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, 01:12 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 12:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

There may be a difference, depending on the situation, but it all depends on motives and those are hard to prove. For example, a gay high schooler could be targeted and ridiculed throughout their life for their sexuality. They're vulnerable because of this. If a group of jocks follows this student home after school and assaults them for no other reason than because he is gay, then I think as a society we should do what we can to prevent this from happening again and to see justice done to those responsible for such acts. If the gay kid was also a dick and got beat up because he was a dick, well, he may have had it coming to him. But how do you prove which is the case? It's obvious in some scenarios but in most it is questionable enough that I'm not comfortable with prosecuting any more harshly just because the victim is a member of a minority group. The answer to this I think is education, not legislation.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Ohio Sky's post
21-10-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(18-10-2013 01:18 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  It a white photographer denied his services to a black group because they were black then there really wouldn't be a discussion. It's discrimination.

I think a more fair analogy would be the black photographer denied his services to the white group not because they were white but because he found out the group was a KKK group.

I guess what I don't get is why he didn't just refuse the job and not say why? Or why the church didn't just count their lucky stars that some gay sinner would not be their photographer instead of suing? Seems like everyone just wants to be a big pain in the butt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 01:54 PM
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.

Had this been a real case though, I think it has an interesting twist. It's not just a case of discrimination against a Christian group. The photographer's reason for doing so is because Christians typically discriminate against homosexuals. So the court could possibly find the discrimination in either direction. The Christian lawsuit could actually backfire.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

Moral judgement is implicit in the existence of laws...

(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

To which goes the obvious counterargument: suppose the market ('the market' being an abstracted unattainable ideal anyway!) is unable to prevent discrimination?

Some providers withholding service from some customers is not generally problematic. All providers withholding service from some subset of customers is problematic, and thence arise current laws...

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  There may be a difference, depending on the situation, but it all depends on motives and those are hard to prove.

Indeed. But somehow we manage when it comes to murder and manslaughter...
Wink

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  For example, a gay high schooler could be targeted and ridiculed throughout their life for their sexuality. They're vulnerable because of this. If a group of jocks follows this student home after school and assaults them for no other reason than because he is gay, then I think as a society we should do what we can to prevent this from happening again and to see justice done to those responsible for such acts. If the gay kid was also a dick and got beat up because he was a dick, well, he may have had it coming to him. But how do you prove which is the case?

With evidence - whatever might or might not exist! If there's reasonable doubt in the jury's minds then there's no conviction. Tongue

(well, you know. that's the theory...)

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  It's obvious in some scenarios but in most it is questionable enough that I'm not comfortable with prosecuting any more harshly just because the victim is a member of a minority group. The answer to this I think is education, not legislation.

That indeed shouldn't be how laws are constituted, and to my knowledge that isn't how any laws are constituted, either here in Canada, in America, or in Europe.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

Moral judgement is implicit in the existence of laws...

There is a difference in extending a moral judgement (ie killing people is bad for society) and legislating what Morals should be acceptable (ie: Premarital Sex is bad)

(21-10-2013 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

To which goes the obvious counterargument: suppose the market ('the market' being an abstracted unattainable ideal anyway!) is unable to prevent discrimination?

Some providers withholding service from some customers is not generally problematic. All providers withholding service from some subset of customers is problematic, and thence arise current laws...

Yes there can be cases where intervention is necessary (Jim Crow era south for instance) but I think that should be a last resort not the standard. I do have a proviso here in that this only extends to completely private businesses. If they accept taxpayer money for any part of their business then they should be under the same rules of the government. Government should represent all it's citizens equally under the law.

(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, 02:19 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is a difference in extending a moral judgement (ie killing people is bad for society) and legislating what Morals should be acceptable (ie: Premarital Sex is bad)

Consider
But that's not a difference.

(the only distinction is the universality of the belief in question...)

(21-10-2013 02:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes there can be cases where intervention is necessary (Jim Crow era south for instance) but I think that should be a last resort not the standard. I do have a proviso here in that this only extends to completely private businesses. If they accept taxpayer money for any part of their business then they should be under the same rules of the government. Government should represent all it's citizens equally under the law.

Well, yes. And what one considers 'last resort' is subject to the same natural variety intrinsic to moral reasoning... Tongue

Anyway:
In Hughsie's hypothetical OP, the man in question could avoid any trouble by simply turning down the job and also keeping his mouth shut.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 02:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is a difference in extending a moral judgement (ie killing people is bad for society) and legislating what Morals should be acceptable (ie: Premarital Sex is bad)

Consider
But that's not a difference.

(the only distinction is the universality of the belief in question...)

Indeed but in cases where it is not a universal truth I believe it is best to leave government out of the equation.

(21-10-2013 02:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 02:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes there can be cases where intervention is necessary (Jim Crow era south for instance) but I think that should be a last resort not the standard. I do have a proviso here in that this only extends to completely private businesses. If they accept taxpayer money for any part of their business then they should be under the same rules of the government. Government should represent all it's citizens equally under the law.

Well, yes. And what one considers 'last resort' is subject to the same natural variety intrinsic to moral reasoning... Tongue

Anyway:
In Hughsie's hypothetical OP, the man in question could avoid any trouble by simply turning down the job and also keeping his mouth shut.

And that level of hypocrisy and double standard is the problem. If something is not a crime in the action but only a thoughtcrime (his crime was not refusing service but the internal reason for doing so) then it should not be up to the government to enforce.

(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, 02:32 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

Moral judgement is implicit in the existence of laws...

(21-10-2013 01:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

To which goes the obvious counterargument: suppose the market ('the market' being an abstracted unattainable ideal anyway!) is unable to prevent discrimination?

Some providers withholding service from some customers is not generally problematic. All providers withholding service from some subset of customers is problematic, and thence arise current laws...

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  There may be a difference, depending on the situation, but it all depends on motives and those are hard to prove.

Indeed. But somehow we manage when it comes to murder and manslaughter...
Wink

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  For example, a gay high schooler could be targeted and ridiculed throughout their life for their sexuality. They're vulnerable because of this. If a group of jocks follows this student home after school and assaults them for no other reason than because he is gay, then I think as a society we should do what we can to prevent this from happening again and to see justice done to those responsible for such acts. If the gay kid was also a dick and got beat up because he was a dick, well, he may have had it coming to him. But how do you prove which is the case?

With evidence - whatever might or might not exist! If there's reasonable doubt in the jury's minds then there's no conviction. Tongue

(well, you know. that's the theory...)

(21-10-2013 01:12 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  It's obvious in some scenarios but in most it is questionable enough that I'm not comfortable with prosecuting any more harshly just because the victim is a member of a minority group. The answer to this I think is education, not legislation.

That indeed shouldn't be how laws are constituted, and to my knowledge that isn't how any laws are constituted, either here in Canada, in America, or in Europe.

That's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do though. Even in cases where there was no crime committed, or the crime was independent of the minority status of the victim, there's so much consideration given to those statuses that that's all anyone sees. Look at the Trayvon Martin case (I know, I know. Not again...)... it really didn't matter much what did or didn't happen that night. All anyone cared about was that a white guy killed a black kid. The goal of anything claiming to be "anti-discrimination" should be the removal of arbitrary labels based on class, gender, creed, etc, to put everyone on n even playing field. What it actually does is make people even more sensitive to these things, so that's all they see when a case comes up that appears to have maybe been possibly been a little bit remotely motivated by these labels.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Ohio Sky's post
21-10-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anyway:
In Hughsie's hypothetical OP, the man in question could avoid any trouble by simply turning down the job and also keeping his mouth shut.

I find this problematic too, because I don't want to live in a world where I can't voice my own beliefs, or opposition to harmful beliefs. No

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, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2013 03:02 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Is this fair?
(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  That's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do though.

... No? Not here.
(or anywhere I'm aware of...)

(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  Even in cases where there was no crime committed, or the crime was independent of the minority status of the victim, there's so much consideration given to those statuses that that's all anyone sees. Look at the Trayvon Martin case (I know, I know. Not again...)... it really didn't matter much what did or didn't happen that night. All anyone cared about was that a white guy killed a black kid.

Motive is part of any criminal case. If it can't be demonstrated there's no conviction. There was enough reasonable doubt that a jury of his peers chose not to convict Zimmerman of murder. It mattered rather a lot what did or didn't happen that night, so far as the legal system was concerned.

Random observers' opinions (be they media figures or not) aren't relevant. That said, my random observer's opinion is that a case built around manslaughter would have been a sure conviction (since, y'know, a man died).

You seem to be making a much stronger claim than is warranted. All anyone sees? All anyone cared about? It smacks of sensationalism. Hell, it's the same tactic dog-whistling reactionaries use:
"This specific law/case/ruling/etc goes to far, therefore any move in this direction at all is wrong".
You're way too cool for that ( Thumbsup ) and I'm totally not saying that's what you're doing, but you're painting with much too broad a stroke!

(21-10-2013 02:32 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  The goal of anything claiming to be "anti-discrimination" should be the removal of arbitrary labels based on class, gender, creed, etc, to put everyone on n even playing field. What it actually does is make people even more sensitive to these things, so that's all they see when a case comes up that appears to have maybe been possibly been a little bit remotely motivated by these labels.

But that's untenable - what good does it do for you and I to ignore distinctions when other people nonetheless act prejudicially on them?

(21-10-2013 02:37 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I find this problematic too, because I don't want to live in a world where I can't voice my own beliefs, or opposition to harmful beliefs. No

Sure. And yet in every society there are beliefs and opinions which cannot be stated freely due to their damaging or harmful nature. Very nearly everyone desires as few restrictions on behaviour etc as possible.

Given the natural variety in moral reasoning among human beings, there will always be disagreement as to what constitutes 'as possible'. cf the interminable whingeing about 'free speech' on this very forum.

(If I only had a nickel for every time I'd said that...)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: