Poll: Should this photographer face legal action?
Yes
No
I'm undecided
I have no idea, I'm only voting so I don't feel left out
[Show Results]
 
Is this fair?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 09:31 AM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I support the right of any private organization or business to choose who they do business with and under what terms. When Christian businesses refuse to provide services to gays or any other group, I don't feel they should be subject to legal repercussions. Their consumer base will ultimately decide who they choose to support and bad business practices will lose out eventually. The fact that I agree far more with this fellows moral stance doesn't change what is fair.

Edit: didn't see the last post before I posted. Doesn't change my opinion but I think the answers to this will vary greatly depending on who you're polling and who is refusing who in your scenario.

As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.

Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed. I also think the hate crime legislation is a travesty.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:38 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.

Yep. Rules are rules.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:33 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.

Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed. I also think the hate crime legislation is a travesty.

You and me both...

But as cjlr just said:

(21-10-2013 11:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yep. Rules are rules.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:44 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:33 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed. I also think the hate crime legislation is a travesty.

Well; yes and no.

(useful answer, I know)

It depends on one's moral bases whether it is the act alone that determines consequences or whether motive must be considered as well. Most people fall somewhere in between - ie racist thoughts are not crime, but a racially motivated assault is nonetheless somehow worse than the same assault perpetrated 'randomly'.

Since our moral precepts are to some extent hardwired, and the variation concomitant, this is always going to be a point of disagreement!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:41 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:33 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed. I also think the hate crime legislation is a travesty.

You and me both...

But as cjlr just said:

(21-10-2013 11:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yep. Rules are rules.

Yup and like I said legally yes there is grounds for prosecution but I don't believe there should be legislation to that effect.

(21-10-2013 11:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:33 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed. I also think the hate crime legislation is a travesty.

Well; yes and no.

(useful answer, I know)

It depends on one's moral bases whether it is the act alone that determines consequences or whether motive must be considered as well. Most people fall somewhere in between - ie racist thoughts are not crime, but a racially motivated assault is nonetheless somehow worse than the same assault perpetrated 'randomly'.

Since our moral precepts are to some extent hardwired, and the variation concomitant, this is always going to be a point of disagreement!

If one savagely attacks a man because he is of another "race" or because one wants to steal his sneakers I don't see how it changes the crime. Or a better example, how is more harm done to a mosque that has eggs thrown at it's front door than a private home? One is a minor vandalism charge the other is felony hate crime. That to me is insane, the punishment no longer fits the crime.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: Is this fair?
I think it's ridiculous. Not all beliefs are equal. When a church opposes gay rights, it is promoting discrimination, essentially, the same way a white supremacist group promotes discrimination of black people by raising one group above the other socially and legally.

I believe that if a group promotes discrimination then you should be able to refuse them service if the business you would be providing would assist them in that purpose (ie. a restaurant can't refuse to seat a KKK member if he's polite in public, but a bakery can refuse to cater a KKK event).

I'd say more but my internet is about to be cut off for two hours...

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:33 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As I've been stating over and over. You cannot deny service because of a protected status... it doesn't matter how "private" your business is.

If you deny service and admit that it was because of a certain status and that status is protected, you are able to be sued and, by objective law, lose.

Yes that is how the law is right now, but I feel those laws are wrong and should be changed.

I have to agree. I don't think these laws really serve any purpose. I understand this is how the law is and that we have little choice but to abide by it, but the question is whether or not it should be this way. If someone attempted to secure my services and I found out they were supporting or affiliated with the WBC, the KKK, or some violent gang... yes, I would want the freedom to decline on moral grounds. I want nothing to do with these people, professionally or otherwise. Many religious folk feel the same way about gays. I think they're fucking retarded, but that opinion isn't really relevant in legislating such things.

Context is important too though. If we're talking about a necessary service such as a hospital, there is a duty to serve regardless of faith. If someone doesn't want to bake you rainbow cookies for your big gay wedding though- it's not the end of the world. Someone else will be there to fill that slot. If someone wanted me to bake them cookies saying "go to hell, fags" there is no way I would do it, legality be damned.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Is this fair?
People have been sued for not catering to homosexuals on the grounds of discrimination -- why not have the reverse?

I don't know why anyone would insist on receiving a service from anyone that didn't want to offer it, it sounds petty to me...

But guess that's how things work today.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If one savagely attacks a man because he is of another "race" or because one wants to steal his sneakers I don't see how it changes the crime. Or a better example, how is more harm done to a mosque that has eggs thrown at it's front door than a private home? One is a minor vandalism charge the other is felony hate crime. That to me is insane, the punishment no longer fits the crime.

You don't think there's a difference.

Again, the difference is down to moral foundations... Very few people are purely utilitarian in outlook!

And actually if the law recognizes the role of anguish or distress caused by an act (and it should!) then those are indeed different in the presented scenarios, if the perpretrator's motivations are known.

EDIT: I couldn't actually tell you what precise role I think such considerations should play; I'm really just playing devil's advocate here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If one savagely attacks a man because he is of another "race" or because one wants to steal his sneakers I don't see how it changes the crime. Or a better example, how is more harm done to a mosque that has eggs thrown at it's front door than a private home? One is a minor vandalism charge the other is felony hate crime. That to me is insane, the punishment no longer fits the crime.

You don't think there's a difference.

Again, the difference is down to moral foundations... Very few people are purely utilitarian in outlook!

And actually if the law recognizes the role of anguish or distress caused by an act (and it should!) then those are indeed different in the presented scenarios, if the perpretrator's motivations are known.

EDIT: I couldn't actually tell you what precise role I think such considerations should play; I'm really just playing devil's advocate here.

I figured you were just doing the DA role on this which is why I said one instead of you. Makes the conversation sound less Ad hom that way. As far as a mental exercise goes I tend to side more on the libertarian side of this than the liberal (I have a bit of a libertarian streak at times) in that as it is a moral judgement government should not be making it. I am a firm believer that government should not legislate morality. I do however stress it should go both ways The caterer who doesn't wish to work a gay wedding and a gay cameraman who doesn't wish to work a function of a group that opposes gay marriage should not be forced to do so by the government. Private businesses are not public ventures, so while I do agree with anti-discrimination in government I don't believe government should force it on the private sector. Let the market handel itself here.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: