Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Viviane

  What I think is irrelevant.

  While in general I agree with that, I am trying to focus in specifically on your comment that a business wouldn't be able to refuse service to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Not a specific witness, but the organization, the congregation (which is incorporated, usually) itself or the WTBS.

  What I am driving at is what you think the difference is between a "customer" and a "person".

  The State Attorney General said "Our law against discrimination prevents you from discriminating on the basis of race or religion or, since 2006, sexual orientation.

  He's not illuminating that difference at all. I am asking YOU since you brought up the example.
  

  Do you think discrimination based on some one's group identity is morally proper in some cases. If yes, which ones?

  Well, first, the statement I was responding to was about discrimination in general, not specifically group identity discrimination. Obviously you can refuse service to an individual for a variety of reasons, choose who your friends are, etc..

  For group identity, in general, yes. I think refusing service to people like, say, the Westboro baptist people is fine. Not because they are Christian or Baptist, but because I have a "no assholes" policy and by associating with that group, they've let me know they are assholes. And they are assholes.

  Just like people that keep a Confederate battle flag on their car or house or clothes. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about that person, or someone with a Swastika.

  OTOH, we do need to be careful in group identity. For example, I am considered very liberal where I live (SE US) and my friend is considered very conservative where she lives (Somerville, MA). The running joke is that, if we simply lived in different places and did nothing to change our value, our labels would immediately switch.
  
  
• 

  snugglebunny

  It may be legal to post such a sign but it isn't legal to act on it in a discriminatory manner as considered by the Constitution and the courts. But you all already know that; you are simply whining about your feelings and wishing the world catered to them. And wasting everyone's time.

  We don't have a constitution in the UK. And I'm not whining. Offering information for others to read is not discriminatory either. Nor is it a waste of time.
  
• 

  DJS

  I'm amazed at the hatred shown by X-tians. I'm additionally amazed at the hypocrisy shown by X-tians on this site and in general by so often stating that atheists and the secular just aren't as good and moral as you all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  I'm also amazed that so many of you X-tians, Libertarians and Egoists apparently haven't the faintest clue that it has been constitutionally and legally determined decades ago that it is illegal to discriminate against black people or based on race. Or gender. Or religion. Or disabilities. And now the courts have consistently ruled against the state bans on gay marriage, and the X-tian, R Wing, Libertarians and Egoist haters are trying in vain to support your hatred of gays, just as your fathers and mothers and churches no doubt supported hatred and discrimination of blacks decades ago. It is legal now in 38 states for gays to marry, and the few remaining court cases will likely make it possible in all 50 states soon.

  And I'm continually amazed that so many of you X-tians, Libertarians and Egoists continue to think that you have or should have rights that you haven't had since the Constitution was penned and certainly not since the courts determined how it is to be administered and followed. It is childish, arrogant, immature, egotistical to whine about your rights and that you should be able to do this and that with your business or as an individual. I suggest that you re-locate to a country that allows you these freedoms. Or join the white separatists in Idaho, but they probably have rules too. Go. Please. If you could find another planet so much the better, because once your hatred leaves the planet we will be a better species. Y'all a bunch of Skee-los:

  I wish I was little bit taller
  I wish I was a baller
  I wish I had a girl who looked good
  I would call her
  I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
  And a six four Impala

  I wish I was like six-foot-nine
  So I can get with Leoshi
  'Cause she don't know me but yo she's really fine
  You know, I see her all the time
  Everywhere I go and even in my dreams
  I can scheme a way to make her mine

  
  
  
• 

  JeffT

  V

  Our attorney general says that under the under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act it is against the law to discriminate against your customers based on religion, race, creed, and sexual orientation. Since this is the law he's using to crack down on Arlene's Flowers, I'm going to take him at his word.

  I operate a small consulting business, which I would like to keep going. I'm not going to buck the AG's office on a dubious claim from somebody that doesn't even live here that it is legal to discriminate against customers that belong to a religion I don't like.

  You can operate your business how ever you like. Mine doesn't engage in identity discrimination.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.

  Viviane,

  
  Above, when you finally made some attempt at a responsible reply to the question I posed to you, you complained that it was too vague because it asked whether the thing in question was "fine". Rightly you finally pointed out this needed to be narrowed so you would know whether it, for example, inquired of fine legally or fine morally, or perhaps something else. When my question was initially asked to you a concern of your responses in this discussion was you plying general terms when restating things said to you. In my case the concern was you suggesting I thought this or that was "OK" or "fine" when what I asserted was much narrower. I had not said this or that was "OK" or "fine" I had said this or that was OK legally or legal. Big difference. When I would point this out you'd respond with something akin to retort. You did this over and over again. That is bickering.
  
  

  I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.

  In this discussion you've demonstrated instances of refusing to take people for what they say in their own words and instead take them as you've restated them with your words. In my case you did this in response to my answer to a broad statement you made of me. You stated of me "So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine" to which I replied "No." You responded saying "BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine." In fact I had said no such a thing. I had said--as you later acknowledged--that if something is legal it's legal. I had not said if something is legal it is fine. Big difference. This kind of responsive behavior typically comes from someone carrying a lot of anger, which is why I said you're loaded with anger. Calm down. I'm not an enemy.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  Our attorney general says that under the under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act it is against the law to discriminate against your customers based on religion, race, creed, and sexual orientation. Since this is the law he's using to crack down on Arlene's Flowers, I'm going to take him at his word.

  Yes, and he refers to "people" and "persons". What if the customer isn't a person? That's what I am asking you. Do you believe that, if the customer is NOT a person, you would still have to service them?
• 

  Viviane

  Above, when you finally made some attempt at a responsible reply to the question I posed to you

  Yes, I finally had to take responsibility for your question.

  When I would point this out you'd respond with something akin to retort. You did this over and over again. That is bickering.

  Yes, you were bickering over your own quote. Very weird. No idea why you would do that and then attempt to blame me for that.

  This kind of responsive behavior typically comes from someone carrying a lot of anger, which is why I said you're loaded with anger. Calm down. I'm not an enemy.

  Accurately describing your quote with paraphrasing seems angry to you? Again, weird, but, whatever. Also, telling me to calm down is very odd. You seem to think that I care enough to be angry at you for something, well, anything, really. You've no power to hurt me, bother me, force me to do anything or take my money, so I am incredibly confused as to why you would think I would bother with anger on you.

  Maybe I'm just not a person that let's anonymous people on the internet bother me. Not everyone can be that cool. Soz not soz!
• 

  Viviane

  Also adding... no idea why you would imagine i think of you as an enemy, i assure you that i don't.

  I look forward to your updated question.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Viv, how do you not recognize that you have a problem. I said this some time back- this is what you do. I rarely see you post and not get involved in some argument. and I honestly think this is why:

  there is a difference between being intelligent and being smart. Smart means you know things. Intelligence means you have the ability to learn and apply. Personally I think you have an abundance of the former and a lack of the latter. This results in you getting in arguments all the time, some of which you crush people with your smarts but a majority of which you get shown up and just don't want to concede that you aren't that intelligent. Being extremely smart is just as usefule as being intelligent, and if you'd stop trying to be intelligent and use your smarts to actually learn then you may actually start sounding and behaving intelligent.

  http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-smart-and-intelligent/
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Yes, you were bickering over your own quote. Very weird. No idea why you would do that and then attempt to blame me for that.

  Either you're incredibly dense or in a state of denial. This dispute of record was you using broad terms to restate something I said in narrower terms. It's not a "bickering over your own words" to point out that someone has substantively altered a proposition.

  I look forward to your updated question.

  You've already answered my question for what it asked. Thank you.

  I am incredibly confused as to why you would think I would bother with anger on you.

  I haven't said you've bothered with anger on me. I've said you're loaded with anger. There's a difference.