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices”.[81] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price “which can be squeezed out of the buyers”.[82] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”[83]”
Some association. Some freedom.
I’m just curious to know where that came from. Has it always been a part of the understanding of freedom of association?
A long and checkered history, I’d say. From the wikki entry on Adam Smith:
Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their “conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices”.[81] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price “which can be squeezed out of the buyers”.[82] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”[83]”
Some association. Some freedom.
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”
The modern approach seems to be, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”
The modern approach seems to be, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”
The modern approach seems to be, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
did you have some example in mind there, Charles, you sly devil you?
did you have some example in mind there, Charles, you sly devil you?
did you have some example in mind there, Charles, you sly devil you?
Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
That seems pretty dead-on to me.
Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
That seems pretty dead-on to me.
Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
That seems pretty dead-on to me.
Hey, I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
Hey, I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
Hey, I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
The Adam Smith who wrote “The Wealth Of Nations” and “The Theory Of Moral Sentiments” is not the Adam Smith of modern conservative or libertarian rhetoric.
More people should read him, he deserves to be rescued from the folks make a fetish out of a handful of quotes.
The Adam Smith who wrote “The Wealth Of Nations” and “The Theory Of Moral Sentiments” is not the Adam Smith of modern conservative or libertarian rhetoric.
More people should read him, he deserves to be rescued from the folks make a fetish out of a handful of quotes.
The Adam Smith who wrote “The Wealth Of Nations” and “The Theory Of Moral Sentiments” is not the Adam Smith of modern conservative or libertarian rhetoric.
More people should read him, he deserves to be rescued from the folks make a fetish out of a handful of quotes.
Hell, even basic textbook economic theories get stretched to the point of breaking. The highly simplified Econ 101 models, which should only serve to introduce basic concepts, are used to justify complete nonsense under the pretense that they have direct application to the real world. Garbage in – garbage out.
Hell, even basic textbook economic theories get stretched to the point of breaking. The highly simplified Econ 101 models, which should only serve to introduce basic concepts, are used to justify complete nonsense under the pretense that they have direct application to the real world. Garbage in – garbage out.
Hell, even basic textbook economic theories get stretched to the point of breaking. The highly simplified Econ 101 models, which should only serve to introduce basic concepts, are used to justify complete nonsense under the pretense that they have direct application to the real world. Garbage in – garbage out.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s all some people can manage.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s all some people can manage.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s all some people can manage.
HSH:
I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
If you want to give me the gist, I’m more than happy to reply without nitpicking the finer points.
HSH:
I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
If you want to give me the gist, I’m more than happy to reply without nitpicking the finer points.
HSH:
I wrote a reply to thompson a while ago, but it done disappeared!
If you want to give me the gist, I’m more than happy to reply without nitpicking the finer points.
russell, way back in the thread: It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Yeah but, how do we distinguish “religious” beliefs from run-of-the-mill beliefs?
When I think about it, I could not abuse anybody for his beliefs, religious or otherwise, because I don’t know what they are. Beliefs inside people’s heads are like photons inside a black hole: you can theoretically deduce they must be in there, but there’s no way to get at them. Only by assuming that beliefs motivate behaviors (from facial expressions to written words to acts of violence), can you infer something about the nature of the beliefs. But the behaviors are the only things visible to the external world — the only things outside the event horizon, if you like.
So when I look at behaviors (including speech and “association”) that are racist or homophobic or misogynistic, I can only speculate about the “beliefs” behind them. How, then, can I judge whether they are “religious” or not?
What’s more: why should I care?
–TP
russell, way back in the thread: It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Yeah but, how do we distinguish “religious” beliefs from run-of-the-mill beliefs?
When I think about it, I could not abuse anybody for his beliefs, religious or otherwise, because I don’t know what they are. Beliefs inside people’s heads are like photons inside a black hole: you can theoretically deduce they must be in there, but there’s no way to get at them. Only by assuming that beliefs motivate behaviors (from facial expressions to written words to acts of violence), can you infer something about the nature of the beliefs. But the behaviors are the only things visible to the external world — the only things outside the event horizon, if you like.
So when I look at behaviors (including speech and “association”) that are racist or homophobic or misogynistic, I can only speculate about the “beliefs” behind them. How, then, can I judge whether they are “religious” or not?
What’s more: why should I care?
–TP
russell, way back in the thread: It’s wrong to abuse people for being gay, and it’s wrong to abuse people for their religious beliefs.
Yeah but, how do we distinguish “religious” beliefs from run-of-the-mill beliefs?
When I think about it, I could not abuse anybody for his beliefs, religious or otherwise, because I don’t know what they are. Beliefs inside people’s heads are like photons inside a black hole: you can theoretically deduce they must be in there, but there’s no way to get at them. Only by assuming that beliefs motivate behaviors (from facial expressions to written words to acts of violence), can you infer something about the nature of the beliefs. But the behaviors are the only things visible to the external world — the only things outside the event horizon, if you like.
So when I look at behaviors (including speech and “association”) that are racist or homophobic or misogynistic, I can only speculate about the “beliefs” behind them. How, then, can I judge whether they are “religious” or not?
What’s more: why should I care?
–TP
Those are all good points, Tony. I don’t have a really good answer for them.
What I was going for with that comment is that I don’t think there’s much value in responding to, for instance, a pizzeria in IN that doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding, by Yelp-bombing the pizzeria with abusive comments.
I sort of take their claim that their motivation is religious at face value, and by that I mean basically what you mean – there’s no way for me to know if it is, or isn’t. I have no way to discern it, because I can’t read their mind.
I can, and do, notice that the point that seems to provoke their conscience is gay marriages, and not any of the other kinds of marriages that conservative Christians would consider wrong. And, that makes me wonder, at a minimum, how much thought they’ve put into the whole thing.
But I have no idea, really.
I just don’t see the point of writing 10,000 Yelp reviews calling them bigoted asshole creeps. They might actually be that, I don’t know, I just don’t see how Yelp-bombing them improves things.
That said, I also think it’s worthwhile to point out to people that the practical consequence of whatever point of conscience they claim is that somebody *else* is harmed in some way. More than worthwhile, it can be an expression of *your* conscience, religious or otherwise, to point that out.
As far as religious vs non-religious beliefs, IMO the whole conflation of “religious expression” with exemptions from law seems to unfairly privilege religious people.
If we are going to grant exemptions from the law based on conscience – which I do not think is a bad idea – then IMO it should not matter what the basis of the conscience is.
Religion. philosophy, plain old ethical or moral reasoning, your own intuitive sense of what’s right and wrong. All of those things can find expression as a personal conviction that some legal requirement is wrong, and that you will not consent to be bound by it.
And, I think it’s worthwhile for the law to accommodate that when it can.
Sometimes it either can’t or won’t, and then the person with the scruple has to decide whether to break the law or not, in order to respect their own conscience. I’m sure we all, or at least most of us, know people who have made that choice and have been fined, or fired, or gone to jail, or in one way or another borne the burden of listening to their own conscience rather than the demands of the law.
Some of us may have even done that, at some point, and at some cost to ourselves.
Those are all good points, Tony. I don’t have a really good answer for them.
What I was going for with that comment is that I don’t think there’s much value in responding to, for instance, a pizzeria in IN that doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding, by Yelp-bombing the pizzeria with abusive comments.
I sort of take their claim that their motivation is religious at face value, and by that I mean basically what you mean – there’s no way for me to know if it is, or isn’t. I have no way to discern it, because I can’t read their mind.
I can, and do, notice that the point that seems to provoke their conscience is gay marriages, and not any of the other kinds of marriages that conservative Christians would consider wrong. And, that makes me wonder, at a minimum, how much thought they’ve put into the whole thing.
But I have no idea, really.
I just don’t see the point of writing 10,000 Yelp reviews calling them bigoted asshole creeps. They might actually be that, I don’t know, I just don’t see how Yelp-bombing them improves things.
That said, I also think it’s worthwhile to point out to people that the practical consequence of whatever point of conscience they claim is that somebody *else* is harmed in some way. More than worthwhile, it can be an expression of *your* conscience, religious or otherwise, to point that out.
As far as religious vs non-religious beliefs, IMO the whole conflation of “religious expression” with exemptions from law seems to unfairly privilege religious people.
If we are going to grant exemptions from the law based on conscience – which I do not think is a bad idea – then IMO it should not matter what the basis of the conscience is.
Religion. philosophy, plain old ethical or moral reasoning, your own intuitive sense of what’s right and wrong. All of those things can find expression as a personal conviction that some legal requirement is wrong, and that you will not consent to be bound by it.
And, I think it’s worthwhile for the law to accommodate that when it can.
Sometimes it either can’t or won’t, and then the person with the scruple has to decide whether to break the law or not, in order to respect their own conscience. I’m sure we all, or at least most of us, know people who have made that choice and have been fined, or fired, or gone to jail, or in one way or another borne the burden of listening to their own conscience rather than the demands of the law.
Some of us may have even done that, at some point, and at some cost to ourselves.
Those are all good points, Tony. I don’t have a really good answer for them.
What I was going for with that comment is that I don’t think there’s much value in responding to, for instance, a pizzeria in IN that doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding, by Yelp-bombing the pizzeria with abusive comments.
I sort of take their claim that their motivation is religious at face value, and by that I mean basically what you mean – there’s no way for me to know if it is, or isn’t. I have no way to discern it, because I can’t read their mind.
I can, and do, notice that the point that seems to provoke their conscience is gay marriages, and not any of the other kinds of marriages that conservative Christians would consider wrong. And, that makes me wonder, at a minimum, how much thought they’ve put into the whole thing.
But I have no idea, really.
I just don’t see the point of writing 10,000 Yelp reviews calling them bigoted asshole creeps. They might actually be that, I don’t know, I just don’t see how Yelp-bombing them improves things.
That said, I also think it’s worthwhile to point out to people that the practical consequence of whatever point of conscience they claim is that somebody *else* is harmed in some way. More than worthwhile, it can be an expression of *your* conscience, religious or otherwise, to point that out.
As far as religious vs non-religious beliefs, IMO the whole conflation of “religious expression” with exemptions from law seems to unfairly privilege religious people.
If we are going to grant exemptions from the law based on conscience – which I do not think is a bad idea – then IMO it should not matter what the basis of the conscience is.
Religion. philosophy, plain old ethical or moral reasoning, your own intuitive sense of what’s right and wrong. All of those things can find expression as a personal conviction that some legal requirement is wrong, and that you will not consent to be bound by it.
And, I think it’s worthwhile for the law to accommodate that when it can.
Sometimes it either can’t or won’t, and then the person with the scruple has to decide whether to break the law or not, in order to respect their own conscience. I’m sure we all, or at least most of us, know people who have made that choice and have been fined, or fired, or gone to jail, or in one way or another borne the burden of listening to their own conscience rather than the demands of the law.
Some of us may have even done that, at some point, and at some cost to ourselves.
thompson, I said something along the lines of rulings like the one you brought up were, as you wrote, morally wrong, but not legally wrong, since anything a court rules isn’t legally wrong until some other court overturns it (in some sense, I guess — IANAL). I also guessed they were fairly rare – rulings that looney – but that someone needs to fight one until it gets overturned (on constitutional grounds?) to set a precedent to prevent similarly looney rulings in the future.
Further, I agreed with comments in your first link to the effect that there was no discrimination because the restaurant owners were willing to serve the neo-Nazis if they would simply lose the Nazi paraphernalia, and the restaurant was under no legal obligation to serve as a forum for expressions of discrimination (and outright hatred), as represented by Nazi-ism.
It’s odd to think that anti-discrimination laws are intended to force people to provide forums for discrimination, no?
thompson, I said something along the lines of rulings like the one you brought up were, as you wrote, morally wrong, but not legally wrong, since anything a court rules isn’t legally wrong until some other court overturns it (in some sense, I guess — IANAL). I also guessed they were fairly rare – rulings that looney – but that someone needs to fight one until it gets overturned (on constitutional grounds?) to set a precedent to prevent similarly looney rulings in the future.
Further, I agreed with comments in your first link to the effect that there was no discrimination because the restaurant owners were willing to serve the neo-Nazis if they would simply lose the Nazi paraphernalia, and the restaurant was under no legal obligation to serve as a forum for expressions of discrimination (and outright hatred), as represented by Nazi-ism.
It’s odd to think that anti-discrimination laws are intended to force people to provide forums for discrimination, no?
thompson, I said something along the lines of rulings like the one you brought up were, as you wrote, morally wrong, but not legally wrong, since anything a court rules isn’t legally wrong until some other court overturns it (in some sense, I guess — IANAL). I also guessed they were fairly rare – rulings that looney – but that someone needs to fight one until it gets overturned (on constitutional grounds?) to set a precedent to prevent similarly looney rulings in the future.
Further, I agreed with comments in your first link to the effect that there was no discrimination because the restaurant owners were willing to serve the neo-Nazis if they would simply lose the Nazi paraphernalia, and the restaurant was under no legal obligation to serve as a forum for expressions of discrimination (and outright hatred), as represented by Nazi-ism.
It’s odd to think that anti-discrimination laws are intended to force people to provide forums for discrimination, no?
Russell, I agree that “Yelp-bombing” an establishment for their religious beliefs would be inappropriate. Or for any other kind of beliefs, for that matter.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X. Simply a matter of information; no negative comments about them otherwise. Just the sort of thing Yelp is all about, after all: helping those looking for someone to buy from to find a vendor who will provide what they desire.
Russell, I agree that “Yelp-bombing” an establishment for their religious beliefs would be inappropriate. Or for any other kind of beliefs, for that matter.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X. Simply a matter of information; no negative comments about them otherwise. Just the sort of thing Yelp is all about, after all: helping those looking for someone to buy from to find a vendor who will provide what they desire.
Russell, I agree that “Yelp-bombing” an establishment for their religious beliefs would be inappropriate. Or for any other kind of beliefs, for that matter.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X. Simply a matter of information; no negative comments about them otherwise. Just the sort of thing Yelp is all about, after all: helping those looking for someone to buy from to find a vendor who will provide what they desire.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X.
Or even more than one. Agreed.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X.
Or even more than one. Agreed.
But it would seem to be entirely reasonable to make one (1) Yelp post noting that they have an objection to serving members of group X.
Or even more than one. Agreed.
put me down for a vote in the ‘Yelp-bombing and/or otherwise harassing people for this doesn’t help”.
it’s mean and petty and just makes people defensive and angry.
put me down for a vote in the ‘Yelp-bombing and/or otherwise harassing people for this doesn’t help”.
it’s mean and petty and just makes people defensive and angry.
put me down for a vote in the ‘Yelp-bombing and/or otherwise harassing people for this doesn’t help”.
it’s mean and petty and just makes people defensive and angry.
I pretty much always ignore Yelp anyway, because it can easily be someone with a grudge getting even. There’s no way to know.
There were some Yelp reviews of my martial arts school that accused the owner of having known about and even encouraging a sexual relationship between one of the instructors and an underage student. All of these were written by one crazy woman who was wrong, but absolutely convinced she was right. There were certainly some behaviors that after the fact could have been better noticed and followed up on, but no one had any idea except the two people involved. One of which was a minor of 14 years.
So, I tend to take Yelp reviews with a couple of cubic yards of salt.
I pretty much always ignore Yelp anyway, because it can easily be someone with a grudge getting even. There’s no way to know.
There were some Yelp reviews of my martial arts school that accused the owner of having known about and even encouraging a sexual relationship between one of the instructors and an underage student. All of these were written by one crazy woman who was wrong, but absolutely convinced she was right. There were certainly some behaviors that after the fact could have been better noticed and followed up on, but no one had any idea except the two people involved. One of which was a minor of 14 years.
So, I tend to take Yelp reviews with a couple of cubic yards of salt.
I pretty much always ignore Yelp anyway, because it can easily be someone with a grudge getting even. There’s no way to know.
There were some Yelp reviews of my martial arts school that accused the owner of having known about and even encouraging a sexual relationship between one of the instructors and an underage student. All of these were written by one crazy woman who was wrong, but absolutely convinced she was right. There were certainly some behaviors that after the fact could have been better noticed and followed up on, but no one had any idea except the two people involved. One of which was a minor of 14 years.
So, I tend to take Yelp reviews with a couple of cubic yards of salt.
HSH:
A couple of things, I hope not too nitpicky.
First, I think there is a really important and general point between what laws were intended to do and what they say. At the end of the day there is going to be hundreds or thousands of different officers/judges/juries trying to follow the law. But let’s put that aside.
Second, the Unruh Act broadly prevents arbitrary discrimination, and this has been applied to prevent businesses from excluding people wearing motorcycle club colors, for example. Again, there is little to suggest that the trial court interpreted the Unruh Act incorrectly.
My point is, you may not wish to apply public accommodation laws to such things, but they are. I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
russell upthread commented that playing for motorcycle gangs is the cost of offering his bands services for sale (or something to that effect, if I missed the gist of that, I apologize. This thread has spawned across so many pages I can’t track down that comment specifically and am relying on my questionable memory). I disagree that a band should be required to do that, but that aside, that stance is consistent and requires no fine-tuning based on what society thinks is worth protecting today versus 10 years ago or 10 years from now.
HSH:
A couple of things, I hope not too nitpicky.
First, I think there is a really important and general point between what laws were intended to do and what they say. At the end of the day there is going to be hundreds or thousands of different officers/judges/juries trying to follow the law. But let’s put that aside.
Second, the Unruh Act broadly prevents arbitrary discrimination, and this has been applied to prevent businesses from excluding people wearing motorcycle club colors, for example. Again, there is little to suggest that the trial court interpreted the Unruh Act incorrectly.
My point is, you may not wish to apply public accommodation laws to such things, but they are. I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
russell upthread commented that playing for motorcycle gangs is the cost of offering his bands services for sale (or something to that effect, if I missed the gist of that, I apologize. This thread has spawned across so many pages I can’t track down that comment specifically and am relying on my questionable memory). I disagree that a band should be required to do that, but that aside, that stance is consistent and requires no fine-tuning based on what society thinks is worth protecting today versus 10 years ago or 10 years from now.
HSH:
A couple of things, I hope not too nitpicky.
First, I think there is a really important and general point between what laws were intended to do and what they say. At the end of the day there is going to be hundreds or thousands of different officers/judges/juries trying to follow the law. But let’s put that aside.
Second, the Unruh Act broadly prevents arbitrary discrimination, and this has been applied to prevent businesses from excluding people wearing motorcycle club colors, for example. Again, there is little to suggest that the trial court interpreted the Unruh Act incorrectly.
My point is, you may not wish to apply public accommodation laws to such things, but they are. I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
russell upthread commented that playing for motorcycle gangs is the cost of offering his bands services for sale (or something to that effect, if I missed the gist of that, I apologize. This thread has spawned across so many pages I can’t track down that comment specifically and am relying on my questionable memory). I disagree that a band should be required to do that, but that aside, that stance is consistent and requires no fine-tuning based on what society thinks is worth protecting today versus 10 years ago or 10 years from now.
I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
I agree. This is why we’ll never replace judges and juries with computers (and we can’t have nice things).
I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
I agree. This is why we’ll never replace judges and juries with computers (and we can’t have nice things).
I don’t think there are clear lines between discrimination society disapproves of and discrimination society approves of, and that there is some clear, unevolving description of where that line is.
I agree. This is why we’ll never replace judges and juries with computers (and we can’t have nice things).
Rather than refuse to play for motorcycle gangs, why not just have a surcharge for them? A high one. (Call it a high risk/insurance charge.)
Sure, we’ll play for your group. But our price is $100K per hour. You pay; we play. Gets you out of something you don’t want to do.
Rather than refuse to play for motorcycle gangs, why not just have a surcharge for them? A high one. (Call it a high risk/insurance charge.)
Sure, we’ll play for your group. But our price is $100K per hour. You pay; we play. Gets you out of something you don’t want to do.
Rather than refuse to play for motorcycle gangs, why not just have a surcharge for them? A high one. (Call it a high risk/insurance charge.)
Sure, we’ll play for your group. But our price is $100K per hour. You pay; we play. Gets you out of something you don’t want to do.
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
No, he’d still get sued.
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
No, he’d still get sued.
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
No, he’d still get sued.
I disagree that a band should be required to do that
The band isn’t required to do that.
And if the band doesn’t want to do that, the way in which they express their lack of desire to do that is to not solicit work from biker bars.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
There are lots of jobs and lines of work that present opportunities for moral or ethical conflict. If you don’t want to be in the position of having to do things that cause you moral, ethical, or religious distress, one of your options is to do something else for a living.
That’s a choice that people make each and every day. It’s a choice I’ve made at various points, no doubt many if not most folks reading this have done the same.
Freedom of choice, y’all!
All of that is to counter the ridiculous argument that public accommodations laws represent a violation of the 13th Amendment.
I disagree that a band should be required to do that
The band isn’t required to do that.
And if the band doesn’t want to do that, the way in which they express their lack of desire to do that is to not solicit work from biker bars.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
There are lots of jobs and lines of work that present opportunities for moral or ethical conflict. If you don’t want to be in the position of having to do things that cause you moral, ethical, or religious distress, one of your options is to do something else for a living.
That’s a choice that people make each and every day. It’s a choice I’ve made at various points, no doubt many if not most folks reading this have done the same.
Freedom of choice, y’all!
All of that is to counter the ridiculous argument that public accommodations laws represent a violation of the 13th Amendment.
I disagree that a band should be required to do that
The band isn’t required to do that.
And if the band doesn’t want to do that, the way in which they express their lack of desire to do that is to not solicit work from biker bars.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
There are lots of jobs and lines of work that present opportunities for moral or ethical conflict. If you don’t want to be in the position of having to do things that cause you moral, ethical, or religious distress, one of your options is to do something else for a living.
That’s a choice that people make each and every day. It’s a choice I’ve made at various points, no doubt many if not most folks reading this have done the same.
Freedom of choice, y’all!
All of that is to counter the ridiculous argument that public accommodations laws represent a violation of the 13th Amendment.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
It would for me, if it were the only cake he sold and he was willing to sell it to anyone. Probably not the best business model, but that’s his problem.
If it were a ploy – something he only trotted out when suspected gays walked in the shop – that would be different.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
It would for me, if it were the only cake he sold and he was willing to sell it to anyone. Probably not the best business model, but that’s his problem.
If it were a ploy – something he only trotted out when suspected gays walked in the shop – that would be different.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
It would for me, if it were the only cake he sold and he was willing to sell it to anyone. Probably not the best business model, but that’s his problem.
If it were a ploy – something he only trotted out when suspected gays walked in the shop – that would be different.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
I see, so in this semi-historical hypo (or whatever it is), if you didn’t ask biker bars for work, but played at other bars, would you be allowed to refuse a gig offer by a biker bar because you don’t like their clientele?
I don’t really have a point there, just trying to understand what you are saying. Sorry again if I mangled it earlier.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
I see, so in this semi-historical hypo (or whatever it is), if you didn’t ask biker bars for work, but played at other bars, would you be allowed to refuse a gig offer by a biker bar because you don’t like their clientele?
I don’t really have a point there, just trying to understand what you are saying. Sorry again if I mangled it earlier.
If you ask biker bars for work, then you should assume bikers might be involved. That was sort of the point.
I see, so in this semi-historical hypo (or whatever it is), if you didn’t ask biker bars for work, but played at other bars, would you be allowed to refuse a gig offer by a biker bar because you don’t like their clientele?
I don’t really have a point there, just trying to understand what you are saying. Sorry again if I mangled it earlier.
I think I can explain it for russell, though indirectly, with this:
Two bikers walk into a bar.
You’d think the second one would have seen it.
I think I can explain it for russell, though indirectly, with this:
Two bikers walk into a bar.
You’d think the second one would have seen it.
I think I can explain it for russell, though indirectly, with this:
Two bikers walk into a bar.
You’d think the second one would have seen it.
Simpler version for HSH:
A man walks into a bar. He says: “Ouch.”
–TP
Simpler version for HSH:
A man walks into a bar. He says: “Ouch.”
–TP
Simpler version for HSH:
A man walks into a bar. He says: “Ouch.”
–TP
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
Yeah, and it’s discrimination for insurance companies to charge teenage boys higher rates. But it’s legal. And, since this is (both nominally and really) a matter of insurance against risk, it wouldn’t be a problem. (If you can think of a risk rationale for charging more for some cakes, feel free.)
Sure, you might still get sued. But then, you could get sued for being under 6 feet tall. The suit would get thrown out, of course, but you could still get sued.
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
Yeah, and it’s discrimination for insurance companies to charge teenage boys higher rates. But it’s legal. And, since this is (both nominally and really) a matter of insurance against risk, it wouldn’t be a problem. (If you can think of a risk rationale for charging more for some cakes, feel free.)
Sure, you might still get sued. But then, you could get sued for being under 6 feet tall. The suit would get thrown out, of course, but you could still get sued.
That’s discrimination, too, Wj.
Imagine the baker had a standard SSM cake, the only one he offers. On the side is Leviticus 20:13. Think that would pass muster?
Yeah, and it’s discrimination for insurance companies to charge teenage boys higher rates. But it’s legal. And, since this is (both nominally and really) a matter of insurance against risk, it wouldn’t be a problem. (If you can think of a risk rationale for charging more for some cakes, feel free.)
Sure, you might still get sued. But then, you could get sued for being under 6 feet tall. The suit would get thrown out, of course, but you could still get sued.
just trying to understand what you are saying.
The basic issue we are discussing, or at least one of the basic issues we are discussing, is whether exemptions should be made in laws or policies that apply generally to the population at large, for people who find complying with those laws to be an undue burden to their conscience.
The state of the law, per the federal RFRA and others, is that such exemptions *should* be made, and the test to be used in such cases is the Sherbet test.
That basic foundation has been extended somewhat, per the Hobby Lobby case, to include not only people, meaning natural humans, but to the for-profit enterprises they own and operate, as long as those operations are sufficiently closely held that there is not much daylight between the enterprise and its owners.
And, all of that is in turn limited by the idea of protected classes of people, against whom one may not discriminate, full stop. In some jurisdictions, that includes gays, in others (including IN), not.
That’s the state of the art of the law.
Brett appears to argue no law or policy that places any requirement whatsoever on commercial transactions between people should be allowed. Everyone can buy or sell whatever they like, to or from whoever they like, for whatever reason.
All public accommodation laws should be struck down.
His rationale is that any law the someone be required to provide any good or service to any person they would otherwise prefer not to deal with, is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
I.e., it’s slavery.
That’s context of my comment.
The point of my comment is that, in all or nearly all cases, people can anticipate situations where the requirements of public accommodation and/or other commercial law will lead to situations that might present them with a moral, ethical, or religious problem.
And, in those cases, one of the options available to them is to *do something else* for a living.
In other words, rather than enter into a problematic situation and then require society as a whole to accommodate their conscience via some kind of exception to the law, they could assume the burden of accommodating their own conscience by not going into that line of work.
And, my stories about biker bars and classified government work were just intended to be examples of cases like that, from my own experience.
The narrow point is that *if you have choices about what you do for a living, it’s not slavery*, ipso facto.
The broader point is that people who don’t want to be in the position of having to do things they don’t like to do can quite often just find something else to do.
Stuff like this is always a balancing act. As such, it’s as fair for the burden to fall on people with sensitive consciences to avoid situations that may be difficult for them, as it is for them to ask everyone else to make exceptions to rules that otherwise apply to everybody.
All of that shouldn’t be a weird idea, people make choices about stuff like that every day, and I’m sure many of most of us here have either done so, or know folks that have.
Sometimes it means they don’t do something they would have liked to do, *but conscience isn’t always convenient*.
That’s what I’m saying. Or, trying to say. I hope that helps make it clearer.
just trying to understand what you are saying.
The basic issue we are discussing, or at least one of the basic issues we are discussing, is whether exemptions should be made in laws or policies that apply generally to the population at large, for people who find complying with those laws to be an undue burden to their conscience.
The state of the law, per the federal RFRA and others, is that such exemptions *should* be made, and the test to be used in such cases is the Sherbet test.
That basic foundation has been extended somewhat, per the Hobby Lobby case, to include not only people, meaning natural humans, but to the for-profit enterprises they own and operate, as long as those operations are sufficiently closely held that there is not much daylight between the enterprise and its owners.
And, all of that is in turn limited by the idea of protected classes of people, against whom one may not discriminate, full stop. In some jurisdictions, that includes gays, in others (including IN), not.
That’s the state of the art of the law.
Brett appears to argue no law or policy that places any requirement whatsoever on commercial transactions between people should be allowed. Everyone can buy or sell whatever they like, to or from whoever they like, for whatever reason.
All public accommodation laws should be struck down.
His rationale is that any law the someone be required to provide any good or service to any person they would otherwise prefer not to deal with, is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
I.e., it’s slavery.
That’s context of my comment.
The point of my comment is that, in all or nearly all cases, people can anticipate situations where the requirements of public accommodation and/or other commercial law will lead to situations that might present them with a moral, ethical, or religious problem.
And, in those cases, one of the options available to them is to *do something else* for a living.
In other words, rather than enter into a problematic situation and then require society as a whole to accommodate their conscience via some kind of exception to the law, they could assume the burden of accommodating their own conscience by not going into that line of work.
And, my stories about biker bars and classified government work were just intended to be examples of cases like that, from my own experience.
The narrow point is that *if you have choices about what you do for a living, it’s not slavery*, ipso facto.
The broader point is that people who don’t want to be in the position of having to do things they don’t like to do can quite often just find something else to do.
Stuff like this is always a balancing act. As such, it’s as fair for the burden to fall on people with sensitive consciences to avoid situations that may be difficult for them, as it is for them to ask everyone else to make exceptions to rules that otherwise apply to everybody.
All of that shouldn’t be a weird idea, people make choices about stuff like that every day, and I’m sure many of most of us here have either done so, or know folks that have.
Sometimes it means they don’t do something they would have liked to do, *but conscience isn’t always convenient*.
That’s what I’m saying. Or, trying to say. I hope that helps make it clearer.
just trying to understand what you are saying.
The basic issue we are discussing, or at least one of the basic issues we are discussing, is whether exemptions should be made in laws or policies that apply generally to the population at large, for people who find complying with those laws to be an undue burden to their conscience.
The state of the law, per the federal RFRA and others, is that such exemptions *should* be made, and the test to be used in such cases is the Sherbet test.
That basic foundation has been extended somewhat, per the Hobby Lobby case, to include not only people, meaning natural humans, but to the for-profit enterprises they own and operate, as long as those operations are sufficiently closely held that there is not much daylight between the enterprise and its owners.
And, all of that is in turn limited by the idea of protected classes of people, against whom one may not discriminate, full stop. In some jurisdictions, that includes gays, in others (including IN), not.
That’s the state of the art of the law.
Brett appears to argue no law or policy that places any requirement whatsoever on commercial transactions between people should be allowed. Everyone can buy or sell whatever they like, to or from whoever they like, for whatever reason.
All public accommodation laws should be struck down.
His rationale is that any law the someone be required to provide any good or service to any person they would otherwise prefer not to deal with, is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
I.e., it’s slavery.
That’s context of my comment.
The point of my comment is that, in all or nearly all cases, people can anticipate situations where the requirements of public accommodation and/or other commercial law will lead to situations that might present them with a moral, ethical, or religious problem.
And, in those cases, one of the options available to them is to *do something else* for a living.
In other words, rather than enter into a problematic situation and then require society as a whole to accommodate their conscience via some kind of exception to the law, they could assume the burden of accommodating their own conscience by not going into that line of work.
And, my stories about biker bars and classified government work were just intended to be examples of cases like that, from my own experience.
The narrow point is that *if you have choices about what you do for a living, it’s not slavery*, ipso facto.
The broader point is that people who don’t want to be in the position of having to do things they don’t like to do can quite often just find something else to do.
Stuff like this is always a balancing act. As such, it’s as fair for the burden to fall on people with sensitive consciences to avoid situations that may be difficult for them, as it is for them to ask everyone else to make exceptions to rules that otherwise apply to everybody.
All of that shouldn’t be a weird idea, people make choices about stuff like that every day, and I’m sure many of most of us here have either done so, or know folks that have.
Sometimes it means they don’t do something they would have liked to do, *but conscience isn’t always convenient*.
That’s what I’m saying. Or, trying to say. I hope that helps make it clearer.
Simpler version for HSH
LOL.
Much much much shorter me:
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
Simpler version for HSH
LOL.
Much much much shorter me:
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
Simpler version for HSH
LOL.
Much much much shorter me:
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
Followed by
Band starts to sing gay love songs. (Or any other material that is calculated to offend.) Bikers are offended….
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
Followed by
Band starts to sing gay love songs. (Or any other material that is calculated to offend.) Bikers are offended….
A band solicits work from bars. A biker bar hires them.
Gig begins. Bikers attend. Band members are offended.
Who’s problem is that?
Followed by
Band starts to sing gay love songs. (Or any other material that is calculated to offend.) Bikers are offended….
I hope that helps make it clearer.
Well, I was actually just trying to get an answer to that narrow question, can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele? It’s a minor question, if you can’t answer it that’s fine, I was just curious about your views.
But to be clear on your larger point about the inapplicability of the 13A, yes, I agree, I don’t think public accommodation laws run afoul of the the 13th.
I hope that helps make it clearer.
Well, I was actually just trying to get an answer to that narrow question, can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele? It’s a minor question, if you can’t answer it that’s fine, I was just curious about your views.
But to be clear on your larger point about the inapplicability of the 13A, yes, I agree, I don’t think public accommodation laws run afoul of the the 13th.
I hope that helps make it clearer.
Well, I was actually just trying to get an answer to that narrow question, can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele? It’s a minor question, if you can’t answer it that’s fine, I was just curious about your views.
But to be clear on your larger point about the inapplicability of the 13A, yes, I agree, I don’t think public accommodation laws run afoul of the the 13th.
Bikers are offended….
Which immediately becomes the band’s problem.
Unless, of course, it’s a gay biker bar, which is also a thing, and if you’re going to put yourself out there as a band for hire to clubs, is something you need to be able to deal with.
Gay people can get married now. If you are going to open a business which traditionally is involved in weddings, in a place where gays can get married, it’s highly likely that you are going to be asked to provide your goods and services to a gay wedding.
In some of those jurisdictions, you can’t discriminate against gays.
So, if the idea of being involved in a gay wedding is just something you cannot countenance, you can either sign up for a lifetime of lawsuits, or you can maybe just find something else to do for a living.
Just saying. It is an option.
Bikers are offended….
Which immediately becomes the band’s problem.
Unless, of course, it’s a gay biker bar, which is also a thing, and if you’re going to put yourself out there as a band for hire to clubs, is something you need to be able to deal with.
Gay people can get married now. If you are going to open a business which traditionally is involved in weddings, in a place where gays can get married, it’s highly likely that you are going to be asked to provide your goods and services to a gay wedding.
In some of those jurisdictions, you can’t discriminate against gays.
So, if the idea of being involved in a gay wedding is just something you cannot countenance, you can either sign up for a lifetime of lawsuits, or you can maybe just find something else to do for a living.
Just saying. It is an option.
Bikers are offended….
Which immediately becomes the band’s problem.
Unless, of course, it’s a gay biker bar, which is also a thing, and if you’re going to put yourself out there as a band for hire to clubs, is something you need to be able to deal with.
Gay people can get married now. If you are going to open a business which traditionally is involved in weddings, in a place where gays can get married, it’s highly likely that you are going to be asked to provide your goods and services to a gay wedding.
In some of those jurisdictions, you can’t discriminate against gays.
So, if the idea of being involved in a gay wedding is just something you cannot countenance, you can either sign up for a lifetime of lawsuits, or you can maybe just find something else to do for a living.
Just saying. It is an option.
can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele?
As a matter of law, sure. I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
IANAL, so I could be wrong.
My point in raising the example, once again, was simply to note that *people have choices about what they do for a living*, and if what you want to do for a living is going to, inevitably, create problems of conscience for you, perhaps you might think of doing something else for a living.
The fact that there is a choice takes us out of 13th A territory.
More broadly, people with sensitive consciences own, and should acknowledge, at least some of the responsibility for making sure that they aren’t required to do things that offend them.
can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele?
As a matter of law, sure. I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
IANAL, so I could be wrong.
My point in raising the example, once again, was simply to note that *people have choices about what they do for a living*, and if what you want to do for a living is going to, inevitably, create problems of conscience for you, perhaps you might think of doing something else for a living.
The fact that there is a choice takes us out of 13th A territory.
More broadly, people with sensitive consciences own, and should acknowledge, at least some of the responsibility for making sure that they aren’t required to do things that offend them.
can your band refuse a gig because you don’t like the clientele?
As a matter of law, sure. I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
IANAL, so I could be wrong.
My point in raising the example, once again, was simply to note that *people have choices about what they do for a living*, and if what you want to do for a living is going to, inevitably, create problems of conscience for you, perhaps you might think of doing something else for a living.
The fact that there is a choice takes us out of 13th A territory.
More broadly, people with sensitive consciences own, and should acknowledge, at least some of the responsibility for making sure that they aren’t required to do things that offend them.
As is so often the case, it’s the transition that causes problems. If you are going to open a bakers providing wedding cakes now, you know that you are going to get the occasional gay wedding. So either you live with that or you do something else.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed. Sure, you could go into another business. But as anyone who has done so can tell you, starting a new business is HARD. Even just working in someone else’s start-up is hard. So I can see cutting someone a little more slack if they are dealing with changes in their world.
As is so often the case, it’s the transition that causes problems. If you are going to open a bakers providing wedding cakes now, you know that you are going to get the occasional gay wedding. So either you live with that or you do something else.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed. Sure, you could go into another business. But as anyone who has done so can tell you, starting a new business is HARD. Even just working in someone else’s start-up is hard. So I can see cutting someone a little more slack if they are dealing with changes in their world.
As is so often the case, it’s the transition that causes problems. If you are going to open a bakers providing wedding cakes now, you know that you are going to get the occasional gay wedding. So either you live with that or you do something else.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed. Sure, you could go into another business. But as anyone who has done so can tell you, starting a new business is HARD. Even just working in someone else’s start-up is hard. So I can see cutting someone a little more slack if they are dealing with changes in their world.
“Sure, you could go into another business.”
And five years later, your new business gets declared a public accomodation, too.
That’s why this is being fought so; It’s a moving assault, you retreat, the fight just follows you.
“Sure, you could go into another business.”
And five years later, your new business gets declared a public accomodation, too.
That’s why this is being fought so; It’s a moving assault, you retreat, the fight just follows you.
“Sure, you could go into another business.”
And five years later, your new business gets declared a public accomodation, too.
That’s why this is being fought so; It’s a moving assault, you retreat, the fight just follows you.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed.
Yes, I understand that, and I believe I made that specific point when I brought up the biker bar / classified DoD work issue.
I don’t really have a big problem with exemptions for reasons of conscience. I find the depth of the “religious conviction” somewhat suspect in the cases we’ve been discussing, for the reasons I’ve given, but frankly that isn’t my hash to settle. I’m not a mind reader, and I’m not interested in denying people religious exemptions because their requests don’t pass some weird personal muster of mine.
What I don’t really like is the idea of religious conscience being used as a pretext for discriminating against gay people. And, I more than suspect that was the motivation in the IN law as originally passed, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to the claims of “preserving freedom of religion” that accompanied the law as originally passed.
In My Opinion, and solely in my opinion, if the focus of your interest in preserving religious freedom is not being required to take pictures of gay weddings, or provide pizza or cake to gay weddings, that speaks to a smallness of mind and spirit that seems to be almost antithetical to the motivations of the original federal RFRA.
Bigotry is destructive, and employing claims of deep religious faith to justify bigotry, likewise.
I have no interest in making legal distinctions about people’s consciences, so I’m fine with granting exemptions to people who don’t want to cater gay weddings, assuming gays are not a protected class in their jurisdiction.
But as a private citizen, and simply as a human being, I’m also entitled to be suspicious of claims that have every appearance of being motivated more by bigotry, and less by the demands of any god I’m aware of.
All my opinion, nothing more.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed.
Yes, I understand that, and I believe I made that specific point when I brought up the biker bar / classified DoD work issue.
I don’t really have a big problem with exemptions for reasons of conscience. I find the depth of the “religious conviction” somewhat suspect in the cases we’ve been discussing, for the reasons I’ve given, but frankly that isn’t my hash to settle. I’m not a mind reader, and I’m not interested in denying people religious exemptions because their requests don’t pass some weird personal muster of mine.
What I don’t really like is the idea of religious conscience being used as a pretext for discriminating against gay people. And, I more than suspect that was the motivation in the IN law as originally passed, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to the claims of “preserving freedom of religion” that accompanied the law as originally passed.
In My Opinion, and solely in my opinion, if the focus of your interest in preserving religious freedom is not being required to take pictures of gay weddings, or provide pizza or cake to gay weddings, that speaks to a smallness of mind and spirit that seems to be almost antithetical to the motivations of the original federal RFRA.
Bigotry is destructive, and employing claims of deep religious faith to justify bigotry, likewise.
I have no interest in making legal distinctions about people’s consciences, so I’m fine with granting exemptions to people who don’t want to cater gay weddings, assuming gays are not a protected class in their jurisdiction.
But as a private citizen, and simply as a human being, I’m also entitled to be suspicious of claims that have every appearance of being motivated more by bigotry, and less by the demands of any god I’m aware of.
All my opinion, nothing more.
But suppose you have had that business for years. And now, the rules have changed.
Yes, I understand that, and I believe I made that specific point when I brought up the biker bar / classified DoD work issue.
I don’t really have a big problem with exemptions for reasons of conscience. I find the depth of the “religious conviction” somewhat suspect in the cases we’ve been discussing, for the reasons I’ve given, but frankly that isn’t my hash to settle. I’m not a mind reader, and I’m not interested in denying people religious exemptions because their requests don’t pass some weird personal muster of mine.
What I don’t really like is the idea of religious conscience being used as a pretext for discriminating against gay people. And, I more than suspect that was the motivation in the IN law as originally passed, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to the claims of “preserving freedom of religion” that accompanied the law as originally passed.
In My Opinion, and solely in my opinion, if the focus of your interest in preserving religious freedom is not being required to take pictures of gay weddings, or provide pizza or cake to gay weddings, that speaks to a smallness of mind and spirit that seems to be almost antithetical to the motivations of the original federal RFRA.
Bigotry is destructive, and employing claims of deep religious faith to justify bigotry, likewise.
I have no interest in making legal distinctions about people’s consciences, so I’m fine with granting exemptions to people who don’t want to cater gay weddings, assuming gays are not a protected class in their jurisdiction.
But as a private citizen, and simply as a human being, I’m also entitled to be suspicious of claims that have every appearance of being motivated more by bigotry, and less by the demands of any god I’m aware of.
All my opinion, nothing more.
TRIGGER WARNING: declaring yourself open for business may invite situations where you have to interact with people whose lifestyle you may find upsetting. life includes other people who don’t share your religion!
TRIGGER WARNING: declaring yourself open for business may invite situations where you have to interact with people whose lifestyle you may find upsetting. life includes other people who don’t share your religion!
TRIGGER WARNING: declaring yourself open for business may invite situations where you have to interact with people whose lifestyle you may find upsetting. life includes other people who don’t share your religion!
Ever consider not using over-the-top language, Brett? It might help you make your points with a greater chance of success in getting people to consider them seriously, even if the still end up disagreeing.
Yes, it’s a friggin’ assult, requiring people to provide the goods and services they’re in the business of providing in exchange for money – the same money used by whatever kind of person the customer might be. Most businesses like more customers.
That’s generally how I choose to assault people – by forcing them to increase their revenues. I’m kooky that way.
Here’s something interesting to think about, in the WWJD vein: Bake for Them Two.
Ever consider not using over-the-top language, Brett? It might help you make your points with a greater chance of success in getting people to consider them seriously, even if the still end up disagreeing.
Yes, it’s a friggin’ assult, requiring people to provide the goods and services they’re in the business of providing in exchange for money – the same money used by whatever kind of person the customer might be. Most businesses like more customers.
That’s generally how I choose to assault people – by forcing them to increase their revenues. I’m kooky that way.
Here’s something interesting to think about, in the WWJD vein: Bake for Them Two.
Ever consider not using over-the-top language, Brett? It might help you make your points with a greater chance of success in getting people to consider them seriously, even if the still end up disagreeing.
Yes, it’s a friggin’ assult, requiring people to provide the goods and services they’re in the business of providing in exchange for money – the same money used by whatever kind of person the customer might be. Most businesses like more customers.
That’s generally how I choose to assault people – by forcing them to increase their revenues. I’m kooky that way.
Here’s something interesting to think about, in the WWJD vein: Bake for Them Two.
I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
Ok, so could the wholly private and (at least not in any legal sense) not for profit motorcycle club hire you directly?
Could an individual member of said club hire you for his private party? Could the band refuse in these situations?
I’m not trying to nitpick, I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework, fully recognizing you’re not a lawyer.
I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
Ok, so could the wholly private and (at least not in any legal sense) not for profit motorcycle club hire you directly?
Could an individual member of said club hire you for his private party? Could the band refuse in these situations?
I’m not trying to nitpick, I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework, fully recognizing you’re not a lawyer.
I don’t think the legal obligations between one for-profit organization (the band) and another (the club) are the same as those that apply to “public accommodations” however construed.
Ok, so could the wholly private and (at least not in any legal sense) not for profit motorcycle club hire you directly?
Could an individual member of said club hire you for his private party? Could the band refuse in these situations?
I’m not trying to nitpick, I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework, fully recognizing you’re not a lawyer.
I do have a bit of a problem with over the top language, that’s true.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery. Doesn’t stop being involuntary just because the person you’re forcing to do the work will get paid.
Gay rights moved from “that’s just a crazy reductio” territory to “obviously that ought to be required” so fast, my head is still spinning. And it’s still moving.
I do have a bit of a problem with over the top language, that’s true.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery. Doesn’t stop being involuntary just because the person you’re forcing to do the work will get paid.
Gay rights moved from “that’s just a crazy reductio” territory to “obviously that ought to be required” so fast, my head is still spinning. And it’s still moving.
I do have a bit of a problem with over the top language, that’s true.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery. Doesn’t stop being involuntary just because the person you’re forcing to do the work will get paid.
Gay rights moved from “that’s just a crazy reductio” territory to “obviously that ought to be required” so fast, my head is still spinning. And it’s still moving.
There are two groups of people in IN whose motives are being questioned:
The wedding baker/wedding photographer/pizza shop owner that doesn’t want to be even slightly involved in SSM. I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
The IN politicians that crafted their RFRA law, claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.
I, for one, am not in favor of cutting politicians any more slack than it takes to let them twist slowly in the wind.
There are two groups of people in IN whose motives are being questioned:
The wedding baker/wedding photographer/pizza shop owner that doesn’t want to be even slightly involved in SSM. I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
The IN politicians that crafted their RFRA law, claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.
I, for one, am not in favor of cutting politicians any more slack than it takes to let them twist slowly in the wind.
There are two groups of people in IN whose motives are being questioned:
The wedding baker/wedding photographer/pizza shop owner that doesn’t want to be even slightly involved in SSM. I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
The IN politicians that crafted their RFRA law, claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.
I, for one, am not in favor of cutting politicians any more slack than it takes to let them twist slowly in the wind.
Excellent distinction
Excellent distinction
Excellent distinction
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
no, it really is over the top. and mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves. and does great violence to the language.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
no, it really is over the top. and mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves. and does great violence to the language.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
no, it really is over the top. and mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves. and does great violence to the language.
“claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.”
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
It does great violence to the language, to insist that involuntarily rendering service is involuntary servitude? I think what’s going on here, is that you figure people shouldn’t be offended at being forced to do things you wouldn’t mind doing.
It is, fundamentally, a lack of empathy.
“claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.”
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
It does great violence to the language, to insist that involuntarily rendering service is involuntary servitude? I think what’s going on here, is that you figure people shouldn’t be offended at being forced to do things you wouldn’t mind doing.
It is, fundamentally, a lack of empathy.
“claiming that it’s all about ‘religious freedom’ and not ‘bigotry’, in spite of the obvious effects.”
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
It does great violence to the language, to insist that involuntarily rendering service is involuntary servitude? I think what’s going on here, is that you figure people shouldn’t be offended at being forced to do things you wouldn’t mind doing.
It is, fundamentally, a lack of empathy.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
FFS, knock it off.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
FFS, knock it off.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
FFS, knock it off.
I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework. It was intended to help illustrate the fact that most cases where someone is required to do something they don’t like are, to some degree, voluntary.
The biker bar thing was also, specifically, in response to Brett’s claims that all of us liberals sit around in our ivory towers and never have to actually do something they don’t like, like provide goods or service to members of the Aryan Nation.
People on “the left” do all kinds of things. So do people on the right, in the middle, etc. I know that you, thompson, understand that, I’m mentioning it for Brett’s benefit. I don’t really expect to make a dent, but you never know. Cast your bread upon the waters.
The legal framework we currently have is, IMO, pretty good. It’s an attempt at balancing different legitimate, but conflicting, interests. That rules out perfection, so as far as I can tell what we have is probably a reasonable approximation of as good as it’s going to get.
If I would suggest a change, it would be to add gays as protected class.
I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
Yes, I would.
mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves.
Bingo. It’s obscene.
I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework. It was intended to help illustrate the fact that most cases where someone is required to do something they don’t like are, to some degree, voluntary.
The biker bar thing was also, specifically, in response to Brett’s claims that all of us liberals sit around in our ivory towers and never have to actually do something they don’t like, like provide goods or service to members of the Aryan Nation.
People on “the left” do all kinds of things. So do people on the right, in the middle, etc. I know that you, thompson, understand that, I’m mentioning it for Brett’s benefit. I don’t really expect to make a dent, but you never know. Cast your bread upon the waters.
The legal framework we currently have is, IMO, pretty good. It’s an attempt at balancing different legitimate, but conflicting, interests. That rules out perfection, so as far as I can tell what we have is probably a reasonable approximation of as good as it’s going to get.
If I would suggest a change, it would be to add gays as protected class.
I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
Yes, I would.
mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves.
Bingo. It’s obscene.
I’m trying to get my head around your proposed/preferred legal framework
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework. It was intended to help illustrate the fact that most cases where someone is required to do something they don’t like are, to some degree, voluntary.
The biker bar thing was also, specifically, in response to Brett’s claims that all of us liberals sit around in our ivory towers and never have to actually do something they don’t like, like provide goods or service to members of the Aryan Nation.
People on “the left” do all kinds of things. So do people on the right, in the middle, etc. I know that you, thompson, understand that, I’m mentioning it for Brett’s benefit. I don’t really expect to make a dent, but you never know. Cast your bread upon the waters.
The legal framework we currently have is, IMO, pretty good. It’s an attempt at balancing different legitimate, but conflicting, interests. That rules out perfection, so as far as I can tell what we have is probably a reasonable approximation of as good as it’s going to get.
If I would suggest a change, it would be to add gays as protected class.
I get the impression that russell (and many others) would be okay with cutting them some slack.
Yes, I would.
mind-bogglingly disrespectful to actual slaves.
Bingo. It’s obscene.
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry
See, that’s the thing: you don’t know what people commenting here do, or don’t believe.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, maybe say nothing.
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry
See, that’s the thing: you don’t know what people commenting here do, or don’t believe.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, maybe say nothing.
See, that’s the thing: From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry
See, that’s the thing: you don’t know what people commenting here do, or don’t believe.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, maybe say nothing.
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
I know that you, thompson, understand that
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
I know that you, thompson, understand that
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
The example wasn’t provided to exemplify a legal framework.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
I know that you, thompson, understand that
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
Seriously, no worries.
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
That, and much more. I always appreciate your comments here.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
Seriously, no worries.
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
That, and much more. I always appreciate your comments here.
Yes, I think I’ve grabbed your train of thought now. Sorry for the derailment.
Seriously, no worries.
I’m glad I’ve made at least that much clear.
That, and much more. I always appreciate your comments here.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
Major world religions view homosexuality negatively. Islam violently more so than Christianity. So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
This being the case, declaring a negative view of homosexuality to be bigotry is declaring the religious views of a large part of the world population to be bigotry.
That’s not to say it isn’t bigotry. It’s to say that religous liberty and the freedom to be bigoted can’t really be separated. Because from the perspective of the non-believer, major religions demand that their followers adopt ‘bigoted’ positions.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
Major world religions view homosexuality negatively. Islam violently more so than Christianity. So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
This being the case, declaring a negative view of homosexuality to be bigotry is declaring the religious views of a large part of the world population to be bigotry.
That’s not to say it isn’t bigotry. It’s to say that religous liberty and the freedom to be bigoted can’t really be separated. Because from the perspective of the non-believer, major religions demand that their followers adopt ‘bigoted’ positions.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
Major world religions view homosexuality negatively. Islam violently more so than Christianity. So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
This being the case, declaring a negative view of homosexuality to be bigotry is declaring the religious views of a large part of the world population to be bigotry.
That’s not to say it isn’t bigotry. It’s to say that religous liberty and the freedom to be bigoted can’t really be separated. Because from the perspective of the non-believer, major religions demand that their followers adopt ‘bigoted’ positions.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
I cut it off because it was irrelevant to *my* point. You know, the one *I* was making, in *my* comment.
Here are some simple points of information for you.
Many of the people who object to the IN law are believers, in a wide variety of religions.
Many of the “moral judgments that a religion demands” are matters of debate within those religions, rather than points of monolithic consensus. The status and morality of homosexuality, and / or gay marriage, is among those moral judgements.
When people who claim to adhere to a given school of interpretation within a religion are highly selective about which of that traditions “moral demands” they are going to respect, and which not, it’s more than reasonable to think that there is more involved than simple adherence to the tenets of their religious faith.
It is a sad fact that religious faith and bigotry can’t always be separated, any more than any set of human motivations can be separated. We do our best.
It’s also a sad fact that permitting a “freedom to be bigoted” is not without costs. It’s not just a matter of allowing people to hold an opinion we might not like, it’s a matter of allowing *other people’s rights and privileges* to be compromised.
The “freedom” of someone to be bigoted most often comes at the expense of somebody else’s quality of life, and quite often at the expense of their ability to enjoy freedoms and privileges that the law promises to them.
Believe it or not, we don’t all get to just do whatever the fuck we want. There is no libertarian paradise. There is no such thing, because it’s impossible for everyone to just go do whatever they want without them impinging on *other* people going and doing whatever *they* want.
So we have to deal with each other. We do that through the law, as a pretty good alternative to just shooting each other.
This is like talking to a four year old.
Over and out.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
I cut it off because it was irrelevant to *my* point. You know, the one *I* was making, in *my* comment.
Here are some simple points of information for you.
Many of the people who object to the IN law are believers, in a wide variety of religions.
Many of the “moral judgments that a religion demands” are matters of debate within those religions, rather than points of monolithic consensus. The status and morality of homosexuality, and / or gay marriage, is among those moral judgements.
When people who claim to adhere to a given school of interpretation within a religion are highly selective about which of that traditions “moral demands” they are going to respect, and which not, it’s more than reasonable to think that there is more involved than simple adherence to the tenets of their religious faith.
It is a sad fact that religious faith and bigotry can’t always be separated, any more than any set of human motivations can be separated. We do our best.
It’s also a sad fact that permitting a “freedom to be bigoted” is not without costs. It’s not just a matter of allowing people to hold an opinion we might not like, it’s a matter of allowing *other people’s rights and privileges* to be compromised.
The “freedom” of someone to be bigoted most often comes at the expense of somebody else’s quality of life, and quite often at the expense of their ability to enjoy freedoms and privileges that the law promises to them.
Believe it or not, we don’t all get to just do whatever the fuck we want. There is no libertarian paradise. There is no such thing, because it’s impossible for everyone to just go do whatever they want without them impinging on *other* people going and doing whatever *they* want.
So we have to deal with each other. We do that through the law, as a pretty good alternative to just shooting each other.
This is like talking to a four year old.
Over and out.
You cut off the part where I said, “when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.” and that’s the key point.
I cut it off because it was irrelevant to *my* point. You know, the one *I* was making, in *my* comment.
Here are some simple points of information for you.
Many of the people who object to the IN law are believers, in a wide variety of religions.
Many of the “moral judgments that a religion demands” are matters of debate within those religions, rather than points of monolithic consensus. The status and morality of homosexuality, and / or gay marriage, is among those moral judgements.
When people who claim to adhere to a given school of interpretation within a religion are highly selective about which of that traditions “moral demands” they are going to respect, and which not, it’s more than reasonable to think that there is more involved than simple adherence to the tenets of their religious faith.
It is a sad fact that religious faith and bigotry can’t always be separated, any more than any set of human motivations can be separated. We do our best.
It’s also a sad fact that permitting a “freedom to be bigoted” is not without costs. It’s not just a matter of allowing people to hold an opinion we might not like, it’s a matter of allowing *other people’s rights and privileges* to be compromised.
The “freedom” of someone to be bigoted most often comes at the expense of somebody else’s quality of life, and quite often at the expense of their ability to enjoy freedoms and privileges that the law promises to them.
Believe it or not, we don’t all get to just do whatever the fuck we want. There is no libertarian paradise. There is no such thing, because it’s impossible for everyone to just go do whatever they want without them impinging on *other* people going and doing whatever *they* want.
So we have to deal with each other. We do that through the law, as a pretty good alternative to just shooting each other.
This is like talking to a four year old.
Over and out.
“There is no libertarian paradise.”
Libertarians would agree.
“There is no libertarian paradise.”
Libertarians would agree.
“There is no libertarian paradise.”
Libertarians would agree.
Libertarians would agree.
I’m not sure you’re in a position to speak for all libertarians.
Libertarians would agree.
I’m not sure you’re in a position to speak for all libertarians.
Libertarians would agree.
I’m not sure you’re in a position to speak for all libertarians.
True enough.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
True enough.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
True enough.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the expectations the people making those decisions have – what they think the results of those two different moves will be. How can they have the most beneficial influence over how homosexuals are treated in those places?
Pulling out of Indiana is something a company can only do if they’re already established there, and they’re responding to what I’ll call, for a fellow engineer, a negative edge – a drop in their “how do we treat homosexuals” voltage. Pulling out is an effort to force the voltage back up with economic and political pressure.
Qatar hasn’t changed. Their voltage has been constant (as far as I know), and the people at Apple may think they can only influence Qatar’s voltage by having a greater presence there.
I don’t know that any of that is true, but it isn’t necessarily as simple a calculus as you make it out to be.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
I guess you didn’t hit my Bake Them Two link. Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness? Have you considered that it’s un-Christ-like to turn your back on sinners?
And does being a non-believer necessarily mean you are unable to understand the nature of the belief, even though you don’t, yourself, hold it? Conversely, does being a believer necessarily make you an expert?
Do you think anything is bigotry, Brett? Are there clear cases of it, in your mind? If so, do they cease to be bigotry once religion is invoked as the motivation behind them?
So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the expectations the people making those decisions have – what they think the results of those two different moves will be. How can they have the most beneficial influence over how homosexuals are treated in those places?
Pulling out of Indiana is something a company can only do if they’re already established there, and they’re responding to what I’ll call, for a fellow engineer, a negative edge – a drop in their “how do we treat homosexuals” voltage. Pulling out is an effort to force the voltage back up with economic and political pressure.
Qatar hasn’t changed. Their voltage has been constant (as far as I know), and the people at Apple may think they can only influence Qatar’s voltage by having a greater presence there.
I don’t know that any of that is true, but it isn’t necessarily as simple a calculus as you make it out to be.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
I guess you didn’t hit my Bake Them Two link. Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness? Have you considered that it’s un-Christ-like to turn your back on sinners?
And does being a non-believer necessarily mean you are unable to understand the nature of the belief, even though you don’t, yourself, hold it? Conversely, does being a believer necessarily make you an expert?
Do you think anything is bigotry, Brett? Are there clear cases of it, in your mind? If so, do they cease to be bigotry once religion is invoked as the motivation behind them?
So, here’s Apple pulling out of Indiana because a baker might not bake a gay couple a wedding cake, and expanding in Quatar, where gays get executed. Little bit of a contradition there, no?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the expectations the people making those decisions have – what they think the results of those two different moves will be. How can they have the most beneficial influence over how homosexuals are treated in those places?
Pulling out of Indiana is something a company can only do if they’re already established there, and they’re responding to what I’ll call, for a fellow engineer, a negative edge – a drop in their “how do we treat homosexuals” voltage. Pulling out is an effort to force the voltage back up with economic and political pressure.
Qatar hasn’t changed. Their voltage has been constant (as far as I know), and the people at Apple may think they can only influence Qatar’s voltage by having a greater presence there.
I don’t know that any of that is true, but it isn’t necessarily as simple a calculus as you make it out to be.
From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.
I guess you didn’t hit my Bake Them Two link. Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness? Have you considered that it’s un-Christ-like to turn your back on sinners?
And does being a non-believer necessarily mean you are unable to understand the nature of the belief, even though you don’t, yourself, hold it? Conversely, does being a believer necessarily make you an expert?
Do you think anything is bigotry, Brett? Are there clear cases of it, in your mind? If so, do they cease to be bigotry once religion is invoked as the motivation behind them?
Some Christians think that their job on this planet is to spread Christianity where they can. Which is really difficult if you wall yourself away from the rest of the world.
As far as the “turn your back on sinners” part: we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
It could be argued, perhaps, that some Christians are trying a little voltage-drop-inducement, themselves.
Some Christians think that their job on this planet is to spread Christianity where they can. Which is really difficult if you wall yourself away from the rest of the world.
As far as the “turn your back on sinners” part: we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
It could be argued, perhaps, that some Christians are trying a little voltage-drop-inducement, themselves.
Some Christians think that their job on this planet is to spread Christianity where they can. Which is really difficult if you wall yourself away from the rest of the world.
As far as the “turn your back on sinners” part: we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
It could be argued, perhaps, that some Christians are trying a little voltage-drop-inducement, themselves.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
Please see my 3:01.
Regarding Apple and the contradictory nature of their choices:
Apple is the single largest publicly traded corporation in the world, if I’m not mistaken. As such, “Apple” refers to, most likely, several million people.
On the topic of the rights of homosexuals, I doubt that all of those millions of people speak with a single voice.
Contradictions are not surprising.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
Please see my 3:01.
Regarding Apple and the contradictory nature of their choices:
Apple is the single largest publicly traded corporation in the world, if I’m not mistaken. As such, “Apple” refers to, most likely, several million people.
On the topic of the rights of homosexuals, I doubt that all of those millions of people speak with a single voice.
Contradictions are not surprising.
But the concept of a paradise seems to contradict the libertarian world view.
Please see my 3:01.
Regarding Apple and the contradictory nature of their choices:
Apple is the single largest publicly traded corporation in the world, if I’m not mistaken. As such, “Apple” refers to, most likely, several million people.
On the topic of the rights of homosexuals, I doubt that all of those millions of people speak with a single voice.
Contradictions are not surprising.
we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
Bigot! (I guess Brett was right after all. Can’t tell the difference.)
we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
Bigot! (I guess Brett was right after all. Can’t tell the difference.)
we are all of us sinners. I am no better than anyone else.
Bigot! (I guess Brett was right after all. Can’t tell the difference.)
“Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness?”
Well, OF COURSE religious people disagree about these things. There are, trivially, more than one religion in the world.
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories. One of the major points where they overlap is just precisely SSM, and whether you should do anything to facilitate it.
“Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness?”
Well, OF COURSE religious people disagree about these things. There are, trivially, more than one religion in the world.
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories. One of the major points where they overlap is just precisely SSM, and whether you should do anything to facilitate it.
“Forgetting what people on this blog might think or believe for the moment, do you think it’s at all possible that religious people might disagree on 1 – whether or not homosexuality is sinful (or how sinful it is) and 2 – how to treat homosexuals, even if there is agreement on their sinfulness?”
Well, OF COURSE religious people disagree about these things. There are, trivially, more than one religion in the world.
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories. One of the major points where they overlap is just precisely SSM, and whether you should do anything to facilitate it.
you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot
Everyone is free to be a bigot. Nobody is free to refuse to provide goods and services to one person that they would freely provide to another, based on that bigotry.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories.
Wrong.
Religious conviction and bigotry are overlapping categories. People are often motivated by both, sometimes in opposite directions.
Freedom of religion and freedom of bigotry, not so much, if by “freedom of bigotry” you mean the freedom to discriminate in the public square based on the bigotry.
Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to discern if a person’s motivations are religious conviction or bigotry. Sometimes both are present. So, IMO it’s better to grant the benefit of the doubt.
Not the same thing as “freedom to be a bigot”.
You can’t say that you refuse to provide goods or services to someone because they’re different from you in ways you don’t like, absent some compelling reason other than mere animus.
At least, for the more notable forms of bigotry, and in the context of the public square. You’re always free to not invite people to dinner, for whatever reason you like.
Most people like it that way, so it’s likely to remain that way.
you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot
Everyone is free to be a bigot. Nobody is free to refuse to provide goods and services to one person that they would freely provide to another, based on that bigotry.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories.
Wrong.
Religious conviction and bigotry are overlapping categories. People are often motivated by both, sometimes in opposite directions.
Freedom of religion and freedom of bigotry, not so much, if by “freedom of bigotry” you mean the freedom to discriminate in the public square based on the bigotry.
Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to discern if a person’s motivations are religious conviction or bigotry. Sometimes both are present. So, IMO it’s better to grant the benefit of the doubt.
Not the same thing as “freedom to be a bigot”.
You can’t say that you refuse to provide goods or services to someone because they’re different from you in ways you don’t like, absent some compelling reason other than mere animus.
At least, for the more notable forms of bigotry, and in the context of the public square. You’re always free to not invite people to dinner, for whatever reason you like.
Most people like it that way, so it’s likely to remain that way.
you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot
Everyone is free to be a bigot. Nobody is free to refuse to provide goods and services to one person that they would freely provide to another, based on that bigotry.
Freedom of religion and freedom of ‘bigotry’ are overlapping categories.
Wrong.
Religious conviction and bigotry are overlapping categories. People are often motivated by both, sometimes in opposite directions.
Freedom of religion and freedom of bigotry, not so much, if by “freedom of bigotry” you mean the freedom to discriminate in the public square based on the bigotry.
Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to discern if a person’s motivations are religious conviction or bigotry. Sometimes both are present. So, IMO it’s better to grant the benefit of the doubt.
Not the same thing as “freedom to be a bigot”.
You can’t say that you refuse to provide goods or services to someone because they’re different from you in ways you don’t like, absent some compelling reason other than mere animus.
At least, for the more notable forms of bigotry, and in the context of the public square. You’re always free to not invite people to dinner, for whatever reason you like.
Most people like it that way, so it’s likely to remain that way.
history is chock full of things bigots and socially-conservative religious people formerly felt very strongly about.
history is chock full of things bigots and socially-conservative religious people formerly felt very strongly about.
history is chock full of things bigots and socially-conservative religious people formerly felt very strongly about.
…when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
How I might personally define bigotry isn’t the issue. It’s how I (or anyone else) would expect it to be addressed as a matter of law. There is no law against thinking homosexuality is sinful, so whether or not I, personally, would define that as bigotry is irrelevant.
With that, if I (or anyone else) were advocating, say, forcing Catholic priests to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, you’d have a very good point regarding the conflict between freedom of religion and anti-bigotry. As it is, it really doesn’t matter if I think the Catholic Church is bigoted for not recognizing or performing SSMs, because I have no desire for the law to require the Catholic Church to do anything differently. They can tell spend all day every Sunday telling anyone who walks into any of their churches that homosexuals are all going to hell. Whatever.
But, I’ll ask again, is there anything that you think is clearly bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry once the motivation is religious?
It seems that you think my position – that religion does not automatically excuse bigotry – means that I must think religion and bigotry are one and the same, since, at the very least, some religious people abhor homosexuality.
But I guess you are free of conflict because you don’t think the law should do anything about bigotry, ever. Is that right?
…when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
How I might personally define bigotry isn’t the issue. It’s how I (or anyone else) would expect it to be addressed as a matter of law. There is no law against thinking homosexuality is sinful, so whether or not I, personally, would define that as bigotry is irrelevant.
With that, if I (or anyone else) were advocating, say, forcing Catholic priests to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, you’d have a very good point regarding the conflict between freedom of religion and anti-bigotry. As it is, it really doesn’t matter if I think the Catholic Church is bigoted for not recognizing or performing SSMs, because I have no desire for the law to require the Catholic Church to do anything differently. They can tell spend all day every Sunday telling anyone who walks into any of their churches that homosexuals are all going to hell. Whatever.
But, I’ll ask again, is there anything that you think is clearly bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry once the motivation is religious?
It seems that you think my position – that religion does not automatically excuse bigotry – means that I must think religion and bigotry are one and the same, since, at the very least, some religious people abhor homosexuality.
But I guess you are free of conflict because you don’t think the law should do anything about bigotry, ever. Is that right?
…when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
How I might personally define bigotry isn’t the issue. It’s how I (or anyone else) would expect it to be addressed as a matter of law. There is no law against thinking homosexuality is sinful, so whether or not I, personally, would define that as bigotry is irrelevant.
With that, if I (or anyone else) were advocating, say, forcing Catholic priests to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, you’d have a very good point regarding the conflict between freedom of religion and anti-bigotry. As it is, it really doesn’t matter if I think the Catholic Church is bigoted for not recognizing or performing SSMs, because I have no desire for the law to require the Catholic Church to do anything differently. They can tell spend all day every Sunday telling anyone who walks into any of their churches that homosexuals are all going to hell. Whatever.
But, I’ll ask again, is there anything that you think is clearly bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry once the motivation is religious?
It seems that you think my position – that religion does not automatically excuse bigotry – means that I must think religion and bigotry are one and the same, since, at the very least, some religious people abhor homosexuality.
But I guess you are free of conflict because you don’t think the law should do anything about bigotry, ever. Is that right?
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Let me offer you this concept of the distinction. If you are a slave, and theperson you are working for doesn’t like the quality or quantity of your work, you can be punished. Severely.
If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.
See the distinction?
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Let me offer you this concept of the distinction. If you are a slave, and theperson you are working for doesn’t like the quality or quantity of your work, you can be punished. Severely.
If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.
See the distinction?
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Let me offer you this concept of the distinction. If you are a slave, and theperson you are working for doesn’t like the quality or quantity of your work, you can be punished. Severely.
If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.
See the distinction?
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Notice how the libertarian mind subtly alters the very meaning of the word “force” to suit its needs. Obviously if you do not agree with BB’s definition of “force”, you cannot win.
A slave can only rebel, escape, or die. Constraints on the pitiable small business owner are just the same? Are you kidding me?
Remember, libertarianism, it makes you stupid.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Notice how the libertarian mind subtly alters the very meaning of the word “force” to suit its needs. Obviously if you do not agree with BB’s definition of “force”, you cannot win.
A slave can only rebel, escape, or die. Constraints on the pitiable small business owner are just the same? Are you kidding me?
Remember, libertarianism, it makes you stupid.
But I don’t think it’s all that over the top, comparing forcing somebody to work for somebody else, doing something they don’t want to do, to slavery.
Notice how the libertarian mind subtly alters the very meaning of the word “force” to suit its needs. Obviously if you do not agree with BB’s definition of “force”, you cannot win.
A slave can only rebel, escape, or die. Constraints on the pitiable small business owner are just the same? Are you kidding me?
Remember, libertarianism, it makes you stupid.
I don’t think Libertarianism makes you stupid any more than I think any particular political affiliation makes you stupid. A wide exposure to different ideas allows us to grow. Furthermore, how I define “libertarianism” may not be how someone else defines it. There are a few key tenants most agree on, and from there it descends into putting one’s personal spin on things.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties. Maybe I’d be better served identifying as just ‘independent’, but both are just labels.
Blind devotion to any idea or philosophy can make fools out of anyone. But it’s the behavior, not the idea, responsible for creating the stupid. 🙂
I don’t think Libertarianism makes you stupid any more than I think any particular political affiliation makes you stupid. A wide exposure to different ideas allows us to grow. Furthermore, how I define “libertarianism” may not be how someone else defines it. There are a few key tenants most agree on, and from there it descends into putting one’s personal spin on things.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties. Maybe I’d be better served identifying as just ‘independent’, but both are just labels.
Blind devotion to any idea or philosophy can make fools out of anyone. But it’s the behavior, not the idea, responsible for creating the stupid. 🙂
I don’t think Libertarianism makes you stupid any more than I think any particular political affiliation makes you stupid. A wide exposure to different ideas allows us to grow. Furthermore, how I define “libertarianism” may not be how someone else defines it. There are a few key tenants most agree on, and from there it descends into putting one’s personal spin on things.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties. Maybe I’d be better served identifying as just ‘independent’, but both are just labels.
Blind devotion to any idea or philosophy can make fools out of anyone. But it’s the behavior, not the idea, responsible for creating the stupid. 🙂
Or, to put a slightly different spin on it, any idea can be torqued to justify one’s personal stupidities.
Which one a particular individual uses is a matter of chance, as much as anything else.
Or, to put a slightly different spin on it, any idea can be torqued to justify one’s personal stupidities.
Which one a particular individual uses is a matter of chance, as much as anything else.
Or, to put a slightly different spin on it, any idea can be torqued to justify one’s personal stupidities.
Which one a particular individual uses is a matter of chance, as much as anything else.
Oh dear. Having to think of both Areala and Brett as libertarians is a strain on my brain.
S’awright, my brain is pretty tough. And in any case, I suppose I am a libertarian, too — although probably more in the Areala sense than in the Bellmore one.
Areala, I was blown away by your maiden* comment. In particular, I loved your bottom line, which I read as “Be a bigot if you want to, but just let me know you are one before I waste my time on the assumption that you’re not”.
BTW, it seems to me that bigotry and religion have more in common than public-accommodation laws and slavery do. In a very real sense, religious convictions are bigotry: “we are the Chosen people, or the Saved people, or the True Faithful, and everybody else is not” smacks of bigotry, doesn’t it? I know that most people don’t take their religion quite that seriously, of course, but it’s not atheists like me who would chastize them for that laxness.
Just to be clear, and at the risk of rising to Bellmorean heights of idiosyncratic lexicography, I define terms this way:
Discrimination: judgement based on evidence
Prejudice: judgement in advance of evidence
Bigotry: judgement despite any evidence
On those definitions, religion — and nationalism, for that matter — can easily amount to bigotry pure and simple.
So I can agree with Brett this far: religious freedom is explicitly the freedom to be a bigot. The freedom to be, mind you, not the requirement to be. And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them. Sole props and partnerships can have them, I suppose, as long as they “pay income taxes at personal rates”.
*I could have used “inaugural” instead of “maiden”, I admit. But I just could not forgo the old story about Winston Churchill’s praise for a fiery new MP’s first speech in the House of Commons: “Call that a maiden speech? It was a brazen hussy of a speech. Never did such a painted lady of a speech parade itself before a modest Parliament.”
–TP
Oh dear. Having to think of both Areala and Brett as libertarians is a strain on my brain.
S’awright, my brain is pretty tough. And in any case, I suppose I am a libertarian, too — although probably more in the Areala sense than in the Bellmore one.
Areala, I was blown away by your maiden* comment. In particular, I loved your bottom line, which I read as “Be a bigot if you want to, but just let me know you are one before I waste my time on the assumption that you’re not”.
BTW, it seems to me that bigotry and religion have more in common than public-accommodation laws and slavery do. In a very real sense, religious convictions are bigotry: “we are the Chosen people, or the Saved people, or the True Faithful, and everybody else is not” smacks of bigotry, doesn’t it? I know that most people don’t take their religion quite that seriously, of course, but it’s not atheists like me who would chastize them for that laxness.
Just to be clear, and at the risk of rising to Bellmorean heights of idiosyncratic lexicography, I define terms this way:
Discrimination: judgement based on evidence
Prejudice: judgement in advance of evidence
Bigotry: judgement despite any evidence
On those definitions, religion — and nationalism, for that matter — can easily amount to bigotry pure and simple.
So I can agree with Brett this far: religious freedom is explicitly the freedom to be a bigot. The freedom to be, mind you, not the requirement to be. And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them. Sole props and partnerships can have them, I suppose, as long as they “pay income taxes at personal rates”.
*I could have used “inaugural” instead of “maiden”, I admit. But I just could not forgo the old story about Winston Churchill’s praise for a fiery new MP’s first speech in the House of Commons: “Call that a maiden speech? It was a brazen hussy of a speech. Never did such a painted lady of a speech parade itself before a modest Parliament.”
–TP
Oh dear. Having to think of both Areala and Brett as libertarians is a strain on my brain.
S’awright, my brain is pretty tough. And in any case, I suppose I am a libertarian, too — although probably more in the Areala sense than in the Bellmore one.
Areala, I was blown away by your maiden* comment. In particular, I loved your bottom line, which I read as “Be a bigot if you want to, but just let me know you are one before I waste my time on the assumption that you’re not”.
BTW, it seems to me that bigotry and religion have more in common than public-accommodation laws and slavery do. In a very real sense, religious convictions are bigotry: “we are the Chosen people, or the Saved people, or the True Faithful, and everybody else is not” smacks of bigotry, doesn’t it? I know that most people don’t take their religion quite that seriously, of course, but it’s not atheists like me who would chastize them for that laxness.
Just to be clear, and at the risk of rising to Bellmorean heights of idiosyncratic lexicography, I define terms this way:
Discrimination: judgement based on evidence
Prejudice: judgement in advance of evidence
Bigotry: judgement despite any evidence
On those definitions, religion — and nationalism, for that matter — can easily amount to bigotry pure and simple.
So I can agree with Brett this far: religious freedom is explicitly the freedom to be a bigot. The freedom to be, mind you, not the requirement to be. And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them. Sole props and partnerships can have them, I suppose, as long as they “pay income taxes at personal rates”.
*I could have used “inaugural” instead of “maiden”, I admit. But I just could not forgo the old story about Winston Churchill’s praise for a fiery new MP’s first speech in the House of Commons: “Call that a maiden speech? It was a brazen hussy of a speech. Never did such a painted lady of a speech parade itself before a modest Parliament.”
–TP
“If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.”
I think you are wildly optimistic about what response you’d see in my “Leviticus 20:13 wedding cake” scenario. OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake. You’re not talking about somebody who’s inclined to let people do what they want, you’re talking about somebody who goes to court if they don’t like what you want.
“And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them.”
In a trivial sense, yes, but also trivially irrelevant, as a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool, which actual people who do have rights use to achieve their ends. So the fact that a milling machine can’t have religious convictions wouldn’t cut the 1st amendment out of the matter if you mandated that the milling machine owned by a Muslim had to be used to manufacture Menorahs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
“If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.”
I think you are wildly optimistic about what response you’d see in my “Leviticus 20:13 wedding cake” scenario. OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake. You’re not talking about somebody who’s inclined to let people do what they want, you’re talking about somebody who goes to court if they don’t like what you want.
“And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them.”
In a trivial sense, yes, but also trivially irrelevant, as a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool, which actual people who do have rights use to achieve their ends. So the fact that a milling machine can’t have religious convictions wouldn’t cut the 1st amendment out of the matter if you mandated that the milling machine owned by a Muslim had to be used to manufacture Menorahs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
“If you are a baker, and you are “forced” to make something, or a band, and you are “forced” to play? And then, since you hate the customer, you do a lousy job. What happens? Well, they don’t hire you again. And maybe they write nasty reviews of your work. But you are unlikely to be physically punished, or even sued for malpractice.”
I think you are wildly optimistic about what response you’d see in my “Leviticus 20:13 wedding cake” scenario. OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake. You’re not talking about somebody who’s inclined to let people do what they want, you’re talking about somebody who goes to court if they don’t like what you want.
“And in any case, the notion that a corporation can have “religious convictions” is as silly as the notion of a milling machine having them.”
In a trivial sense, yes, but also trivially irrelevant, as a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool, which actual people who do have rights use to achieve their ends. So the fact that a milling machine can’t have religious convictions wouldn’t cut the 1st amendment out of the matter if you mandated that the milling machine owned by a Muslim had to be used to manufacture Menorahs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties.
If libertarism becomes nationally relevant, it will owe it’s rise to thoughts like this, IMO. That’s pretty much how I ended up describing myself as libertarian.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties.
If libertarism becomes nationally relevant, it will owe it’s rise to thoughts like this, IMO. That’s pretty much how I ended up describing myself as libertarian.
I identify as a libertarian, but that’s mainly because I have a very difficult time getting behind much of the rhetoric of the other two major parties.
If libertarism becomes nationally relevant, it will owe it’s rise to thoughts like this, IMO. That’s pretty much how I ended up describing myself as libertarian.
Yeah, in recent decades, both political parties have been working very hard to make as many people libertarians as possible.
Yeah, in recent decades, both political parties have been working very hard to make as many people libertarians as possible.
Yeah, in recent decades, both political parties have been working very hard to make as many people libertarians as possible.
The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
bullshit. HL’s owners want to have it both ways: they are and aren’t the corporation, depending on who’s asking. so, they’re going to get criticisms both ways.
The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
bullshit. HL’s owners want to have it both ways: they are and aren’t the corporation, depending on who’s asking. so, they’re going to get criticisms both ways.
The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
bullshit. HL’s owners want to have it both ways: they are and aren’t the corporation, depending on who’s asking. so, they’re going to get criticisms both ways.
OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake.
Are we talking about who might or might not sue someone over what, or are we talking about what the outcome should be? Is it your position that the main consideration here is that someone, somewhere might sue and, therefore, we must abolish whatever legal basis there is for such s suit, regardless of how powerless that might leave millions of people?
I’d like to ask again, is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Since you brought up Apple expanding in Qatar, where homosexuality is a capital offense, would you advocate allowing such a policy, simply because it’s based on religious conviction? I’m guessing not, but I’d like to hear why.
OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake.
Are we talking about who might or might not sue someone over what, or are we talking about what the outcome should be? Is it your position that the main consideration here is that someone, somewhere might sue and, therefore, we must abolish whatever legal basis there is for such s suit, regardless of how powerless that might leave millions of people?
I’d like to ask again, is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Since you brought up Apple expanding in Qatar, where homosexuality is a capital offense, would you advocate allowing such a policy, simply because it’s based on religious conviction? I’m guessing not, but I’d like to hear why.
OF COURSE somebody who’d sue you for refusing to bake them a cake, instead of picking one up at Publix, would sue you again if you turned around and baked them a substandard cake.
Are we talking about who might or might not sue someone over what, or are we talking about what the outcome should be? Is it your position that the main consideration here is that someone, somewhere might sue and, therefore, we must abolish whatever legal basis there is for such s suit, regardless of how powerless that might leave millions of people?
I’d like to ask again, is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Since you brought up Apple expanding in Qatar, where homosexuality is a capital offense, would you advocate allowing such a policy, simply because it’s based on religious conviction? I’m guessing not, but I’d like to hear why.
a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool
What a corporation is, is fairly clearly defined by law. “Tool” doesn’t quite capture it.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
To be accurate, Hobby Lobby prevailed because the court found that the ACA mandate was not the least restrictive way to achieve the public interest.
The law, as written, therefore failed the Sherbert test.
It was a statutory ruling, the court did not rule on the 1st A issues, either as held by the corp as a legal person, or by the Greens.
The court apparently recognizes 1st A rights in the corp, and apparently also finds that the purpose in doing so is to protect the rights of the corp’s owners and officers.
But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.
The law failed to meet the Sherbert test, so it was found to be deficient.
Personally, I agree with Tony P, and find the idea that a for-profit corp can have “religious beliefs” is nonsensical.
But, IANAL.
a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool
What a corporation is, is fairly clearly defined by law. “Tool” doesn’t quite capture it.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
To be accurate, Hobby Lobby prevailed because the court found that the ACA mandate was not the least restrictive way to achieve the public interest.
The law, as written, therefore failed the Sherbert test.
It was a statutory ruling, the court did not rule on the 1st A issues, either as held by the corp as a legal person, or by the Greens.
The court apparently recognizes 1st A rights in the corp, and apparently also finds that the purpose in doing so is to protect the rights of the corp’s owners and officers.
But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.
The law failed to meet the Sherbert test, so it was found to be deficient.
Personally, I agree with Tony P, and find the idea that a for-profit corp can have “religious beliefs” is nonsensical.
But, IANAL.
a corporation, like a milling machine, is a tool
What a corporation is, is fairly clearly defined by law. “Tool” doesn’t quite capture it.
The owners of Hobby Lobby prevailed, because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, whose owners were in agreement, and to compel the use of a tool is to compel the person using it. The Court vindicated THEIR rights, not Hobby Lobby’s rights.
To be accurate, Hobby Lobby prevailed because the court found that the ACA mandate was not the least restrictive way to achieve the public interest.
The law, as written, therefore failed the Sherbert test.
It was a statutory ruling, the court did not rule on the 1st A issues, either as held by the corp as a legal person, or by the Greens.
The court apparently recognizes 1st A rights in the corp, and apparently also finds that the purpose in doing so is to protect the rights of the corp’s owners and officers.
But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.
The law failed to meet the Sherbert test, so it was found to be deficient.
Personally, I agree with Tony P, and find the idea that a for-profit corp can have “religious beliefs” is nonsensical.
But, IANAL.
“But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.”
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
“But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.”
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
“But the ruling was not a matter of “vindicating” anybody’s rights, whether the corps or the Greens.”
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
The money quote from this article.
“I have no doubt that Christian conservatives do feel limited by other people’s rights. There is that saying, “Your rights end where my nose begins.” Christian conservatives are arguing that they should be able to punch you in the nose if that desire to punch you in the nose is sincerely held.”
The money quote from this article.
“I have no doubt that Christian conservatives do feel limited by other people’s rights. There is that saying, “Your rights end where my nose begins.” Christian conservatives are arguing that they should be able to punch you in the nose if that desire to punch you in the nose is sincerely held.”
The money quote from this article.
“I have no doubt that Christian conservatives do feel limited by other people’s rights. There is that saying, “Your rights end where my nose begins.” Christian conservatives are arguing that they should be able to punch you in the nose if that desire to punch you in the nose is sincerely held.”
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted. And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party. This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted. And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party. This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted. And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party. This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
this is not Qatar. if it was, how to most effectively discriminate against gay people would be the very least of Christians’ worries.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
says you.
this is not Qatar. if it was, how to most effectively discriminate against gay people would be the very least of Christians’ worries.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
says you.
this is not Qatar. if it was, how to most effectively discriminate against gay people would be the very least of Christians’ worries.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
says you.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’. But such are the absurdities inherent in positive ‘rights’. Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty, and not a loss of the liberty to do something, like punching somebody in the nose.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’. But such are the absurdities inherent in positive ‘rights’. Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty, and not a loss of the liberty to do something, like punching somebody in the nose.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’. But such are the absurdities inherent in positive ‘rights’. Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty, and not a loss of the liberty to do something, like punching somebody in the nose.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
OK, that’s a somewhat different way to look at it.
I’m not sure you will always be eager to recognize things granted by statute as having the same force as an inalienable right recognized in the Bill of Rights, but I’m happy to go with it for now.
From point of view of the statute, the person holding the “right”, i.e. the person to whom the law was being applied in the case before the court, was the corp.
Don’t take my word for it, here is the text of the holding:
I’m not interested in re-visiting the whole Hobby Lobby thing, I’m just trying to clarify a point of fact.
The SCOTUS generally prefers to rule narrowly – just enough to address the case presented to them. In this case, finding that the ACA mandate, as applied to closely-held corps, failed to meet the Sherbert test, was sufficient.
So, they stopped there.
IMO locating an “exercise of religion” in a for-profit corp was a not-so-great precedent, but IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice.
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
OK, that’s a somewhat different way to look at it.
I’m not sure you will always be eager to recognize things granted by statute as having the same force as an inalienable right recognized in the Bill of Rights, but I’m happy to go with it for now.
From point of view of the statute, the person holding the “right”, i.e. the person to whom the law was being applied in the case before the court, was the corp.
Don’t take my word for it, here is the text of the holding:
I’m not interested in re-visiting the whole Hobby Lobby thing, I’m just trying to clarify a point of fact.
The SCOTUS generally prefers to rule narrowly – just enough to address the case presented to them. In this case, finding that the ACA mandate, as applied to closely-held corps, failed to meet the Sherbert test, was sufficient.
So, they stopped there.
IMO locating an “exercise of religion” in a for-profit corp was a not-so-great precedent, but IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice.
Sure, it was: Their statutory rights under RFRA, as enacted by Congress because they didn’t like the Supreme court’s restrictive view of 1st amendment rights.
OK, that’s a somewhat different way to look at it.
I’m not sure you will always be eager to recognize things granted by statute as having the same force as an inalienable right recognized in the Bill of Rights, but I’m happy to go with it for now.
From point of view of the statute, the person holding the “right”, i.e. the person to whom the law was being applied in the case before the court, was the corp.
Don’t take my word for it, here is the text of the holding:
I’m not interested in re-visiting the whole Hobby Lobby thing, I’m just trying to clarify a point of fact.
The SCOTUS generally prefers to rule narrowly – just enough to address the case presented to them. In this case, finding that the ACA mandate, as applied to closely-held corps, failed to meet the Sherbert test, was sufficient.
So, they stopped there.
IMO locating an “exercise of religion” in a for-profit corp was a not-so-great precedent, but IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS justice.
it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
I think that’s a reasonable characterization of the issue, in both directions.
There is a slight asymmetry, in that the person selling the good or service has already obliged themselves to make that available to one and all.
Assuming the idea of “public accommodation” is relevant.
But I agree that the situation is a matter of trying to figure out who is harmed, and to what degree, and how to balance that.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
This is when I start to hear the Charlie Brown teacher trombones.
it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
I think that’s a reasonable characterization of the issue, in both directions.
There is a slight asymmetry, in that the person selling the good or service has already obliged themselves to make that available to one and all.
Assuming the idea of “public accommodation” is relevant.
But I agree that the situation is a matter of trying to figure out who is harmed, and to what degree, and how to balance that.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
This is when I start to hear the Charlie Brown teacher trombones.
it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
I think that’s a reasonable characterization of the issue, in both directions.
There is a slight asymmetry, in that the person selling the good or service has already obliged themselves to make that available to one and all.
Assuming the idea of “public accommodation” is relevant.
But I agree that the situation is a matter of trying to figure out who is harmed, and to what degree, and how to balance that.
It’s a loss of the liberty to NOT do something, like cater somebody’s wedding.
This is when I start to hear the Charlie Brown teacher trombones.
Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty
So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.
And that seems like it is a blind spot in these discussions. We see loud objections to various rights as constituting a loss of liberty. But other rights are equally loudly maintained, by the same people to be absolute — no recognition that someone else might feel like those rights were their loss of liberty.
In short, everybody wants to have the rights that benefit them. Nobody wants to admit that their rights might inconvenience (or worse) someone else.
Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty
So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.
And that seems like it is a blind spot in these discussions. We see loud objections to various rights as constituting a loss of liberty. But other rights are equally loudly maintained, by the same people to be absolute — no recognition that someone else might feel like those rights were their loss of liberty.
In short, everybody wants to have the rights that benefit them. Nobody wants to admit that their rights might inconvenience (or worse) someone else.
Every positive ‘right’ is somebody else’s loss of liberty
So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.
And that seems like it is a blind spot in these discussions. We see loud objections to various rights as constituting a loss of liberty. But other rights are equally loudly maintained, by the same people to be absolute — no recognition that someone else might feel like those rights were their loss of liberty.
In short, everybody wants to have the rights that benefit them. Nobody wants to admit that their rights might inconvenience (or worse) someone else.
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted.
IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
It is indeed a sad day for the English language when it can be asserted with a straight face that blatant bigotry is enforceable in the public square because your fee fees were hurt, that some hurt feelings are more of a “burden” than brazen discrimination and denial of service to a person unlucky enough to have been born with an attribute you find offensive. Yet these same so-called persons will come begging to me for special tax breaks and special relief from liability and will say NOTHING about the moral burden imposed on myself and other members of the public.
You basically argue that you demand we subsidize your public bigotry.
My response is an unambiguous and hearty NO.
This is not difficult.
Indeed. It is not. You are simply engaged in morally reprehensible special pleading.
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted.
IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
It is indeed a sad day for the English language when it can be asserted with a straight face that blatant bigotry is enforceable in the public square because your fee fees were hurt, that some hurt feelings are more of a “burden” than brazen discrimination and denial of service to a person unlucky enough to have been born with an attribute you find offensive. Yet these same so-called persons will come begging to me for special tax breaks and special relief from liability and will say NOTHING about the moral burden imposed on myself and other members of the public.
You basically argue that you demand we subsidize your public bigotry.
My response is an unambiguous and hearty NO.
This is not difficult.
Indeed. It is not. You are simply engaged in morally reprehensible special pleading.
No bobbyp, they are arguing that refusing to plan someone’s wedding or bake a wedding cake is not equivalent to punching someone in the nose or refusing to serve them at the lunch counted.
IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
And therefore it infringes on their rights because the injury to them is greater than the injury to the other party.
It is indeed a sad day for the English language when it can be asserted with a straight face that blatant bigotry is enforceable in the public square because your fee fees were hurt, that some hurt feelings are more of a “burden” than brazen discrimination and denial of service to a person unlucky enough to have been born with an attribute you find offensive. Yet these same so-called persons will come begging to me for special tax breaks and special relief from liability and will say NOTHING about the moral burden imposed on myself and other members of the public.
You basically argue that you demand we subsidize your public bigotry.
My response is an unambiguous and hearty NO.
This is not difficult.
Indeed. It is not. You are simply engaged in morally reprehensible special pleading.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’.
Yes. You can always just go to the “coloreds only” section.
No harm. No foul.
Contemptible.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’.
Yes. You can always just go to the “coloreds only” section.
No harm. No foul.
Contemptible.
It’s a funny sort of punch in the nose, that leaves you no worse off than if you’d never met your ‘assailant’.
Yes. You can always just go to the “coloreds only” section.
No harm. No foul.
Contemptible.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty?”
It would be, if I had such a positive right. Which I don’t. There’s a huge difference between the negative right to not have my efforts to obtain a firearm blocked, and a positive right to obtain a firearm. Which would involve others being obligated to help me obtain a firearm.
The difference between being entitled to have nobody interfer with your doing something, (Negative rights) and being entitled to have somebody else help you in doing something, (Positive ‘rights’) is huge.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty?”
It would be, if I had such a positive right. Which I don’t. There’s a huge difference between the negative right to not have my efforts to obtain a firearm blocked, and a positive right to obtain a firearm. Which would involve others being obligated to help me obtain a firearm.
The difference between being entitled to have nobody interfer with your doing something, (Negative rights) and being entitled to have somebody else help you in doing something, (Positive ‘rights’) is huge.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty?”
It would be, if I had such a positive right. Which I don’t. There’s a huge difference between the negative right to not have my efforts to obtain a firearm blocked, and a positive right to obtain a firearm. Which would involve others being obligated to help me obtain a firearm.
The difference between being entitled to have nobody interfer with your doing something, (Negative rights) and being entitled to have somebody else help you in doing something, (Positive ‘rights’) is huge.
This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
That’s fine, Marty, but I want to hear from Brett on this, because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.
What we have to keep in mind here is that people can refuse to provide anyone goods and services without running afoul of the law provided the reason for refusal doesn’t fall within a fairly narrow set of reasons relative to the innumerable lawful reasons for not serving somebody.
What’s also somewhat ironic about this discussion is that the same argument the “liberals” are making in defense of gays trying buy cakes or pizzas, they would also be making if someone refused to bake for a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu. But we all are contemptuous of people’s religious beliefs, right?
This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
That’s fine, Marty, but I want to hear from Brett on this, because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.
What we have to keep in mind here is that people can refuse to provide anyone goods and services without running afoul of the law provided the reason for refusal doesn’t fall within a fairly narrow set of reasons relative to the innumerable lawful reasons for not serving somebody.
What’s also somewhat ironic about this discussion is that the same argument the “liberals” are making in defense of gays trying buy cakes or pizzas, they would also be making if someone refused to bake for a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu. But we all are contemptuous of people’s religious beliefs, right?
This is not difficult. On the other hand, in Qatar the injury to the hay parson would certainly be greater.
That’s fine, Marty, but I want to hear from Brett on this, because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.
What we have to keep in mind here is that people can refuse to provide anyone goods and services without running afoul of the law provided the reason for refusal doesn’t fall within a fairly narrow set of reasons relative to the innumerable lawful reasons for not serving somebody.
What’s also somewhat ironic about this discussion is that the same argument the “liberals” are making in defense of gays trying buy cakes or pizzas, they would also be making if someone refused to bake for a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu. But we all are contemptuous of people’s religious beliefs, right?
This site is really going to the dogs. In a technical sense of getting incredibly buggy today.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.”
It would be, if I HAD any such positive right, which I don’t.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone. So, I have a negative right to be left alone in regards to obtaining and carrying about firearms, the government may not affirmatively obstruct be in this area.
A positive ‘right’, by contrast, involves obligations on the part of others to act, not just refrain from acting. Were I to have a positive right to a firearm, the government would have to actually assist me in obtaining one.
It doesn’t have to so assist me, nobody is obligated to help me get a firearm. Only to refrain from obstructing me from getting one.
This site is really going to the dogs. In a technical sense of getting incredibly buggy today.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.”
It would be, if I HAD any such positive right, which I don’t.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone. So, I have a negative right to be left alone in regards to obtaining and carrying about firearms, the government may not affirmatively obstruct be in this area.
A positive ‘right’, by contrast, involves obligations on the part of others to act, not just refrain from acting. Were I to have a positive right to a firearm, the government would have to actually assist me in obtaining one.
It doesn’t have to so assist me, nobody is obligated to help me get a firearm. Only to refrain from obstructing me from getting one.
This site is really going to the dogs. In a technical sense of getting incredibly buggy today.
“So, your positive right to own a firearm is someone else’s loss of liberty? Good to have that clarified.”
It would be, if I HAD any such positive right, which I don’t.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone. So, I have a negative right to be left alone in regards to obtaining and carrying about firearms, the government may not affirmatively obstruct be in this area.
A positive ‘right’, by contrast, involves obligations on the part of others to act, not just refrain from acting. Were I to have a positive right to a firearm, the government would have to actually assist me in obtaining one.
It doesn’t have to so assist me, nobody is obligated to help me get a firearm. Only to refrain from obstructing me from getting one.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone.
Specifically, a negative right is when someone is prevented from acting upon you in a particular way.
A positive right is when they are required to take some action on your behalf.
It’s unclear how negative vs positive rights plays out in this case, because people like bakers and photographers *have already agreed* to do the thing they refuse to do, for everybody except the person they refuse to do it for in some particular cases.
Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.
In the latter case I’d argue that the rights gay people hold against the baker is a negative right – the baker is not allowed to discriminate against them.
All of this assumes that certain ways of making a livelihood oblige you serve one and all.
I understand that you don’t like that idea, but it is currently the idea we operate under.
Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.
Not an inalienable, god-given right, but a legal and statutory one.
I didn’t realize that would come back to bite you on the behind quite so quickly, but here we are.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone.
Specifically, a negative right is when someone is prevented from acting upon you in a particular way.
A positive right is when they are required to take some action on your behalf.
It’s unclear how negative vs positive rights plays out in this case, because people like bakers and photographers *have already agreed* to do the thing they refuse to do, for everybody except the person they refuse to do it for in some particular cases.
Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.
In the latter case I’d argue that the rights gay people hold against the baker is a negative right – the baker is not allowed to discriminate against them.
All of this assumes that certain ways of making a livelihood oblige you serve one and all.
I understand that you don’t like that idea, but it is currently the idea we operate under.
Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.
Not an inalienable, god-given right, but a legal and statutory one.
I didn’t realize that would come back to bite you on the behind quite so quickly, but here we are.
A negative right is, essentially, a right to have somebody leave you alone.
Specifically, a negative right is when someone is prevented from acting upon you in a particular way.
A positive right is when they are required to take some action on your behalf.
It’s unclear how negative vs positive rights plays out in this case, because people like bakers and photographers *have already agreed* to do the thing they refuse to do, for everybody except the person they refuse to do it for in some particular cases.
Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.
In the latter case I’d argue that the rights gay people hold against the baker is a negative right – the baker is not allowed to discriminate against them.
All of this assumes that certain ways of making a livelihood oblige you serve one and all.
I understand that you don’t like that idea, but it is currently the idea we operate under.
Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.
Not an inalienable, god-given right, but a legal and statutory one.
I didn’t realize that would come back to bite you on the behind quite so quickly, but here we are.
“because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.”
Nope, that’s not what I said. What I said was, “From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.”
And, I think you’re demonstrating this. The view you declare to be simply bigotry just happens to be religous doctrine of more than one major world religion. It IS religion.
Nothing says that religion can’t genuinely require something you view as bigoted. Heck, look at Islam and women’s rights!
What you have to decide, when religion and your view of bigotry are joined at the hip, as they are in the case of SSM, is which is more important: Religious liberty, or fighting bigotry.
Because you can’t have both of those, when the bigotry you’re fighting IS religion.
“because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.”
Nope, that’s not what I said. What I said was, “From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.”
And, I think you’re demonstrating this. The view you declare to be simply bigotry just happens to be religous doctrine of more than one major world religion. It IS religion.
Nothing says that religion can’t genuinely require something you view as bigoted. Heck, look at Islam and women’s rights!
What you have to decide, when religion and your view of bigotry are joined at the hip, as they are in the case of SSM, is which is more important: Religious liberty, or fighting bigotry.
Because you can’t have both of those, when the bigotry you’re fighting IS religion.
“because he asserted that one cannot be “for freedom of religion” and “against freedom of bigotry” when those things are in conflict.”
Nope, that’s not what I said. What I said was, “From the perspective of the non-believer, there really isn’t any big difference between religion and bigotry, when the religion demands a moral judgement the non-believer views as bigoted.”
And, I think you’re demonstrating this. The view you declare to be simply bigotry just happens to be religous doctrine of more than one major world religion. It IS religion.
Nothing says that religion can’t genuinely require something you view as bigoted. Heck, look at Islam and women’s rights!
What you have to decide, when religion and your view of bigotry are joined at the hip, as they are in the case of SSM, is which is more important: Religious liberty, or fighting bigotry.
Because you can’t have both of those, when the bigotry you’re fighting IS religion.
“Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.”
That’s actually a very easy one to answer. If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
That’s positive right territory, never mind any sophistry about their refraining from treating somebody differently. The “treating differently” consists of doing nothing.
“Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.”
That’s right, they do. I’d argue that they create a positive right which, in order to vindicate, involves the destruction of a negative right, and I disapprove of public accomidation laws on this basis. But they clearly involve the legal creation of a positive right.
As the RFRA in this case involved limiting the extent of that positive right.
“Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.”
That’s actually a very easy one to answer. If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
That’s positive right territory, never mind any sophistry about their refraining from treating somebody differently. The “treating differently” consists of doing nothing.
“Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.”
That’s right, they do. I’d argue that they create a positive right which, in order to vindicate, involves the destruction of a negative right, and I disapprove of public accomidation laws on this basis. But they clearly involve the legal creation of a positive right.
As the RFRA in this case involved limiting the extent of that positive right.
“Are we requiring them to make a cake – a positive action on behalf of, for example, a gay couple – or are we requiring them to not single out gay people for special treatment.”
That’s actually a very easy one to answer. If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
That’s positive right territory, never mind any sophistry about their refraining from treating somebody differently. The “treating differently” consists of doing nothing.
“Public accommodations law effectively create, by statute, a right to service.”
That’s right, they do. I’d argue that they create a positive right which, in order to vindicate, involves the destruction of a negative right, and I disapprove of public accomidation laws on this basis. But they clearly involve the legal creation of a positive right.
As the RFRA in this case involved limiting the extent of that positive right.
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality? Are they not true believers – not real Christians or Jews or Muslims?
Is it only the non-believer for whom the subjugation of homosexuals is defined as bigotry? Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality? Are they not true believers – not real Christians or Jews or Muslims?
Is it only the non-believer for whom the subjugation of homosexuals is defined as bigotry? Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
The point is, simply, you can’t declare that you’re for freedom of religion, and against freedom to be a bigot, and where’s the conflict, when you’re defining bigotry to include a position on homosexuality which is essentially mandated by more than one major world religion.
This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality? Are they not true believers – not real Christians or Jews or Muslims?
Is it only the non-believer for whom the subjugation of homosexuals is defined as bigotry? Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
The law would require a baker to do what bakers do, what they have agreed to do by opening their doors for custom, and what they are completely happy to do for anyone else.
A refusal is a choice and and act.
Briefly, your definitions of positive and negative liberty have a kind of homespun appeal, but I’m not sure they really capture the whole sense of what is meant by those terms.
I appreciate that your understanding here is probably informed primarily by, or maybe exclusively by, doctrinaire libertarian sources, but the concepts exist in a broader sphere of discourse, and have meanings that extend beyond “I’m gonna make you!” and “You can’t make me!”.
So, when you invoke them to buttress your arguments, I’ll be inclined to take them with a grain of salt.
If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
The law would require a baker to do what bakers do, what they have agreed to do by opening their doors for custom, and what they are completely happy to do for anyone else.
A refusal is a choice and and act.
Briefly, your definitions of positive and negative liberty have a kind of homespun appeal, but I’m not sure they really capture the whole sense of what is meant by those terms.
I appreciate that your understanding here is probably informed primarily by, or maybe exclusively by, doctrinaire libertarian sources, but the concepts exist in a broader sphere of discourse, and have meanings that extend beyond “I’m gonna make you!” and “You can’t make me!”.
So, when you invoke them to buttress your arguments, I’ll be inclined to take them with a grain of salt.
If it’s a negative right, it doesn’t require anybody to DO SOMETHING. And you are, pretty unambiguously, demanding that the baker DO SOMETHING.
The law would require a baker to do what bakers do, what they have agreed to do by opening their doors for custom, and what they are completely happy to do for anyone else.
A refusal is a choice and and act.
Briefly, your definitions of positive and negative liberty have a kind of homespun appeal, but I’m not sure they really capture the whole sense of what is meant by those terms.
I appreciate that your understanding here is probably informed primarily by, or maybe exclusively by, doctrinaire libertarian sources, but the concepts exist in a broader sphere of discourse, and have meanings that extend beyond “I’m gonna make you!” and “You can’t make me!”.
So, when you invoke them to buttress your arguments, I’ll be inclined to take them with a grain of salt.
“This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality?”
But John over there got a transfusion last week, and he says he’s a Jehovah’s witness! So Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t really be opposed to transfusions as a matter of religious doctrine!
Not every Roman Catholic takes a vow of poverty, and spends their lives helping the poor, so Mother Teresa wasn’t really motivated by religion!
Religions are systems of belief, and systems of belief always have dissenters, and fuzzy edges. If you were to say, “It can’t be part of a religion if anybody who says they’re a member of that religion doesn’t agree with it”, you’ve just committed yourself to saying that religions are utterly content free, aside from their names.
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
“This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality?”
But John over there got a transfusion last week, and he says he’s a Jehovah’s witness! So Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t really be opposed to transfusions as a matter of religious doctrine!
Not every Roman Catholic takes a vow of poverty, and spends their lives helping the poor, so Mother Teresa wasn’t really motivated by religion!
Religions are systems of belief, and systems of belief always have dissenters, and fuzzy edges. If you were to say, “It can’t be part of a religion if anybody who says they’re a member of that religion doesn’t agree with it”, you’ve just committed yourself to saying that religions are utterly content free, aside from their names.
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
“This was the quote I was thinking of, Brett. But how is it that there are adherents to every major religion who do not see the (essential?) mandate on homosexuality?”
But John over there got a transfusion last week, and he says he’s a Jehovah’s witness! So Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t really be opposed to transfusions as a matter of religious doctrine!
Not every Roman Catholic takes a vow of poverty, and spends their lives helping the poor, so Mother Teresa wasn’t really motivated by religion!
Religions are systems of belief, and systems of belief always have dissenters, and fuzzy edges. If you were to say, “It can’t be part of a religion if anybody who says they’re a member of that religion doesn’t agree with it”, you’ve just committed yourself to saying that religions are utterly content free, aside from their names.
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
I’m not talking about sincerity, Brett. I’m talking about whether or not this (essential!) mandate you keep bringing up actually exists. I’m not making a judgement about anyone’s sincerity here.
And, again, is there anything you think is bigotry? Does it cease to be bigotry when (sincerely!) motivated by religion?
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
I’m not talking about sincerity, Brett. I’m talking about whether or not this (essential!) mandate you keep bringing up actually exists. I’m not making a judgement about anyone’s sincerity here.
And, again, is there anything you think is bigotry? Does it cease to be bigotry when (sincerely!) motivated by religion?
One of the elements of accomidation of religion, and religious liberty, is that the state quite carefully refrains from declaring itself to be the arbiter of whether a religious belief is real or sincere.
I’m not talking about sincerity, Brett. I’m talking about whether or not this (essential!) mandate you keep bringing up actually exists. I’m not making a judgement about anyone’s sincerity here.
And, again, is there anything you think is bigotry? Does it cease to be bigotry when (sincerely!) motivated by religion?
HSH, for about the umpty upmty time, to Brett:
“Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?”
Please answer the question, the evasions are getting tiring.
HSH, for about the umpty upmty time, to Brett:
“Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?”
Please answer the question, the evasions are getting tiring.
HSH, for about the umpty upmty time, to Brett:
“Can I ask you again, is there anything that you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?”
Please answer the question, the evasions are getting tiring.
Another thing, you’re the one who pushed the dichotomy between non-believers and believers, not me. The point being that there are some “believers” who take the same position on this issue as non-believers.
Another thing, you’re the one who pushed the dichotomy between non-believers and believers, not me. The point being that there are some “believers” who take the same position on this issue as non-believers.
Another thing, you’re the one who pushed the dichotomy between non-believers and believers, not me. The point being that there are some “believers” who take the same position on this issue as non-believers.
if i’m to believe a person’s aversion to selling someone a fucking cake is based on deeply held religious beliefs, they’re going to need to demonstrate at least a passing interest in the other red lines their religion lays out. otherwise, i’m going to decide that they’re just using religion as an excuse for plain old bigotry.
—
and, “conservatives”, just between you and me… if you keep equating non-discrimination of gays with slavery and jihad, you’re going to alienate everybody except your diehard base. because right now, 63% of Americans believe there’s a Constitutional right to gay marriages. 63%. and that includes 62% of Catholics.
you’re so far on the wrong side of this it’s embarrassing.
if i’m to believe a person’s aversion to selling someone a fucking cake is based on deeply held religious beliefs, they’re going to need to demonstrate at least a passing interest in the other red lines their religion lays out. otherwise, i’m going to decide that they’re just using religion as an excuse for plain old bigotry.
—
and, “conservatives”, just between you and me… if you keep equating non-discrimination of gays with slavery and jihad, you’re going to alienate everybody except your diehard base. because right now, 63% of Americans believe there’s a Constitutional right to gay marriages. 63%. and that includes 62% of Catholics.
you’re so far on the wrong side of this it’s embarrassing.
if i’m to believe a person’s aversion to selling someone a fucking cake is based on deeply held religious beliefs, they’re going to need to demonstrate at least a passing interest in the other red lines their religion lays out. otherwise, i’m going to decide that they’re just using religion as an excuse for plain old bigotry.
—
and, “conservatives”, just between you and me… if you keep equating non-discrimination of gays with slavery and jihad, you’re going to alienate everybody except your diehard base. because right now, 63% of Americans believe there’s a Constitutional right to gay marriages. 63%. and that includes 62% of Catholics.
you’re so far on the wrong side of this it’s embarrassing.
I’m pretty sure that if Pope Francis says that opposition to SSM is Roman Catholic doctrine, I’m on safe grounds saying that it is. I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
In fact, not investing you with that authority is central to my conception of religious liberty…
I’m pretty sure that if Pope Francis says that opposition to SSM is Roman Catholic doctrine, I’m on safe grounds saying that it is. I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
In fact, not investing you with that authority is central to my conception of religious liberty…
I’m pretty sure that if Pope Francis says that opposition to SSM is Roman Catholic doctrine, I’m on safe grounds saying that it is. I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
In fact, not investing you with that authority is central to my conception of religious liberty…
I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
i don’t need anybody’s authority to make my own judgements. and if i decide you’re a phony bigot because you only other following 1/10th of your religion’s teachings, then i’m going to decide you’re a phony. see how that works?
I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
i don’t need anybody’s authority to make my own judgements. and if i decide you’re a phony bigot because you only other following 1/10th of your religion’s teachings, then i’m going to decide you’re a phony. see how that works?
I’m also pretty sure nobody invested you with the authority to pass on the legitimacy of other people’s religious belief.
i don’t need anybody’s authority to make my own judgements. and if i decide you’re a phony bigot because you only other following 1/10th of your religion’s teachings, then i’m going to decide you’re a phony. see how that works?
That’s fine, as a personal judgement, just so long as you realize it doesn’t have any legal impications.
Frankly, I’d just as soon we gave religion no special accomidation at all. But that’s because I think we shouldn’t mandate anything it would ever be sensible to extend a religious exemption for, no matter how sincere the belief.
If Thugee started to be a real religion in the US, we wouldn’t let adherents murder people, no matter how sincere they were in their devotion to Kali. But if you’re going to let somebody eat peyote because of their religion, well, I think you’ve just demonstrated that you never had enough justification for the ban to have applied it to anybody else, either.
That’s fine, as a personal judgement, just so long as you realize it doesn’t have any legal impications.
Frankly, I’d just as soon we gave religion no special accomidation at all. But that’s because I think we shouldn’t mandate anything it would ever be sensible to extend a religious exemption for, no matter how sincere the belief.
If Thugee started to be a real religion in the US, we wouldn’t let adherents murder people, no matter how sincere they were in their devotion to Kali. But if you’re going to let somebody eat peyote because of their religion, well, I think you’ve just demonstrated that you never had enough justification for the ban to have applied it to anybody else, either.
That’s fine, as a personal judgement, just so long as you realize it doesn’t have any legal impications.
Frankly, I’d just as soon we gave religion no special accomidation at all. But that’s because I think we shouldn’t mandate anything it would ever be sensible to extend a religious exemption for, no matter how sincere the belief.
If Thugee started to be a real religion in the US, we wouldn’t let adherents murder people, no matter how sincere they were in their devotion to Kali. But if you’re going to let somebody eat peyote because of their religion, well, I think you’ve just demonstrated that you never had enough justification for the ban to have applied it to anybody else, either.
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
And is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
And is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
And is there anything you think is bigotry, and does it cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion?
Bigotry: refusing to embrace the obviously correct position of libertarians. Nothing else is significant.
Bigotry: refusing to embrace the obviously correct position of libertarians. Nothing else is significant.
Bigotry: refusing to embrace the obviously correct position of libertarians. Nothing else is significant.
From what I can gather, anything short of actively persecuting people is okay with Brett, at least where legality is concerned. Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.
From what I can gather, anything short of actively persecuting people is okay with Brett, at least where legality is concerned. Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.
From what I can gather, anything short of actively persecuting people is okay with Brett, at least where legality is concerned. Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.
Essentially, he told Catholics not to cooperate in SSMs. He wasn’t specific, as I understand it, about cooperating in the area of cakes.
And, sure, there’s bigotry, and it doesn’t cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion, nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Look, I CARE if people are bigots. I just don’t think it has any implications as to their rights. If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
That’s what makes it a right.
Essentially, he told Catholics not to cooperate in SSMs. He wasn’t specific, as I understand it, about cooperating in the area of cakes.
And, sure, there’s bigotry, and it doesn’t cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion, nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Look, I CARE if people are bigots. I just don’t think it has any implications as to their rights. If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
That’s what makes it a right.
Essentially, he told Catholics not to cooperate in SSMs. He wasn’t specific, as I understand it, about cooperating in the area of cakes.
And, sure, there’s bigotry, and it doesn’t cease to be bigotry when motivated by religion, nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Look, I CARE if people are bigots. I just don’t think it has any implications as to their rights. If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
That’s what makes it a right.
…nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Agreed.
So is my 2:52 comment accurate, Brett?
…nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Agreed.
So is my 2:52 comment accurate, Brett?
…nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
Agreed.
So is my 2:52 comment accurate, Brett?
“Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.”
Depends on what you mean by “shut out of”.
Everytime I shut my front door, I limit where you can go, I’m shutting you out of my house. But I’m not shutting you out of my neighbor’s house, or the park down the street.
I don’t want private property treated as public property. If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it. I’m not a public accomodation, I’m not public property, and I’m not going to agree turning anybody else into some kind of common property, just because they decide they want to sell their services for a living.
“Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.”
Depends on what you mean by “shut out of”.
Everytime I shut my front door, I limit where you can go, I’m shutting you out of my house. But I’m not shutting you out of my neighbor’s house, or the park down the street.
I don’t want private property treated as public property. If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it. I’m not a public accomodation, I’m not public property, and I’m not going to agree turning anybody else into some kind of common property, just because they decide they want to sell their services for a living.
“Minorities of whatever kind can simply be shut out of social and economic life, with no recourse.”
Depends on what you mean by “shut out of”.
Everytime I shut my front door, I limit where you can go, I’m shutting you out of my house. But I’m not shutting you out of my neighbor’s house, or the park down the street.
I don’t want private property treated as public property. If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it. I’m not a public accomodation, I’m not public property, and I’m not going to agree turning anybody else into some kind of common property, just because they decide they want to sell their services for a living.
So, you’re okay with private businesses (hotels, restaurants, gas stations) operating as “race segregated” entities, and being completely shunned for being in an interracial marriage?
Not talking about the law as it is, but what you think it should be.
So, you’re okay with private businesses (hotels, restaurants, gas stations) operating as “race segregated” entities, and being completely shunned for being in an interracial marriage?
Not talking about the law as it is, but what you think it should be.
So, you’re okay with private businesses (hotels, restaurants, gas stations) operating as “race segregated” entities, and being completely shunned for being in an interracial marriage?
Not talking about the law as it is, but what you think it should be.
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
Applying classical doctrine this would not be necessary. Homosexual acts are traditionally acts that exclude the person (volontarily) committing them from the communion, i.e. it’s automatic self-excommunication. Traditionally Catholics are banned from having any contact let alone conducting business with excommunicated persons under threat of their own excommunication. So, according to traditional doctrine a true Roman Catholic would not only have to refuse to provide service to a gay person, he would even have to refuse all communication or other form of contact. He would not even be allowed to enter the house of the gay person (even in his absence).
Traditional doctrine is rarely practiced these days in civilized countries but as usual* has never been officially abolished.
*cf. usury; the Church runs its own bank(s) these days
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
Applying classical doctrine this would not be necessary. Homosexual acts are traditionally acts that exclude the person (volontarily) committing them from the communion, i.e. it’s automatic self-excommunication. Traditionally Catholics are banned from having any contact let alone conducting business with excommunicated persons under threat of their own excommunication. So, according to traditional doctrine a true Roman Catholic would not only have to refuse to provide service to a gay person, he would even have to refuse all communication or other form of contact. He would not even be allowed to enter the house of the gay person (even in his absence).
Traditional doctrine is rarely practiced these days in civilized countries but as usual* has never been officially abolished.
*cf. usury; the Church runs its own bank(s) these days
Did Pope Francis, essentially, tell anyone not to bake cakes or make pizzas? Where’s that mandate, essentially?
Applying classical doctrine this would not be necessary. Homosexual acts are traditionally acts that exclude the person (volontarily) committing them from the communion, i.e. it’s automatic self-excommunication. Traditionally Catholics are banned from having any contact let alone conducting business with excommunicated persons under threat of their own excommunication. So, according to traditional doctrine a true Roman Catholic would not only have to refuse to provide service to a gay person, he would even have to refuse all communication or other form of contact. He would not even be allowed to enter the house of the gay person (even in his absence).
Traditional doctrine is rarely practiced these days in civilized countries but as usual* has never been officially abolished.
*cf. usury; the Church runs its own bank(s) these days
Ok with? I think it should be legal, if that’s what you mean.
It’s part of recognizing that other people are OTHER people, other people’s stuff is OTHER people’s stuff. THEY get to decide what they do, what gets done with their stuff. Not me.
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
Doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions. I have some pretty strong opinions. One of them just happens to be that liberty is important.
Ok with? I think it should be legal, if that’s what you mean.
It’s part of recognizing that other people are OTHER people, other people’s stuff is OTHER people’s stuff. THEY get to decide what they do, what gets done with their stuff. Not me.
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
Doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions. I have some pretty strong opinions. One of them just happens to be that liberty is important.
Ok with? I think it should be legal, if that’s what you mean.
It’s part of recognizing that other people are OTHER people, other people’s stuff is OTHER people’s stuff. THEY get to decide what they do, what gets done with their stuff. Not me.
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
Doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions. I have some pretty strong opinions. One of them just happens to be that liberty is important.
If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it.
I jokingly suggested way, way upthread somewhere that the solution to all of this was that the government could only prohibit discrimination by government entities and not private businesses or individuals. With that, the government would provide all goods and services made available by the private sector, of similar quality and for similar prices, so anyone could get whatever they wanted despite any private-sector discrimination.
Of course, the government would have to pay for whatever resources that would require. Perhaps Brett likes this idea.
If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it.
I jokingly suggested way, way upthread somewhere that the solution to all of this was that the government could only prohibit discrimination by government entities and not private businesses or individuals. With that, the government would provide all goods and services made available by the private sector, of similar quality and for similar prices, so anyone could get whatever they wanted despite any private-sector discrimination.
Of course, the government would have to pay for whatever resources that would require. Perhaps Brett likes this idea.
If the government wants to command how property is used, let the government buy it.
I jokingly suggested way, way upthread somewhere that the solution to all of this was that the government could only prohibit discrimination by government entities and not private businesses or individuals. With that, the government would provide all goods and services made available by the private sector, of similar quality and for similar prices, so anyone could get whatever they wanted despite any private-sector discrimination.
Of course, the government would have to pay for whatever resources that would require. Perhaps Brett likes this idea.
nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
However, the law only recognizes one of the two as a right deserving protection.
Sometimes it can be hard to tease the two apart in practice, so we tend to extend the benefit of the doubt.
If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
This assumes that there is a *right* to engage in any kind of business with no legal restrictions on what you do.
Which is a big assumption.
Whether someone has the RIGHT to refrain from selling cakes to some people is part of what is in question.
The RIGHT to sell cakes, or take pictures, or arrange and sell flowers, doesn’t exist as far as I can tell.
Depending on what it is you want to do, there may be any number of qualifications on whether you can, or can’t, engage in that activity.
So arguing from the point of view that someone has a RIGHT to sell stuff isn’t persuasive.
The claim being made is that folks can’t be required to do stuff they might otherwise be required to do, *if it conflicts with their conscience*.
And the RIGHT that is the basis for the claim is, variously, exercise of religion or (in the case of Elaine Photo) freedom of speech.
There really is not, to my knowledge, a right to bake cakes, or take pictures, or sell bridal gowns, or flowers, etc.
Commercial activity is subject to regulation, pretty much everywhere, and has been as long as there has been any record of commerce, at all.
nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
However, the law only recognizes one of the two as a right deserving protection.
Sometimes it can be hard to tease the two apart in practice, so we tend to extend the benefit of the doubt.
If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
This assumes that there is a *right* to engage in any kind of business with no legal restrictions on what you do.
Which is a big assumption.
Whether someone has the RIGHT to refrain from selling cakes to some people is part of what is in question.
The RIGHT to sell cakes, or take pictures, or arrange and sell flowers, doesn’t exist as far as I can tell.
Depending on what it is you want to do, there may be any number of qualifications on whether you can, or can’t, engage in that activity.
So arguing from the point of view that someone has a RIGHT to sell stuff isn’t persuasive.
The claim being made is that folks can’t be required to do stuff they might otherwise be required to do, *if it conflicts with their conscience*.
And the RIGHT that is the basis for the claim is, variously, exercise of religion or (in the case of Elaine Photo) freedom of speech.
There really is not, to my knowledge, a right to bake cakes, or take pictures, or sell bridal gowns, or flowers, etc.
Commercial activity is subject to regulation, pretty much everywhere, and has been as long as there has been any record of commerce, at all.
nor does it cease to be religion, just because it’s bigotry.
However, the law only recognizes one of the two as a right deserving protection.
Sometimes it can be hard to tease the two apart in practice, so we tend to extend the benefit of the doubt.
If they’ve got a right to do or refrain from something, WHY they make the choice isn’t anybody else’s business.
This assumes that there is a *right* to engage in any kind of business with no legal restrictions on what you do.
Which is a big assumption.
Whether someone has the RIGHT to refrain from selling cakes to some people is part of what is in question.
The RIGHT to sell cakes, or take pictures, or arrange and sell flowers, doesn’t exist as far as I can tell.
Depending on what it is you want to do, there may be any number of qualifications on whether you can, or can’t, engage in that activity.
So arguing from the point of view that someone has a RIGHT to sell stuff isn’t persuasive.
The claim being made is that folks can’t be required to do stuff they might otherwise be required to do, *if it conflicts with their conscience*.
And the RIGHT that is the basis for the claim is, variously, exercise of religion or (in the case of Elaine Photo) freedom of speech.
There really is not, to my knowledge, a right to bake cakes, or take pictures, or sell bridal gowns, or flowers, etc.
Commercial activity is subject to regulation, pretty much everywhere, and has been as long as there has been any record of commerce, at all.
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort. The institutions that would discriminate would be the outliers.
I say “of most sorts”, because if bigotry is common enough that you’d need an institution like that, it’s not going to be admitted to be bigotry, and the government is going to be enforcing it, not providing a way to circumvent it. From whence this notion that the government is somehow going to be more enlighted than the average citizen?
The people running it will think themselves more enlighted, certainly. Not the same thing.
Look at Operation Chokepoint. It’s your idea, inverted. The government pressuring the private sector to shun legal activities, and the people who engage in them. No, I don’t think for a second the government is guaranteed to be more enlightened than the citizenry. Just more likely to enforce it’s bigotries with threats of violence.
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort. The institutions that would discriminate would be the outliers.
I say “of most sorts”, because if bigotry is common enough that you’d need an institution like that, it’s not going to be admitted to be bigotry, and the government is going to be enforcing it, not providing a way to circumvent it. From whence this notion that the government is somehow going to be more enlighted than the average citizen?
The people running it will think themselves more enlighted, certainly. Not the same thing.
Look at Operation Chokepoint. It’s your idea, inverted. The government pressuring the private sector to shun legal activities, and the people who engage in them. No, I don’t think for a second the government is guaranteed to be more enlightened than the citizenry. Just more likely to enforce it’s bigotries with threats of violence.
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort. The institutions that would discriminate would be the outliers.
I say “of most sorts”, because if bigotry is common enough that you’d need an institution like that, it’s not going to be admitted to be bigotry, and the government is going to be enforcing it, not providing a way to circumvent it. From whence this notion that the government is somehow going to be more enlighted than the average citizen?
The people running it will think themselves more enlighted, certainly. Not the same thing.
Look at Operation Chokepoint. It’s your idea, inverted. The government pressuring the private sector to shun legal activities, and the people who engage in them. No, I don’t think for a second the government is guaranteed to be more enlightened than the citizenry. Just more likely to enforce it’s bigotries with threats of violence.
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
I imagine many, many of the things you do involve other people in some way or another, as does most of your stuff, unless you make your own stuff from raw materials you somehow have some claim to.
If no one wants to hire you, no one wants to sell or rent you a place to live, no one wants to sell you food or clothing, what do you get to decide to do and with what do you get to decide to do it? Is your life one big abstraction?
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
I imagine many, many of the things you do involve other people in some way or another, as does most of your stuff, unless you make your own stuff from raw materials you somehow have some claim to.
If no one wants to hire you, no one wants to sell or rent you a place to live, no one wants to sell you food or clothing, what do you get to decide to do and with what do you get to decide to do it? Is your life one big abstraction?
If I don’t agree with that, what claim have I got to make my own decisions, about what I do, and what gets done with my stuff?
I imagine many, many of the things you do involve other people in some way or another, as does most of your stuff, unless you make your own stuff from raw materials you somehow have some claim to.
If no one wants to hire you, no one wants to sell or rent you a place to live, no one wants to sell you food or clothing, what do you get to decide to do and with what do you get to decide to do it? Is your life one big abstraction?
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort.
How did that happen?
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort.
How did that happen?
My opinion is that “bigotry” of most sorts has receded to the point where it would hardly be necessary to do anything of the sort.
How did that happen?
It happened mainly by the process of people today, with different opinions from people yesterday, congradulating themselves on how much more enlightened they are on those nasty people in the past. And not stopping to think their children’s children might think about them the same way.
Seriously, it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart. Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
It happened mainly by the process of people today, with different opinions from people yesterday, congradulating themselves on how much more enlightened they are on those nasty people in the past. And not stopping to think their children’s children might think about them the same way.
Seriously, it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart. Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
It happened mainly by the process of people today, with different opinions from people yesterday, congradulating themselves on how much more enlightened they are on those nasty people in the past. And not stopping to think their children’s children might think about them the same way.
Seriously, it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart. Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
If we can get it up to 1,000 comments, we get a month free from Typepad!
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
If we can get it up to 1,000 comments, we get a month free from Typepad!
This thread is putting the Energizer bunny to shame.
If we can get it up to 1,000 comments, we get a month free from Typepad!
The idea of incorporation, creating business entities separate from the people who own and operate them primarily for the purposes of limiting personal liability, was for the facilitation of commerce. I can also see that anti-discrimination facilitates commerce, allowing people of whatever creed, color, religion or what have you, to go out freely to purchase goods and services without worry as to which businesses will or will not transact with them.
I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination. That’s not to say you can’t own a business that discriminates. You just don’t get the special considerations of incorporation that other businesses get.
Your personal ass is on the line if something happens. Feel free to get some extra insurance, so you can turn away blacks or Jews or whomever, and try to compete with the non-discriminators, as is your liberty. And best of luck with that.
The idea of incorporation, creating business entities separate from the people who own and operate them primarily for the purposes of limiting personal liability, was for the facilitation of commerce. I can also see that anti-discrimination facilitates commerce, allowing people of whatever creed, color, religion or what have you, to go out freely to purchase goods and services without worry as to which businesses will or will not transact with them.
I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination. That’s not to say you can’t own a business that discriminates. You just don’t get the special considerations of incorporation that other businesses get.
Your personal ass is on the line if something happens. Feel free to get some extra insurance, so you can turn away blacks or Jews or whomever, and try to compete with the non-discriminators, as is your liberty. And best of luck with that.
The idea of incorporation, creating business entities separate from the people who own and operate them primarily for the purposes of limiting personal liability, was for the facilitation of commerce. I can also see that anti-discrimination facilitates commerce, allowing people of whatever creed, color, religion or what have you, to go out freely to purchase goods and services without worry as to which businesses will or will not transact with them.
I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination. That’s not to say you can’t own a business that discriminates. You just don’t get the special considerations of incorporation that other businesses get.
Your personal ass is on the line if something happens. Feel free to get some extra insurance, so you can turn away blacks or Jews or whomever, and try to compete with the non-discriminators, as is your liberty. And best of luck with that.
“I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination.”
I’d say the problem with that, is that people aren’t incorporating for everything from lemonaide stands and bake sales on up out of yucks, or out of normal fear of liability.
They’re doing it because our tort system has become so destructive, you dare not engage in commerce without some kind of protection against it. And the tort system IS the government. It’s the government making it’s own capacity for coercion available to others.
So the government lets you buy a lottery ticket payable by Joe Random Businessman if you win, with the government playing enforcer for you. And then offers Joe Random Businessman protection from having that lottery ticket sold, if he just gives up some of his rights.
Just another spin on the government as protection racket theme, I think.
“I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination.”
I’d say the problem with that, is that people aren’t incorporating for everything from lemonaide stands and bake sales on up out of yucks, or out of normal fear of liability.
They’re doing it because our tort system has become so destructive, you dare not engage in commerce without some kind of protection against it. And the tort system IS the government. It’s the government making it’s own capacity for coercion available to others.
So the government lets you buy a lottery ticket payable by Joe Random Businessman if you win, with the government playing enforcer for you. And then offers Joe Random Businessman protection from having that lottery ticket sold, if he just gives up some of his rights.
Just another spin on the government as protection racket theme, I think.
“I propose that the price of entry, in order to take advantage of the legal privilege of limited personal liability, should be non-discrimination.”
I’d say the problem with that, is that people aren’t incorporating for everything from lemonaide stands and bake sales on up out of yucks, or out of normal fear of liability.
They’re doing it because our tort system has become so destructive, you dare not engage in commerce without some kind of protection against it. And the tort system IS the government. It’s the government making it’s own capacity for coercion available to others.
So the government lets you buy a lottery ticket payable by Joe Random Businessman if you win, with the government playing enforcer for you. And then offers Joe Random Businessman protection from having that lottery ticket sold, if he just gives up some of his rights.
Just another spin on the government as protection racket theme, I think.
it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
it happened because if you protect people when they opt out of bigotry, they mostly opt out, and the consensus in favor of it falls apart.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
that’s how you know it’s libertarian.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
that’s how you know it’s libertarian.
That’s a really weird reading of the history.
that’s how you know it’s libertarian.
Let me go on attack, for a moment.
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
If the citizenry are about as enlighted as the government, given just protection against outfits like the Nightriders, you get most businesses not discriminating, and discriminatory outlets are just occasional outliers.
Which actually describes what we’re seeing with bakers and wedding photographers.
But if the citizenry are so unenlightened, so bigoted, that short of government coercion, or your suggested government parallel economy, the discriminated against are genuinely screwed, how does that happen in a democracy???
I mean, we know how it happened in the Confederacy, post Civil war: They got conquered and occupied by other people who disagreed with them. It happened because the situation was not, for them, democratic. It was a military occupation.
But how does it happen in Indiana, say, that the government is thought to be much more enlightened than the populace? They’re not under military occupation, they’re a democracy. Don’t we have to assume the people are not much more bigoted than the government itself? Possibly less so in some ways…
Let me go on attack, for a moment.
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
If the citizenry are about as enlighted as the government, given just protection against outfits like the Nightriders, you get most businesses not discriminating, and discriminatory outlets are just occasional outliers.
Which actually describes what we’re seeing with bakers and wedding photographers.
But if the citizenry are so unenlightened, so bigoted, that short of government coercion, or your suggested government parallel economy, the discriminated against are genuinely screwed, how does that happen in a democracy???
I mean, we know how it happened in the Confederacy, post Civil war: They got conquered and occupied by other people who disagreed with them. It happened because the situation was not, for them, democratic. It was a military occupation.
But how does it happen in Indiana, say, that the government is thought to be much more enlightened than the populace? They’re not under military occupation, they’re a democracy. Don’t we have to assume the people are not much more bigoted than the government itself? Possibly less so in some ways…
Let me go on attack, for a moment.
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
If the citizenry are about as enlighted as the government, given just protection against outfits like the Nightriders, you get most businesses not discriminating, and discriminatory outlets are just occasional outliers.
Which actually describes what we’re seeing with bakers and wedding photographers.
But if the citizenry are so unenlightened, so bigoted, that short of government coercion, or your suggested government parallel economy, the discriminated against are genuinely screwed, how does that happen in a democracy???
I mean, we know how it happened in the Confederacy, post Civil war: They got conquered and occupied by other people who disagreed with them. It happened because the situation was not, for them, democratic. It was a military occupation.
But how does it happen in Indiana, say, that the government is thought to be much more enlightened than the populace? They’re not under military occupation, they’re a democracy. Don’t we have to assume the people are not much more bigoted than the government itself? Possibly less so in some ways…
I can’t even wrap my head around comparing the enlightenedness of “the government” and that of “the populace.” It’s like thinking with buckets and a label-maker or something.
I can’t even wrap my head around comparing the enlightenedness of “the government” and that of “the populace.” It’s like thinking with buckets and a label-maker or something.
I can’t even wrap my head around comparing the enlightenedness of “the government” and that of “the populace.” It’s like thinking with buckets and a label-maker or something.
Sure! We could use a change of pace!
Sure! We could use a change of pace!
Sure! We could use a change of pace!
for this sort of scheme to work.
What scheme are you talking about?
I’m with hairshirt, the whole debate of “who is more enlightened, the citizens or the government?” is nutty.
Citizens are people. The effective agents of government – the people who make laws, define and implement policies, etc. – are people.
Some citizens are more enlightened than some people in government. Some people in government are more enlightened than some citizens.
All of that is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Are there requirements for some kinds of businesses to serve whoever walks through the door? Yes, it seems that there are.
Does that create a problem for some business owners? Yes, it does, and sometimes that problem is due to a right held by the business owner. So, we want to help them out if we can.
If we help them out by granting them an exemption, will that create a problem for some of their customers? Yes, it will.
Whose problem is worse? It depends.
So, we try to find a balance that is basically fair.
If there’s more to it than that, I’m missing it.
for this sort of scheme to work.
What scheme are you talking about?
I’m with hairshirt, the whole debate of “who is more enlightened, the citizens or the government?” is nutty.
Citizens are people. The effective agents of government – the people who make laws, define and implement policies, etc. – are people.
Some citizens are more enlightened than some people in government. Some people in government are more enlightened than some citizens.
All of that is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Are there requirements for some kinds of businesses to serve whoever walks through the door? Yes, it seems that there are.
Does that create a problem for some business owners? Yes, it does, and sometimes that problem is due to a right held by the business owner. So, we want to help them out if we can.
If we help them out by granting them an exemption, will that create a problem for some of their customers? Yes, it will.
Whose problem is worse? It depends.
So, we try to find a balance that is basically fair.
If there’s more to it than that, I’m missing it.
for this sort of scheme to work.
What scheme are you talking about?
I’m with hairshirt, the whole debate of “who is more enlightened, the citizens or the government?” is nutty.
Citizens are people. The effective agents of government – the people who make laws, define and implement policies, etc. – are people.
Some citizens are more enlightened than some people in government. Some people in government are more enlightened than some citizens.
All of that is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Are there requirements for some kinds of businesses to serve whoever walks through the door? Yes, it seems that there are.
Does that create a problem for some business owners? Yes, it does, and sometimes that problem is due to a right held by the business owner. So, we want to help them out if we can.
If we help them out by granting them an exemption, will that create a problem for some of their customers? Yes, it will.
Whose problem is worse? It depends.
So, we try to find a balance that is basically fair.
If there’s more to it than that, I’m missing it.
What scheme are you talking about?
Probably one of mine – either the “government-run non-discriminatory mirror economy” or the “no incorporation without non-discrimination” scheme, neither of which was a serious suggestion so much as a … hmmm … let’s go with “conceptual exploration.”
It would be simpler just to go with non-discrimination being the rule and be done with it, despite Brett’s hyper-individualistic conceptions of liberty and freedom.
I think it’s funny how discriminators being the outliers and anyone looking for redress under the RFRA having to prove their case are what make abolishing anti-discrimination laws and religious exemptions, respectively, acceptable. But the reverse, discrimination suits being outliers and the need to prove discrimination in court, don’t work for him.
What scheme are you talking about?
Probably one of mine – either the “government-run non-discriminatory mirror economy” or the “no incorporation without non-discrimination” scheme, neither of which was a serious suggestion so much as a … hmmm … let’s go with “conceptual exploration.”
It would be simpler just to go with non-discrimination being the rule and be done with it, despite Brett’s hyper-individualistic conceptions of liberty and freedom.
I think it’s funny how discriminators being the outliers and anyone looking for redress under the RFRA having to prove their case are what make abolishing anti-discrimination laws and religious exemptions, respectively, acceptable. But the reverse, discrimination suits being outliers and the need to prove discrimination in court, don’t work for him.
What scheme are you talking about?
Probably one of mine – either the “government-run non-discriminatory mirror economy” or the “no incorporation without non-discrimination” scheme, neither of which was a serious suggestion so much as a … hmmm … let’s go with “conceptual exploration.”
It would be simpler just to go with non-discrimination being the rule and be done with it, despite Brett’s hyper-individualistic conceptions of liberty and freedom.
I think it’s funny how discriminators being the outliers and anyone looking for redress under the RFRA having to prove their case are what make abolishing anti-discrimination laws and religious exemptions, respectively, acceptable. But the reverse, discrimination suits being outliers and the need to prove discrimination in court, don’t work for him.
HSH,
yeah, it’s rather odd to get worked up about “being FORCED not to discriminate” when you don’t, you know, want to discriminate.
I know, FREEDUM and slippery slope (?to what?) and all that stuff. But still, you have to prioritize what is worth using internet electrons on, and that seems a rather strange hill to die on.
All governments have rules that most people would say “why would I want to do THAT?”, if they bothered to think about it at all.
HSH,
yeah, it’s rather odd to get worked up about “being FORCED not to discriminate” when you don’t, you know, want to discriminate.
I know, FREEDUM and slippery slope (?to what?) and all that stuff. But still, you have to prioritize what is worth using internet electrons on, and that seems a rather strange hill to die on.
All governments have rules that most people would say “why would I want to do THAT?”, if they bothered to think about it at all.
HSH,
yeah, it’s rather odd to get worked up about “being FORCED not to discriminate” when you don’t, you know, want to discriminate.
I know, FREEDUM and slippery slope (?to what?) and all that stuff. But still, you have to prioritize what is worth using internet electrons on, and that seems a rather strange hill to die on.
All governments have rules that most people would say “why would I want to do THAT?”, if they bothered to think about it at all.
Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
An amazing number of cultural features manage to survive for centuries. With no “enforcement” beyond social pressure. How would bigotry be so different from all those cultural features? Why would it fade away when other things do not?
Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
An amazing number of cultural features manage to survive for centuries. With no “enforcement” beyond social pressure. How would bigotry be so different from all those cultural features? Why would it fade away when other things do not?
Bigotry, effective bigotry, is like a cartel in business. It can’t endure without enforcement.
An amazing number of cultural features manage to survive for centuries. With no “enforcement” beyond social pressure. How would bigotry be so different from all those cultural features? Why would it fade away when other things do not?
So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.
[…]
But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.
[…]
Obama Sues so Illinois Muslims Can Refuse Work Without Being Fired
So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.
[…]
But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.
[…]
Obama Sues so Illinois Muslims Can Refuse Work Without Being Fired
So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.
[…]
But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.
[…]
Obama Sues so Illinois Muslims Can Refuse Work Without Being Fired
Or less hyperbolically:
“Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.”
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
Or less hyperbolically:
“Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.”
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
Or less hyperbolically:
“Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case.”
EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Brett, when you say that you don’t want this or that law, you’re on solid ground. Chacun a son gout, and all that.
When you argue that the rest of us should want what you want, you are entitled to make any argument you like for that proposition. If you want to make the same argument over and over until it becomes tiresome, that’s fine.
But if your argument amounts to “MY definition of rights is the correct one, and THAT’s why you all should agree with me” you are blowing smoke up your own ass. Anybody you’re trying to persuade is likely to ask himself “Who died and made this guy the King of Freedomstan?”
If you were seriously trying to convert me or anybody else to your way of thinking, you’d long ago have attempted, at least occasionally, to explain what’s in it for us. How would our lives be better if we agreed with you?
Had you never mentioned you’re a fellow engineer, I might or might not have figured it out. But one thing’s for sure: I would never have taken you for a salesman.
–TP
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Brett, when you say that you don’t want this or that law, you’re on solid ground. Chacun a son gout, and all that.
When you argue that the rest of us should want what you want, you are entitled to make any argument you like for that proposition. If you want to make the same argument over and over until it becomes tiresome, that’s fine.
But if your argument amounts to “MY definition of rights is the correct one, and THAT’s why you all should agree with me” you are blowing smoke up your own ass. Anybody you’re trying to persuade is likely to ask himself “Who died and made this guy the King of Freedomstan?”
If you were seriously trying to convert me or anybody else to your way of thinking, you’d long ago have attempted, at least occasionally, to explain what’s in it for us. How would our lives be better if we agreed with you?
Had you never mentioned you’re a fellow engineer, I might or might not have figured it out. But one thing’s for sure: I would never have taken you for a salesman.
–TP
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Brett, when you say that you don’t want this or that law, you’re on solid ground. Chacun a son gout, and all that.
When you argue that the rest of us should want what you want, you are entitled to make any argument you like for that proposition. If you want to make the same argument over and over until it becomes tiresome, that’s fine.
But if your argument amounts to “MY definition of rights is the correct one, and THAT’s why you all should agree with me” you are blowing smoke up your own ass. Anybody you’re trying to persuade is likely to ask himself “Who died and made this guy the King of Freedomstan?”
If you were seriously trying to convert me or anybody else to your way of thinking, you’d long ago have attempted, at least occasionally, to explain what’s in it for us. How would our lives be better if we agreed with you?
Had you never mentioned you’re a fellow engineer, I might or might not have figured it out. But one thing’s for sure: I would never have taken you for a salesman.
–TP
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
NV, thanks for the link.
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
NV, thanks for the link.
CharlesWT, there MUST be a pony somewhere in a pile as fragrantly headlined as “Obama Sues …”
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
NV, thanks for the link.
It would be far less problematic without the “I’m the one who care about rights” baloney. I really can live with reasonable disagreement, along the lines of “Well, I see it this way, because I think this consideration is more important than that one.”
What annoys the crap out of me is the tut-tutting about my motivations and attitudes – the “you must think this if you believe that!” assertions. It’s not at all possible that I’m informed by a different set of experiences that cause me to prioritize competing considerations differently, or that I’m doing so in a good-faith effort to acheive what I think the greater good with a concern for the well-being of others and the health of society.
No, I must be out to get … someone or other. Who the hell knows?
It would be far less problematic without the “I’m the one who care about rights” baloney. I really can live with reasonable disagreement, along the lines of “Well, I see it this way, because I think this consideration is more important than that one.”
What annoys the crap out of me is the tut-tutting about my motivations and attitudes – the “you must think this if you believe that!” assertions. It’s not at all possible that I’m informed by a different set of experiences that cause me to prioritize competing considerations differently, or that I’m doing so in a good-faith effort to acheive what I think the greater good with a concern for the well-being of others and the health of society.
No, I must be out to get … someone or other. Who the hell knows?
It would be far less problematic without the “I’m the one who care about rights” baloney. I really can live with reasonable disagreement, along the lines of “Well, I see it this way, because I think this consideration is more important than that one.”
What annoys the crap out of me is the tut-tutting about my motivations and attitudes – the “you must think this if you believe that!” assertions. It’s not at all possible that I’m informed by a different set of experiences that cause me to prioritize competing considerations differently, or that I’m doing so in a good-faith effort to acheive what I think the greater good with a concern for the well-being of others and the health of society.
No, I must be out to get … someone or other. Who the hell knows?
I say all that with an undying soft-spot in my heart for Brett, mind you. I wouldn’t bother typing all this crap if I didn’t somehow love that crazy bastard. I want to get through, just once, even a little bit.
I say all that with an undying soft-spot in my heart for Brett, mind you. I wouldn’t bother typing all this crap if I didn’t somehow love that crazy bastard. I want to get through, just once, even a little bit.
I say all that with an undying soft-spot in my heart for Brett, mind you. I wouldn’t bother typing all this crap if I didn’t somehow love that crazy bastard. I want to get through, just once, even a little bit.
is libertarianism untenable?
a positively righteous essay….
is libertarianism untenable?
a positively righteous essay….
is libertarianism untenable?
a positively righteous essay….
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
Why do you assert that anybody is making that assumption? Here’s why: Because you can’t win the argument without starting such assertions.
Let’s try the bobbyp scheme:
Rights are as defined by bobbyp.
Brett defines rights differently.
Therefore Brett is wrong.
QED
End of discussion.
Unsurprisingly, not many people would be likely to agree with bobbyp.
Unsurprisingly, not many people agree with libertarians.
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
Why do you assert that anybody is making that assumption? Here’s why: Because you can’t win the argument without starting such assertions.
Let’s try the bobbyp scheme:
Rights are as defined by bobbyp.
Brett defines rights differently.
Therefore Brett is wrong.
QED
End of discussion.
Unsurprisingly, not many people would be likely to agree with bobbyp.
Unsurprisingly, not many people agree with libertarians.
Why do you assume that the government is more enlightened than most citizens? Because you must, for this sort of scheme to work.
Why do you assert that anybody is making that assumption? Here’s why: Because you can’t win the argument without starting such assertions.
Let’s try the bobbyp scheme:
Rights are as defined by bobbyp.
Brett defines rights differently.
Therefore Brett is wrong.
QED
End of discussion.
Unsurprisingly, not many people would be likely to agree with bobbyp.
Unsurprisingly, not many people agree with libertarians.
did Reconstruction fail or was it failed?
Inquiring minds want to know.
did Reconstruction fail or was it failed?
Inquiring minds want to know.
did Reconstruction fail or was it failed?
Inquiring minds want to know.
It seems to me an awful lot of argument on the political spectrum boils down to what sort of a rules lawyer one casts one’s self in the great game of life.
In an old Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, the pair are playing Monopoly when Calvin lands on a space owned by Hobbes. Lacking the funds necessary to pay the rent, Calvin reaches over to extract some money from the game’s box. Hobbes asks him what he’s doing, and Calvin replies that he’s robbing the bank in order to pay the money he owes. Hobbes points out that the rules do not say one can rob the bank in order to pay off their debts. Calvin responds that the rules don’t say that he CAN’T rob the bank, so he feels perfectly free to do so.
Things quickly spiral out of control, with Hobbes reasoning that the rules don’t say he CAN’T rob Calvin, Calvin robbing Hobbes for the same reason, and Hobbes then pushes all of the houses and hotels on the board onto the space where Calvin just landed and declaring that Calvin owes him more money than is actually available in the game itself.
We appear to be at a similar impasse here, with one side saying the rules of society say it’s not nice to discriminate against other people, and the other side pointing out the rules of society don’t expressly forbid them from doing so in this instance.
Both sides have ground to give, but it takes a willingness to look at the grand scheme of things and work out a compromise. The alternative is that things proceed along the same lines as Calvin and Hobbes’ Monopoly game, where eventually one side or the other either suffers a humiliating defeat, or they wind up wrecking the game together.
A Monopoly board can be replaced easily. The society we’ve built, upgraded, repaired, and tried to maintain here over the last couple centuries? Not so much. I may not know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn’t involve the forcible destruction of religion (or liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians) in this country nor does it involve giving any one group complete veto power over any laws we pass.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
It seems to me an awful lot of argument on the political spectrum boils down to what sort of a rules lawyer one casts one’s self in the great game of life.
In an old Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, the pair are playing Monopoly when Calvin lands on a space owned by Hobbes. Lacking the funds necessary to pay the rent, Calvin reaches over to extract some money from the game’s box. Hobbes asks him what he’s doing, and Calvin replies that he’s robbing the bank in order to pay the money he owes. Hobbes points out that the rules do not say one can rob the bank in order to pay off their debts. Calvin responds that the rules don’t say that he CAN’T rob the bank, so he feels perfectly free to do so.
Things quickly spiral out of control, with Hobbes reasoning that the rules don’t say he CAN’T rob Calvin, Calvin robbing Hobbes for the same reason, and Hobbes then pushes all of the houses and hotels on the board onto the space where Calvin just landed and declaring that Calvin owes him more money than is actually available in the game itself.
We appear to be at a similar impasse here, with one side saying the rules of society say it’s not nice to discriminate against other people, and the other side pointing out the rules of society don’t expressly forbid them from doing so in this instance.
Both sides have ground to give, but it takes a willingness to look at the grand scheme of things and work out a compromise. The alternative is that things proceed along the same lines as Calvin and Hobbes’ Monopoly game, where eventually one side or the other either suffers a humiliating defeat, or they wind up wrecking the game together.
A Monopoly board can be replaced easily. The society we’ve built, upgraded, repaired, and tried to maintain here over the last couple centuries? Not so much. I may not know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn’t involve the forcible destruction of religion (or liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians) in this country nor does it involve giving any one group complete veto power over any laws we pass.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
It seems to me an awful lot of argument on the political spectrum boils down to what sort of a rules lawyer one casts one’s self in the great game of life.
In an old Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, the pair are playing Monopoly when Calvin lands on a space owned by Hobbes. Lacking the funds necessary to pay the rent, Calvin reaches over to extract some money from the game’s box. Hobbes asks him what he’s doing, and Calvin replies that he’s robbing the bank in order to pay the money he owes. Hobbes points out that the rules do not say one can rob the bank in order to pay off their debts. Calvin responds that the rules don’t say that he CAN’T rob the bank, so he feels perfectly free to do so.
Things quickly spiral out of control, with Hobbes reasoning that the rules don’t say he CAN’T rob Calvin, Calvin robbing Hobbes for the same reason, and Hobbes then pushes all of the houses and hotels on the board onto the space where Calvin just landed and declaring that Calvin owes him more money than is actually available in the game itself.
We appear to be at a similar impasse here, with one side saying the rules of society say it’s not nice to discriminate against other people, and the other side pointing out the rules of society don’t expressly forbid them from doing so in this instance.
Both sides have ground to give, but it takes a willingness to look at the grand scheme of things and work out a compromise. The alternative is that things proceed along the same lines as Calvin and Hobbes’ Monopoly game, where eventually one side or the other either suffers a humiliating defeat, or they wind up wrecking the game together.
A Monopoly board can be replaced easily. The society we’ve built, upgraded, repaired, and tried to maintain here over the last couple centuries? Not so much. I may not know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn’t involve the forcible destruction of religion (or liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians) in this country nor does it involve giving any one group complete veto power over any laws we pass.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
Although, you can follow the link in the article that Charles linked to back to its source. And see that the the source makes the one he linked to here seem amazingly rational and sensible. By comparison.
Always interesting to trace these things back (if you have a free moment) to see how sane, or not, the original source is. In this case, definitely not.
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
Although, you can follow the link in the article that Charles linked to back to its source. And see that the the source makes the one he linked to here seem amazingly rational and sensible. By comparison.
Always interesting to trace these things back (if you have a free moment) to see how sane, or not, the original source is. In this case, definitely not.
Yeah, it occurred to me that I should look for a more evenhanded account, but didn’t take the time to do so. Implying that Obama was personally involved is a bit over the top.
Although, you can follow the link in the article that Charles linked to back to its source. And see that the the source makes the one he linked to here seem amazingly rational and sensible. By comparison.
Always interesting to trace these things back (if you have a free moment) to see how sane, or not, the original source is. In this case, definitely not.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
As much as we here seem to be talking past each other on occasion, we actually seem to engage in real communication rather more frequently than those in the political arena do these days.
I think the country, as a whole, is relatively moderate and reasonable. But that country as a whole has lost control of the public political discussion arena to the fanatics. And until we get it back, which means getting rid of most of the current crop of national (and state) politicians, sensible discussion and finding that center seems problematic.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
As much as we here seem to be talking past each other on occasion, we actually seem to engage in real communication rather more frequently than those in the political arena do these days.
I think the country, as a whole, is relatively moderate and reasonable. But that country as a whole has lost control of the public political discussion arena to the fanatics. And until we get it back, which means getting rid of most of the current crop of national (and state) politicians, sensible discussion and finding that center seems problematic.
Let’s get back to working on finding that center instead of trying to use what’s not in the rules in an effort to bulldoze the other sides.
As much as we here seem to be talking past each other on occasion, we actually seem to engage in real communication rather more frequently than those in the political arena do these days.
I think the country, as a whole, is relatively moderate and reasonable. But that country as a whole has lost control of the public political discussion arena to the fanatics. And until we get it back, which means getting rid of most of the current crop of national (and state) politicians, sensible discussion and finding that center seems problematic.
Not surprising.
I mean, look at Obamacare. It isn’t an attempt at incremental change, which could be rolled back if the electorate put the opposing party in control. It’s an attempt to permanently change the system, such that there’s no going back even if the electorate puts the other side in power. It’s burning down the house to clear the way for remodeling.
The stakes are higher now.
I think it’s like a friendly game of poker, where all of a sudden somebody has arranged for the stakes to go from a few bucks, to one’s entire life savings. And people have begun playing like those are the stakes.
Upthread I pointed to Operation Choke Point. Attacking legal gun owners by coercing banks into cutting off service by threats of abusive regulatory enforcement if they don’t. And yet, gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.
You seem to think freedom in the area of bigotry means the public will be more bigoted than the government would allow if it were in control. I think that’s a dubious proposition. Under some circumstances, sure. Under others, obviously not true. There are forms of bigotry that are more popular with the people in charge of the government than the general population.
Not surprising.
I mean, look at Obamacare. It isn’t an attempt at incremental change, which could be rolled back if the electorate put the opposing party in control. It’s an attempt to permanently change the system, such that there’s no going back even if the electorate puts the other side in power. It’s burning down the house to clear the way for remodeling.
The stakes are higher now.
I think it’s like a friendly game of poker, where all of a sudden somebody has arranged for the stakes to go from a few bucks, to one’s entire life savings. And people have begun playing like those are the stakes.
Upthread I pointed to Operation Choke Point. Attacking legal gun owners by coercing banks into cutting off service by threats of abusive regulatory enforcement if they don’t. And yet, gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.
You seem to think freedom in the area of bigotry means the public will be more bigoted than the government would allow if it were in control. I think that’s a dubious proposition. Under some circumstances, sure. Under others, obviously not true. There are forms of bigotry that are more popular with the people in charge of the government than the general population.
Not surprising.
I mean, look at Obamacare. It isn’t an attempt at incremental change, which could be rolled back if the electorate put the opposing party in control. It’s an attempt to permanently change the system, such that there’s no going back even if the electorate puts the other side in power. It’s burning down the house to clear the way for remodeling.
The stakes are higher now.
I think it’s like a friendly game of poker, where all of a sudden somebody has arranged for the stakes to go from a few bucks, to one’s entire life savings. And people have begun playing like those are the stakes.
Upthread I pointed to Operation Choke Point. Attacking legal gun owners by coercing banks into cutting off service by threats of abusive regulatory enforcement if they don’t. And yet, gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.
You seem to think freedom in the area of bigotry means the public will be more bigoted than the government would allow if it were in control. I think that’s a dubious proposition. Under some circumstances, sure. Under others, obviously not true. There are forms of bigotry that are more popular with the people in charge of the government than the general population.
it was a nice try, Areala
it was a nice try, Areala
it was a nice try, Areala
“That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.”
Funny thing about that, both times I’ve worked for the federal government, the office cleared out for a week or two every Fall for deer/bird/bear-hunting season.
But go ahead and change the subject and point out that yeah but those parasites in government have too generous annual leave policies because they are bigoted against the poor deprived souls in the private sector.
And if you’re going to lament burning down the house as a manner of governing, why is your Paul/Walker ticket constantly playing with matches?
Obamacare IS the center, and despite flaws, which others besides the arsonists running your house fire would have moved to fix in past eras where settled legislation was tweaked as routine compromise by grownups, is working by and large.
Getting rid of it root and branch will, among other results, burn down hospitals.
If reasonable restrictions on guns are a “form” of bigotry, then gutting Obamacare is genocide.
There will be no “form” of genocide. It’s genocide.
I suppose we could say, following this line of whatever it is, that a government that allows discrimination against gays who just want to buy a freaking cake is a government that is filled with people who are systematically more hostile and bigoted than the general population against gays.
Cake.
The other white meat.
“That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.”
Funny thing about that, both times I’ve worked for the federal government, the office cleared out for a week or two every Fall for deer/bird/bear-hunting season.
But go ahead and change the subject and point out that yeah but those parasites in government have too generous annual leave policies because they are bigoted against the poor deprived souls in the private sector.
And if you’re going to lament burning down the house as a manner of governing, why is your Paul/Walker ticket constantly playing with matches?
Obamacare IS the center, and despite flaws, which others besides the arsonists running your house fire would have moved to fix in past eras where settled legislation was tweaked as routine compromise by grownups, is working by and large.
Getting rid of it root and branch will, among other results, burn down hospitals.
If reasonable restrictions on guns are a “form” of bigotry, then gutting Obamacare is genocide.
There will be no “form” of genocide. It’s genocide.
I suppose we could say, following this line of whatever it is, that a government that allows discrimination against gays who just want to buy a freaking cake is a government that is filled with people who are systematically more hostile and bigoted than the general population against gays.
Cake.
The other white meat.
“That’s happening because people in government are systematically more hostile to gun ownership than the general population. Want to discriminate against gun owners.”
Funny thing about that, both times I’ve worked for the federal government, the office cleared out for a week or two every Fall for deer/bird/bear-hunting season.
But go ahead and change the subject and point out that yeah but those parasites in government have too generous annual leave policies because they are bigoted against the poor deprived souls in the private sector.
And if you’re going to lament burning down the house as a manner of governing, why is your Paul/Walker ticket constantly playing with matches?
Obamacare IS the center, and despite flaws, which others besides the arsonists running your house fire would have moved to fix in past eras where settled legislation was tweaked as routine compromise by grownups, is working by and large.
Getting rid of it root and branch will, among other results, burn down hospitals.
If reasonable restrictions on guns are a “form” of bigotry, then gutting Obamacare is genocide.
There will be no “form” of genocide. It’s genocide.
I suppose we could say, following this line of whatever it is, that a government that allows discrimination against gays who just want to buy a freaking cake is a government that is filled with people who are systematically more hostile and bigoted than the general population against gays.
Cake.
The other white meat.
for those of you playing the home game, operation chokepoint was an initiative by the DoJ to pressure banks into denying services to businesses that were likely to be involved in money laundering and other criminal activities.
the primary focus was payday lenders. the big mistake was including gun dealers in the list of businesses that were considered to high risks for money laundering, because Going After Guns in any way shape of form makes the flying monkeys itchy.
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin, it would have been unnecessary to jump ugly on payday lenders, because they would not exist. because charging interest at what amounts to annualized rates north of 1,000% would have been, straight up, grounds to send your ass to jail.
but now we understand that payday lenders provide a Useful Service, allowing the banks to strip one more ounce of flesh off of the corpse of what used to be known as “people who work for a living”.
we are a Christian nation, who understand that it is a sin to sell a cake to gay couple, but who have somehow missed some other important bits.
go in peace brother, be warmed and be filled, and don’t forget that you owe me $500 on Tuesday.
and don’t touch my fncking gun.
for those of you playing the home game, operation chokepoint was an initiative by the DoJ to pressure banks into denying services to businesses that were likely to be involved in money laundering and other criminal activities.
the primary focus was payday lenders. the big mistake was including gun dealers in the list of businesses that were considered to high risks for money laundering, because Going After Guns in any way shape of form makes the flying monkeys itchy.
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin, it would have been unnecessary to jump ugly on payday lenders, because they would not exist. because charging interest at what amounts to annualized rates north of 1,000% would have been, straight up, grounds to send your ass to jail.
but now we understand that payday lenders provide a Useful Service, allowing the banks to strip one more ounce of flesh off of the corpse of what used to be known as “people who work for a living”.
we are a Christian nation, who understand that it is a sin to sell a cake to gay couple, but who have somehow missed some other important bits.
go in peace brother, be warmed and be filled, and don’t forget that you owe me $500 on Tuesday.
and don’t touch my fncking gun.
for those of you playing the home game, operation chokepoint was an initiative by the DoJ to pressure banks into denying services to businesses that were likely to be involved in money laundering and other criminal activities.
the primary focus was payday lenders. the big mistake was including gun dealers in the list of businesses that were considered to high risks for money laundering, because Going After Guns in any way shape of form makes the flying monkeys itchy.
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin, it would have been unnecessary to jump ugly on payday lenders, because they would not exist. because charging interest at what amounts to annualized rates north of 1,000% would have been, straight up, grounds to send your ass to jail.
but now we understand that payday lenders provide a Useful Service, allowing the banks to strip one more ounce of flesh off of the corpse of what used to be known as “people who work for a living”.
we are a Christian nation, who understand that it is a sin to sell a cake to gay couple, but who have somehow missed some other important bits.
go in peace brother, be warmed and be filled, and don’t forget that you owe me $500 on Tuesday.
and don’t touch my fncking gun.
gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
It’s useful to distinguish between views which prevail because they are popular with a majority, and views which prevail because those who hold them are so rabid on the subject.
Every study I have seen shows that a majority, a substantial majority, of Americans support gun control. The reason that gun control is political poison has nothing to do with how unpopular it is, and everything to do with how rabid those opposing it are. (I note, before you bring it up, that popularity here is independent of any constitutional arguments on the subject.)
gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
It’s useful to distinguish between views which prevail because they are popular with a majority, and views which prevail because those who hold them are so rabid on the subject.
Every study I have seen shows that a majority, a substantial majority, of Americans support gun control. The reason that gun control is political poison has nothing to do with how unpopular it is, and everything to do with how rabid those opposing it are. (I note, before you bring it up, that popularity here is independent of any constitutional arguments on the subject.)
gun ownership is so popular gun control is political poison to pursue openly.
It’s useful to distinguish between views which prevail because they are popular with a majority, and views which prevail because those who hold them are so rabid on the subject.
Every study I have seen shows that a majority, a substantial majority, of Americans support gun control. The reason that gun control is political poison has nothing to do with how unpopular it is, and everything to do with how rabid those opposing it are. (I note, before you bring it up, that popularity here is independent of any constitutional arguments on the subject.)
I’d be willing to take a pass on “the center” for the best any day, any time, anywhere.
I’d be willing to take a pass on “the center” for the best any day, any time, anywhere.
I’d be willing to take a pass on “the center” for the best any day, any time, anywhere.
I’d want to second Areala’s request that businesses who plan to discriminate against gays and lesbians make this stipulation transparent up front with signage and advertising campaigns.
Don’t waste people’s time.
I’d want to second Areala’s request that businesses who plan to discriminate against gays and lesbians make this stipulation transparent up front with signage and advertising campaigns.
Don’t waste people’s time.
I’d want to second Areala’s request that businesses who plan to discriminate against gays and lesbians make this stipulation transparent up front with signage and advertising campaigns.
Don’t waste people’s time.
Bobby, the challenge comes from the fact that people have very different views on what constitutes “the best.”
That is the whole rationale behind having compromises: to allow as many people as possible to come as close as possible to their own idea of “the best” . . . even though they disagree on what the best might be.
Bobby, the challenge comes from the fact that people have very different views on what constitutes “the best.”
That is the whole rationale behind having compromises: to allow as many people as possible to come as close as possible to their own idea of “the best” . . . even though they disagree on what the best might be.
Bobby, the challenge comes from the fact that people have very different views on what constitutes “the best.”
That is the whole rationale behind having compromises: to allow as many people as possible to come as close as possible to their own idea of “the best” . . . even though they disagree on what the best might be.
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin
so, 500 BC or thereabouts.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Usury/
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin
so, 500 BC or thereabouts.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Usury/
in the good old days, back when intrusive government regulation in god’s holy market was not yet a cardinal sin
so, 500 BC or thereabouts.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Usury/
wj, and equally, they have very different views on what constitutes “the center”, and all too often “the center” is lazily conflated with “the consensus” which can often be entirely and radically wrong.
So it would behoove those who tout “the center” to give us zealots a glimpse of just where this nirvana is located before being asked to disarm.
with all due respect,
wj, and equally, they have very different views on what constitutes “the center”, and all too often “the center” is lazily conflated with “the consensus” which can often be entirely and radically wrong.
So it would behoove those who tout “the center” to give us zealots a glimpse of just where this nirvana is located before being asked to disarm.
with all due respect,
wj, and equally, they have very different views on what constitutes “the center”, and all too often “the center” is lazily conflated with “the consensus” which can often be entirely and radically wrong.
So it would behoove those who tout “the center” to give us zealots a glimpse of just where this nirvana is located before being asked to disarm.
with all due respect,
Bobby, certainly “the center” is not a panacea. But the current view that the center is anathema, that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.
Bobby, certainly “the center” is not a panacea. But the current view that the center is anathema, that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.
Bobby, certainly “the center” is not a panacea. But the current view that the center is anathema, that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.
wj,
Picture a pair of rafts floating side by side on a placid lake. To remain at “the center” you stand with a foot on each raft. The rafts start to drift apart; your stance keeps widening uncomfortably; but you’re still at “the center”. By the time you make up your mind which raft to commit to, you’re doing a split like a ballerina and it’s too late to jump.
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
As you tread water, you might be able to determine from the landmarks on the shore which raft was the one that actually drifted. That will at least help pass the time.
I have rafts on the brain from rereading Huckleberry Finn last night. “You” is generic, not personal.
–TP
wj,
Picture a pair of rafts floating side by side on a placid lake. To remain at “the center” you stand with a foot on each raft. The rafts start to drift apart; your stance keeps widening uncomfortably; but you’re still at “the center”. By the time you make up your mind which raft to commit to, you’re doing a split like a ballerina and it’s too late to jump.
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
As you tread water, you might be able to determine from the landmarks on the shore which raft was the one that actually drifted. That will at least help pass the time.
I have rafts on the brain from rereading Huckleberry Finn last night. “You” is generic, not personal.
–TP
wj,
Picture a pair of rafts floating side by side on a placid lake. To remain at “the center” you stand with a foot on each raft. The rafts start to drift apart; your stance keeps widening uncomfortably; but you’re still at “the center”. By the time you make up your mind which raft to commit to, you’re doing a split like a ballerina and it’s too late to jump.
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
As you tread water, you might be able to determine from the landmarks on the shore which raft was the one that actually drifted. That will at least help pass the time.
I have rafts on the brain from rereading Huckleberry Finn last night. “You” is generic, not personal.
–TP
“…that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.”
This strikes me as a bit of question begging. My answer would generally be, “it depends”.
Perhaps you could provide a concrete example with respect to an currently contested political question, and provide some outline of the compromises required to get to “the center”, and explain its overall benefit as opposed to other outcomes.
I believe that would help.
More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.
“…that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.”
This strikes me as a bit of question begging. My answer would generally be, “it depends”.
Perhaps you could provide a concrete example with respect to an currently contested political question, and provide some outline of the compromises required to get to “the center”, and explain its overall benefit as opposed to other outcomes.
I believe that would help.
More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.
“…that compromise is anathema, is seriously toxic.”
This strikes me as a bit of question begging. My answer would generally be, “it depends”.
Perhaps you could provide a concrete example with respect to an currently contested political question, and provide some outline of the compromises required to get to “the center”, and explain its overall benefit as opposed to other outcomes.
I believe that would help.
More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
The fact that a majority of Americans support the laws that we currently have in place is comforting, but not in any way an argument for even stricter controls.
None of that is to say that there isn’t any data that gives popular support for stricter controls. Just that, a year or so ago, that wasn’t what the polls were asking.
But I may have an incorrect reading of what those conclusions meant.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
The fact that a majority of Americans support the laws that we currently have in place is comforting, but not in any way an argument for even stricter controls.
None of that is to say that there isn’t any data that gives popular support for stricter controls. Just that, a year or so ago, that wasn’t what the polls were asking.
But I may have an incorrect reading of what those conclusions meant.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
The fact that a majority of Americans support the laws that we currently have in place is comforting, but not in any way an argument for even stricter controls.
None of that is to say that there isn’t any data that gives popular support for stricter controls. Just that, a year or so ago, that wasn’t what the polls were asking.
But I may have an incorrect reading of what those conclusions meant.
Re: the center,
In an infinite universe, every vantage point looks like the center.
This doesn’t apply completely to politics, but it’s somewhat applicable. The center is relative.
Re: the center,
In an infinite universe, every vantage point looks like the center.
This doesn’t apply completely to politics, but it’s somewhat applicable. The center is relative.
Re: the center,
In an infinite universe, every vantage point looks like the center.
This doesn’t apply completely to politics, but it’s somewhat applicable. The center is relative.
“More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.”
On the other hand…
Property and Force: A Reply to Matt Bruenig: How do we get from the right to one’s body to the right to one’s (justly acquired) possessions, including land?
“More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.”
On the other hand…
Property and Force: A Reply to Matt Bruenig: How do we get from the right to one’s body to the right to one’s (justly acquired) possessions, including land?
“More on how libertarians are huge fans of force.”
On the other hand…
Property and Force: A Reply to Matt Bruenig: How do we get from the right to one’s body to the right to one’s (justly acquired) possessions, including land?
Slarti,
The universe doesn’t even have to be infinite for every place to be the center. But I take your point: the center is relative.
Still, relative simply means that you can take any point as fixed. A tree on the shore, for example.
–TP
Slarti,
The universe doesn’t even have to be infinite for every place to be the center. But I take your point: the center is relative.
Still, relative simply means that you can take any point as fixed. A tree on the shore, for example.
–TP
Slarti,
The universe doesn’t even have to be infinite for every place to be the center. But I take your point: the center is relative.
Still, relative simply means that you can take any point as fixed. A tree on the shore, for example.
–TP
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
Actually, in my view *I* was standing on the raft that lost its moorings and drifted away. The other raft has moved some way in the direction of where I was (at least in California), albeit not as far as to were I was standing.
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
Actually, in my view *I* was standing on the raft that lost its moorings and drifted away. The other raft has moved some way in the direction of where I was (at least in California), albeit not as far as to were I was standing.
Notice that from your point of view both rafts moved “away from the center”. The people on each raft keep insisting that from their point of view it’s the other raft that lost its moorings.
Actually, in my view *I* was standing on the raft that lost its moorings and drifted away. The other raft has moved some way in the direction of where I was (at least in California), albeit not as far as to were I was standing.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
We do have those . . . except for individual sales, and sales at gun shows. Which people would like, and have little chance of getting.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
We do have those . . . except for individual sales, and sales at gun shows. Which people would like, and have little chance of getting.
Well, the few studies I have seen show that Americans, when polled, support “reasonable” background checks. Which we already have.
We do have those . . . except for individual sales, and sales at gun shows. Which people would like, and have little chance of getting.
Bobby, consider the ACA. It is based on a plan from a conservative think tank (the Heritage Foundation), modified by experience with the earlier implementation by a Republican governor (Romney; Massachusettes). But today, vowing to repeal Obamacare root and branch seems to be a litmus test for anyone looking to run in the Republican Presidential primaries.
No sign of bills in Congress to revise the ACA. Lots of complete repeal bills, but nothing at all which would change it — like to reverse the most obnoxious features. (And note that, in surveys which do not identify is as “Obamacare,” several of the features of the ACA are strongly supported, even by self-identified conservatives and Republicans.)
The center, being relative as noted, has shifted to the right. Which is why we don’t have single-payer ala Medicare. But even so, one side won’t accept it.
Bobby, consider the ACA. It is based on a plan from a conservative think tank (the Heritage Foundation), modified by experience with the earlier implementation by a Republican governor (Romney; Massachusettes). But today, vowing to repeal Obamacare root and branch seems to be a litmus test for anyone looking to run in the Republican Presidential primaries.
No sign of bills in Congress to revise the ACA. Lots of complete repeal bills, but nothing at all which would change it — like to reverse the most obnoxious features. (And note that, in surveys which do not identify is as “Obamacare,” several of the features of the ACA are strongly supported, even by self-identified conservatives and Republicans.)
The center, being relative as noted, has shifted to the right. Which is why we don’t have single-payer ala Medicare. But even so, one side won’t accept it.
Bobby, consider the ACA. It is based on a plan from a conservative think tank (the Heritage Foundation), modified by experience with the earlier implementation by a Republican governor (Romney; Massachusettes). But today, vowing to repeal Obamacare root and branch seems to be a litmus test for anyone looking to run in the Republican Presidential primaries.
No sign of bills in Congress to revise the ACA. Lots of complete repeal bills, but nothing at all which would change it — like to reverse the most obnoxious features. (And note that, in surveys which do not identify is as “Obamacare,” several of the features of the ACA are strongly supported, even by self-identified conservatives and Republicans.)
The center, being relative as noted, has shifted to the right. Which is why we don’t have single-payer ala Medicare. But even so, one side won’t accept it.
charles,
The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.
wj,
but was where you were standing “the center”?
charles,
The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.
wj,
but was where you were standing “the center”?
charles,
The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.
wj,
but was where you were standing “the center”?
I would say, it was somewhere close to the center, albeit not really in it. BUT, it was on the unmoored raft which drifted away from the center.
I would say, it was somewhere close to the center, albeit not really in it. BUT, it was on the unmoored raft which drifted away from the center.
I would say, it was somewhere close to the center, albeit not really in it. BUT, it was on the unmoored raft which drifted away from the center.
“The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.”
Seems like the two authors are talking pass each other.
A Libertarian Theory of Property Rights: Libertarians hold that taking or using someone’s resource without their consent constitutes initiation of aggression.
For Libertarians, There Is Only One Fundamental Right: All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
“The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.”
Seems like the two authors are talking pass each other.
A Libertarian Theory of Property Rights: Libertarians hold that taking or using someone’s resource without their consent constitutes initiation of aggression.
For Libertarians, There Is Only One Fundamental Right: All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
“The question is still begged-the reply to the reply.”
Seems like the two authors are talking pass each other.
A Libertarian Theory of Property Rights: Libertarians hold that taking or using someone’s resource without their consent constitutes initiation of aggression.
For Libertarians, There Is Only One Fundamental Right: All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
Probably the majority of Americans would vote in favor of everyone getting a pony, if doing that was free of any kind of consequences (including cost) to anyone.
Background checks for individual sales is kind of like that. And it’s not really been made clear that requiring background checks for private sales is going to have any kind of salutary effect on metrics of interest.
“Sales at gun shows” are, though, exactly the same as private sales. FFLs are not permitted to sell firearms anywhere without performing the required background checks. That’s my understanding, anyway.
Probably the majority of Americans would vote in favor of everyone getting a pony, if doing that was free of any kind of consequences (including cost) to anyone.
Background checks for individual sales is kind of like that. And it’s not really been made clear that requiring background checks for private sales is going to have any kind of salutary effect on metrics of interest.
“Sales at gun shows” are, though, exactly the same as private sales. FFLs are not permitted to sell firearms anywhere without performing the required background checks. That’s my understanding, anyway.
Probably the majority of Americans would vote in favor of everyone getting a pony, if doing that was free of any kind of consequences (including cost) to anyone.
Background checks for individual sales is kind of like that. And it’s not really been made clear that requiring background checks for private sales is going to have any kind of salutary effect on metrics of interest.
“Sales at gun shows” are, though, exactly the same as private sales. FFLs are not permitted to sell firearms anywhere without performing the required background checks. That’s my understanding, anyway.
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
-A pony.
Ok, that last one is a repeat 😉
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
-A pony.
Ok, that last one is a repeat 😉
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
-A pony.
Ok, that last one is a repeat 😉
All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
Rights, rights, rights. It’s always the freaking rights.
You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!
I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.
Or, at least, maybe even consider that they might exist.
All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
Rights, rights, rights. It’s always the freaking rights.
You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!
I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.
Or, at least, maybe even consider that they might exist.
All further “rights” are simply applications of our basic right not to be aggressed against.
Rights, rights, rights. It’s always the freaking rights.
You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!
I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.
Or, at least, maybe even consider that they might exist.
FWIW, here is everything I think about guns.
I consider guns to be like chainsaws. If you have a use for one, go get one. If you just think it’s a kind of cool thing to have, go get one.
For your own sake, learn how to use it properly. For all of our sakes, don’t leave it laying around where the kids can get at it. And don’t go around doing fun party tricks in public with it unless you actually are in the circus.
And if you walk around saying you’re going to use it to chop people up into tiny little bits, people will be a whole lot less interested in your having a chainsaw.
I don’t have a chainsaw, because I don’t need one, and I’d probably only end up hurting myself or breaking something if I had one around.
No table saw either, same reason.
Likewise, guns.
Great tool, kind of a cool thing in and of itself, but if you’re going to be careless or a belligerent @sshole or a knucklehead, the rest of us might not be that interested in you having one.
Nobody asked, I just thought I’d clarify my point of view in case anyone thought I was picking on the gun owners way upthread.
FWIW, here is everything I think about guns.
I consider guns to be like chainsaws. If you have a use for one, go get one. If you just think it’s a kind of cool thing to have, go get one.
For your own sake, learn how to use it properly. For all of our sakes, don’t leave it laying around where the kids can get at it. And don’t go around doing fun party tricks in public with it unless you actually are in the circus.
And if you walk around saying you’re going to use it to chop people up into tiny little bits, people will be a whole lot less interested in your having a chainsaw.
I don’t have a chainsaw, because I don’t need one, and I’d probably only end up hurting myself or breaking something if I had one around.
No table saw either, same reason.
Likewise, guns.
Great tool, kind of a cool thing in and of itself, but if you’re going to be careless or a belligerent @sshole or a knucklehead, the rest of us might not be that interested in you having one.
Nobody asked, I just thought I’d clarify my point of view in case anyone thought I was picking on the gun owners way upthread.
FWIW, here is everything I think about guns.
I consider guns to be like chainsaws. If you have a use for one, go get one. If you just think it’s a kind of cool thing to have, go get one.
For your own sake, learn how to use it properly. For all of our sakes, don’t leave it laying around where the kids can get at it. And don’t go around doing fun party tricks in public with it unless you actually are in the circus.
And if you walk around saying you’re going to use it to chop people up into tiny little bits, people will be a whole lot less interested in your having a chainsaw.
I don’t have a chainsaw, because I don’t need one, and I’d probably only end up hurting myself or breaking something if I had one around.
No table saw either, same reason.
Likewise, guns.
Great tool, kind of a cool thing in and of itself, but if you’re going to be careless or a belligerent @sshole or a knucklehead, the rest of us might not be that interested in you having one.
Nobody asked, I just thought I’d clarify my point of view in case anyone thought I was picking on the gun owners way upthread.
I’m going to suggest here, as elsewhere, that the responsibility to stop your effing poorly-informed yammering is probably one more people should take seriously.
Aimed more at myself than at others, just to be clear.
I’m going to suggest here, as elsewhere, that the responsibility to stop your effing poorly-informed yammering is probably one more people should take seriously.
Aimed more at myself than at others, just to be clear.
I’m going to suggest here, as elsewhere, that the responsibility to stop your effing poorly-informed yammering is probably one more people should take seriously.
Aimed more at myself than at others, just to be clear.
“I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.”
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
“I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.”
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
“I’d be really happy if people would talk about their responsibilities once in a while.”
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
A lot of people want those. But not, I think, a majority. (Don’t know about a pony, however. 😉
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
A lot of people want those. But not, I think, a majority. (Don’t know about a pony, however. 😉
Other things a lot of people want that don’t make any sense:
-Photo ID required as a condition for voting.
-A wall around our borders.
A lot of people want those. But not, I think, a majority. (Don’t know about a pony, however. 😉
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I have to say, Brett, it is really sad that you cannot manage to find other, more effective (not to mention legal), ways to deal with people who you percieve to be “in your face” than threats of violence. Let alone threats of fatal violence.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I have to say, Brett, it is really sad that you cannot manage to find other, more effective (not to mention legal), ways to deal with people who you percieve to be “in your face” than threats of violence. Let alone threats of fatal violence.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I have to say, Brett, it is really sad that you cannot manage to find other, more effective (not to mention legal), ways to deal with people who you percieve to be “in your face” than threats of violence. Let alone threats of fatal violence.
All of Brett’s hinges seem to have come off at once.
All of Brett’s hinges seem to have come off at once.
All of Brett’s hinges seem to have come off at once.
I was responding to Russell’s, “You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!”
If you’re hearing that so often you’re getting tired of it, maybe the problem is that you’re such a busybody you’re driving the people around to to the point of violence with your constant demands that they do whatever you want.
I’m a pretty mellow guy, I can’t recall the last time I actually threatened to kill somebody. Maybe, though, this is because I’ve never encountered Russell in the flesh. If he’s hearing that complaint so often, I mean.
I was responding to Russell’s, “You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!”
If you’re hearing that so often you’re getting tired of it, maybe the problem is that you’re such a busybody you’re driving the people around to to the point of violence with your constant demands that they do whatever you want.
I’m a pretty mellow guy, I can’t recall the last time I actually threatened to kill somebody. Maybe, though, this is because I’ve never encountered Russell in the flesh. If he’s hearing that complaint so often, I mean.
I was responding to Russell’s, “You can’t make me!! I’ll kill you if you try!!”
If you’re hearing that so often you’re getting tired of it, maybe the problem is that you’re such a busybody you’re driving the people around to to the point of violence with your constant demands that they do whatever you want.
I’m a pretty mellow guy, I can’t recall the last time I actually threatened to kill somebody. Maybe, though, this is because I’ve never encountered Russell in the flesh. If he’s hearing that complaint so often, I mean.
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
As a strategy to get people “out of your face”, that probably is not going to be effective.
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
OK with me.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
As a strategy to get people “out of your face”, that probably is not going to be effective.
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
OK with me.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
As a strategy to get people “out of your face”, that probably is not going to be effective.
the ref should call it, this thread is TKO
OK with me.
Following up on russell’s comment concerning guns and the control thereof, I’d like to present two points I’ve yet to hear brought up in the great debate surrounding 2nd Amendment rights.
1 – In the 1700s, the guns owned by the citizens of the newly-birthed United States were exactly the same as those used by its government. Your musket was just as inaccurate and deadly as one fielded by a soldier if the US had a standing army. The idea that arming the populace as a protection against a tyrannical government could serve as an effective deterrent precisely for this reason. Killing someone was a personal act because it happened within your line of sight.
Today, the balance is utterly gone. One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous, no one in the government would worry one bit about it because they don’t have to. Today, if the government wants our hypothetical gun nut dead, they don’t have to call out the National Guard or send in the Marines. Some remote operator in an air force base three states over can fly a drone high enough to be effectively invisible over the house, locate the gun hoarder via thermal imaging, and end the hoarder’s life via bullets that laugh at concrete and brick to say nothing of vinyl siding and drywall. Guns, no matter how large or in what quantities, deter the government no longer because they need not face them down personally. Arm your neighborhood, hell arm your whole state for the purpose of insurrection, and one still stands impotent and naked before the government’s ability to reduce whatever threat posed to a radioactive crater. People who believe guns protect them from a tyrannical government are living a fantastical delusion. Protect yourself from a burglar, sure. Protect yourself from one or two rogue police officers, probably. But your Sig, your H&K, and your Glock don’t scare the government one bit. I’m not saying this is a reason to abolish the 2nd Amendment, just stating the fact that things have changed since the 18th century and few people on either side of the debate ever seem to acknowledge this.
2 – I have nothing against guns and understand them to be useful tools. I’ve handled them, I’ve shot them at targets from time to time, and I have friends and family members who have owned and maintained collections for decades. But I don’t own one myself, and I don’t want one. Not because I’m some peacenik hippie who believes a rousing chorus of Kum-bay-ah hath power to soothe the savage breast, but because I could not trust myself to have one in the house, even one kept locked and unloaded in the event of an emergency.
I suffer from depression. Everyone feels down in the dumps sometimes, but that’s depression the way a papercut is a limb amputation. My father died when I was very, very young. More than thirty years have gone by since then, and it still haunts me. Several years ago, I had to come to terms with the fact I was now older than my father was the day he died. The fact we shared a birthday does NOT help things in the slightest.
Not being dramatic, but I would be lying if I said I’ve never contemplated suicide. And it’s not the “To be or not to be…” eloquence of Shakespeare, but rather the “There’s no other way to make the pain go away!” agony of mental anguish. And at times, “not to be” seemed like a perfectly valid choice. This despite what I would consider a wonderful life in most every other regard: married to a wonderful woman, working at a job I love, a nice assortment of close friends, and a house with a yard that refuses to mow itself no matter how much I plead and beg.
A gun in my house would make that decision far, far too easy the next time I fell into one of my murky zones. I’d like to think I’m smart enough, strong enough, loving enough to never take that option. But I know enough to know what I don’t know. And that? I don’t know. So I support the type of common-sense regulation concerning the acquisition of firearms that serve the same purpose as seat belts and air bags in cars. At first automotive manufacturers scoffed at the idea of installing them. Now consumers would scoff at the idea of purchasing a car that doesn’t have them as standard features.
I want some sort of checks in place to make it just annoying enough to acquire a gun that someone like me, while in the worst possible depressive state, can’t drive down the road to the gun shop, swipe my credit card, walk out the door, and decorate the parking lot with my insides, or the interior of their home with the bodily fluids of their spouse, children, or other family members. I want that seatbelt. That airbag. To a regular, well-adjusted person (whoever that is), it’s an annoyance that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights immediately. To someone like me, it could be the literal difference between life and death. And while I’m cognizant of my own mental health issues, I’m aware not everyone else is.
So, like russell said, those are my views. For what they’re worth. 🙂
Following up on russell’s comment concerning guns and the control thereof, I’d like to present two points I’ve yet to hear brought up in the great debate surrounding 2nd Amendment rights.
1 – In the 1700s, the guns owned by the citizens of the newly-birthed United States were exactly the same as those used by its government. Your musket was just as inaccurate and deadly as one fielded by a soldier if the US had a standing army. The idea that arming the populace as a protection against a tyrannical government could serve as an effective deterrent precisely for this reason. Killing someone was a personal act because it happened within your line of sight.
Today, the balance is utterly gone. One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous, no one in the government would worry one bit about it because they don’t have to. Today, if the government wants our hypothetical gun nut dead, they don’t have to call out the National Guard or send in the Marines. Some remote operator in an air force base three states over can fly a drone high enough to be effectively invisible over the house, locate the gun hoarder via thermal imaging, and end the hoarder’s life via bullets that laugh at concrete and brick to say nothing of vinyl siding and drywall. Guns, no matter how large or in what quantities, deter the government no longer because they need not face them down personally. Arm your neighborhood, hell arm your whole state for the purpose of insurrection, and one still stands impotent and naked before the government’s ability to reduce whatever threat posed to a radioactive crater. People who believe guns protect them from a tyrannical government are living a fantastical delusion. Protect yourself from a burglar, sure. Protect yourself from one or two rogue police officers, probably. But your Sig, your H&K, and your Glock don’t scare the government one bit. I’m not saying this is a reason to abolish the 2nd Amendment, just stating the fact that things have changed since the 18th century and few people on either side of the debate ever seem to acknowledge this.
2 – I have nothing against guns and understand them to be useful tools. I’ve handled them, I’ve shot them at targets from time to time, and I have friends and family members who have owned and maintained collections for decades. But I don’t own one myself, and I don’t want one. Not because I’m some peacenik hippie who believes a rousing chorus of Kum-bay-ah hath power to soothe the savage breast, but because I could not trust myself to have one in the house, even one kept locked and unloaded in the event of an emergency.
I suffer from depression. Everyone feels down in the dumps sometimes, but that’s depression the way a papercut is a limb amputation. My father died when I was very, very young. More than thirty years have gone by since then, and it still haunts me. Several years ago, I had to come to terms with the fact I was now older than my father was the day he died. The fact we shared a birthday does NOT help things in the slightest.
Not being dramatic, but I would be lying if I said I’ve never contemplated suicide. And it’s not the “To be or not to be…” eloquence of Shakespeare, but rather the “There’s no other way to make the pain go away!” agony of mental anguish. And at times, “not to be” seemed like a perfectly valid choice. This despite what I would consider a wonderful life in most every other regard: married to a wonderful woman, working at a job I love, a nice assortment of close friends, and a house with a yard that refuses to mow itself no matter how much I plead and beg.
A gun in my house would make that decision far, far too easy the next time I fell into one of my murky zones. I’d like to think I’m smart enough, strong enough, loving enough to never take that option. But I know enough to know what I don’t know. And that? I don’t know. So I support the type of common-sense regulation concerning the acquisition of firearms that serve the same purpose as seat belts and air bags in cars. At first automotive manufacturers scoffed at the idea of installing them. Now consumers would scoff at the idea of purchasing a car that doesn’t have them as standard features.
I want some sort of checks in place to make it just annoying enough to acquire a gun that someone like me, while in the worst possible depressive state, can’t drive down the road to the gun shop, swipe my credit card, walk out the door, and decorate the parking lot with my insides, or the interior of their home with the bodily fluids of their spouse, children, or other family members. I want that seatbelt. That airbag. To a regular, well-adjusted person (whoever that is), it’s an annoyance that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights immediately. To someone like me, it could be the literal difference between life and death. And while I’m cognizant of my own mental health issues, I’m aware not everyone else is.
So, like russell said, those are my views. For what they’re worth. 🙂
Following up on russell’s comment concerning guns and the control thereof, I’d like to present two points I’ve yet to hear brought up in the great debate surrounding 2nd Amendment rights.
1 – In the 1700s, the guns owned by the citizens of the newly-birthed United States were exactly the same as those used by its government. Your musket was just as inaccurate and deadly as one fielded by a soldier if the US had a standing army. The idea that arming the populace as a protection against a tyrannical government could serve as an effective deterrent precisely for this reason. Killing someone was a personal act because it happened within your line of sight.
Today, the balance is utterly gone. One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous, no one in the government would worry one bit about it because they don’t have to. Today, if the government wants our hypothetical gun nut dead, they don’t have to call out the National Guard or send in the Marines. Some remote operator in an air force base three states over can fly a drone high enough to be effectively invisible over the house, locate the gun hoarder via thermal imaging, and end the hoarder’s life via bullets that laugh at concrete and brick to say nothing of vinyl siding and drywall. Guns, no matter how large or in what quantities, deter the government no longer because they need not face them down personally. Arm your neighborhood, hell arm your whole state for the purpose of insurrection, and one still stands impotent and naked before the government’s ability to reduce whatever threat posed to a radioactive crater. People who believe guns protect them from a tyrannical government are living a fantastical delusion. Protect yourself from a burglar, sure. Protect yourself from one or two rogue police officers, probably. But your Sig, your H&K, and your Glock don’t scare the government one bit. I’m not saying this is a reason to abolish the 2nd Amendment, just stating the fact that things have changed since the 18th century and few people on either side of the debate ever seem to acknowledge this.
2 – I have nothing against guns and understand them to be useful tools. I’ve handled them, I’ve shot them at targets from time to time, and I have friends and family members who have owned and maintained collections for decades. But I don’t own one myself, and I don’t want one. Not because I’m some peacenik hippie who believes a rousing chorus of Kum-bay-ah hath power to soothe the savage breast, but because I could not trust myself to have one in the house, even one kept locked and unloaded in the event of an emergency.
I suffer from depression. Everyone feels down in the dumps sometimes, but that’s depression the way a papercut is a limb amputation. My father died when I was very, very young. More than thirty years have gone by since then, and it still haunts me. Several years ago, I had to come to terms with the fact I was now older than my father was the day he died. The fact we shared a birthday does NOT help things in the slightest.
Not being dramatic, but I would be lying if I said I’ve never contemplated suicide. And it’s not the “To be or not to be…” eloquence of Shakespeare, but rather the “There’s no other way to make the pain go away!” agony of mental anguish. And at times, “not to be” seemed like a perfectly valid choice. This despite what I would consider a wonderful life in most every other regard: married to a wonderful woman, working at a job I love, a nice assortment of close friends, and a house with a yard that refuses to mow itself no matter how much I plead and beg.
A gun in my house would make that decision far, far too easy the next time I fell into one of my murky zones. I’d like to think I’m smart enough, strong enough, loving enough to never take that option. But I know enough to know what I don’t know. And that? I don’t know. So I support the type of common-sense regulation concerning the acquisition of firearms that serve the same purpose as seat belts and air bags in cars. At first automotive manufacturers scoffed at the idea of installing them. Now consumers would scoff at the idea of purchasing a car that doesn’t have them as standard features.
I want some sort of checks in place to make it just annoying enough to acquire a gun that someone like me, while in the worst possible depressive state, can’t drive down the road to the gun shop, swipe my credit card, walk out the door, and decorate the parking lot with my insides, or the interior of their home with the bodily fluids of their spouse, children, or other family members. I want that seatbelt. That airbag. To a regular, well-adjusted person (whoever that is), it’s an annoyance that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights immediately. To someone like me, it could be the literal difference between life and death. And while I’m cognizant of my own mental health issues, I’m aware not everyone else is.
So, like russell said, those are my views. For what they’re worth. 🙂
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I was driving around the other day and found myself behind a guy with one of those “molon labe” bumper stickers.
You know, “come and take”. Leonidas’ response to the Persians at Thermopylae. If you want our weapons, come and take them.
Out of his COLD DEAD HANDS, naturally, if I should be that lucky.
I was, being my busy-body self, obviously highly interested in taking this guy’s guns away. You could tell that because I was driving behind him in traffic.
I’m gonna get myself a bumper sticker with that great Diogenes line: “Real men nowhere, but in Sparta, real boys”.
Diogenes was a funny, funny guy. Well worth checking out.
None of what I’m saying here has anything to do with guns. I don’t give a crap if people want guns. Don’t be a knucklehead, I have no problem.
Frankly, there are damned few issues where I have much interest at all in having anybody do anything they don’t want to do.
What disturbs me is trying to understand how the hell we are going to have anything like a functioning society when people’s attitudes are, basically, I’m not going to do anything other than what I want to do, and screw you if you think otherwise.
The “I’ll kill you if you try!!” thing is just kind of lagniappe, just an extra bit of hostility that seems to get added to the mix.
Not, of course, that it isn’t something we all get to hear every freaking day, whether we like it or not. All I have to do hear it is drive behind Mr. Molon Labe.
People don’t just have rights, they have responsibilities. Toward themselves, toward each other. In order for the “rights” thing to work, the “responsibilities” thing has to be happening too.
Otherwise it doesn’t work.
If we can’t get along without all of this stupid hostile bullshit, I’m just as happy to carve the place up into jurisdictions that will be easier to deal with.
Whatever it takes.
I’d just like to be able to drive to the freaking hardware store without some dude telling me he’s gonna kill me if I try to take his gun.
I don’t want his gun. I don’t give a crap if he has a gun. I just want to go buy some snow melt in peace.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I was driving around the other day and found myself behind a guy with one of those “molon labe” bumper stickers.
You know, “come and take”. Leonidas’ response to the Persians at Thermopylae. If you want our weapons, come and take them.
Out of his COLD DEAD HANDS, naturally, if I should be that lucky.
I was, being my busy-body self, obviously highly interested in taking this guy’s guns away. You could tell that because I was driving behind him in traffic.
I’m gonna get myself a bumper sticker with that great Diogenes line: “Real men nowhere, but in Sparta, real boys”.
Diogenes was a funny, funny guy. Well worth checking out.
None of what I’m saying here has anything to do with guns. I don’t give a crap if people want guns. Don’t be a knucklehead, I have no problem.
Frankly, there are damned few issues where I have much interest at all in having anybody do anything they don’t want to do.
What disturbs me is trying to understand how the hell we are going to have anything like a functioning society when people’s attitudes are, basically, I’m not going to do anything other than what I want to do, and screw you if you think otherwise.
The “I’ll kill you if you try!!” thing is just kind of lagniappe, just an extra bit of hostility that seems to get added to the mix.
Not, of course, that it isn’t something we all get to hear every freaking day, whether we like it or not. All I have to do hear it is drive behind Mr. Molon Labe.
People don’t just have rights, they have responsibilities. Toward themselves, toward each other. In order for the “rights” thing to work, the “responsibilities” thing has to be happening too.
Otherwise it doesn’t work.
If we can’t get along without all of this stupid hostile bullshit, I’m just as happy to carve the place up into jurisdictions that will be easier to deal with.
Whatever it takes.
I’d just like to be able to drive to the freaking hardware store without some dude telling me he’s gonna kill me if I try to take his gun.
I don’t want his gun. I don’t give a crap if he has a gun. I just want to go buy some snow melt in peace.
I’d be really happen if fewer people weren’t such freaking busybodies that you just about have to threaten to kill them to get them out of your face.
I was driving around the other day and found myself behind a guy with one of those “molon labe” bumper stickers.
You know, “come and take”. Leonidas’ response to the Persians at Thermopylae. If you want our weapons, come and take them.
Out of his COLD DEAD HANDS, naturally, if I should be that lucky.
I was, being my busy-body self, obviously highly interested in taking this guy’s guns away. You could tell that because I was driving behind him in traffic.
I’m gonna get myself a bumper sticker with that great Diogenes line: “Real men nowhere, but in Sparta, real boys”.
Diogenes was a funny, funny guy. Well worth checking out.
None of what I’m saying here has anything to do with guns. I don’t give a crap if people want guns. Don’t be a knucklehead, I have no problem.
Frankly, there are damned few issues where I have much interest at all in having anybody do anything they don’t want to do.
What disturbs me is trying to understand how the hell we are going to have anything like a functioning society when people’s attitudes are, basically, I’m not going to do anything other than what I want to do, and screw you if you think otherwise.
The “I’ll kill you if you try!!” thing is just kind of lagniappe, just an extra bit of hostility that seems to get added to the mix.
Not, of course, that it isn’t something we all get to hear every freaking day, whether we like it or not. All I have to do hear it is drive behind Mr. Molon Labe.
People don’t just have rights, they have responsibilities. Toward themselves, toward each other. In order for the “rights” thing to work, the “responsibilities” thing has to be happening too.
Otherwise it doesn’t work.
If we can’t get along without all of this stupid hostile bullshit, I’m just as happy to carve the place up into jurisdictions that will be easier to deal with.
Whatever it takes.
I’d just like to be able to drive to the freaking hardware store without some dude telling me he’s gonna kill me if I try to take his gun.
I don’t want his gun. I don’t give a crap if he has a gun. I just want to go buy some snow melt in peace.
This supposes much that is not in evidence, Brett: that russell is a busybody, that he’s hearing death threats in response to something HE has said or done, and that he’s demanding anything of anyone.
I recommend that you from this point on refrain from these irrational outbursts, based on nothing other than what occurs between your own two ears.
You may think that you’re stirring the pot, here; stimulating further conversation. But you’re doing that a great deal less than hurling accusations against people who, for the most part, haven’t done anything to merit those accusations.
Cut it out, please. It’s childish. It’s tedious. It’s not persuasive, nor is it any sort of victory other than, as I said, the kind you can celebrate in your own mind.
This supposes much that is not in evidence, Brett: that russell is a busybody, that he’s hearing death threats in response to something HE has said or done, and that he’s demanding anything of anyone.
I recommend that you from this point on refrain from these irrational outbursts, based on nothing other than what occurs between your own two ears.
You may think that you’re stirring the pot, here; stimulating further conversation. But you’re doing that a great deal less than hurling accusations against people who, for the most part, haven’t done anything to merit those accusations.
Cut it out, please. It’s childish. It’s tedious. It’s not persuasive, nor is it any sort of victory other than, as I said, the kind you can celebrate in your own mind.
This supposes much that is not in evidence, Brett: that russell is a busybody, that he’s hearing death threats in response to something HE has said or done, and that he’s demanding anything of anyone.
I recommend that you from this point on refrain from these irrational outbursts, based on nothing other than what occurs between your own two ears.
You may think that you’re stirring the pot, here; stimulating further conversation. But you’re doing that a great deal less than hurling accusations against people who, for the most part, haven’t done anything to merit those accusations.
Cut it out, please. It’s childish. It’s tedious. It’s not persuasive, nor is it any sort of victory other than, as I said, the kind you can celebrate in your own mind.
On Libertarian blogs, instead of “what Russell said”, they say “what did Russell say that you hadda shoot him AGAIN?”
On Libertarian blogs, instead of “what Russell said”, they say “what did Russell say that you hadda shoot him AGAIN?”
On Libertarian blogs, instead of “what Russell said”, they say “what did Russell say that you hadda shoot him AGAIN?”
“One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous,”
I’ve never quite understood this. A guy’s got two hands, if he’s ambidextrous he *might* be able to shoot two guns at the same time. (Though he’ll be Guinness book material if he can be accurate with both at the same time.) What freaking difference does it make, then, if he has twenty?
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
I think what’s going on here, frankly, is that the media have spent some decades trying to inspire a phobic reaction to firearms in the general population, and have had to a limited extent some success. But it’s still a phobic reaction, which is to say irrational.
“One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous,”
I’ve never quite understood this. A guy’s got two hands, if he’s ambidextrous he *might* be able to shoot two guns at the same time. (Though he’ll be Guinness book material if he can be accurate with both at the same time.) What freaking difference does it make, then, if he has twenty?
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
I think what’s going on here, frankly, is that the media have spent some decades trying to inspire a phobic reaction to firearms in the general population, and have had to a limited extent some success. But it’s still a phobic reaction, which is to say irrational.
“One can horde weapons and ammunition until there’s nowhere left to bathe, eat or fornicate, and while this might make one’s neighbors understandably nervous,”
I’ve never quite understood this. A guy’s got two hands, if he’s ambidextrous he *might* be able to shoot two guns at the same time. (Though he’ll be Guinness book material if he can be accurate with both at the same time.) What freaking difference does it make, then, if he has twenty?
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
I think what’s going on here, frankly, is that the media have spent some decades trying to inspire a phobic reaction to firearms in the general population, and have had to a limited extent some success. But it’s still a phobic reaction, which is to say irrational.
Over, let’s say, the last 40 years, I’ve known several different sets of people who hoarded firearms and ammunition in their homes. Among them were folks who, literally, hid them inside the walls of their house. One was a guy who would bring a shotgun to band rehearsals because he “didn’t want to leave it in the car”.
They were all lovely people, I enjoy and enjoyed knowing them and being their friends, neighbors, and band-mates.
What they all have in common is the belief that society as a whole is on the brink of collapse, that all hell was going to break loose at any moment, and that they had to prepare themselves to literally go to war with a range of foes including their former neighbors who would come for their hoards of canned food, roaming bands of looters and vandals, and the oppressive forces of whatever rump government remained after The Sh*t Hit The Fan.
So yes, a phobia for sure, which is to say irrational.
And not for nothing, but F***K YEAH I might worry about 50K rounds cooking off if somebody’s house caught fire. Especially if I was a cop or a fireman, or just happened to live next door.
And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.
In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.
It’s what the founders did, so if that’s your thing, you can get a nice originalist buzz off it while you’re at it.
Or, you could ask yourself why the hell you need 50K rounds. Or, not.
Do what you want, if I or anybody I know or care about gets hurt, I’m not going to be sympathetic to your hobby. Which is to say, I’m going to want to see your @ss in jail.
Over, let’s say, the last 40 years, I’ve known several different sets of people who hoarded firearms and ammunition in their homes. Among them were folks who, literally, hid them inside the walls of their house. One was a guy who would bring a shotgun to band rehearsals because he “didn’t want to leave it in the car”.
They were all lovely people, I enjoy and enjoyed knowing them and being their friends, neighbors, and band-mates.
What they all have in common is the belief that society as a whole is on the brink of collapse, that all hell was going to break loose at any moment, and that they had to prepare themselves to literally go to war with a range of foes including their former neighbors who would come for their hoards of canned food, roaming bands of looters and vandals, and the oppressive forces of whatever rump government remained after The Sh*t Hit The Fan.
So yes, a phobia for sure, which is to say irrational.
And not for nothing, but F***K YEAH I might worry about 50K rounds cooking off if somebody’s house caught fire. Especially if I was a cop or a fireman, or just happened to live next door.
And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.
In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.
It’s what the founders did, so if that’s your thing, you can get a nice originalist buzz off it while you’re at it.
Or, you could ask yourself why the hell you need 50K rounds. Or, not.
Do what you want, if I or anybody I know or care about gets hurt, I’m not going to be sympathetic to your hobby. Which is to say, I’m going to want to see your @ss in jail.
Over, let’s say, the last 40 years, I’ve known several different sets of people who hoarded firearms and ammunition in their homes. Among them were folks who, literally, hid them inside the walls of their house. One was a guy who would bring a shotgun to band rehearsals because he “didn’t want to leave it in the car”.
They were all lovely people, I enjoy and enjoyed knowing them and being their friends, neighbors, and band-mates.
What they all have in common is the belief that society as a whole is on the brink of collapse, that all hell was going to break loose at any moment, and that they had to prepare themselves to literally go to war with a range of foes including their former neighbors who would come for their hoards of canned food, roaming bands of looters and vandals, and the oppressive forces of whatever rump government remained after The Sh*t Hit The Fan.
So yes, a phobia for sure, which is to say irrational.
And not for nothing, but F***K YEAH I might worry about 50K rounds cooking off if somebody’s house caught fire. Especially if I was a cop or a fireman, or just happened to live next door.
And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.
In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.
It’s what the founders did, so if that’s your thing, you can get a nice originalist buzz off it while you’re at it.
Or, you could ask yourself why the hell you need 50K rounds. Or, not.
Do what you want, if I or anybody I know or care about gets hurt, I’m not going to be sympathetic to your hobby. Which is to say, I’m going to want to see your @ss in jail.
“And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.”
Only if you lay siege to him, which is fairly easy to refrain from.
“In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.”
I think this is a fair statement, and wouldn’t particularly object to a rational building code requirement for how really large quantities of ammo are to be stored. So long as it was written in conjunction with the NRA, rather than a gun control organization that would see it as just another opportunity to harass gun owners.
“And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.”
Only if you lay siege to him, which is fairly easy to refrain from.
“In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.”
I think this is a fair statement, and wouldn’t particularly object to a rational building code requirement for how really large quantities of ammo are to be stored. So long as it was written in conjunction with the NRA, rather than a gun control organization that would see it as just another opportunity to harass gun owners.
“And if you’re starting from a point of view of anticipating a siege, which many of these folks are, *according to them, not me*, then a guy with 50K rounds is orders of magnitude more dangerous than a guy with 500.”
Only if you lay siege to him, which is fairly easy to refrain from.
“In any case, if you want to store 50K rounds, I’d appreciate it if you would build yourself a powderhouse, preferably set well back on a large-ish piece of property.”
I think this is a fair statement, and wouldn’t particularly object to a rational building code requirement for how really large quantities of ammo are to be stored. So long as it was written in conjunction with the NRA, rather than a gun control organization that would see it as just another opportunity to harass gun owners.
Just as an aside, russell, there are videos of tests involving large amounts of ammunition in fires.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect. The casing splits and the bullet acquires perhaps enough energy to penetrate a sheet of drywall.
Just as an aside, russell, there are videos of tests involving large amounts of ammunition in fires.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect. The casing splits and the bullet acquires perhaps enough energy to penetrate a sheet of drywall.
Just as an aside, russell, there are videos of tests involving large amounts of ammunition in fires.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect. The casing splits and the bullet acquires perhaps enough energy to penetrate a sheet of drywall.
Since the conversation has turned to firearms, I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun. And I’d really prefer it if anyone who ever picks up a firearm manages to get through an NRA safety course.
Even that is probably a bridge to far, in today’s political climate.
Since the conversation has turned to firearms, I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun. And I’d really prefer it if anyone who ever picks up a firearm manages to get through an NRA safety course.
Even that is probably a bridge to far, in today’s political climate.
Since the conversation has turned to firearms, I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun. And I’d really prefer it if anyone who ever picks up a firearm manages to get through an NRA safety course.
Even that is probably a bridge to far, in today’s political climate.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect.
Good to know.
The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.
Heavily armed paranoid people represent a risk to the people around them. It’s not an academic point, people can and do get killed.
If the guy down the block with the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag decides to ammo up, I will be interested to know about it, and I will keep an eye on his comings and goings.
It’s not “anti-gun hysteria”, it’s simple prudence and common sense.
I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun.
Target shooting, hunting, all fine. Keeping guns, or even several guns, for sport or personal protection are really not a problem. Collecting guns because they are interesting objects, often with interesting histories, there is no issue. Not for me, and not for most folks. Probably not a problem for anyone here, or at least more than a small handful of folks.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
It ain’t rocket science.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect.
Good to know.
The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.
Heavily armed paranoid people represent a risk to the people around them. It’s not an academic point, people can and do get killed.
If the guy down the block with the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag decides to ammo up, I will be interested to know about it, and I will keep an eye on his comings and goings.
It’s not “anti-gun hysteria”, it’s simple prudence and common sense.
I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun.
Target shooting, hunting, all fine. Keeping guns, or even several guns, for sport or personal protection are really not a problem. Collecting guns because they are interesting objects, often with interesting histories, there is no issue. Not for me, and not for most folks. Probably not a problem for anyone here, or at least more than a small handful of folks.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
It ain’t rocket science.
Ammo doesn’t do what one might expect.
Good to know.
The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.
Heavily armed paranoid people represent a risk to the people around them. It’s not an academic point, people can and do get killed.
If the guy down the block with the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag decides to ammo up, I will be interested to know about it, and I will keep an eye on his comings and goings.
It’s not “anti-gun hysteria”, it’s simple prudence and common sense.
I’d like to say that target shooting (targets or skeet) is just awesome fun.
Target shooting, hunting, all fine. Keeping guns, or even several guns, for sport or personal protection are really not a problem. Collecting guns because they are interesting objects, often with interesting histories, there is no issue. Not for me, and not for most folks. Probably not a problem for anyone here, or at least more than a small handful of folks.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
It ain’t rocket science.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
In other words, exercise the right with an appropriate and due amount of responsibility.
Think of it as a win/win. You get to do the stuff you like, and nobody has a problem with it.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
In other words, exercise the right with an appropriate and due amount of responsibility.
Think of it as a win/win. You get to do the stuff you like, and nobody has a problem with it.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
In other words, exercise the right with an appropriate and due amount of responsibility.
Think of it as a win/win. You get to do the stuff you like, and nobody has a problem with it.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
Yep.
It ain’t rocket science.
Well, you have to get the class III BATF stamp.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
Yep.
It ain’t rocket science.
Well, you have to get the class III BATF stamp.
Use and handle your firearm safely. Don’t do stupid stuff. Don’t threaten people.
Yep.
It ain’t rocket science.
Well, you have to get the class III BATF stamp.
“The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.”
Just don’t make it a self-fulfilling prophesy by attacking them.
“The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.”
Just don’t make it a self-fulfilling prophesy by attacking them.
“The overall point of my 10:25 is that folks who stockpile large personal arsenals in the expectation of going to war with their neighbors, the cops, and whoever else is starring in their personal dystopian nightmare *are a legitimate matter of concern* to the people who live around them.”
Just don’t make it a self-fulfilling prophesy by attacking them.
Because attacking people is what we expect Russell to do?
No.
Because attacking people is what we expect Russell to do?
No.
Because attacking people is what we expect Russell to do?
No.
Just to underline how bizarre a statement that was, Brett:
Don’t attack me. If you do, I’ll shoot you.
Just to underline how bizarre a statement that was, Brett:
Don’t attack me. If you do, I’ll shoot you.
Just to underline how bizarre a statement that was, Brett:
Don’t attack me. If you do, I’ll shoot you.
You know, it would be really helpful if folks could have constructive discussions about guns. There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
It’s just a hard conversation to have.
It makes me think of JanieM’s comment about a lesson she learned in talking with people who she violently disagreed with:
How, she asked, can I make it safe for you to hear what I need to say?
I don’t know how to get to that point on the gun topic.
You know, it would be really helpful if folks could have constructive discussions about guns. There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
It’s just a hard conversation to have.
It makes me think of JanieM’s comment about a lesson she learned in talking with people who she violently disagreed with:
How, she asked, can I make it safe for you to hear what I need to say?
I don’t know how to get to that point on the gun topic.
You know, it would be really helpful if folks could have constructive discussions about guns. There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
It’s just a hard conversation to have.
It makes me think of JanieM’s comment about a lesson she learned in talking with people who she violently disagreed with:
How, she asked, can I make it safe for you to hear what I need to say?
I don’t know how to get to that point on the gun topic.
Well, I’m pleased to see at least a part of my first point was being discussed. Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though. 🙂
Well, I’m pleased to see at least a part of my first point was being discussed. Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though. 🙂
Well, I’m pleased to see at least a part of my first point was being discussed. Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though. 🙂
There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
I agree with russell. On the need for a constructive discussion regarding guns. Also on the general policy of using them safely and keeping them responsibly.
There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
I agree with russell. On the need for a constructive discussion regarding guns. Also on the general policy of using them safely and keeping them responsibly.
There are valid points to be made from both (or all) sides, and there are, I think, areas where plain old information would be helpful.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
I agree with russell. On the need for a constructive discussion regarding guns. Also on the general policy of using them safely and keeping them responsibly.
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
What ‘annoyances’ to you want in place? Waiting periods?
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
What ‘annoyances’ to you want in place? Waiting periods?
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
What ‘annoyances’ to you want in place? Waiting periods?
Sorry if I am dumping gasoline on the fire, here.
I had some things to say to Areala as a result of her comments last night, but they aren’t things best written on an iPhone while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
Not harsh things. Getiing-closer-to-understanding things.
Sorry if I am dumping gasoline on the fire, here.
I had some things to say to Areala as a result of her comments last night, but they aren’t things best written on an iPhone while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
Not harsh things. Getiing-closer-to-understanding things.
Sorry if I am dumping gasoline on the fire, here.
I had some things to say to Areala as a result of her comments last night, but they aren’t things best written on an iPhone while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
Not harsh things. Getiing-closer-to-understanding things.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
Well, I got a laugh out of it, anyway..
🙂
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
I think almost everybody agrees that there are some people who probably shouldn’t have guns. I think a slightly smaller number of people, but still pretty close to almost everybody, agrees that there should be some measures in place to make it, at least, harder for those folks to get their hands on firearms.
The federal hurdles are described here, and they seem pretty reasonable. There is not, to my knowledge, a mandated waiting period, although as a practical matter it may take as long as a couple of days to process. Private sales don’t require the federal background check.
All if I understand correctly, anyone knowing otherwise please correct me.
So, in your case Areala, if you clear the federal hurdles and there is no further restriction at the state or municipal level, you could get a gun as quickly as it took the seller to process the background check.
Or, you could just buy it privately.
To my eye, that seems pretty good protection, but with some obvious holes.
Some holes I don’t think we want plugged. Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
That said, if you take any anti-depression medication should that disqualify you? What if you take anti-psychotics?
What if somebody in your household is clinically insane or mentally impaired?
I don’t know the answer.
The private sale thing seems like a big hole to me. Upthread slarti mentioned that (if I understood correctly) some kind of checks apply to private sales as well, maybe he can chime in to add some information.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
Well, I got a laugh out of it, anyway..
🙂
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
I think almost everybody agrees that there are some people who probably shouldn’t have guns. I think a slightly smaller number of people, but still pretty close to almost everybody, agrees that there should be some measures in place to make it, at least, harder for those folks to get their hands on firearms.
The federal hurdles are described here, and they seem pretty reasonable. There is not, to my knowledge, a mandated waiting period, although as a practical matter it may take as long as a couple of days to process. Private sales don’t require the federal background check.
All if I understand correctly, anyone knowing otherwise please correct me.
So, in your case Areala, if you clear the federal hurdles and there is no further restriction at the state or municipal level, you could get a gun as quickly as it took the seller to process the background check.
Or, you could just buy it privately.
To my eye, that seems pretty good protection, but with some obvious holes.
Some holes I don’t think we want plugged. Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
That said, if you take any anti-depression medication should that disqualify you? What if you take anti-psychotics?
What if somebody in your household is clinically insane or mentally impaired?
I don’t know the answer.
The private sale thing seems like a big hole to me. Upthread slarti mentioned that (if I understood correctly) some kind of checks apply to private sales as well, maybe he can chime in to add some information.
Well, now I just feel like my attempt at humor was just incredibly poorly timed.
Well, I got a laugh out of it, anyway..
🙂
Still curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about my second though.
I think almost everybody agrees that there are some people who probably shouldn’t have guns. I think a slightly smaller number of people, but still pretty close to almost everybody, agrees that there should be some measures in place to make it, at least, harder for those folks to get their hands on firearms.
The federal hurdles are described here, and they seem pretty reasonable. There is not, to my knowledge, a mandated waiting period, although as a practical matter it may take as long as a couple of days to process. Private sales don’t require the federal background check.
All if I understand correctly, anyone knowing otherwise please correct me.
So, in your case Areala, if you clear the federal hurdles and there is no further restriction at the state or municipal level, you could get a gun as quickly as it took the seller to process the background check.
Or, you could just buy it privately.
To my eye, that seems pretty good protection, but with some obvious holes.
Some holes I don’t think we want plugged. Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
That said, if you take any anti-depression medication should that disqualify you? What if you take anti-psychotics?
What if somebody in your household is clinically insane or mentally impaired?
I don’t know the answer.
The private sale thing seems like a big hole to me. Upthread slarti mentioned that (if I understood correctly) some kind of checks apply to private sales as well, maybe he can chime in to add some information.
Russell: I was trying and failing to note that the private-sale thing IS the so-called gun show loophole, and is going to be very, very difficult to require registration for.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
Russell: I was trying and failing to note that the private-sale thing IS the so-called gun show loophole, and is going to be very, very difficult to require registration for.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
Russell: I was trying and failing to note that the private-sale thing IS the so-called gun show loophole, and is going to be very, very difficult to require registration for.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.
I suppose that, if he’s got 50,000 rounds stored in his house, you might worry about them cooking off if his house catches fire. But it doesn’t make him any more dangerous than somebody who’s got 500 rounds squirreled away, which is I think a pretty common number.
Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.
You just never know how many zombies you’re going to have to head-shoot.
You just never know how many zombies you’re going to have to head-shoot.
You just never know how many zombies you’re going to have to head-shoot.
Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
I imagine we ultimately fall at different points on 2A rights, but so far I’m pretty comfortable going with ‘what russell said’.
while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
I’m glad I’m not the only one matlabing on a weekend.
Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
I imagine we ultimately fall at different points on 2A rights, but so far I’m pretty comfortable going with ‘what russell said’.
while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
I’m glad I’m not the only one matlabing on a weekend.
Short of clinical insanity, I’m not sure how deeply we want the state to be involved in evaluating our mental state, for example.
I imagine we ultimately fall at different points on 2A rights, but so far I’m pretty comfortable going with ‘what russell said’.
while waiting for Matlab to get to the place in the data manipulation where the gears all start flying around.
I’m glad I’m not the only one matlabing on a weekend.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
The kind of thing where I think some kind of private sale check would be helpful would be, for example:
Guy beats up his wife, she takes him to court and gets a restraining order.
He wants to shoot her, but can’t buy a gun, because restraining order.
So, he buys the gun from a private individual through a classified ad.
And, shoots his wife.
I understand that the gun is not essential, he could kill her any 1,000 other ways. But as regards the gun, specifically, it’s probably a good idea for that particular guy to not get a gun.
Because the gun just makes it that much easier.
If, for example, the sale had to go through a third party who was set up to run the NICE check, he would probably not be able to buy the gun.
I do understand the inconvenience, and I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales. So, how big is the problem? I don’t know.
But it’s also not that hard to think of plausible cases where it would actually be a problem.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
The kind of thing where I think some kind of private sale check would be helpful would be, for example:
Guy beats up his wife, she takes him to court and gets a restraining order.
He wants to shoot her, but can’t buy a gun, because restraining order.
So, he buys the gun from a private individual through a classified ad.
And, shoots his wife.
I understand that the gun is not essential, he could kill her any 1,000 other ways. But as regards the gun, specifically, it’s probably a good idea for that particular guy to not get a gun.
Because the gun just makes it that much easier.
If, for example, the sale had to go through a third party who was set up to run the NICE check, he would probably not be able to buy the gun.
I do understand the inconvenience, and I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales. So, how big is the problem? I don’t know.
But it’s also not that hard to think of plausible cases where it would actually be a problem.
Also: it’s not clear to me what problems would be mitigated by such a requirement.
The kind of thing where I think some kind of private sale check would be helpful would be, for example:
Guy beats up his wife, she takes him to court and gets a restraining order.
He wants to shoot her, but can’t buy a gun, because restraining order.
So, he buys the gun from a private individual through a classified ad.
And, shoots his wife.
I understand that the gun is not essential, he could kill her any 1,000 other ways. But as regards the gun, specifically, it’s probably a good idea for that particular guy to not get a gun.
Because the gun just makes it that much easier.
If, for example, the sale had to go through a third party who was set up to run the NICE check, he would probably not be able to buy the gun.
I do understand the inconvenience, and I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales. So, how big is the problem? I don’t know.
But it’s also not that hard to think of plausible cases where it would actually be a problem.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
It is to weep. All of the traffic-fighting; none of the fun.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
It is to weep. All of the traffic-fighting; none of the fun.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
It is to weep. All of the traffic-fighting; none of the fun.
Say you’ve gotta quiet guy living alone two houses over and there are well-founded rumors that he’s hording a cache of high-powered weaponry and 50,000 rounds of ammo.
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
Say you’ve gotta bakery down the street which won’t sell cakes to gays and there are plans afoot to add a pizza joint next door which will similarly horde pizza pies, or at least they seem to when gays and lesbians come a knocking.
The owners been on the news, unsolicited, making a big deal about his reluctance to serve gays. He’s gotta crowd funding gig up and running to finance his prejudice.
Who ya gonna watch while you keep the speed dial handy?
Say you’ve gotta quiet guy living alone two houses over and there are well-founded rumors that he’s hording a cache of high-powered weaponry and 50,000 rounds of ammo.
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
Say you’ve gotta bakery down the street which won’t sell cakes to gays and there are plans afoot to add a pizza joint next door which will similarly horde pizza pies, or at least they seem to when gays and lesbians come a knocking.
The owners been on the news, unsolicited, making a big deal about his reluctance to serve gays. He’s gotta crowd funding gig up and running to finance his prejudice.
Who ya gonna watch while you keep the speed dial handy?
Say you’ve gotta quiet guy living alone two houses over and there are well-founded rumors that he’s hording a cache of high-powered weaponry and 50,000 rounds of ammo.
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
Say you’ve gotta bakery down the street which won’t sell cakes to gays and there are plans afoot to add a pizza joint next door which will similarly horde pizza pies, or at least they seem to when gays and lesbians come a knocking.
The owners been on the news, unsolicited, making a big deal about his reluctance to serve gays. He’s gotta crowd funding gig up and running to finance his prejudice.
Who ya gonna watch while you keep the speed dial handy?
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
I remember reading an interview with William Burroughs, probably about 30 years ago. The interview began with him announcing, “I demand a gay state!!”.
His idea of a gay state included 24/7 border patrols with gay commandos armed with AK-47s.
There is nothing too weird to be true. At least, to somebody.
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
I remember reading an interview with William Burroughs, probably about 30 years ago. The interview began with him announcing, “I demand a gay state!!”.
His idea of a gay state included 24/7 border patrols with gay commandos armed with AK-47s.
There is nothing too weird to be true. At least, to somebody.
Turns out he’s gay and according to the neighborhood grapevine he has a chip on his shoulder about societal treatment of gays and gratuitous laws passed to limit his access to all of the accoutrements of marriage and so on.
I remember reading an interview with William Burroughs, probably about 30 years ago. The interview began with him announcing, “I demand a gay state!!”.
His idea of a gay state included 24/7 border patrols with gay commandos armed with AK-47s.
There is nothing too weird to be true. At least, to somebody.
“Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.”
Well, I see that you’re suggesting that it’s a symptom of a problem. I don’t see where you’ve actually demonstrated it, though. I mean, I’ve got several thousand volumes of books in my house, more than, given the present state of my eyes, I could read in my plausible remaining lifetime. I suppose this could be considered evidence of a “problem”.
But unless it’s a problem for somebody else, I don’t see how it provides a basis for compromising my exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Gun ownership being a basic civil liberty, too. #2 to freedom of the press’s #1.
Ok, point 1:
I have no doubt that the US military is perfectly capable of defeating the US population of gun owners, if it were motivated to do so, and didn’t care about the cost or the consequences.
They’ve got enough firepower to convert all our cities into glassy craters, go across the heartland depopulating the farming communities, destroy the infrastructure that makes us a 1st world nation, and leave the survivors to starve in the dark come the next winter. (Sooner, much sooner in the cities, which typically don’t have more than a few days food on hand.) That they’d be doing this to their own families and home towns *might* figure into their willingness to carry out such orders. But they’ve got the capability.
The question, of course, is could they conquer the US, make a US whose population was fighting mad governable. And this I doubt.
The basic issue is that the logistics chain starts in the place they’d be conquering. They’d be attacking their own supply lines, they’d be alienating the places where they’d take leave. The leaders who ordered this would have to live in guarded bunkers for the rest of their lives.
The techniques that a stronger nation uses to subjugate a weaker nation are not suitable for the military of a nation to subjugate it’s own nation, not if it wants it’s nation to survive as a viable state. You basically conquer another nation by rendering it nonviable, forcing people to submit to you or die. You can’t do that to your own nation, and expect to continue existing.
Now, if the government knew who all the gun owners were, and what guns they owned, it would have many options short of civil war. It could pick gun owners off a few at a time, do door to door searches without pissing off people who aren’t gun owners, know when somebody was holding out. It would be a whole different ballgame.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it? We both understand that.
Point 2:
I’ve been depressed, too, after my first marriage ended in divorce. Locked my guns up, never looked at them until I came out of it. And if you suggested that divorce automatically come with psychiatric aid for the party not wanting it, (Half of all suicides in the US are recently divorced men, and where’s the ribbon for that?) I might agree.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
And, again, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure which interferes with the exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
“Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.”
Well, I see that you’re suggesting that it’s a symptom of a problem. I don’t see where you’ve actually demonstrated it, though. I mean, I’ve got several thousand volumes of books in my house, more than, given the present state of my eyes, I could read in my plausible remaining lifetime. I suppose this could be considered evidence of a “problem”.
But unless it’s a problem for somebody else, I don’t see how it provides a basis for compromising my exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Gun ownership being a basic civil liberty, too. #2 to freedom of the press’s #1.
Ok, point 1:
I have no doubt that the US military is perfectly capable of defeating the US population of gun owners, if it were motivated to do so, and didn’t care about the cost or the consequences.
They’ve got enough firepower to convert all our cities into glassy craters, go across the heartland depopulating the farming communities, destroy the infrastructure that makes us a 1st world nation, and leave the survivors to starve in the dark come the next winter. (Sooner, much sooner in the cities, which typically don’t have more than a few days food on hand.) That they’d be doing this to their own families and home towns *might* figure into their willingness to carry out such orders. But they’ve got the capability.
The question, of course, is could they conquer the US, make a US whose population was fighting mad governable. And this I doubt.
The basic issue is that the logistics chain starts in the place they’d be conquering. They’d be attacking their own supply lines, they’d be alienating the places where they’d take leave. The leaders who ordered this would have to live in guarded bunkers for the rest of their lives.
The techniques that a stronger nation uses to subjugate a weaker nation are not suitable for the military of a nation to subjugate it’s own nation, not if it wants it’s nation to survive as a viable state. You basically conquer another nation by rendering it nonviable, forcing people to submit to you or die. You can’t do that to your own nation, and expect to continue existing.
Now, if the government knew who all the gun owners were, and what guns they owned, it would have many options short of civil war. It could pick gun owners off a few at a time, do door to door searches without pissing off people who aren’t gun owners, know when somebody was holding out. It would be a whole different ballgame.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it? We both understand that.
Point 2:
I’ve been depressed, too, after my first marriage ended in divorce. Locked my guns up, never looked at them until I came out of it. And if you suggested that divorce automatically come with psychiatric aid for the party not wanting it, (Half of all suicides in the US are recently divorced men, and where’s the ribbon for that?) I might agree.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
And, again, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure which interferes with the exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
“Brett, it’s not that having all that ammunition makes him more dnagerous. It’s that the mindset that motivates him to have that much ammunition makes him more dangerous. See the distinction? The huge horde of ammo is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.”
Well, I see that you’re suggesting that it’s a symptom of a problem. I don’t see where you’ve actually demonstrated it, though. I mean, I’ve got several thousand volumes of books in my house, more than, given the present state of my eyes, I could read in my plausible remaining lifetime. I suppose this could be considered evidence of a “problem”.
But unless it’s a problem for somebody else, I don’t see how it provides a basis for compromising my exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Gun ownership being a basic civil liberty, too. #2 to freedom of the press’s #1.
Ok, point 1:
I have no doubt that the US military is perfectly capable of defeating the US population of gun owners, if it were motivated to do so, and didn’t care about the cost or the consequences.
They’ve got enough firepower to convert all our cities into glassy craters, go across the heartland depopulating the farming communities, destroy the infrastructure that makes us a 1st world nation, and leave the survivors to starve in the dark come the next winter. (Sooner, much sooner in the cities, which typically don’t have more than a few days food on hand.) That they’d be doing this to their own families and home towns *might* figure into their willingness to carry out such orders. But they’ve got the capability.
The question, of course, is could they conquer the US, make a US whose population was fighting mad governable. And this I doubt.
The basic issue is that the logistics chain starts in the place they’d be conquering. They’d be attacking their own supply lines, they’d be alienating the places where they’d take leave. The leaders who ordered this would have to live in guarded bunkers for the rest of their lives.
The techniques that a stronger nation uses to subjugate a weaker nation are not suitable for the military of a nation to subjugate it’s own nation, not if it wants it’s nation to survive as a viable state. You basically conquer another nation by rendering it nonviable, forcing people to submit to you or die. You can’t do that to your own nation, and expect to continue existing.
Now, if the government knew who all the gun owners were, and what guns they owned, it would have many options short of civil war. It could pick gun owners off a few at a time, do door to door searches without pissing off people who aren’t gun owners, know when somebody was holding out. It would be a whole different ballgame.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it? We both understand that.
Point 2:
I’ve been depressed, too, after my first marriage ended in divorce. Locked my guns up, never looked at them until I came out of it. And if you suggested that divorce automatically come with psychiatric aid for the party not wanting it, (Half of all suicides in the US are recently divorced men, and where’s the ribbon for that?) I might agree.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
And, again, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure which interferes with the exercise of a basic civil liberty.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it?
My impression is that gun owners are hostile to registration because they think, as you appear to think, that the government is going to exploit the registration apparatus to take people’s guns away.
My impression is that people who favor gun registration do so for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides an additional measure of control over who gets access to guns
2. It’s useful to police in solving crimes
3. It makes it harder to engage in illegal transfers of firearms
I believe we have some level of firearm registration where I live in MA, so far nobody has used it as part of any kind of program to take people’s guns away.
It has, I believe, been useful to police.
So, as a sample data point, our experience in MA has been that registration has been mostly upside.
I’m not a gun owner, so my impressions are just that, impressions. Any gun owners from MA want to chime in, feel free.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
There’s a missing bit to your comment. I think you need a noun in between “But imposing” and “on everybody”. Lacking that, it’s hard to know what the “it’s” in your second sentence refers to.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
I think people are free to discuss gun ownership in any way they like. You may, or may not, care to participate, but none of us gets to set the terms of what will and will not be on the table for discussion.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it?
My impression is that gun owners are hostile to registration because they think, as you appear to think, that the government is going to exploit the registration apparatus to take people’s guns away.
My impression is that people who favor gun registration do so for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides an additional measure of control over who gets access to guns
2. It’s useful to police in solving crimes
3. It makes it harder to engage in illegal transfers of firearms
I believe we have some level of firearm registration where I live in MA, so far nobody has used it as part of any kind of program to take people’s guns away.
It has, I believe, been useful to police.
So, as a sample data point, our experience in MA has been that registration has been mostly upside.
I’m not a gun owner, so my impressions are just that, impressions. Any gun owners from MA want to chime in, feel free.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
There’s a missing bit to your comment. I think you need a noun in between “But imposing” and “on everybody”. Lacking that, it’s hard to know what the “it’s” in your second sentence refers to.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
I think people are free to discuss gun ownership in any way they like. You may, or may not, care to participate, but none of us gets to set the terms of what will and will not be on the table for discussion.
Why do you suppose gun owners are so hostile to gun registration, and gun control groups so adamant about wanting it?
My impression is that gun owners are hostile to registration because they think, as you appear to think, that the government is going to exploit the registration apparatus to take people’s guns away.
My impression is that people who favor gun registration do so for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides an additional measure of control over who gets access to guns
2. It’s useful to police in solving crimes
3. It makes it harder to engage in illegal transfers of firearms
I believe we have some level of firearm registration where I live in MA, so far nobody has used it as part of any kind of program to take people’s guns away.
It has, I believe, been useful to police.
So, as a sample data point, our experience in MA has been that registration has been mostly upside.
I’m not a gun owner, so my impressions are just that, impressions. Any gun owners from MA want to chime in, feel free.
But imposing on everybody who tries to buy a gun, including people who already own one, on the off chance that they might happen to be suicidal? I think not, it’s a wildly over-inclusive measure.
There’s a missing bit to your comment. I think you need a noun in between “But imposing” and “on everybody”. Lacking that, it’s hard to know what the “it’s” in your second sentence refers to.
Fundamentally, I reject any suggestion that we discuss this civil liberty as though it weren’t a civil liberty.
I think people are free to discuss gun ownership in any way they like. You may, or may not, care to participate, but none of us gets to set the terms of what will and will not be on the table for discussion.
I once held off the ATF and a local SWAT team during a 14-hour siege with little more than the three-volume hardback edition of Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” and the annotated edition of “Infinite Jest”.
They fell asleep, lost interest, and retreated.
I didn’t even have to turn a page.
I once held off the ATF and a local SWAT team during a 14-hour siege with little more than the three-volume hardback edition of Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” and the annotated edition of “Infinite Jest”.
They fell asleep, lost interest, and retreated.
I didn’t even have to turn a page.
I once held off the ATF and a local SWAT team during a 14-hour siege with little more than the three-volume hardback edition of Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” and the annotated edition of “Infinite Jest”.
They fell asleep, lost interest, and retreated.
I didn’t even have to turn a page.
If that doesn’t get ’em, there’s always “Gravity’s Rainbow”.
If that doesn’t get ’em, there’s always “Gravity’s Rainbow”.
If that doesn’t get ’em, there’s always “Gravity’s Rainbow”.
And, he added, stockpiling 50,000 copies of anything by Thomas Pynchon is, straight up, clear and unambiguous evidence of mental disorder.
And, he added, stockpiling 50,000 copies of anything by Thomas Pynchon is, straight up, clear and unambiguous evidence of mental disorder.
And, he added, stockpiling 50,000 copies of anything by Thomas Pynchon is, straight up, clear and unambiguous evidence of mental disorder.
I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales.
I don’t know either. The best data I can find:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family. I’m skeptical that requiring background checks for private transfers would slow that appreciably, but honestly I don’t know.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
Oof. No good. I’ve at least been able to grill a little bit and have some homebrew as scripts run. Which is what I likely would have done anyway.
I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales.
I don’t know either. The best data I can find:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family. I’m skeptical that requiring background checks for private transfers would slow that appreciably, but honestly I don’t know.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
Oof. No good. I’ve at least been able to grill a little bit and have some homebrew as scripts run. Which is what I likely would have done anyway.
I have no idea how many sales to people who would fail the background check happen through private sales.
I don’t know either. The best data I can find:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family. I’m skeptical that requiring background checks for private transfers would slow that appreciably, but honestly I don’t know.
All weekend. With Megacon right down the road.
Oof. No good. I’ve at least been able to grill a little bit and have some homebrew as scripts run. Which is what I likely would have done anyway.
Every single time we get a copy of Gravity’s Rainbow at my bookstore, it sells within 24 hours. Every. Single. Time. I assume it’s one of those things people buy so they can have it in their library without ever intending to read it, and other pretentious visitors (who have never read it either) can remark on what a remarkable book it is, and they can nod knowingly at one another.
Every single time we get a copy of Gravity’s Rainbow at my bookstore, it sells within 24 hours. Every. Single. Time. I assume it’s one of those things people buy so they can have it in their library without ever intending to read it, and other pretentious visitors (who have never read it either) can remark on what a remarkable book it is, and they can nod knowingly at one another.
Every single time we get a copy of Gravity’s Rainbow at my bookstore, it sells within 24 hours. Every. Single. Time. I assume it’s one of those things people buy so they can have it in their library without ever intending to read it, and other pretentious visitors (who have never read it either) can remark on what a remarkable book it is, and they can nod knowingly at one another.
I keep my “Gravity’s Rainbow” hidden away in a secret compartment because I don’t want the government to take it from me, I love the book so much.
Same with the Proust.
Infinite Jest I can’t even get the government library to take off my hands, though YMMV.
Now, “Mason-Dixon”, I keep by my bed in case I have to brain an intruder. So far, I’ve my stubbed my toe on it several dozen times.
I keep my “Gravity’s Rainbow” hidden away in a secret compartment because I don’t want the government to take it from me, I love the book so much.
Same with the Proust.
Infinite Jest I can’t even get the government library to take off my hands, though YMMV.
Now, “Mason-Dixon”, I keep by my bed in case I have to brain an intruder. So far, I’ve my stubbed my toe on it several dozen times.
I keep my “Gravity’s Rainbow” hidden away in a secret compartment because I don’t want the government to take it from me, I love the book so much.
Same with the Proust.
Infinite Jest I can’t even get the government library to take off my hands, though YMMV.
Now, “Mason-Dixon”, I keep by my bed in case I have to brain an intruder. So far, I’ve my stubbed my toe on it several dozen times.
Gravity’s Rainbow is actually a great book, you just have to sign up for the ride.
It does display tendencies (common to Pynchon’s work) toward the paranoid and maybe delusional.
But it’s so funny that you don’t really mind.
Gravity’s Rainbow is actually a great book, you just have to sign up for the ride.
It does display tendencies (common to Pynchon’s work) toward the paranoid and maybe delusional.
But it’s so funny that you don’t really mind.
Gravity’s Rainbow is actually a great book, you just have to sign up for the ride.
It does display tendencies (common to Pynchon’s work) toward the paranoid and maybe delusional.
But it’s so funny that you don’t really mind.
And that was the blog version of the Count and I nodding knowingly toward each other….. 🙂
And that was the blog version of the Count and I nodding knowingly toward each other….. 🙂
And that was the blog version of the Count and I nodding knowingly toward each other….. 🙂
We nod knowingly and make a sign to each other because like Slothrup and every other Pynchon character, we know something, someone, everyone is out to get us and the rest of you, even Joseph Heller, just wouldn’t understand, because you’re in on it, whatever it is.
All of reality has the coordinates to my forehead and the very tips of cruise missiles are converging on a point just above my eyebrows as we speak.
So let’s go back to nodding.
Whatever you do, don’t tell the government.
Especially the Postal Service.
We nod knowingly and make a sign to each other because like Slothrup and every other Pynchon character, we know something, someone, everyone is out to get us and the rest of you, even Joseph Heller, just wouldn’t understand, because you’re in on it, whatever it is.
All of reality has the coordinates to my forehead and the very tips of cruise missiles are converging on a point just above my eyebrows as we speak.
So let’s go back to nodding.
Whatever you do, don’t tell the government.
Especially the Postal Service.
We nod knowingly and make a sign to each other because like Slothrup and every other Pynchon character, we know something, someone, everyone is out to get us and the rest of you, even Joseph Heller, just wouldn’t understand, because you’re in on it, whatever it is.
All of reality has the coordinates to my forehead and the very tips of cruise missiles are converging on a point just above my eyebrows as we speak.
So let’s go back to nodding.
Whatever you do, don’t tell the government.
Especially the Postal Service.
What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?
What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?
What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?
Nothing.
All the more reason to remain alert.
Nothing.
All the more reason to remain alert.
Nothing.
All the more reason to remain alert.
“What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?”
They take the form of a Poisson distribution.
“What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?”
They take the form of a Poisson distribution.
“What happens when 50,000 copies of Gravity’s Rainbow cooks off?”
They take the form of a Poisson distribution.
And with a nod and wink and a secret handshake, CharlesWT ends this Pynchon-length thread.
http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pages_53-60
And with a nod and wink and a secret handshake, CharlesWT ends this Pynchon-length thread.
http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pages_53-60
And with a nod and wink and a secret handshake, CharlesWT ends this Pynchon-length thread.
http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pages_53-60
my 6:04pm above, “hoard” and “hoarding”.
misspellings, not clues.
my 6:04pm above, “hoard” and “hoarding”.
misspellings, not clues.
my 6:04pm above, “hoard” and “hoarding”.
misspellings, not clues.
thompson: Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family.
That rings true. Few criminals are gunsmiths. Almost all “criminal guns”, if you’ll pardon the phrase, were legally manufactured and legally sold, to start with. To “responsible” buyers, mostly.
“Responsible” is a term of art, of course. It does not imply “accepting responsibility” of any kind — say, the responsibility to not sell, lend, or give your perfectly legal gun to a “criminal”.
–TP
thompson: Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family.
That rings true. Few criminals are gunsmiths. Almost all “criminal guns”, if you’ll pardon the phrase, were legally manufactured and legally sold, to start with. To “responsible” buyers, mostly.
“Responsible” is a term of art, of course. It does not imply “accepting responsibility” of any kind — say, the responsibility to not sell, lend, or give your perfectly legal gun to a “criminal”.
–TP
thompson: Most criminals caught with guns during the commission of a crime (which doesn’t necessarily mean they would have failed a background check at acquisition), acquired stolen guns or got them from friends/family.
That rings true. Few criminals are gunsmiths. Almost all “criminal guns”, if you’ll pardon the phrase, were legally manufactured and legally sold, to start with. To “responsible” buyers, mostly.
“Responsible” is a term of art, of course. It does not imply “accepting responsibility” of any kind — say, the responsibility to not sell, lend, or give your perfectly legal gun to a “criminal”.
–TP
First of all, I’d like to just note that I live with a couple of women who, with time-varying intensity, suffer from depression. Maybe all three women. It’s pretty much an all-female household, which includes the dogs and cat, but I have not had the pets diagnosed.
That was supposed to be a tension-breaking joke. Well, I tried.
Anyway, I just wanted to say not that I feel your pain, exactly, but that I have some small amount of understanding and empathy for where you are coming from.
Now, for the rest. I think, Areala, that if you are every in genuine fear for your own physical safety or that of friends, family, complete strangers, etc, that you get immediate help. If on the other hand what you are describing is a situation; a desire if you will, that has not yet arisen strongly but that you fear might, it’s completely understandable that you might fear your own potential for strong feelings, even if unrealized. And it’s completely understandable for you to want to safeguard yourself in advance of these still-unrealized feelings.
Unfortunately, the law cannot keep you from acquiring a firearm. It MAY be possible for you to do something (I have no idea what, short of committing a felony) to disqualify yourself from acquiring a gun. There may be some kind of self-disqualification you can perform. I’d look into that, particularly if you know you’ll never own a gun in your life.
Worse yet, the law can’t keep you from acquiring a firearm illegally. This is one thing about the whole firearms debate that frustrates me: that people who are bent on committing a crime may somehow be deterred through some legal dictates on how firearms may be acquired. The end-run around the law is just not going to be a deterrent for someone who has decided in advance to flout the law. Hopefully it’s inconvenient enough to obtain one that way that it’s effectively enough of a barrier for you.
But now it sounds like I am lecturing, and I don’t mean to do that. Mostly I wanted to make sure that you are ok, and to let you know that this thing, depression, is not something that you bear any blame for. You do have to manage it as best you can. Or, rather: you have to manage your actions so that your vulnerability is minimized.
It’s still a new thing for me, honestly, living with others who have it.
And that’s what I didn’t want to type through my iPhone.
First of all, I’d like to just note that I live with a couple of women who, with time-varying intensity, suffer from depression. Maybe all three women. It’s pretty much an all-female household, which includes the dogs and cat, but I have not had the pets diagnosed.
That was supposed to be a tension-breaking joke. Well, I tried.
Anyway, I just wanted to say not that I feel your pain, exactly, but that I have some small amount of understanding and empathy for where you are coming from.
Now, for the rest. I think, Areala, that if you are every in genuine fear for your own physical safety or that of friends, family, complete strangers, etc, that you get immediate help. If on the other hand what you are describing is a situation; a desire if you will, that has not yet arisen strongly but that you fear might, it’s completely understandable that you might fear your own potential for strong feelings, even if unrealized. And it’s completely understandable for you to want to safeguard yourself in advance of these still-unrealized feelings.
Unfortunately, the law cannot keep you from acquiring a firearm. It MAY be possible for you to do something (I have no idea what, short of committing a felony) to disqualify yourself from acquiring a gun. There may be some kind of self-disqualification you can perform. I’d look into that, particularly if you know you’ll never own a gun in your life.
Worse yet, the law can’t keep you from acquiring a firearm illegally. This is one thing about the whole firearms debate that frustrates me: that people who are bent on committing a crime may somehow be deterred through some legal dictates on how firearms may be acquired. The end-run around the law is just not going to be a deterrent for someone who has decided in advance to flout the law. Hopefully it’s inconvenient enough to obtain one that way that it’s effectively enough of a barrier for you.
But now it sounds like I am lecturing, and I don’t mean to do that. Mostly I wanted to make sure that you are ok, and to let you know that this thing, depression, is not something that you bear any blame for. You do have to manage it as best you can. Or, rather: you have to manage your actions so that your vulnerability is minimized.
It’s still a new thing for me, honestly, living with others who have it.
And that’s what I didn’t want to type through my iPhone.
First of all, I’d like to just note that I live with a couple of women who, with time-varying intensity, suffer from depression. Maybe all three women. It’s pretty much an all-female household, which includes the dogs and cat, but I have not had the pets diagnosed.
That was supposed to be a tension-breaking joke. Well, I tried.
Anyway, I just wanted to say not that I feel your pain, exactly, but that I have some small amount of understanding and empathy for where you are coming from.
Now, for the rest. I think, Areala, that if you are every in genuine fear for your own physical safety or that of friends, family, complete strangers, etc, that you get immediate help. If on the other hand what you are describing is a situation; a desire if you will, that has not yet arisen strongly but that you fear might, it’s completely understandable that you might fear your own potential for strong feelings, even if unrealized. And it’s completely understandable for you to want to safeguard yourself in advance of these still-unrealized feelings.
Unfortunately, the law cannot keep you from acquiring a firearm. It MAY be possible for you to do something (I have no idea what, short of committing a felony) to disqualify yourself from acquiring a gun. There may be some kind of self-disqualification you can perform. I’d look into that, particularly if you know you’ll never own a gun in your life.
Worse yet, the law can’t keep you from acquiring a firearm illegally. This is one thing about the whole firearms debate that frustrates me: that people who are bent on committing a crime may somehow be deterred through some legal dictates on how firearms may be acquired. The end-run around the law is just not going to be a deterrent for someone who has decided in advance to flout the law. Hopefully it’s inconvenient enough to obtain one that way that it’s effectively enough of a barrier for you.
But now it sounds like I am lecturing, and I don’t mean to do that. Mostly I wanted to make sure that you are ok, and to let you know that this thing, depression, is not something that you bear any blame for. You do have to manage it as best you can. Or, rather: you have to manage your actions so that your vulnerability is minimized.
It’s still a new thing for me, honestly, living with others who have it.
And that’s what I didn’t want to type through my iPhone.
slarti – an excellent comment. if I may, I have a question.
And, Areala, I deliberately want to make this not about your situation, because it can be disturbing to talk and think about this stuff, and so I’d rather keep it in the realm of the hypothetical.
So, my question.
A person who is very depressed might decide to try to end their own life. One way they might do this is with a gun. Another is by taking a lethal amount of a prescription medication.
There are some hurdles that we have put in place to make it not that easy to get your hands on medications that can be harmful. Basically, to get them, you need a prescription, which has to come from a doctor, and your doctor will (hopefully) not write you a scrip for stuff that you can use to hurt yourself if you are suffering from clinical depression.
You could work around that and get them illegally, through any of a variety of means.
But for the average person who is on the low end of a depressive episode, but who isn’t in the habit of buying prescription pharma on the street, the inconvenience, weirdness, and criminality of buying meds illegally might be enough to keep them from going that way.
Why would guns be different?
If I understand Areala’s point correctly, what she’s getting at is whether there isn’t a way to help prevent people from buying guns *impulsively*, for unhelpful purposes.
Not necessarily criminals, just people who are in a hurry to get a gun, for a bad reason.
Wouldn’t a waiting period or something similar address that?
And to pre-empt some of the possible comments from folks at large, I yes I understand that there are a million ways in which guns are not like prescription meds. I’m just asking a question about slarti’s reply to Areala.
slarti – an excellent comment. if I may, I have a question.
And, Areala, I deliberately want to make this not about your situation, because it can be disturbing to talk and think about this stuff, and so I’d rather keep it in the realm of the hypothetical.
So, my question.
A person who is very depressed might decide to try to end their own life. One way they might do this is with a gun. Another is by taking a lethal amount of a prescription medication.
There are some hurdles that we have put in place to make it not that easy to get your hands on medications that can be harmful. Basically, to get them, you need a prescription, which has to come from a doctor, and your doctor will (hopefully) not write you a scrip for stuff that you can use to hurt yourself if you are suffering from clinical depression.
You could work around that and get them illegally, through any of a variety of means.
But for the average person who is on the low end of a depressive episode, but who isn’t in the habit of buying prescription pharma on the street, the inconvenience, weirdness, and criminality of buying meds illegally might be enough to keep them from going that way.
Why would guns be different?
If I understand Areala’s point correctly, what she’s getting at is whether there isn’t a way to help prevent people from buying guns *impulsively*, for unhelpful purposes.
Not necessarily criminals, just people who are in a hurry to get a gun, for a bad reason.
Wouldn’t a waiting period or something similar address that?
And to pre-empt some of the possible comments from folks at large, I yes I understand that there are a million ways in which guns are not like prescription meds. I’m just asking a question about slarti’s reply to Areala.
slarti – an excellent comment. if I may, I have a question.
And, Areala, I deliberately want to make this not about your situation, because it can be disturbing to talk and think about this stuff, and so I’d rather keep it in the realm of the hypothetical.
So, my question.
A person who is very depressed might decide to try to end their own life. One way they might do this is with a gun. Another is by taking a lethal amount of a prescription medication.
There are some hurdles that we have put in place to make it not that easy to get your hands on medications that can be harmful. Basically, to get them, you need a prescription, which has to come from a doctor, and your doctor will (hopefully) not write you a scrip for stuff that you can use to hurt yourself if you are suffering from clinical depression.
You could work around that and get them illegally, through any of a variety of means.
But for the average person who is on the low end of a depressive episode, but who isn’t in the habit of buying prescription pharma on the street, the inconvenience, weirdness, and criminality of buying meds illegally might be enough to keep them from going that way.
Why would guns be different?
If I understand Areala’s point correctly, what she’s getting at is whether there isn’t a way to help prevent people from buying guns *impulsively*, for unhelpful purposes.
Not necessarily criminals, just people who are in a hurry to get a gun, for a bad reason.
Wouldn’t a waiting period or something similar address that?
And to pre-empt some of the possible comments from folks at large, I yes I understand that there are a million ways in which guns are not like prescription meds. I’m just asking a question about slarti’s reply to Areala.
I feel obliged to add another clarification:
My not wanting to have my comment refer specifically to Areala’s situation was not intended to be a comment on slarti’s comments directed to Areala.
On the contrary, IMO slarti’s comments were right on.
I just wanted, before wandering further down the path of “how else could somebody hurt themselves?”, to make *my* questions not in reference to Areala’s situation. Whatever her situation is.
The gun thing is just another place where I think what we’re looking for is a fair balance between conflicting interests. I’m just trying to locate where that balance is, or could be.
I feel obliged to add another clarification:
My not wanting to have my comment refer specifically to Areala’s situation was not intended to be a comment on slarti’s comments directed to Areala.
On the contrary, IMO slarti’s comments were right on.
I just wanted, before wandering further down the path of “how else could somebody hurt themselves?”, to make *my* questions not in reference to Areala’s situation. Whatever her situation is.
The gun thing is just another place where I think what we’re looking for is a fair balance between conflicting interests. I’m just trying to locate where that balance is, or could be.
I feel obliged to add another clarification:
My not wanting to have my comment refer specifically to Areala’s situation was not intended to be a comment on slarti’s comments directed to Areala.
On the contrary, IMO slarti’s comments were right on.
I just wanted, before wandering further down the path of “how else could somebody hurt themselves?”, to make *my* questions not in reference to Areala’s situation. Whatever her situation is.
The gun thing is just another place where I think what we’re looking for is a fair balance between conflicting interests. I’m just trying to locate where that balance is, or could be.
Also, too, my first introduction to Pynchon was in high school, when I was maybe 15 or 16.
My step-brother, who was (at the time) living a NYC sort-of boho artist life, teaching painting at Pratt and riding his Ducati cafe racer all over the city, came to dinner one weekend and said, “Here, you should read this”, and handed me a copy of V.
So, I read it. To this day, I have no freaking clue what possible sense I made of it at the time, it’s kind of a blur. But I remember the sort of trippy sensation of Pynchon basically weaving this weird web of crazy associations, like a Bach fugue composed of semi-digested senior physics, bad puns, and paranoia.
I asked my English teacher about it, he gave me a funny look and said he’d never heard of the guy.
Also, too, my first introduction to Pynchon was in high school, when I was maybe 15 or 16.
My step-brother, who was (at the time) living a NYC sort-of boho artist life, teaching painting at Pratt and riding his Ducati cafe racer all over the city, came to dinner one weekend and said, “Here, you should read this”, and handed me a copy of V.
So, I read it. To this day, I have no freaking clue what possible sense I made of it at the time, it’s kind of a blur. But I remember the sort of trippy sensation of Pynchon basically weaving this weird web of crazy associations, like a Bach fugue composed of semi-digested senior physics, bad puns, and paranoia.
I asked my English teacher about it, he gave me a funny look and said he’d never heard of the guy.
Also, too, my first introduction to Pynchon was in high school, when I was maybe 15 or 16.
My step-brother, who was (at the time) living a NYC sort-of boho artist life, teaching painting at Pratt and riding his Ducati cafe racer all over the city, came to dinner one weekend and said, “Here, you should read this”, and handed me a copy of V.
So, I read it. To this day, I have no freaking clue what possible sense I made of it at the time, it’s kind of a blur. But I remember the sort of trippy sensation of Pynchon basically weaving this weird web of crazy associations, like a Bach fugue composed of semi-digested senior physics, bad puns, and paranoia.
I asked my English teacher about it, he gave me a funny look and said he’d never heard of the guy.
Thank you, Slarti and russell, for your comments. I’ve gotten quite good at managing my depression over the years, and there have been a few times where I’ve checked myself in to a center where I know other people will be there to keep an eye on me when things have felt overwhelming. I’m fortunate to live somewhere that such a thing is possible, to have insurance which picks up the bulk of the tab for my visits, and to have a job which is generous with their understanding of that particular usage of sick time.
I personally don’t think (at least I hope) I’d ever be at the point where I’d actively seek out a gun to do myself injury. And no matter what, I know if I went to my wife and told her what was going on, she’d do anything in her power to make sure I got help (and if she couldn’t for some reason, then her parents or my mother would). I have the best support network in the world when I need help. But everyone is not in my same situation, and not everyone has people in his or her life willing and able to hold them accountable for their actions.
I don’t know where that balance is either, which is why I brought up the point to begin with. Every situation is different. But discussion is all about throwing out ideas, whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it) or Slarti’s simple point that someone dead-set on acquiring a gun is going to do it. I’ll readily concede the truth of both, and freely admit I don’t have the answers.
Maybe no one does. Doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t worth having though. 🙂
Thank you, Slarti and russell, for your comments. I’ve gotten quite good at managing my depression over the years, and there have been a few times where I’ve checked myself in to a center where I know other people will be there to keep an eye on me when things have felt overwhelming. I’m fortunate to live somewhere that such a thing is possible, to have insurance which picks up the bulk of the tab for my visits, and to have a job which is generous with their understanding of that particular usage of sick time.
I personally don’t think (at least I hope) I’d ever be at the point where I’d actively seek out a gun to do myself injury. And no matter what, I know if I went to my wife and told her what was going on, she’d do anything in her power to make sure I got help (and if she couldn’t for some reason, then her parents or my mother would). I have the best support network in the world when I need help. But everyone is not in my same situation, and not everyone has people in his or her life willing and able to hold them accountable for their actions.
I don’t know where that balance is either, which is why I brought up the point to begin with. Every situation is different. But discussion is all about throwing out ideas, whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it) or Slarti’s simple point that someone dead-set on acquiring a gun is going to do it. I’ll readily concede the truth of both, and freely admit I don’t have the answers.
Maybe no one does. Doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t worth having though. 🙂
Thank you, Slarti and russell, for your comments. I’ve gotten quite good at managing my depression over the years, and there have been a few times where I’ve checked myself in to a center where I know other people will be there to keep an eye on me when things have felt overwhelming. I’m fortunate to live somewhere that such a thing is possible, to have insurance which picks up the bulk of the tab for my visits, and to have a job which is generous with their understanding of that particular usage of sick time.
I personally don’t think (at least I hope) I’d ever be at the point where I’d actively seek out a gun to do myself injury. And no matter what, I know if I went to my wife and told her what was going on, she’d do anything in her power to make sure I got help (and if she couldn’t for some reason, then her parents or my mother would). I have the best support network in the world when I need help. But everyone is not in my same situation, and not everyone has people in his or her life willing and able to hold them accountable for their actions.
I don’t know where that balance is either, which is why I brought up the point to begin with. Every situation is different. But discussion is all about throwing out ideas, whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it) or Slarti’s simple point that someone dead-set on acquiring a gun is going to do it. I’ll readily concede the truth of both, and freely admit I don’t have the answers.
Maybe no one does. Doesn’t mean the conversation isn’t worth having though. 🙂
My personal opinion: There should be legal responsibility for firearms owned. If someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it you’re to be held legally responsible too, if you did not report the theft (provided you had the opportunity of course). If guns get stolen from you repeatedly, you lose your right to legally own them due to obvious irresponsibility. Plus a lot of ‘stolen’ guns seem to have been actually sold on the side to people that could not legally purchase them (there was e.g. iirc some investigation into that in the context of smuggling guns into Mexico with those guns suspiciously often reorted ‘stolen’ from the same gunshops).
Btw, could there legally be a ‘not for resale’ policy like for DVDs with indelible marks put on guns pointing at the first purchaser? That way the gun itself would not have to be registered with any official entity but could be traced back to the legal owner in case a crime is committed with it.
Large amounts of ammo stored in one place pose a problem by themselves. Powder and especially primers age and can potentially go off spontaneously. Less of a problem with just a handful of cartridges nearby but quite a nasty one, if enough for a sustained chain reaction is stored together.
My personal opinion: There should be legal responsibility for firearms owned. If someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it you’re to be held legally responsible too, if you did not report the theft (provided you had the opportunity of course). If guns get stolen from you repeatedly, you lose your right to legally own them due to obvious irresponsibility. Plus a lot of ‘stolen’ guns seem to have been actually sold on the side to people that could not legally purchase them (there was e.g. iirc some investigation into that in the context of smuggling guns into Mexico with those guns suspiciously often reorted ‘stolen’ from the same gunshops).
Btw, could there legally be a ‘not for resale’ policy like for DVDs with indelible marks put on guns pointing at the first purchaser? That way the gun itself would not have to be registered with any official entity but could be traced back to the legal owner in case a crime is committed with it.
Large amounts of ammo stored in one place pose a problem by themselves. Powder and especially primers age and can potentially go off spontaneously. Less of a problem with just a handful of cartridges nearby but quite a nasty one, if enough for a sustained chain reaction is stored together.
My personal opinion: There should be legal responsibility for firearms owned. If someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it you’re to be held legally responsible too, if you did not report the theft (provided you had the opportunity of course). If guns get stolen from you repeatedly, you lose your right to legally own them due to obvious irresponsibility. Plus a lot of ‘stolen’ guns seem to have been actually sold on the side to people that could not legally purchase them (there was e.g. iirc some investigation into that in the context of smuggling guns into Mexico with those guns suspiciously often reorted ‘stolen’ from the same gunshops).
Btw, could there legally be a ‘not for resale’ policy like for DVDs with indelible marks put on guns pointing at the first purchaser? That way the gun itself would not have to be registered with any official entity but could be traced back to the legal owner in case a crime is committed with it.
Large amounts of ammo stored in one place pose a problem by themselves. Powder and especially primers age and can potentially go off spontaneously. Less of a problem with just a handful of cartridges nearby but quite a nasty one, if enough for a sustained chain reaction is stored together.
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty. You might not like that it’s a civil liberty. You might aspire to removing it from the Bill of Rights. Doesn’t matter. Right now, it’s a civil liberty, and will be until the Bill of Rights gets amended.
And it will be treated as a civil liberty. No clever schemes for intimidating people into not exercising it. No work arounds, like using the law to make ammo insanely expensive. It gets treated like a civil liberty, because it IS one.
“whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it)”
I’d like to see people in need of help get it. I languished in depression for over a year after my divorce. Walked around not understanding why nobody could see the horrible cloud over me. The inside of my cheeks are scared to this day, because I discovered pain would make the depression go away for a little while, and so when driving, when the bridge abutments got too attractive, I’d bite them.
I only came out of it because I started taking SAMe for my joints, and it turns out to be a pretty effective anti-depressant, too.
But you didn’t propose to help people with depression. You proposed to interfere with the exercise of a civil liberty. To so interfere whether or not the person in question was depressed.
I’ll repeat this: Half of all suicides in this country are recently divorced men. That’s a small, very easily identifiable group, accounting for HALF OF ALL SUICIDES. And no fancy ribbons on cars, either.
You want to mandate something? How about psychiatric evaluations for recently divorced men? Have social service workers drop by to see if they keep a carving knife and booze by the bathtub? Tell divorce lawyers to stop treating it as a joke when their client says, “Let her have everything, I’m going to kill myself anyway, what do I need it for?”
You want to do something about suicide, do something about suicide. Don’t use suicide as an excuse to attack a popular civil liberty.
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty. You might not like that it’s a civil liberty. You might aspire to removing it from the Bill of Rights. Doesn’t matter. Right now, it’s a civil liberty, and will be until the Bill of Rights gets amended.
And it will be treated as a civil liberty. No clever schemes for intimidating people into not exercising it. No work arounds, like using the law to make ammo insanely expensive. It gets treated like a civil liberty, because it IS one.
“whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it)”
I’d like to see people in need of help get it. I languished in depression for over a year after my divorce. Walked around not understanding why nobody could see the horrible cloud over me. The inside of my cheeks are scared to this day, because I discovered pain would make the depression go away for a little while, and so when driving, when the bridge abutments got too attractive, I’d bite them.
I only came out of it because I started taking SAMe for my joints, and it turns out to be a pretty effective anti-depressant, too.
But you didn’t propose to help people with depression. You proposed to interfere with the exercise of a civil liberty. To so interfere whether or not the person in question was depressed.
I’ll repeat this: Half of all suicides in this country are recently divorced men. That’s a small, very easily identifiable group, accounting for HALF OF ALL SUICIDES. And no fancy ribbons on cars, either.
You want to mandate something? How about psychiatric evaluations for recently divorced men? Have social service workers drop by to see if they keep a carving knife and booze by the bathtub? Tell divorce lawyers to stop treating it as a joke when their client says, “Let her have everything, I’m going to kill myself anyway, what do I need it for?”
You want to do something about suicide, do something about suicide. Don’t use suicide as an excuse to attack a popular civil liberty.
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty. You might not like that it’s a civil liberty. You might aspire to removing it from the Bill of Rights. Doesn’t matter. Right now, it’s a civil liberty, and will be until the Bill of Rights gets amended.
And it will be treated as a civil liberty. No clever schemes for intimidating people into not exercising it. No work arounds, like using the law to make ammo insanely expensive. It gets treated like a civil liberty, because it IS one.
“whether they’re ones like Brett’s which hold the rights of the many (every other citizen of this country) above the needs of the few (people like me, who have no interest in owning a gun but want to ensure those who need help in that area receive it)”
I’d like to see people in need of help get it. I languished in depression for over a year after my divorce. Walked around not understanding why nobody could see the horrible cloud over me. The inside of my cheeks are scared to this day, because I discovered pain would make the depression go away for a little while, and so when driving, when the bridge abutments got too attractive, I’d bite them.
I only came out of it because I started taking SAMe for my joints, and it turns out to be a pretty effective anti-depressant, too.
But you didn’t propose to help people with depression. You proposed to interfere with the exercise of a civil liberty. To so interfere whether or not the person in question was depressed.
I’ll repeat this: Half of all suicides in this country are recently divorced men. That’s a small, very easily identifiable group, accounting for HALF OF ALL SUICIDES. And no fancy ribbons on cars, either.
You want to mandate something? How about psychiatric evaluations for recently divorced men? Have social service workers drop by to see if they keep a carving knife and booze by the bathtub? Tell divorce lawyers to stop treating it as a joke when their client says, “Let her have everything, I’m going to kill myself anyway, what do I need it for?”
You want to do something about suicide, do something about suicide. Don’t use suicide as an excuse to attack a popular civil liberty.
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, it is. Precisely what the civil liberty consists of is not completely clear, but there was obviously an intent that the federal government was not to disarm the public, or prevent them from owning and using firearms.
What does that have to do with Areala’s question?
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, it is. Precisely what the civil liberty consists of is not completely clear, but there was obviously an intent that the federal government was not to disarm the public, or prevent them from owning and using firearms.
What does that have to do with Areala’s question?
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, it is. Precisely what the civil liberty consists of is not completely clear, but there was obviously an intent that the federal government was not to disarm the public, or prevent them from owning and using firearms.
What does that have to do with Areala’s question?
You mean, her question about whether we couldn’t deliberately make exercising this civil liberty annoying enough to discourage some people from exercising it?
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty. Voting, maybe. And then think about it. Do we treat civil liberties that way? Do we try to make getting stationary and pens annoying enough somebody might give up on writing a suicide note?
Is deliberating making exercising a civil liberty, so as to discourage people from taking advantage of it, normally considered acceptable? In the context of voting, I keep getting told the answer is obviously no.
Again, a third time: Half of all suicides in the US belong to a very small, easily identified group of people. I really sympathize with Areala’s troubles, having spent some time depressed myself. But you could stop every last woman with long term depression in the country from committing suicide, and while it would be a worthwhile goal, it would barely have any effect on overall suicide numbers. She’s not a member of the small, identifiable group that is responsible for most suicides. I was.
Because most suicides are men, and most men committing suicide do so right after a divorce. And, knowing this, why aren’t we doing something about it? Aren’t men’s lives worth anything?
Recently divorced men don’t even have their own funky colored ribbons…
You mean, her question about whether we couldn’t deliberately make exercising this civil liberty annoying enough to discourage some people from exercising it?
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty. Voting, maybe. And then think about it. Do we treat civil liberties that way? Do we try to make getting stationary and pens annoying enough somebody might give up on writing a suicide note?
Is deliberating making exercising a civil liberty, so as to discourage people from taking advantage of it, normally considered acceptable? In the context of voting, I keep getting told the answer is obviously no.
Again, a third time: Half of all suicides in the US belong to a very small, easily identified group of people. I really sympathize with Areala’s troubles, having spent some time depressed myself. But you could stop every last woman with long term depression in the country from committing suicide, and while it would be a worthwhile goal, it would barely have any effect on overall suicide numbers. She’s not a member of the small, identifiable group that is responsible for most suicides. I was.
Because most suicides are men, and most men committing suicide do so right after a divorce. And, knowing this, why aren’t we doing something about it? Aren’t men’s lives worth anything?
Recently divorced men don’t even have their own funky colored ribbons…
You mean, her question about whether we couldn’t deliberately make exercising this civil liberty annoying enough to discourage some people from exercising it?
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty. Voting, maybe. And then think about it. Do we treat civil liberties that way? Do we try to make getting stationary and pens annoying enough somebody might give up on writing a suicide note?
Is deliberating making exercising a civil liberty, so as to discourage people from taking advantage of it, normally considered acceptable? In the context of voting, I keep getting told the answer is obviously no.
Again, a third time: Half of all suicides in the US belong to a very small, easily identified group of people. I really sympathize with Areala’s troubles, having spent some time depressed myself. But you could stop every last woman with long term depression in the country from committing suicide, and while it would be a worthwhile goal, it would barely have any effect on overall suicide numbers. She’s not a member of the small, identifiable group that is responsible for most suicides. I was.
Because most suicides are men, and most men committing suicide do so right after a divorce. And, knowing this, why aren’t we doing something about it? Aren’t men’s lives worth anything?
Recently divorced men don’t even have their own funky colored ribbons…
A “basic civil liberty…”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/toddler-shoots-and-kills-one-year-old-boy-in-cleveland-ohio
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/01/us/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-parents/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11382771/Three-year-old-shoots-both-parents-after-reaching-into-mothers-purse-for-iPod-and-finding-gun.html
A “basic civil liberty…”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/toddler-shoots-and-kills-one-year-old-boy-in-cleveland-ohio
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/01/us/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-parents/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11382771/Three-year-old-shoots-both-parents-after-reaching-into-mothers-purse-for-iPod-and-finding-gun.html
A “basic civil liberty…”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/toddler-shoots-and-kills-one-year-old-boy-in-cleveland-ohio
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/01/us/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-parents/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11382771/Three-year-old-shoots-both-parents-after-reaching-into-mothers-purse-for-iPod-and-finding-gun.html
Yes, a basic civil liberty. Whether something is a basic civil liberty does not depend on whether you can find a few news accounts of it being misused, or having bad consequences.
Until it’s repealed from the Bill of Rights, it’s a basic civil liberty, and the people who like it that way are perfectly entitled to demand it be treated as one.
Yes, a basic civil liberty. Whether something is a basic civil liberty does not depend on whether you can find a few news accounts of it being misused, or having bad consequences.
Until it’s repealed from the Bill of Rights, it’s a basic civil liberty, and the people who like it that way are perfectly entitled to demand it be treated as one.
Yes, a basic civil liberty. Whether something is a basic civil liberty does not depend on whether you can find a few news accounts of it being misused, or having bad consequences.
Until it’s repealed from the Bill of Rights, it’s a basic civil liberty, and the people who like it that way are perfectly entitled to demand it be treated as one.
No.
It is a ‘right’ enumerated in the second amendment to the US constitution – which has been variously interpreted over time. The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t meet my test for ‘basic civil liberty’ – particularly as large parts of the civilised world manage to get along quite well without it.
And as Blackstone defined it, an “auxiliary right”.
No.
It is a ‘right’ enumerated in the second amendment to the US constitution – which has been variously interpreted over time. The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t meet my test for ‘basic civil liberty’ – particularly as large parts of the civilised world manage to get along quite well without it.
And as Blackstone defined it, an “auxiliary right”.
No.
It is a ‘right’ enumerated in the second amendment to the US constitution – which has been variously interpreted over time. The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t meet my test for ‘basic civil liberty’ – particularly as large parts of the civilised world manage to get along quite well without it.
And as Blackstone defined it, an “auxiliary right”.
“The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.”
How does this distinguish it from any other civil liberty? You could replace a couple of Supreme court justices, and suddenly abortion would stop being a right again.
Sure, large parts of the ‘civilized’ world don’t respect it. Large parts of the ‘civilized’ world are ok with censorship, too.
“The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.”
How does this distinguish it from any other civil liberty? You could replace a couple of Supreme court justices, and suddenly abortion would stop being a right again.
Sure, large parts of the ‘civilized’ world don’t respect it. Large parts of the ‘civilized’ world are ok with censorship, too.
“The current, maximalist interpretation of the rather opaque language is contingent on the composition of the Supreme Court.”
How does this distinguish it from any other civil liberty? You could replace a couple of Supreme court justices, and suddenly abortion would stop being a right again.
Sure, large parts of the ‘civilized’ world don’t respect it. Large parts of the ‘civilized’ world are ok with censorship, too.
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, there is a civil right to bear arms. But that doesn’t make it an absolute right.
After all, it is also a civil right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, to speak freely. Which, to use the cliche, does not mean that you can (falsely) cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Nor use a bull-horn to speak your mind in a residential neighborhood at 3 AM. Even enumerated rights are subject to entirely legal and constitutional limitations.
But somehow, there seems to be a large segment of the population (not saying that anyone here falls into that group), which insists that the Right to Bear Arms, alone of all those in the Bill of Rights, must not be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. Why is that?
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, there is a civil right to bear arms. But that doesn’t make it an absolute right.
After all, it is also a civil right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, to speak freely. Which, to use the cliche, does not mean that you can (falsely) cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Nor use a bull-horn to speak your mind in a residential neighborhood at 3 AM. Even enumerated rights are subject to entirely legal and constitutional limitations.
But somehow, there seems to be a large segment of the population (not saying that anyone here falls into that group), which insists that the Right to Bear Arms, alone of all those in the Bill of Rights, must not be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. Why is that?
I go back to my point: It’s a civil liberty.
Yes, there is a civil right to bear arms. But that doesn’t make it an absolute right.
After all, it is also a civil right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, to speak freely. Which, to use the cliche, does not mean that you can (falsely) cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Nor use a bull-horn to speak your mind in a residential neighborhood at 3 AM. Even enumerated rights are subject to entirely legal and constitutional limitations.
But somehow, there seems to be a large segment of the population (not saying that anyone here falls into that group), which insists that the Right to Bear Arms, alone of all those in the Bill of Rights, must not be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. Why is that?
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty.
First, as Nigel notes, it’s an enumerated right. So, comparable to speech, exercise of religion, assembly, less comparable to voting.
Can I freely assemble? Yes.
Do I need a permit to do so if my assembling is going to block traffic? Yes.
And so on.
None of the enumerated rights are free from some amount of regulation. None are available for unfettered exercise.
This point – this *exact* point – is made every time this subject comes up.
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty.
First, as Nigel notes, it’s an enumerated right. So, comparable to speech, exercise of religion, assembly, less comparable to voting.
Can I freely assemble? Yes.
Do I need a permit to do so if my assembling is going to block traffic? Yes.
And so on.
None of the enumerated rights are free from some amount of regulation. None are available for unfettered exercise.
This point – this *exact* point – is made every time this subject comes up.
Imagine for a second it’s some other civil liberty.
First, as Nigel notes, it’s an enumerated right. So, comparable to speech, exercise of religion, assembly, less comparable to voting.
Can I freely assemble? Yes.
Do I need a permit to do so if my assembling is going to block traffic? Yes.
And so on.
None of the enumerated rights are free from some amount of regulation. None are available for unfettered exercise.
This point – this *exact* point – is made every time this subject comes up.
That’s right, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people. Just like any other right.
We don’t restrict the capacity of paper magazines on printers to inconvenience forgers printing fake currency.
We don’t register printers/typewriters to inconvenience anybody who’d write an extortion note.
You want to say I can’t go shooting in my backyard at 3AM, or during the day without a proper backstop? Fine, I’ve got no beef with that.
You want to say that guns that blow up in people’s hands can’t be sold? Fine.
But pretty much everything I could do with a gun to wrongfully harm somebody is already illegal. Which is why the restrictions that get proposed essentially never are directed towards any conduct that actually itself harms somebody.
The ’94 ‘assault’ weapon ban didn’t ban guns on the basis of their being used to harm somebody. It banned them on the basis of cosmetics, or features as useful for legitimate uses as criminal, or just by name.
The Lautenberg act retroactively converted decades old misdemeanor guilty pleas, dating from a time when it just meant a fine that was cheaper than fighting it in court, into the effective equivalent of a felony conviction, costing people their right to keep and bear arms.
Suppressors are regulated as though they were bombs, when all they do is reduce the noise from shooting a gun below the level that causes acute hearing damage. You know how many people have damaged hearing because of that law?
The Obama administration just recently floated a proposal to ban the most common ammo for AK-47 varients, on the basis that somebody built a handgun that would use the ammo, and that when fired from a rifle it would go through a ballistic vest. Just like any other round for hunting large game would.
I’ve been fighting this garbage for decades, and can’t remember the last time I saw a proposed gun law that actually had any rational relationship to direct harm to other people, rather than just using the remote possiblity of harm as a pretext for attacking 2nd amendment rights.
That’s right, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people. Just like any other right.
We don’t restrict the capacity of paper magazines on printers to inconvenience forgers printing fake currency.
We don’t register printers/typewriters to inconvenience anybody who’d write an extortion note.
You want to say I can’t go shooting in my backyard at 3AM, or during the day without a proper backstop? Fine, I’ve got no beef with that.
You want to say that guns that blow up in people’s hands can’t be sold? Fine.
But pretty much everything I could do with a gun to wrongfully harm somebody is already illegal. Which is why the restrictions that get proposed essentially never are directed towards any conduct that actually itself harms somebody.
The ’94 ‘assault’ weapon ban didn’t ban guns on the basis of their being used to harm somebody. It banned them on the basis of cosmetics, or features as useful for legitimate uses as criminal, or just by name.
The Lautenberg act retroactively converted decades old misdemeanor guilty pleas, dating from a time when it just meant a fine that was cheaper than fighting it in court, into the effective equivalent of a felony conviction, costing people their right to keep and bear arms.
Suppressors are regulated as though they were bombs, when all they do is reduce the noise from shooting a gun below the level that causes acute hearing damage. You know how many people have damaged hearing because of that law?
The Obama administration just recently floated a proposal to ban the most common ammo for AK-47 varients, on the basis that somebody built a handgun that would use the ammo, and that when fired from a rifle it would go through a ballistic vest. Just like any other round for hunting large game would.
I’ve been fighting this garbage for decades, and can’t remember the last time I saw a proposed gun law that actually had any rational relationship to direct harm to other people, rather than just using the remote possiblity of harm as a pretext for attacking 2nd amendment rights.
That’s right, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people. Just like any other right.
We don’t restrict the capacity of paper magazines on printers to inconvenience forgers printing fake currency.
We don’t register printers/typewriters to inconvenience anybody who’d write an extortion note.
You want to say I can’t go shooting in my backyard at 3AM, or during the day without a proper backstop? Fine, I’ve got no beef with that.
You want to say that guns that blow up in people’s hands can’t be sold? Fine.
But pretty much everything I could do with a gun to wrongfully harm somebody is already illegal. Which is why the restrictions that get proposed essentially never are directed towards any conduct that actually itself harms somebody.
The ’94 ‘assault’ weapon ban didn’t ban guns on the basis of their being used to harm somebody. It banned them on the basis of cosmetics, or features as useful for legitimate uses as criminal, or just by name.
The Lautenberg act retroactively converted decades old misdemeanor guilty pleas, dating from a time when it just meant a fine that was cheaper than fighting it in court, into the effective equivalent of a felony conviction, costing people their right to keep and bear arms.
Suppressors are regulated as though they were bombs, when all they do is reduce the noise from shooting a gun below the level that causes acute hearing damage. You know how many people have damaged hearing because of that law?
The Obama administration just recently floated a proposal to ban the most common ammo for AK-47 varients, on the basis that somebody built a handgun that would use the ammo, and that when fired from a rifle it would go through a ballistic vest. Just like any other round for hunting large game would.
I’ve been fighting this garbage for decades, and can’t remember the last time I saw a proposed gun law that actually had any rational relationship to direct harm to other people, rather than just using the remote possiblity of harm as a pretext for attacking 2nd amendment rights.
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Which doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
On the other hand, we have people who insist they should have unfettered rights to own nuclear weapons. I know people who say this quite earnestly. Should I be permitted to own a pound of antimatter, were I able to lay my hands on such (figuratively speaking)? Hells no.
This also doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
Talking about what we could do is not the same as doing those things.
This has been a public service announcement. WITH GUITAR!
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Which doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
On the other hand, we have people who insist they should have unfettered rights to own nuclear weapons. I know people who say this quite earnestly. Should I be permitted to own a pound of antimatter, were I able to lay my hands on such (figuratively speaking)? Hells no.
This also doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
Talking about what we could do is not the same as doing those things.
This has been a public service announcement. WITH GUITAR!
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Which doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
On the other hand, we have people who insist they should have unfettered rights to own nuclear weapons. I know people who say this quite earnestly. Should I be permitted to own a pound of antimatter, were I able to lay my hands on such (figuratively speaking)? Hells no.
This also doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
Talking about what we could do is not the same as doing those things.
This has been a public service announcement. WITH GUITAR!
I would permit people to own nuclear weapons, were they in circumstances where they had any way of using them without hurting people, any legitimate purpose for them. Say, when we get into space, diverting asteroids.
As far as I can see, even governments don’t meet those criteria today.
I would permit people to own nuclear weapons, were they in circumstances where they had any way of using them without hurting people, any legitimate purpose for them. Say, when we get into space, diverting asteroids.
As far as I can see, even governments don’t meet those criteria today.
I would permit people to own nuclear weapons, were they in circumstances where they had any way of using them without hurting people, any legitimate purpose for them. Say, when we get into space, diverting asteroids.
As far as I can see, even governments don’t meet those criteria today.
She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything
well, she had her windows shot out by terrorists, and she discovered Harvey Milk’s body after he’d been shot.
so, that’s a bit more experience on the receiving end of guns than most get.
She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything
well, she had her windows shot out by terrorists, and she discovered Harvey Milk’s body after he’d been shot.
so, that’s a bit more experience on the receiving end of guns than most get.
She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything
well, she had her windows shot out by terrorists, and she discovered Harvey Milk’s body after he’d been shot.
so, that’s a bit more experience on the receiving end of guns than most get.
Right. Ok, then.
I have been radiated by the great thermonuclear reactor in the sky, so naturally I can regulate nuclear power companies.
Right. Ok, then.
I have been radiated by the great thermonuclear reactor in the sky, so naturally I can regulate nuclear power companies.
Right. Ok, then.
I have been radiated by the great thermonuclear reactor in the sky, so naturally I can regulate nuclear power companies.
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Yeah. All she knows about guns is what it feels like to be on the recieving end of a shooting, and have a friend and colleague die in her arms. (I still have the image in my mind of her standing before the cameras right afterwards, their blood still on her clothes.) Amazingly enough, it’s the kind of experience which can color your views on the subject.
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Yeah. All she knows about guns is what it feels like to be on the recieving end of a shooting, and have a friend and colleague die in her arms. (I still have the image in my mind of her standing before the cameras right afterwards, their blood still on her clothes.) Amazingly enough, it’s the kind of experience which can color your views on the subject.
On the one hand, we have Dianne Feinstein, who though purportedly sane where it comes to all issues not firearm-related, is a complete dimwit where gun control is concerned. She has no business even talking about guns, because she doesn’t know anything, and apparently is immune to information on the topic.
Yeah. All she knows about guns is what it feels like to be on the recieving end of a shooting, and have a friend and colleague die in her arms. (I still have the image in my mind of her standing before the cameras right afterwards, their blood still on her clothes.) Amazingly enough, it’s the kind of experience which can color your views on the subject.
Yeah, it’s not surprising she has strong opinions. Too bad this didn’t drive her to actually learn anything about the topic. She might have actually been able to formulate some reasonable legislation, if she weren’t so damned ignorant on the topic.
Yeah, it’s not surprising she has strong opinions. Too bad this didn’t drive her to actually learn anything about the topic. She might have actually been able to formulate some reasonable legislation, if she weren’t so damned ignorant on the topic.
Yeah, it’s not surprising she has strong opinions. Too bad this didn’t drive her to actually learn anything about the topic. She might have actually been able to formulate some reasonable legislation, if she weren’t so damned ignorant on the topic.
yeah, fck her and her experiences. the people whose opinions we should really defer to are the whackaloons who need twenty five rifles and 300 cases of ammo to protect themselves in case the black helicopters land on their lawn and try to take away their FREEDOM™. you know, the sane people.
yeah, fck her and her experiences. the people whose opinions we should really defer to are the whackaloons who need twenty five rifles and 300 cases of ammo to protect themselves in case the black helicopters land on their lawn and try to take away their FREEDOM™. you know, the sane people.
yeah, fck her and her experiences. the people whose opinions we should really defer to are the whackaloons who need twenty five rifles and 300 cases of ammo to protect themselves in case the black helicopters land on their lawn and try to take away their FREEDOM™. you know, the sane people.
the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people.
Yes.
Areala’s question was about whether it would be possible to introduce, for example, a waiting period (thompson’s suggestion, actually) or some other measure, to act as a check against people impulsively buying firearms to use to harm themselves.
The “civil right” in question there is being able to buy a firearm without waiting, for example, one day, or a small number of days, before actually receiving the firearm.
By introducing something that is basically an annoyance, it might make it less likely for people who don’t have guns to go buy one, to do something harmful.
So, *to me*, it sounds like the answer to Areala’s question is, or at least could be, yes. It might be possible have simple checks like that in place, in the interest of not having most folks exercise of their right present an opportunity for some people to come to harm.
There are lots of as-of-yet unanswered parts to the question, including whether doing so would actually make a difference.
But taking her question at face value, it’s not clear to me that something like that would represent a violation of the basic right to own and use firearms.
I would actually be interested in front-paging this, if folks think we could actually have a useful conversation. So far it seems feasible, but if it’s just going to go off the freaking rails, I won’t do it.
I’d be interested in everyone’s thoughts about that.
the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people.
Yes.
Areala’s question was about whether it would be possible to introduce, for example, a waiting period (thompson’s suggestion, actually) or some other measure, to act as a check against people impulsively buying firearms to use to harm themselves.
The “civil right” in question there is being able to buy a firearm without waiting, for example, one day, or a small number of days, before actually receiving the firearm.
By introducing something that is basically an annoyance, it might make it less likely for people who don’t have guns to go buy one, to do something harmful.
So, *to me*, it sounds like the answer to Areala’s question is, or at least could be, yes. It might be possible have simple checks like that in place, in the interest of not having most folks exercise of their right present an opportunity for some people to come to harm.
There are lots of as-of-yet unanswered parts to the question, including whether doing so would actually make a difference.
But taking her question at face value, it’s not clear to me that something like that would represent a violation of the basic right to own and use firearms.
I would actually be interested in front-paging this, if folks think we could actually have a useful conversation. So far it seems feasible, but if it’s just going to go off the freaking rails, I won’t do it.
I’d be interested in everyone’s thoughts about that.
the right to keep and bear arms is subject to being restricted wherever that exercise actually harms other people.
Yes.
Areala’s question was about whether it would be possible to introduce, for example, a waiting period (thompson’s suggestion, actually) or some other measure, to act as a check against people impulsively buying firearms to use to harm themselves.
The “civil right” in question there is being able to buy a firearm without waiting, for example, one day, or a small number of days, before actually receiving the firearm.
By introducing something that is basically an annoyance, it might make it less likely for people who don’t have guns to go buy one, to do something harmful.
So, *to me*, it sounds like the answer to Areala’s question is, or at least could be, yes. It might be possible have simple checks like that in place, in the interest of not having most folks exercise of their right present an opportunity for some people to come to harm.
There are lots of as-of-yet unanswered parts to the question, including whether doing so would actually make a difference.
But taking her question at face value, it’s not clear to me that something like that would represent a violation of the basic right to own and use firearms.
I would actually be interested in front-paging this, if folks think we could actually have a useful conversation. So far it seems feasible, but if it’s just going to go off the freaking rails, I won’t do it.
I’d be interested in everyone’s thoughts about that.
Brett, of the last 20 comments, 6 are yours. I think you need to back off a bit. Thanks.
Brett, of the last 20 comments, 6 are yours. I think you need to back off a bit. Thanks.
Brett, of the last 20 comments, 6 are yours. I think you need to back off a bit. Thanks.
If you want to front-page this, you might want to wait a week or two, to let tempers cool just a little. At the moment (see cleek and Brett’s comments just above), people are already worked up. Which doesn’t seem like a great place to start a civil discussion,.
If you want to front-page this, you might want to wait a week or two, to let tempers cool just a little. At the moment (see cleek and Brett’s comments just above), people are already worked up. Which doesn’t seem like a great place to start a civil discussion,.
If you want to front-page this, you might want to wait a week or two, to let tempers cool just a little. At the moment (see cleek and Brett’s comments just above), people are already worked up. Which doesn’t seem like a great place to start a civil discussion,.
My opinion?
A waiting period is not acceptable for exercising a civil liberty, because “buying a gun today instead of next week” is not a “harms somebody else” sort of thing. The connection between the conduct, “buying a gun today”, and the harm, presumably somebody getting shot, is just too attenuated, and, critically, is dependent on the buyer deciding to do something wrong with the gun.
You can’t restrict exercise of a civil liberty based on the notion somebody is going to wrongly exercise it, barring some individualized evidence of this.
An example of a reasonable restriction would be, for instance, requiring people who live in apartments with thin walls to load their self defense guns with frangible ammo, to prevent harm to neighbors by way of over-penetration, should they need to use the gun.
Or that “don’t target practice at 3AM in a residential neighborhood” rule.
Not delaying a gun purchase on the off chance it might give a suicide time to change their mind. Almost everybody you inconvenience WON’T be a suicide, and you’re doing it even to people who already own guns, so you don’t even have that tenuous excuse in their case.
My opinion?
A waiting period is not acceptable for exercising a civil liberty, because “buying a gun today instead of next week” is not a “harms somebody else” sort of thing. The connection between the conduct, “buying a gun today”, and the harm, presumably somebody getting shot, is just too attenuated, and, critically, is dependent on the buyer deciding to do something wrong with the gun.
You can’t restrict exercise of a civil liberty based on the notion somebody is going to wrongly exercise it, barring some individualized evidence of this.
An example of a reasonable restriction would be, for instance, requiring people who live in apartments with thin walls to load their self defense guns with frangible ammo, to prevent harm to neighbors by way of over-penetration, should they need to use the gun.
Or that “don’t target practice at 3AM in a residential neighborhood” rule.
Not delaying a gun purchase on the off chance it might give a suicide time to change their mind. Almost everybody you inconvenience WON’T be a suicide, and you’re doing it even to people who already own guns, so you don’t even have that tenuous excuse in their case.
My opinion?
A waiting period is not acceptable for exercising a civil liberty, because “buying a gun today instead of next week” is not a “harms somebody else” sort of thing. The connection between the conduct, “buying a gun today”, and the harm, presumably somebody getting shot, is just too attenuated, and, critically, is dependent on the buyer deciding to do something wrong with the gun.
You can’t restrict exercise of a civil liberty based on the notion somebody is going to wrongly exercise it, barring some individualized evidence of this.
An example of a reasonable restriction would be, for instance, requiring people who live in apartments with thin walls to load their self defense guns with frangible ammo, to prevent harm to neighbors by way of over-penetration, should they need to use the gun.
Or that “don’t target practice at 3AM in a residential neighborhood” rule.
Not delaying a gun purchase on the off chance it might give a suicide time to change their mind. Almost everybody you inconvenience WON’T be a suicide, and you’re doing it even to people who already own guns, so you don’t even have that tenuous excuse in their case.
Yeah, wait a week, then do it.
Yeah, wait a week, then do it.
Yeah, wait a week, then do it.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
Actual outcomes are, of course, unpredictable. I suggest that Jack’s raging bile duct should probably get a rest.
Not to name names.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
Actual outcomes are, of course, unpredictable. I suggest that Jack’s raging bile duct should probably get a rest.
Not to name names.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
Actual outcomes are, of course, unpredictable. I suggest that Jack’s raging bile duct should probably get a rest.
Not to name names.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
When I first started commenting here, I had pretty much decided to avoid all conversations about guns. The emotions run high all around, its hard enough to have a productive conversation face to face, let alone via comments.
But, I think there’s been some very calm, reasoned comments made in this thread. I agree with Slart, it *can* be done, and I would do my best to contribute.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
When I first started commenting here, I had pretty much decided to avoid all conversations about guns. The emotions run high all around, its hard enough to have a productive conversation face to face, let alone via comments.
But, I think there’s been some very calm, reasoned comments made in this thread. I agree with Slart, it *can* be done, and I would do my best to contribute.
I am in favor. I think we can have a useful conversation.
When I first started commenting here, I had pretty much decided to avoid all conversations about guns. The emotions run high all around, its hard enough to have a productive conversation face to face, let alone via comments.
But, I think there’s been some very calm, reasoned comments made in this thread. I agree with Slart, it *can* be done, and I would do my best to contribute.
one issue with having a front-paged gun thread here is that we’ve already had %THE_GUN_DISCUSSION% here, innumerable times. and i doubt anybody here has changed their opinions much. so, maybe find a way to put a fresh spin on the topic so we can have some new stuff before we slip back into the same well-worn ruts?
(and for all i pay to comment here, i should be able to have a say in what gets front paged. right?)
one issue with having a front-paged gun thread here is that we’ve already had %THE_GUN_DISCUSSION% here, innumerable times. and i doubt anybody here has changed their opinions much. so, maybe find a way to put a fresh spin on the topic so we can have some new stuff before we slip back into the same well-worn ruts?
(and for all i pay to comment here, i should be able to have a say in what gets front paged. right?)
one issue with having a front-paged gun thread here is that we’ve already had %THE_GUN_DISCUSSION% here, innumerable times. and i doubt anybody here has changed their opinions much. so, maybe find a way to put a fresh spin on the topic so we can have some new stuff before we slip back into the same well-worn ruts?
(and for all i pay to comment here, i should be able to have a say in what gets front paged. right?)
basic civil right
Where else in the world is this (arguably) true ?
Certainly that idea is long extinguished in the UK – and even in the eighteenth century, it was not the shibboleth it seems to be in the U.S.
Interestingly, the right to bear arms is apparently enshrined in Sharia law:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights
basic civil right
Where else in the world is this (arguably) true ?
Certainly that idea is long extinguished in the UK – and even in the eighteenth century, it was not the shibboleth it seems to be in the U.S.
Interestingly, the right to bear arms is apparently enshrined in Sharia law:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights
basic civil right
Where else in the world is this (arguably) true ?
Certainly that idea is long extinguished in the UK – and even in the eighteenth century, it was not the shibboleth it seems to be in the U.S.
Interestingly, the right to bear arms is apparently enshrined in Sharia law:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights